Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9165-6

Children Making Sense of Science

Clíona Murphy & Colette Murphy & Paula Kilfeather

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This study explored the effects that the incorporation of nature of science (NoS)
activities in the primary science classroom had on children’s perceptions and understanding of
science. We compared children’s ideas in four classes by inviting them to talk, draw and write
about what science meant to them: two of the classes were taught by ‘NoS’ teachers who had
completed an elective nature of science (NoS) course in the final year of their Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed) degree. The ‘non-NoS’ teachers who did not attend this course taught the
other two classes. All four teachers had graduated from the same initial teacher education
institution with similar teaching grades and all had carried out the same science methods course
during their B.Ed programme. We found that children taught by the teachers who had been
NoS-trained developed more elaborate notions of nature of science, as might be expected. More
importantly, their reflections on science and their science lessons evidenced a more in-depth
and sophisticated articulation of the scientific process in terms of scientists “trying their best”
and “sometimes getting it wrong” as well as “getting different answers”. Unlike children from
non-NoS classes, those who had engaged in and reflected on NoS activities talked about their
own science lessons in the sense of ‘doing science’. These children also expressed more
positive attitudes about their science lessons than those from non-NoS classes. We therefore
suggest that there is added value in including NoS activities in the primary science curriculum
in that they seem to help children make sense of science and the scientific process, which
could lead to improved attitudes towards school science. We argue that as opposed to
considering the relevance of school science only in terms of children’s experience, relevance
should include relevance to the world of science, and NoS activities can help children to link
school science to science itself.

Keywords Inquiry-based science education (IBSE) . Language skills: Nature-of-science

(NoS) . Primary science . Understanding . School science . Scientific processes

C. Murphy (*)
CASTeL (Centre for the Advancement of Science and Mathematics Education), St. Patrick’s College,
Dublin 9, Ireland
e-mail: cliona.murphy@spd.dcu.ie

C. Murphy
School of Education, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland

P. Kilfeather
Biology Department, CASTeL (Centre for the Advancement of Science and Mathematics Education),
St. Patrick’s College, Dublin 9, Ireland
 Res Sci Educ

Introduction

Science education in Western communities has tended towards a focus on “individuals and
their individual experience” (Fleer 2006, p113). However, the notion of science as a social
construction (Barnes 1989) and sociocultural perspectives in science education are becoming
increasingly important in science education discourse. Indeed early in 2006, Wolff-Michael
Roth and Ken Tobin published the first edition of a new journal: Cultural Studies in Science
Education. Reform efforts in developing school science have also more recently focused on
enabling students to develop sound conceptions of the Nature of Science (NoS) and
scientific inquiry (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1990,
1993; Appleton 2003; Hipkins et al. 2005). The emphasis has changed to one that highlights
the importance of scientific knowledge that is relevant to students. The importance of the
development of science process skills and hands-on inquiry based approaches to learning
science and on children’s enjoyment of and interest in science are also advocated.
There are concerns, however, about lack of progress in relation to primary science. De
Boo and Randall (2001), for example, reported observing science lessons in the UK that
‘were so prescriptive that pupils were simply following instructions’ and where the children
appeared to be provided with few opportunities to explore, investigate their own questions
or further their own intellectual development. They also highlighted concerns regarding
insufficient time in the curriculum for practical activities (de Boo and Randall 2001). There
are similar concerns in Australia. A large-scale study conducted by Goodrum et al. (2000)
also explored the quality of science teaching and learning in primary schools. Goodrum and
colleagues, found that in some primary schools science was not being taught at all and in
many classrooms there still appeared to be an emphasis on more didactic approaches, with
an over reliance on texts and note taking. It is important to note however, that while teacher
centred classrooms appeared to be the norm in many Australian primary schools, a variety
of teaching methodologies were utilised within this teacher-centred approach. There was
evidence that the children were being provided with opportunities to engage in hands-on
activities and opportunities to conduct more open-ended investigations. However, for the
most part these more open-ended investigations were teacher rather than pupil-led
(Goodrum et al. 2000).
In 2008, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) in Ireland
commissioned research to review the impact the primary science curriculum (Department of
Education and Science (DES) 1999) was having on the children’s experiences of science.
This report indicated that there was a number of concerns regarding children’s learning in
primary science (Varley et al. 2008). These included the irregularity of hands-on science
and the extent to which Irish pupils are being afforded opportunities to lead their own
investigations or engage in designing and making projects. The report indicated that
teacher-led and prescribed activities appeared to be the norm in Irish primary classrooms.
There were also concerns over the breadth and complexity of science skills being
employed, in that older pupils appeared to have been operating at skill levels similar to
those seen in much younger classes (Varley et al. 2008).
Much literature suggests that if pupils leave school with contemporary understandings of
nature of science (NoS) they could have a better understanding of science concepts and
scientific inquiry, a greater interest in science and would have a better appreciation of
science’s role in contemporary society (Mc Comas et al. 1998; Matthews 1994; Lederman
and Abd-El-Khalick 1998). Such contemporary understandings and knowledge of science
could lead to students finding science more interesting, comprehensible and relevant to their
everyday lives.
Res Sci Educ

