A Practice-Based Approach To Learning Nature of Science Through Socioscientific Issues

Research in Science Education (2022) 52:259–285
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09942-w
A Practice-Based Approach to Learning Nature

of Science through Socioscientific Issues
Jessica Shuk Ching Leung 1
Published online: 17 June 2020

# Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract
The nature of science (NOS) has been recognised as an essential component for engage-
ment with socioscientific issues (SSI). However, the findings on the link between the two
have been inconclusive. This calls for a shift from students merely knowing about NOS,
to using their understanding of it as a tool for decision-making and participation in
debates about SSI. This study set out to devise and implement a practice-based SSI
intervention programme (12 weeks) and to examine its effect on students’ use of NOS
understanding and multi-perspective evaluation of SSI. The participants were 110 under-
graduate students with different majors. Data were collected through questionnaires,
reflective tasks and follow-up interviews. The programme improved students’ use of
NOS understanding and multi-perspective evaluation of SSI. Statistical analyses of pre-
and post-course performance revealed a significant shift to the use of NOS understanding,
in particular the social aspects of the sources of information (p < .00001). Explicit
teaching on the development of NOS understanding and its use, hands-on practice across
contexts, peer interactions and emphasis on a layperson’s perspective were found to
account for the change. These findings support a change in practice in learning about
science and offer empirical support to the call for a shift from students’ merely knowing
about NOS, to actively applying their understanding of it.
Keywords Evaluation . Multiple perspectives . Nature of science . News media . Socioscientific

issues
Introduction
In a world increasingly shaped by science, the public are often confronted with socioscientific
issues (SSI) that have important bearing on everyday life. In the education context, given the
complex and multi-disciplinary nature of SSI, it is not possible for students to make informed
* Jessica Shuk Ching Leung

leungscj@hku.hk
1
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
260 Research in Science Education (2022) 52:259–285
judgements about an SSI based solely on their conceptual understanding of science. The nature
of science (NOS) has been recognised by many as an important concept in informing
judgements about SSI (Lederman et al. 2014; Zeidler and Keefer 2003). However, empirical
findings on the impact of NOS understanding on decision-making about SSI have remained
inconclusive, with studies showing various kinds of nuanced relationships (Karisan and
Zeidler 2017). In other words, simply understanding NOS does not seem to guarantee that
students will take it into consideration when evaluating SSI. Prior studies examining the
association between NOS and SSI have largely conceptualised NOS as a form of declarative
knowledge. There is little evidence, however, that mere recall or comprehension of the tenets
of NOS is adequate to ensure they are applied effectively in context (Allchin 2012). This study,
in contrast, borrows from the broader literature on epistemic cognition (which is further
discussed in the next section), with NOS understanding conceptualised as an active ability
supported by practice.
The majority of citizens depend on newspapers, magazines and the Internet for infor-
mation on SSI, and preparing students for critical engagement with media reports has
become a prominent goal of science education (Millar 2006). This study thus focused on
how news reporting on SSI is evaluated by students. In evaluating SSI news, students have
a range of cognitive resources to draw upon. A declarative formulation of NOS, while
adding to this resource pool, does not inform the appropriateness of its application in
evaluating a specific SSI. Consequently, it is hypothesised that developing NOS under-
standing as an ability supported by practice, rather than a form of declarative knowledge,
can better promote students’ use of NOS in SSI evaluation. Promoting the use of NOS in
SSI evaluation may replace or add to students’ existing schema, and therefore, may or may
not enhance their multi-perspective evaluation of SSI. To this end, the aim of this study
was to design and implement a practice-based SSI intervention programme to promote
students’ use of NOS understanding in evaluating SSI (12 weeks) and to verify its effect
on students’ multi-perspective evaluation of SSI. The study specifically addressed the
following questions.
What changes, if any, occur in students’ use of criteria for evaluating SSI news following a
practice-based intervention to promote a shift in their use of NOS knowledge in their
evaluation of SSI? If such changes occur, how do they come about?