In this paper we argue that primary pupils who have had the opportunity to engage in
and reflect on hands-on activities that explicitly address NoS issues evidence a richer
understanding of science in that they appreciate the role of scientists as evidence gatherers
who sometimes make guesses and who are not always correct. This more critical view
enables children to identify more closely with the work of scientists and to persevere in
their own school science investigations if things don’t work out for them the first time.
Such opportunities also facilitate the application and development of scientific skills and
enable children to engage with scientific concepts and issues that are relevant both to the
process of science itself and to their everyday lives. In doing so students are facilitated in
making sense of primary science. The seminal work of Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896–
1934) in foregrounding the importance of the ‘social’ as opposed to just the ‘individual’ in
meaning-making and learning suggests that everything children learn at school, especially
in science, should make sense to them. We feel that children in our study who engaged in
and reflected on NoS activities expressed a view of science that made more sense to them
than children who did not do such activities.

Literature Review

Learning could be defined as the process through which skills, concepts and attitudes are
attained, comprehended, utilised and developed. Learning by its nature is therefore partly a
cognitive process and partly a social and affective one. Effective learning is cultivated by
effective teaching and cannot be left to chance (Pollard and Tann 1993). Behaviourist
learning theories, such as those of Skinner (1904–1990) and Thorndike (1874–1949) were
highly influential in primary education during the first half of the twentieth century, and
placed the pupil in a comparatively passive role. The teacher transferred subject matter to
their pupils, and controlled both the explanations and question-and-answer sessions.
Behaviourist models of learning constitute what is commonly referred to as ‘traditional’
teaching methods, often associated with whole-class subject-based teaching. While
behaviourist models may be suitable for teaching large groups or whole class teaching
there are issues regarding the appropriateness of behaviourist theories of learning in relation
to the extent to which teachers actually relate to their pupils’ existing knowledge teaching
(Driver et al. 1996).
Constructivist models of learning on the other hand assert that learning occurs when
there is connection between thought and experience. One of the most influential
constructivist theorists was Jean Piaget (1896–1980), who asserted that a child’s previous
knowledge affected subsequent learning. Piaget viewed children as active learners,
constructors of understanding, where they try to make sense of a new concept by trying
to fit it into their own experiences. In some cases learners share these constructed meanings
through a process of social constructivism.
Social constructivism has had a significant influence in education since the early 1980s and
is implicit in many curriculum documents (Department of Education and Employment,
England 2000; DES 1999). Lev Vygotsky’s (1896–1934) work is central to the development
of social constructivist theory. Amongst Vygotsky’s most significant influences on education
were social interaction and the role of language in children’s learning. Social constructivist
approaches to learning evidence themselves in primary schools through various approaches
to group work and group discussions. For example, in science class, pupils are given the
opportunity to conduct investigative work, which often requires groups of children to work
collaboratively to solve a particular problem or answer a particular question. When given the
 Res Sci Educ

opportunity to discuss and defend their ideas, children can help ‘scaffold’ one another’s
ideas. Language therefore plays a vital role in learning, as it is the means of thinking and
learning.
There is widespread agreement amongst science educators that students at all levels
should be provided with opportunities in their science classes to reflect on and to develop
more sophisticated understandings of NoS (Driver et al. 1996; Lederman and Niess 1997;
Mc Comas et al. 1998; Abd-El-Khalick 2005). Such opportunities may also enable students
to make sense of science and relate school science more closely to how science works. The
research question guiding this study therefore examined whether providing primary pupils
with opportunities to conduct, reflect on and discuss activities that related to different
aspects of nature of science (NoS) facilitated them in developing better and more
meaningful understandings of science. Before an account of the research methodologies
that were utilised to address this research question is presented, a brief overview of what
contemporary conceptions of NoS comprise and why they are important is provided.
In line with much of the educational research literature, in this paper ‘sophisticated’ or
‘contemporary’ conceptions of NoS are deemed to consist of an understanding of science as
a reliable body of knowledge that provides information and explanations about the world.
Contemporary conceptions of NoS also reveal an understanding of scientific knowledge as
being testable and developmental and therefore subject to change, and knowledge of
science as a human activity involving subjectivity, creativity and imagination in
determining scientific knowledge. Those holding sophisticated conceptions of NoS would
in addition reveal some understanding of how society and culture have affected scientific
development in the past and how science and society are influenced and affected by one
another in contemporary society (Lederman 1998; Matthews 1994, Mc Comas et al. 1998).
Much research has been conducted on the importance and benefits of having
sophisticated conceptions of NoS, (Lederman 1998; Murcia and Schibeci 1999; Abd-El-
Khalick and Lederman 2000; Craven et al. 2002). Driver et al. (1996) for example, argue
that developing primary pupils’ NoS conceptions provides them with more dynamic views
of science. They classified ‘dynamic’ views as those that perceive science as tentative and
that demonstrate an understanding of what scientific ideas mean. These were in contrast to
‘static views’ that perceive science as a group of facts that are best memorised. Mc Comas
et al. (1998) assert that incorporating NoS as an integral part of a curriculum makes the
students aware of the developmental NoS and humanises the subject, making it more
interesting for them to learn. Other research contends that pupils who leave school with
contemporary understandings of NoS have a better understanding of science concepts and
scientific inquiry, a greater interest in science and have a better appreciation of science’s
role in contemporary society (Mc Comas et al. 1998; Matthews 1994: Lederman and Abd-
El-Khalick 1998).
The current work indicates that providing primary pupils with opportunities to conduct,
reflect on and discuss activities relating to different aspects of nature of science (NoS)
resulted in the development of more sophisticated and more meaningful understandings of
science.

Methodology

In the first year of this 2-year study an elective course in the nature of science (NoS) was
designed and delivered to a sample of 19 final year B.Ed students in the largest teacher
education college in the Republic of Ireland. These students chose to take the NoS elective
Res Sci Educ

course as their specialised third year elective option. None of the 19 students were science
specialists, however, all had studied at least one science subject at second level and had
taken a compulsory 48 h curriculum science methods course in the second year of their B.
Ed degree. The NoS elective students had similar backgrounds and experiences in science
as their peers in Ireland (Waldron et al. 2007) and in this way were representative of third
year Irish pre-service teachers.
The values and epistemological assumptions underlying science rather than specific
scientific theories and processes were explored throughout this elective course. Specific
aspects of NoS that were addressed in the course included science as a body of knowledge,
the nature of scientific inquiry, science as a human endeavour, how science and society are
affected by one another and the importance of the history of science in understanding NoS.
For example, when the scientific skills of observing and hypothesising were discussed, the
importance of these being based on theories was delineated. However, the subjective nature
of observations was also debated and the influences that personal experiences and
knowledge have on observations were outlined. The role that imagination and creativity
play in the formation of hypotheses was also emphasised. Throughout the NoS elective the
students were provided with numerous opportunities to engage in practical inquiry-based
activities that were aimed at facilitating the development of their conceptual and
pedagogical knowledge of NoS. An overview of the elective course is provided in the
Appendix.
While all 19 of the elective pre-service teachers expressed an interest in taking part in the
second year of the study, only two of them obtained full-time positions in senior classes in
their initial teaching year. These two beginning teachers and their third and fourth classes
(9–11 years) formed the ‘NoS’ (test) group in the second year of the study. Two beginning
teachers who had graduated in the same year, but had taken different electives and were
teaching the same class levels were sought and found. These two beginning teachers, who
had not taken the NoS elective the previous year, and their third and fourth classes (9–
11 years) formed the ‘non-NoS’ (control) group. This purposive sample was utilised in an
effort to compare whether there were any differences between the NoS and non-NoS
teachers’ approaches to teaching science.
The NoS and non-NoS groups also included the children in the four classes. A total of
104 children from four primary classes, two third classes (fifth year of primary school) and
two fourth classes (sixth year of primary school) took part in the second year of the study.
The children were aged between eight and eleven years. Three of the schools were urban
and one was a rural school. Three out of the four classes were mixed sex and the fourth was
a boys’ school. Each teacher also selected eight children with a range of academic abilities
to take part in a group interview at the beginning and end of the second year of the study.
Data were collected from the children in the NoS and non-NoS groups. A questionnaire
was administered to the children in both groups at the beginning and end of the study. The
questionnaire was piloted and checked for construct validity through informal interviews
with a focus group. The questionnaire contained open-ended and Likert style statements
about NoS, where the children had to shade in a ‘face’ indicating whether they agreed,
disagreed or were ‘not sure’ about the statements. These statements related to the empirical
NoS, science as a human endeavour and science and society. Semi-structured group
interviews with children from each class were also conducted at the beginning and end of
the second year of the study. These children were selected by the teacher and represented a
range of abilities. All of the children who took part in the interviews did so voluntarily.
The responses to the open-ended questions in the children’s questionnaires were
categorised by hand. More elaborate insights of NoS were depicted by a higher frequency
 Res Sci Educ