Literature Review
Nature of Science
There is an extensive literature on attempts to characterise NOS in science education. Such

approaches include, e.g., the consensus view (e.g., Lederman 2007; Niaz 2009), the family
resemblance approach (Irzik and Nola 2011), the features of science (Matthews 2012) and the
whole science approach (Allchin 2011). Interestingly, the ‘consensus’ view of NOS no longer
enjoys a consensus (Allchin 2017). It has been criticised for presenting a narrow image of
science, obscuring the heterogeneity of science, inaccurately depicting scientific practices in
specific domains and not being specific to science (Hodson 2014; Irzik and Nola 2011; van
Dijk 2011). To characterise NOS, it is important to identify the learning goal and the target
audience (i.e., why learn about NOS and for whom do we teach NOS?), which, in turn, inform
what aspects of NOS to highlight and how these aspects should be taught.
Research in Science Education (2022) 52:259–285 261
The Why Question
NOS has been recognised by many for its importance in informing judgement about SSI and
has been identified for promoting functional scientific literacy (Zeidler et al. 2005). With its
emphasis on the demarcation of science and the idealised scientific method, the consensus
view is largely internalist (Allchin et al. 2014), and is far from adequate for developing
functional scientific literacy. With the goal of preparing students as functional citizens who
are able to make informed judgements about SSI, the why of NOS is not simply to characterise
science as a discrete enterprise. This study adopted the whole science approach (Allchin 2011,
2017), which reframes NOS from selected tenets to the multiple dimensions relevant in
authentic cases of science in society, ranging from the experimental to the social. The
characterisation of NOS depends upon what it takes to make informed judgements about
SSI, and the list of NOS components thereby resulting is ‘expansive, open-ended, and
inclusive’ (Allchin 2017, p. 20).
The for Whom Question
Scientists often depend on highly specialised disciplinary knowledge to reach their conclu-
sions. It is unrealistic to position students as expert insiders in forming judgements about SSI.
In accordance with the notion of the division of cognitive labour (Kitcher 1990), it would be
more realistic to expect laypeople to form judgements based on information from knowledge-
able others as competent outsiders to science (Feinstein 2011). With the increasing prevalence
of fake news in today’s post-truth era, the ability to assess the reliability of such information is
particularly crucial for functional scientific literacy. When judging the reliability of claims
from knowledgeable others, competent outsiders to science should not feel the need to judge
the claims directly, but to judge the grounds for their claims (Norris 1995).
The What Question
The difficulty in selecting aspects of NOS that are essential for citizenship has been well
documented (González-García et al. 2019). To identify the key aspects of NOS understanding
within the context of evaluating SSI news, the framework of McClune and Jarman (2010) on
critical engagement with science in the media and the framework of Duncan et al. (2018) on a
lay grasp of evidence were used in this study. Citizens, as laypeople, often use the media as a
source of information on SSI, which may report contested claims based on different sources of
evidence (Simon et al. 2003). Therefore, these two frameworks were used for their emphasis
on the evaluation of science in the media and the examination of evidence by laypeople.
By juxtaposing these two frameworks, it was possible to identify which aspects of NOS
understanding were essential for students’ evaluation of socioscientific news. First, both
frameworks emphasise a basic understanding of disciplinary knowledge, such as methods of
inquiry. Second, both frameworks highlight the need to identify the publication vetting
mechanism, i.e., the peer review process. Indeed, readers should be able to differentiate the
implications of published results from those of unpublished results. Third, readers should be
alert to the conflict of interest and funding sources that may affect scientific reports (McClune
and Jarman 2010), and identify possible sources of bias (Duncan et al. 2018). Fourth, readers
should be able to identify the experts making the claims and the level and relevance of their
expertise, i.e., professional recognition (Duncan et al. 2018). Fifth, readers should be able to
judge the level of consensus within the scientific community and the areas of agreement and
disagreement among experts, i.e., expert consensus (Duncan et al. 2018). Finally, an awareness
of the tentative and possibly contested nature of cutting-edge science is essential to critically
engage with science in the media (McClune and Jarman 2010). In accordance with the whole
science approach, these key aspects of NOS understanding needed to critically engage with
science in the media transcend multiple dimensions, including experimental (methods of
inquiry), social (peer review, conflict of interest, professional recognition and expert consen-
sus) and epistemic (tentativeness of science). These aspects have been shown to support
students’ evaluation of SSI and other science-related issues in the media (e.g., Leung et al.