of responses in a particular category. During initial analysis responses that could not be
unequivocally classified into a particular category were classified through discussion
amongst two researchers. The data from the Likert style statements were input in to
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Paired sample t-tests were performed to
compare the initial and exit questionnaire responses within each of the NoS and non-NoS
groups.
The semi-structured group interviews that were conducted with a group of eight children
from each class at the initial and exit stages were transcribed. The responses were input in
a word document table. The data were read and re-read to establish and refine units of
meaning to be reported and to identify any apparent links, patterns and similarities or
differences. This unitising of data was conducted by hand, colour coding and numbering
the different responses.
Data triangulation consisted of several analyses, including:
& An overall comparison of responses to questionnaire items relating to NoS components
from children who had and had not engaged in NoS activities
& Tracking individual children early and late in the year and comparing the change in
responses to the open questions about science between the NoS and non-NoS groups
& A qualitative analysis of initial and exit focus group interviews from both NoS and non-
NoS groups

Findings and Discussion

Overall Attitudes to Science

All analyses showed that children in these schools were generally positive about science
and their science lessons, for example:
I like to do science in school because I get to find out more about stuff and learn stuff
I never knew (non-NoS)
I like doing science in school because it’s fun and you learn a lot and all your
questions are answered (NoS)

It was also apparent that conducting investigations and hands-on experiments was
something children in both groups enjoyed. However, the children in the NoS-group
referred to various hands-on investigations and experiments that they had done in school
considerably more frequently than their counterparts in the non-NoS group. In addition the
NoS group’s responses regarding conducting hands-on activities in science class were
notably more detailed and frequently included references to different science skills they had
been employing during their science lessons. Table 1 provides an example of the type of
responses the children in both groups gave in the exit interviews regarding science in
school.

Conceptions of NoS

There were quantitative and qualitative differences between NoS-taught and non-NoS
taught groups in the responses towards NoS components and also to their more general
conceptions of the meaning of science. The data in Table 2 show that the mean responses of
Res Sci Educ

Table 1 Example of references to hands-on science in school in the exit Interviews

Test Control

... to experiment with all stuff.. Well one time we put You learn different activities and you learn how to
a tissue in a glass and we…put it in a bucket and turn on a bulb or a battery and stuff like that... We
put water in it and we put it down and the tissue learn how air can blow up a balloon...
didn’t get wet because the air was pushing it, the
water out of the glass, instead of up it
... at the count of three we poured them all, we ... you get to do experiments and you find out stuff
poured all the ingredients down and the first one to that you didn’t actually know before
get to the end you’re just seeing which one is a
better liquid...(it was a fair test because) we all got
at the count of three, we all poured at exactly the
same time
We had to make a switch for a circuit... and me and
C. and V. did a brilliant job. C. had this metal...
and there was a metal bar, kind of like a right
angle, and we had this swirly thingy, we swirled it
up and we sello-taped all the wire onto the top of
it, so when we turned it up to the top, the metal
piece touched it, which lit the entire surface... so
we (had to use our imagination) to make the switch

children in the NoS-taught group were significantly different after the intervention (i.e.
inclusion of NoS activities in their science lessons) from those in the initial questionnaire.
Overall, the mean responses of the non-NoS children, on the other hand, were not
significantly different between the initial and final questionnaires. One statement
(“scientists use their imaginations when they invent things”) was included to see whether
children distinguished between situations when scientists would be expected to use their
imagination and when they were not expected. The data in Table 2 show a similar response
to this item by both groups, in initial and final questionnaires. Only the NoS taught
children, however, showed significantly more agreement in their exit questionnaires with
statements about scientists using their imaginations when explaining things and when doing
experiments.
In addition, NoS taught children wrote more about all NoS categories in their open
responses than non-NoS children (see Fig. 1)
Evidence from the interview data also indicates that children who engaged in and
reflected upon NoS activities appeared to have more elaborate NoS conceptions and, at the
same time, evidenced more understanding of their science lessons as engagement in the
scientific process as well as more positive attitudes towards their science lessons. Table 3
illustrates quotes from the interviews that were categorised as improved NoS conceptions.

Children’s Changing Ideas About Science

Quantitative and qualitative comparisons of the open responses of each individual child
between the initial and exit questionnaires were also performed. Initial observation of the
data indicated that children from NoS classes wrote much longer answers to the open
questions about science in their exit questionnaires than those from the non-NoS classes.
With regard to children in the NoS class, 85% of them wrote more in their answers to the
open questions: “What is science?” “What do scientists do?” and “What questions might
scientists ask?” compared with 40% of the children in non-NoS classes (Fig. 2).
 Res Sci Educ

Table 2 Comparison of NoS and Non-NoS groups’ responses relating to different aspects of NoS in the closed questions
on the questionnaire

NoS NoS Significance Non-NoS Non-NoS Significance

of difference of difference
Initial (mean) Exit (mean) (p) Initial (mean) Exit (mean) (p)

When scientists give explanations 2.38 2.98 0.000a 2.74 2.04 0.533 (ns)
they are always true disagree disagree (N=48) disagree disagree (N=50)
When scientists discover 1.94 2.26 0.034b 2.45 2.04 0.011c
something it doesn’t change disagree disagree (N=47) disagree disagree (N=51)
Scientists use their imaginations 1.88 agree 2.54 agree 0.000a 2.04 agree 1.84 agree 0.142 (ns)
when explaining things (N=48) (N=49)
Scientists use their imaginations 2.35 agree 2.75 agree 0.004a 2.72 agree 2.25 agree 0.766 (ns)
when doing experiments (N=48) (N=51)
Different scientists can have 2.77 agree 3.00 agree 0.006a 2.62 agree 2.84 agree 0.07 (ns)
different answers to the (N=47) (N=50)
same question
Scientists use their imaginations 2.65 agree 2.87 agree 0.086 (ns) 2.65 agree 2.71 agree 0.595 (ns)
when they invent things (N=46) (N=48)

Key: N = sample number

ns = no significant difference between the means
a
very highly significant difference between the means
b
significant difference between the means
c
highly significant difference between the means

The quality of responses to the open questions in the initial and exit questionnaire
revealed differences between children in the NoS and non-NoS classes. Responses in all
initial questionnaires and exit questionnaires included words and phrases often associated
with science (See Table 4), whereas responses from NoS children’s exit questionnaires
contained phrases and words which were not found in any other questionnaires (Table 4).
Individual response differences from children in NoS and non-NoS groups indicated that
more change reflecting the process of science was evident in responses from NoS taught

250 NoS Group Initial

NoS Group Exit
200 Non-NoS Group Initial
Non-NoS Group Exit
150

100

50

0
BoK Skills Science HoS Human
and End.
Society

Fig. 1 Comparison of NoS and Non-NoS groups’ responses to open ended questions
Res Sci Educ

Table 3 Quotations from exit interviews depicting improved NoS conceptions

Aspect of NoS NoS group Non-NoS group

Tentative and ... because when Galileo said that the world was No comments
developmental round, and, and, everybody didn’t believe him
NoS cause they thought that the world was flat and then
they, they, trapped, they locked him in his house,
so ... cause they all said that it was flat and then
when he said they, they found out, and, em, they
sort of did, cause they did experiments to see
Scientific I have an example of figuring out things...teacher ... you get to do experiments and
inquiry gave us a little tiny piece of a picture and you had to you find out stuff that you
figure out what it ...(it was working like scientists didn’t actually know before
because) scientists have to guess from the stuff
(evidence) they have and we only had, they only
have a small piece, and we only had a small piece
and we had to guess what (the rest)
Well I learned that even though someone tells you (Science is) fun and learning more
that like this is real they could’ve just faked it.... stuff... like when you...do
Like in the video they had… I weigh one ton and magnets’
he stood on the weight scales and he said one ton
and then he went on an ordinary weighing scales in
a bathroom... in order to believe you need proof...
so if you don’t have proof it would be... well
science needs proof so you can actually learn
from it
Subjective and I think scientists use both (creativity and imagination) No comments
creative NoS because (in science) when we were using that little
piece of paper we had to use our imaginations to
think what it was but we had to create like what the
other part of it was as well... I was kind of thinking
about nature because it looked a lot like outside and
trees or stones or something
...And, and when you do the conductors and
insulators, you have to use your imagination, cause
like if you do one thing and it’ll go through it you
have to see like, lets just say it was tin foil, then you
know that, eh, it’ll probably go through other
metals, so you could try other metals and stuff
History of Em, Isaac Newton and the apple... It fell off the tree, No comments
Science and it fell, yeah, hit him in the head, and he said,
why didn’t that just go up in the air and, eh, why did
it come down?

children (see Tables 5 and 6 for representative responses from each sample). Please note
that, for comparative purposes, we selected responses from the non-NoS from children who
wrote MORE in their exit questionnaires than in their initial questionnaires.