2017; Kolstø et al. 2006; Korpan et al. 1997).
The How Question
An explicit reflective teaching approach has shown promise in developing students’ under-
standing of NOS (e.g., Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Lederman 2007), regardless of
whether the teaching was situated within a specific context (e.g., Khishfe and Lederman 2006,
2007). Decontextualised activities have the advantage of imparting NOS understanding
without the constraints of understanding scientific content (Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick
1998), but require careful scaffolding if students are to transfer their understanding to SSI
(Clough 2006). Three contexts for developing NOS understanding have been recognised,
namely socioscientific issues (SSI), historical cases and student-directed investigations
(Allchin et al. 2014; Clough 2006). It is straightforward to contextualise NOS within SSI if
the ‘why’ of NOS is for developing students’ functional scientific literacy (Sadler et al. 2004;
Wong et al. 2011). SSI can serve as an effective context for learning about NOS, as supported
by both theoretical (e.g., Karisan and Zeidler 2017; Yacoubian 2015) and empirical (e.g.,
Eastwood et al. 2012; Khishfe 2014; Wong et al. 2011) evidence.
This contextualisation offers a learning environment for students to practise the use of NOS
knowledge in judging SSI and readily highlights critical aspects of NOS, such as the social
contexts and tentativeness of science. However, as SSI is ongoing, they cannot be used to
address how such tentativeness should be interpreted or illustrate how the uncertainties and
controversies of a particular SSI are resolved. In contrast, the use of historical cases can
overcome these shortcomings, as such cases were resolved with a known outcome, embracing
long timescales and expansive human contexts. However, this approach can less readily
support an understanding of science-in-the-making, which is characteristic of SSI. Student-
directed investigations engage students in scientific practices, including identifying problems
for investigations, designing and conducting investigations, analysing data and formulating
and defending explanations (Abd El-Khalick et al. 2004). They hence offer a platform for
developing students’ understanding of methods of inquiry. However, the approach has been
criticised for the tendency to develop students’ understanding of the nature of school science
(Allchin et al. 2014) rather than NOS. It also provides few opportunities to address the cultural,
social and political contexts of science. Furthermore, students’ ability to transfer their under-
standing of NOS from one context to another (i.e., from scientific issues to SSI) cannot be
assumed (Khishfe 2017, 2019). In view of the merits and deficiencies of each of the above
three approaches, Allchin et al. (2014) argued for an integration to help them complement each
other.
Given the goal of informing judgement about SSI, it is most straightforward to consider
NOS in the context of SSI. Among the NOS aspects identified in the what question section, the
social aspects of NOS (i.e., peer review, conflict of interest, professional recognition and
expert consensus) are most readily addressed via SSI. The epistemic aspect of NOS (i.e.,
tentativeness of science) is best contextualised in relation to both SSI and historical cases.
Students engage on the one hand with the uncertainties and controversies of science-in-the-
making, and on the other hand with how these uncertainties and controversies are resolved in
historical cases. Methods of inquiry can be readily addressed by student-directed investiga-
tions. NOS contextualised as authentic science within SSI and historical cases helps develop
students’ understanding of NOS rather than their understanding of the nature of school science.
Hence, integrating the three approaches is favoured over contextualising NOS within SSI
alone to develop students’ understanding of NOS to inform their judgement about SSI.