Conclusion

The first part of this study looked at children’s developing conceptions about NoS. We
showed, as have other workers (Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick 2003; Bell et al. 1998, 2003;
Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998) that the inclusion
 Res Sci Educ

Fig. 2 Relative length (number NoS children (N=48)

of words) of responses to 90
Non-NoS children (N=50)
questions about science between 80
initial and exit questionnaires
from children in NoS and 70
non-NoS classes
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage longer responses in exit
questionnaire

of activities directly targeted towards engaging children in NoS resulted in their developing
more elaborate conceptions than those for whom no specific NoS activities were available.
However, we also have evidence that apart from developing more elaborate NoS
conceptions, children who had carried out NoS activities made more sense of school
science in relation to the scientific process itself. Children in the NoS group frequently
referred to their experiences of school science, when considering and discussing NoS
issues.
Driver et al. (1996) maintained that children’s ideas regarding NoS are influenced by
various factors in their immediate environment, from the media, from discussions with
adult or parents, or from experiences encountered in school. The findings suggest that the
NoS group’s experiences of school science influenced their responses to the questions
regarding NoS whereas the non-NoS group largely provided examples from experiences
outside school to substantiate their answers. As such, it could be argued that inclusion of
NoS activities provides an essential link to making school science more ‘relevant’ for
children.
The arguments about relevance of school science are generally made in terms of
relevance to children’s own lives (AAAS 1993; Aikenhead 2000: Hipkins et al. 2005;

Table 4 Words and phrases about science and scientists found in open responses to the questions: What is
science? What do scientists do? and What questions might scientists ask?

Words/phrases about science and scientists Words/phrases about science and scientists contained
contained in questionnaires from all groups ONLY in exit questionnaires from NoS children

Investigate Guess
Experiment Evidence
Find out Ask why
Figure out Finding explanations
Tests (Scientists) get different answers
Mix (Scientists) try their best
Discover (Scientists) get it wrong
Invent Examine
Res Sci Educ

Table 5 Responses from children in NoS classes

Student What is science? What do scientists do? What questions might

scientists ask?

Boy, Sam Science is about trees, Discover things How to make new chemicals
8 years minibeasts, soil
initial
Boy, Sam Science is about nature Scientists discover things They could try to discover
8 years exit and the world. It is and sometimes they make how were animals made
about soil and flowers guesses. They are not and how glass is made
and lots of other things always right but they do
their best
Girl, Sue I think science is nature Discover things long ago Do you know any people
9 years who died from their relations?
initial Where we might find (ends)
Girl, Sue It is when people In fields they dig square When Galileo discovered
9 years exit (scientists) to square and find bones the world was round. When
[child’s insertion] of dinosaurs and people nobody believed him and
investigate and then guess where he died who actually went
years ago with only a they all belong to space to see if it was or not?
few
images to investigate
Boy, Ben I think science is nature Invent things discover Did you see anything weird
9 years and electronics and things around here?
initial inventing and chemicals
Boy, Ben I think science is about I think scientists gather How far does the universe
9 years exit finding out new things evidence and try to guess by go? When will the world end?
by what evidence you what evidence they have How long ago did
have the world start?

Note: All names are pseudonyms; spelling was corrected in all responses: punctuation was NOT corrected

Matthews 1994: Mc Comas et al. 1998; Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Varley et al.
2008). However, we would argue that primary school science needs to be relevant both in
terms of children’s everyday scientific experience and in terms of the world of science. The
latter aspect of relevance has received very little attention in discussions of the relevance of
primary science. How else then can we enable young children to construct their world?
How can we provide answers to their many ‘why’ questions? It seems, from our evidence
that NoS activities can provide this missing link (see Fig. 3).
For example, when asked whether they believed scientists used their creativity and
imagination at work children in the NoS group referred to the ‘fossil activity’ (Lederman
and Abd-El-Khalick 1998, pp. 95–100), which they had done in science class. This activity
aimed at developing conceptions regarding the subjective NoS, where scientists at times are
required to use past experiences, knowledge and creativity to draw inferences and form
hypotheses, when sufficient evidence is not available. Our evidence shows that NoS
activities help children to see the relevance of school science to the scientific process per se.
It is seeing school science as relating more to the world of science that children are exposed
to via the media that could be key to improving children’s attitudes to science. This study
concludes that the issue of relevance of school science education can be broadened to
include relevance to the world of science as well as to children’s direct experience of
science out of school.
 Res Sci Educ

Table 6 Responses from non-NoS children

Student What is science? What do scientists do? What questions might

scientists ask?