Students’ Understanding of NOS and its Use
Students’ understanding of NOS has been consistently reported to be weak (Deng et al. 2011;
Lederman and Lederman 2014). The learning of some aspects of NOS, such as the tentative-
ness and social and cultural embeddedness of science, which are also the target aspects in this
study, has been found to be especially challenging (Cofré et al. 2019). Students often adhere
more to disciplinary knowledge and have limited interest in NOS, in particular the epistemic
and social dimensions of science, in evaluating science-related issues in the media (e.g.,
Korpan et al. 1997; Leung et al. 2017). The scant attention paid to these NOS aspects tends
to hinder students from integrating multiple perspectives, which is essential for making
informed judgements about SSI (e.g., Kahn and Zeidler 2019; Leung et al. 2015; Ratcliffe
and Grace 2003; Chang Rundgren and Rundgren 2010; Sadler et al. 2007). One may argue
that the neglect of NOS in students’ evaluation of SSI is a result of their weak understanding.
However, the inconclusive findings on the association between NOS understanding and
students’ evaluation of SSI suggest otherwise. Sadler et al. (2004) in the global warming
context, for example, found that the negotiation of conflicting evidence by high school
students was influenced by factors related to NOS, such as data interpretation. Similarly,
Wu and Tsai (2011) concluded that high school students’ beliefs about the development and
justification of scientific knowledge were significantly correlated with their capacity to reason
about nuclear power usage. Contrary to these findings, other studies have shown that under-
standing of NOS has very weak or mixed relationships with students’ evaluation of SSI.
Zeidler et al. (2002) demonstrated that in only some instances was NOS understanding
reflected in the participating students’ reasoning concerning SSI. Leung et al. (2015) reported
an association between participants’ understanding of the tentativeness of science and
multiple-perspective evaluations of SSI news following explicit instruction on NOS, but no
such association was identified for the sociological aspects of NOS. Khishfe (2012) provided
an intervention consisting of explicit instruction on NOS and its application to decision-
making about genetically modified food, and reported that such understanding influenced
the factors involved in decision-making but not the decisions made.
A ‘Practice Turn’ in Learning about Science
NOS understanding has been conceived as a form of declarative knowledge. This conception
has been largely influenced by the self-reported beliefs that dominate this line of research, e.g.,
the Views of Nature of Science (VNOS) by Lederman et al. (2002) (Ford 2008). If such a
conceptualisation of NOS is expected to enable students to use their NOS understanding in SSI
evaluation, this implies that translating NOS understanding to the ability to use it effectively in
context is unproblematic. However, the mixed findings on the association between NOS
understanding and students’ evaluation of SSI suggest that a direct transfer of the former to
the latter cannot be assumed. This is supported by recent findings about the difficulties that
students encounter in transferring their NOS understanding as a declarative form of knowledge
to putting such understanding into practice (Leung 2020). As Ford (2008) rightly pointed out,
‘given the driving concern with NOS understanding for citizenship abilities, it seems reason-
able to view NOS understanding this way, as an active ability rather than passive declarative
knowledge’ (p. 172, emphasis added). He further argued that to develop that ability, practice is
essential. This argument suggests the need to distinguish between developing NOS under-
standing as a declarative form of knowledge and as an ability to use such declarative
knowledge for SSI evaluation. This is likened to understanding Newton’s law as a form of
declarative knowledge and the ability to use such knowledge to solve practical problems; it
cannot be assumed that the latter would naturally come from the former. While the difference
between developing NOS understanding as a form of declarative knowledge and developing
the use of NOS knowledge as an ability may seem subtle, it has significant implications for
how NOS understanding occurs at the classroom level. Prior studies have demonstrated the
effectiveness of using an explicit reflective teaching approach to develop students’ NOS
understanding. Yet these studies have tended to conceptualise NOS as a form of knowledge
rather than the ability to use such understanding.