Boy, Jima 8 years I think science is A scientist does explore How do you make things
initial making a skeletonb blow up?
Boy, Jim 9 yearsc Science is the weather Scientists test some things What would scientists do?
exit and it is things that what they would do How would scientists do
people test these really hard things?
Girl, Eve 8 years I think science is Scientists find out things How many planets are
initial experiments about space there?
Girl, Eve 9 years Science is where you I think scientists find out They might investigate
exit find out interesting stuff. some interesting things handprints and weather
And it’s a way to learn like experiments
more
Boy, Joe 10 years Science is like people They test stuff to see if I think they solve how
initial making cures for stuff it is good or bad dinosaurs died
Boy, Joe, 10 years Science is something Scientists help to cure colds I think scientists should
exit that can help investigators from getting very bad investigate why global
solve murders, crimes warming got worse at the
and break-ins turn of the century

Key:
a
All names are pseudonyms
b
Spelling was corrected in all responses. Punctuation was NOT corrected
c
Some children had a birthday between the initial and exit questionnaires

Relevance of primary science

Science in children’s The world of science and how

everyday lives science works, eg space, dinosaurs

Link activities to everyday NoS activities

experience

Fig. 3 Linking science, NoS and school science

Appendix
Table 7 Overview of nature of science elective
Areas Overview
1. Introduction Finish the statement ‘Science is’
Card exchange activity
2. Developing NoS Introduction to NoS
Conceptions NoS activities (Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998) - Subjective/objective
• Tricky tracks (p 85–91)
• Doing laundry (p 100–101)
• Aging President (p 103–108)
• Young/old women (p 102–103)
• Black box activities (p108–126)
• The hole picture (p 91–95)
• Fossil activity (p 95–100)
3. Long-Range Planning, preparing, conducting and
Experiment presenting LRE (adapted from Meichtry, Y. (1998)) Scientific processes
Aspects of NoS Addressed
Finding out students’ ideas about nature of science
Science as a human endeavour
- Creative
- Past experiences/knowledge
Scientific Inquiry
- Scientific processes
- Hypothesising
- Examining evidence
- Subjectivity/Objectivity
- Fair testing
- Reliability
- Ethical
- Communicating findings
- Community of workers
Science as a body of knowledge
- Reliable body of knowledge
- Explaining phenomena
- Tentative and developmental
nature of scientific knowledge
Scientific inquiry
Devising researchable question
Selecting appropriate materials
Accuracy in planning experiment
(Replicability and reliability)
Hypothesising
Measuring and estimating data
Fair testing
Examining evidence
Recording findings
Subjectivity/objectivity
Ethical issues
Communicating Findings
Human Endeavour
Body of knowledge
Res Sci Educ
SOME Recommended Initial Reading
• Cobern, W. & Loving C. (1998). The Card
Exchange: Introducing the philosophy of
science. In Mc Comas et al (1998) The
Nature of Science in Science Education,
Kluwer publications
• Harlen, W. (1993). Teaching and Learning
Primary Science, Paul Chapman Publishing
• Driver R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist?,
Open University Press
• Mc Comas, W.F. (1998) The Nature of
Science in Science Education: Rationales
and Strategies, Kluwer Publications
• Meichtry Y. (1998) Elementary Science
Teaching Methods: Developing and
measuring student views about the nature
of science; in Mc Comas et al. (1998) The
Nature of Science in Science Education,
Kluwer publications
Table 7 (continued)