To support students’ development of NOS knowledge as an ability supported by practice, it
would be useful to draw upon the larger literature on epistemic cognition (EC). EC refers to
our thinking about knowledge: what counts as knowledge, the nature of knowledge and how to
acquire, validate and use knowledge. Science educators working on EC commonly address
NOS understanding (Sinatra and Chinn 2011). Similar to the arguments surrounding NOS,
there have been calls for a shift in EC conceptualisation from understanding to practice
(Berland et al. 2016). In accordance with the ‘practice turn’ of EC, this study investigates a
classroom intervention that is based on the teaching model ‘Apt-AIR’ (Barzilai and Chinn
2018). This model embeds the practice of knowledge and highlights five aspects (see Table 1).
Apt-AIR is derived from the multifaceted framework of epistemic thinking developed by
Barzilai and Zohar (2014), which emphasises both epistemic competence and epistemic meta-
competence, and the AIR model (Chinn et al. 2014), which is composed of three EC
components: (1) aims and values (i.e., goals set by the actors and their perceived importance);
(2) epistemic ideals (i.e., criteria produced as reasons or justifications for claims) and (3)
reliable epistemic processes (i.e., procedures, strategies or other processes to achieve epistemic
goals and produce epistemic products, e.g., peer review and media processes). Details of how
Apt-AIR informs the intervention in this study are further discussed in the ‘Methods’ section.
In sum, the characterisation of NOS in this study was guided by the goal of equipping
students to make informed judgements about SSI as functional citizens, where students were
positioned as competent outsiders to science rather than expert insiders. Given students’
limited prior consideration of the epistemic and social dimensions of science, which may
hinder a multi-perspective evaluation of SSI, the study specifically focused on four aspects of
NOS—peer review, conflict of interest, professional recognition, expert consensus and tenta-
tiveness of science. Unlike previous studies, which mainly conceived NOS as a form of
declarative knowledge, this study conceptualised the application of NOS knowledge as a form
of active ability supported by practice. Through a practice-based intervention informed by the
Apt-AIR framework, this study aimed to examine the changes in students’ use of criteria, in
Table 1 Apt-AIR framework (Barzilai and Chinn 2018) and instructional intervention
Aspect Intervention
1. Engagement in cognitive processes that reliably Explicit instructions on the use of NOS in SSI
achieve epistemic aims in accordance with epistemic evaluation and hands-on practice across diverse SSI
ideals (activities 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; tutorials 2 and
2. Achieving epistemic aims adaptively in diverse 5*):Explicit instructions were given to guide
situations students in the use of NOS understanding (e.g., peer
review, conflicts of interest, professional recognition,
expert consensus and tentativeness of science) in
evaluating SSI. Students were shown how NOS
understanding was applied to evaluate SSI; then they
participated in hands-on practice, supported by the
gradual withdrawal of scaffolding (Sinatra and
Chinn 2011). Students have various opportunities to
practice using NOS in various SSI. Exposing stu-
dents to diverse contexts helps them develop their
proficiency in using NOS understanding to engage
with SSI. Students are engaged in evaluating SSI,
through which they reach a reasoned position indi-
vidually and collectively.
3. Using epistemic metacognition to guide epistemic Evaluation-on-evaluation (activity 8, tutorial 4):
performance Students are engaged in assessing their own SSI
evaluation and those of their peers to support the
development of their epistemic meta-competence by
helping them understand what apt performance en-
tails.
4. Experiencing motivational-affective dispositions to Discussions of the importance of SSI evaluation
achieve valuable epistemic aims (activity 1) in which the role of NOS for
multi-perspective SSI evaluation and the limitations
of overreliance on conceptual understanding of sci-
ence were explicitly addressed.
5. Achieving epistemic aims with other people Group work on SSI evaluation (activities 5, 6 and 7;
tutorials 2 and 5): Students participated in SSI
evaluation in different social settings, including
small groups in tutorials and a class community in
mass lectures. For instance, when preparing their SSI
evaluation for the poster fair, students work with
their peers on an SSI of their choice, in which they
negotiate with their group members to reach
consensus on a standpoint as a group and its
justification.
*Please refer to Table 2 for the scheduling of the activities and tutorials
particular the target aspects of NOS, in evaluating SSI news, and identify key teaching
components to explain how these changes were brought about.
Methods
Research Design
This study used a pretest/posttest design and a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design
(Creswell and Plano Clark 2007) to examine the change in students’ use of criteria in
evaluating SSI news after a 12-week teaching intervention. The qualitative data sets served
to build on quantitative data sets by seeking to explore a rich and nuanced account of how
students’ use of NOS understanding was changed by the practice-based intervention.
Context of the Study
One hundred and twenty undergraduate students enrolled in a general education course at a
local university were invited to participate in the study. The course had no prerequisites in
science and attracted students from a variety of majors pursuing degrees in the arts, business
administration, education, journalism, law, medicine, nursing, science and the social sciences.
Undergraduate students were chosen as the participant group for two reasons. First, the
majority of them receive no further education in science after graduation, and if they fail to
apply their NOS understanding to evaluate SSI during their university years, then they are
likely to continue to do so in the future. Second, a reasonable literacy level can be assumed of
undergraduates. The course comprises three key modules: (1) ‘Features of science’, (2) ‘The
making of science-related news in the media’, which focus on the nature and limitations of
science and science news and its generation process and (3) ‘Critical evaluation of SSI’, which
focuses on engagement with SSI. The intervention was guided by the Apt-AIR model (see
Table 2). The course was delivered in 2-h weekly lectures and 2-h biweekly small group
tutorials. The author was one of the course instructors. To minimise data trustworthiness
issues, the follow-up interviews were conducted by a fellow researcher who was not involved
in the course, after the course grades were finalised, to minimise undue influence on the
participants to behave as students instead of research subjects. Furthermore, the identities of
the participants were not disclosed to the author before the grades were finalised. Of the 120
students taking this course, 110 signed a consent form and completed the pre-course and post-
course essay writing tasks, and 15 volunteered to take part in the follow-up interviews.
Data Collection
Writing Artefacts
The participants’ consideration of NOS understanding in their engagement with SSI was
assessed through an essay writing task (See Appendix 1) in week 1 and week 12. Two news
articles were screened and selected based on the following criteria. First, they were related to
genetic engineering, which was chosen for its significant advances in recent decades in a wide
range of areas, including stem cell research, cloning and gene therapy. Second, as the study
focused on students’ use of NOS understanding in evaluating SSI news, the articles were
selected to provide opportunities for them to draw upon their NOS understanding, including
peer review, conflict of interest, professional recognition, expert consensus and the tentative-
ness of science. Third, the chosen SSI was controversial in nature. Ratcliffe and Grace (2003)
identified two types of controversy in contemporary science, type A and type B. Type A is
associated with the social application of well-established science, while type B is associated
with science-in-the-making. The selected articles covered both types of controversy, allowing
us to better understand the effect of the course design on students’ use of NOS understanding
in different contexts. The first article was about environmentalists urging the US Department
of Agriculture to reject the use of a genetically engineered eucalyptus tree (GEET), a type A
controversy. The second article reported scepticism over the CRISPR human embryo editing
claim by Mitalipov and his team in their Nature paper, a type B controversy. At the end of
Table 2 Schedule of activities and tutorials
Module Week Course content Intervention

Features about science (module I) 1 Introduction SSI and their features
Activity 1: why SSI evaluation? (discussions on the importance of SSI evaluation, aspect 4)
Tutorial 1: more on SSI and their features
2 Epistemology of science Subjectivity in science, tentativeness of science, social and cultural embeddedness, limitations of
science (Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Leung 2020)
3 Sociology of science The process of peer review, collaboration and competition (Wong et al. 2009)
Activity 2: applying NOS in evaluating SSI news (aspects 1 and 2)
Tutorial 2: more hands-on practice in applying NOS in evaluating SSI across diverse contexts
(aspects 1, 2 and 5)
4 Basics of scientific inquiry: on Assessing risk (relative risk and absolute risk)
risk and uncertainty
Case study: Fukushima nuclear incident, melamine-contaminated milk in China