Areas Overview Aspects of NoS Addressed SOME Recommended Initial Reading

4. History of Case Studies (Galileo, Semmelweiss, Curie)
Science Preparation and delivery of presentations
5. Thinking about Philosophy with children (Thinking Time)
Science Religion and science
6. Science and Bill Nye Science Guy: Pseudo Science,
Society Disney Educational Productions
Professor Xargle
Pseudo science Vs real science
(Craven et al 2002)
Science and Society (Current issues)
7. NoS in the Irish Science in the Irish Primary Classroom
Primary Class Constructivism
NoS in the Primary Science Curriculum
Explicit Versus Implicit instruction
Devising explicit activities relating
to NoS as part of Science Curriculum
Critical incidences
Teaching NoS in the primary classroom
History and science • AAAS (1989). Project 2061: Science for all
Landmarks and events in HoS Americans, AAAS publications
How society influenced science • Matthews (1994) ‘The Role of History and
Developmental Philosophy of Science’, Chapters 1,2 & 4
Thinking Time Topics • Pollard A. & Tann S. (1987) Reflective
Where does the tide go? Teaching in the Primary School; A
Is umbrellaology a science? (Boersema 1998, p 265) handbook for the classroom, The Open
Evolution Vs Creationism University
• Boersema, D. (1998) Nature of Science and
Mass distinction; in Mc Comas et al (1998),
The Nature of Science in Science
Education, Kluwer publications
Science in the newspapers • Solomon J. & Aikenhead G. (eds) (1994).
Science and technology STS Education: International perspectives
Recycling on Reform, Teachers college Press.
Pollution
A constructivist approach to teaching science • DES (1999) The Primary Science Curriculum
Document content analysis • DES (1999a) Primary Science Curriculum
Explicit Vs implicit instruction Guidelines
Creating novel explicit activities relating to NoS from Irish • Matthews (1994) ‘The Role of History and
Curriculum Philosophy of Science’, Chapters 5 & 7
• Driver et al. (1996). Young people’s images of
science, Open University Press
Res Sci Educ
Res Sci Educ

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005) Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: the impact of a

philosophy of science course on pre-service science teachers’ views of instructional planning.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of
science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–
702.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science. In R. Millar, & J. Osborne (Eds.),
Improving science education - The contribution of research (pp. 245–264). Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study
of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New
York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A
Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an
understanding of science teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 33, 1–25.
Barnes, B. (1989). About science. London: Blackwell.
Bell, R. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman N. G. (1998). Implicit versus explicitly nature of science
instruction: An explicit response to palmquist and Finley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,
1057–1061.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science
apprenticeship programme on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.
Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science
among pre-service elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785–802.
De Boo, M., & Randall, A. (2001). Celebrating a century of primary science. Hatfield: ASE.
Department for Education and Employment (DEE). (2000). The national curriculum. England: The
Stationery Office.
Department of Education and Science. (1999). Primary school curriculum: Science. Dublin: The Stationery
Office.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Fleer, M. (2006). “Meaning-making science”: Exploring the sociocultural dimensions of early childhood
teacher education. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International
perspectives on contemporary issues and practice. London: Erlbaum.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science
in Australian schools. Research Report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, Canberra.
Hipkins, R., Barker, M., & Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: modest adaptations or
radical reconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 243–254.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-
orientated instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.
Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: subject matter without context. Key note paper at
the Fall 1998 On-Line Conference on Chemistry Education and Research. Available on line at http://
ejse.southwestern.edu/original%20site/manuscripts/v3n2/articles/guest%20editorial/lederman.html.
Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote
understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science
education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Boston: Kluwer.
Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. (1997). The nature of science: naturally? School Science and Mathematics, 97
(1), 1–2.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York:
Routledge.
Mc Comas, W. F., Clough, M. O., & Almazora, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in
science education. In W. Mc Comas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and
strategies. Boston: Kluwer.
 Res Sci Educ

Murcia, K., & Schibeci, R. (1999). Primary student teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1123–1140.
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2008). Primary Curriculum Review, Phase 2: Final report
with recommendations. Retrieved February 2008 http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/primary/PCR%
20Phase%202%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Pollard, A., & Tann, S. (1993). Reflective teaching in the primary school: a handbook for the classroom
(2nd edition). Redwood Books.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2006) (Eds.), Cultural studies in science education, available at: http://www.
springer.com/education/journal/11422?detailsPage=contentItemPage&CIPageCounter=171401.
Varley J., Murphy, C., & Veale Ó. (2008). Science in primary schools: Phase 1 final report. In National
Council for Curriculum and Assessment website. Retrieved January21st, 2008 from http://www.ncca.ie/
uploadedfiles/primary/Binder1.pdf.
Waldron, F., Pike, S., Varley, J., Greenwood, R., & Murphy, C. (2007). Student teachers’ prior experiences of
history, geography and science: Preliminary findings of an all-Ireland survey. Irish Educational Studies,
26(2), 177–194.