The making of science-related news in 5 Knowledge of news, newspapers Science in news: news and news value, science news, intent of news producers
the media (module II) and journalism

Activity 3: applying NOS in evaluating news on microplastics (aspects 1 and 2)
Tutorial 3: understanding the science of SSI from a lay perspective
6 Knowledge about writing and Science news production: news trustworthiness, giving news headlines, challenges of reporting
language profile science, constraints faced by journalists
Activity 4: applying NOS in evaluating news on three-parent babies (aspects 1 and 2)
Critical evaluation of SSI (module III) 7 Critical reading of SSI news Critical reading of SSI news, judging science journal quality
Tutorial 4: evaluation-on-evaluation (aspect 3)
8 Multi-perspective SSI evaluation Evaluating SSI from multiple perspectives
Debate: extra cost for overweight passengers to fly
Activity 5: evaluating knowledge claims about obesity (aspects 1, 2 and 5)
9 SSI decision-making Socioscientific decision-making (Grace 2009)
Decision-making: health claims
Activity 6: evaluating knowledge claims about food and diet (aspects 1, 2 and 5)
10 Resolution of SSI Case study: in search of effective solutions for climate change: a war we cannot afford to lose
Tutorial 5: preparation for poster fair (group work on SSI evaluation, aspects 1, 2 and 5)
11 Poster fair Poster fair
and
12
Activity 7: poster fair (aspects 1, 2 and 5)
Activity 8: peer evaluation (aspect 3)
267
each article, the participants were asked whether they agreed with the use of the reported
scientific techniques and to justify their viewpoint by providing as many reasons as possible.
The week 12 essay also included a reflective task on how their responses in the week 1 essay
had been changed or reinforced.
Follow-up Interviews
Six months after the course, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with the
participants who indicated their availability. These interviews provided a better understanding
of the participants’ evaluation of the two news articles before and after the course and helped
verify if their responses had been misinterpreted. For the cases in which the essay writing task
illustrated a change in opinion, the interviews also served to reveal how the participants’ use of
NOS understanding was affected by the course (see Appendix 2 for the interview protocol).
Prior studies reported that students who had acquired scientific ideas returned to their pre-
existing ideas after finishing the course (Taber 2014). In a similar vein, anticipating the
possibility that the participants would return to their prior views after finishing the course,
the follow-up interviews were conducted 6 months after the course to assess the durability of
the intervention. The interviewees were shown or reminded of their essays and were asked
whether they had a different view compared with their week 12 essay. Each interview was
adapted to the written responses of each participant. Each interview lasted 30 to 45 min and
was audiotaped and transcribed verbatim for analysis.
Data Treatment
A content analysis was performed on the participants’ writing artefacts from the essay writing
task. All criteria used by the participants were examined. Doing so is important because
consideration of NOS might have added to or replaced students’ existing schemas, making it
necessary to examine their overall use of criteria to determine whether the intervention
enhanced the students’ multi-perspective SSI evaluation. Therefore, the essays were coded
not only according to the criteria applied using the list of the target aspects of NOS, but also
using a list that was synthesised from previous research (Leung et al. 2017; Kolstø et al. 2006;
Korpan et al. 1997), including the following: (a) empirical and theoretical adequacy with the
subcategories of consistency of argumentation and face validity of argumentation, (b) the
social aspects of the sources of information, (c) completeness of information, (d) manipulative
language was expanded and renamed writing and language to encompass biased reporting
and (e) the nature of scientific knowledge. Two new categories of criteria emerged: (f) the pros
and cons of the reported issue and (g) value judgement (see Appendices 3 and 4 for a
description and excerpt for each criterion Tables 4 and 5). When the responses were based
on more than one criterion, double coding was performed. Pearson’s chi-square tests were
used to compare the pre- and posttest results to identify significant changes in students’ use of
NOS understanding. Effect size was calculated to examine the effectiveness of the interven-
tion. An effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.2 represents low effectiveness; 0.5, medium effectiveness
and 0.8, high effectiveness (Cohen 2013).
The interview transcripts and data from the reflective task were coded for the teaching
components to explain the change in students’ use of NOS understanding, using the five aspects
of the Apt-AIR framework as a start list of codes. It was possible that not all five aspects would
be of relevance, and new themes might emerge during the data analysis. The components were
then examined across participants and data sources for multiple evidence and were grouped into
similar categories to answer the how question. As the same teaching component might
encompass more than one aspect of the Apt-AIR framework, the findings are presented
according to key teaching components, and key aspects were flagged for further discussion.
To ensure the reliability of the results, different strategies were used, including the
triangulation of data sources from the essay writing task and the reflective task with those of
the follow-up interviews, member checks and investigator triangulation (Creswell 2012). The
data interpretations were shared with the interviewees to ensure that the analysis truly captured
their perspectives. Data analysis was conducted with a fellow researcher to reduce researcher
bias. To guarantee the reliability of the analysis, the values of Cohen’s kappa measure of
agreement were calculated based on the coding of two raters for each criterion used by
participants to determine the inter-rater agreement. The inter-rater reliability was greater than
83%, indicating an ‘almost perfect agreement’ between raters (κ > 0.80; Landis and Koch
1977, p. 165). Codes generating disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached.
Results
Did the Intervention Promote a Change in the Use of NOS Understanding for SSI
Evaluation?
Table 3 presents the criteria applied by the participants to evaluate the two news articles. The
target aspects of NOS were under the categories criteria focusing on the social aspects of the
sources of information and criteria focusing on the nature of scientific knowledge. In the pre-
course, the participants mainly depended on criteria related to the pros and cons of the
reported issue (380 counts, 108 students), followed by value judgement (34 counts, 28
students) for the GEET article. In contrast, they mainly depended on empirical and theoretical
adequacy (183 counts, 94 students), followed by the social aspects of the sources of infor-
mation (48 counts, 37 students) for the CRISPR article. The type of controversy probably
accounted for the difference in participants’ use of criteria in the two articles. In the evaluation
of the GEET article, which reported a type A controversy on whether well-established science
should be applied in society, the participants tended to give more weighting to the pros and
cons of its application and judge the desirability of a certain action based on the values they
upheld. In contrast, in their evaluation of the CRISPR article, which reported a type B
controversy over science-in-the-making, the participants tended to judge the findings based
on empirical and theoretical adequacy. This seemed to go against Norris’ notion (1995) that
laypeople should judge the grounds for claims by knowledgeable others (i.e., as outsiders to
science) rather than judging the claims directly (i.e., as insiders to science).
In the post-course, the social aspects of the sources of information became the most
frequently used criteria for both the GEET (222 counts, 90 students) and CRISPR (202 counts,
95 students) articles. The intervention was found to be statistically significant in promoting the
use of these target aspects of NOS with large effect size for both the GEET article
(p < 0.00001; d = 1.88) and the CRISPR article (p < 0.00001; d = 1.34). A significant increase
was also observed for tentativeness of science with a small effect size in the GEET article
(p = .031; d = 0.30), but not in the CRISPR article (p = .054; d = 0.22). The change in the use
of the target aspects of NOS varied between the two articles. This was likely a result of the
difference in context, which elicited the use of different criteria.
Table 3 Criteria considered by the participants in their evaluation of the GEET and CRISPR articles in the pre-course and post-course essay writing task (N = 110)
270
Pre-course Post-course
GEET CRISPR GEET CRISPR GEET CRISPR
Criteria Counts Students Counts Students Counts Students Counts Students χ2 p Effect χ2 p Effect
(n) (n) (n) (n) size size
Criteria focusing on the pros and cons of the reported issue
Environmental 162 95 0 0 78 54 0 0 35.0 < 0.00001 − 0.92 - - -
Ecological 100 82 0 0 39 31 0 0 47.3 < 0.00001 − 0.90 - - -
Economic 65 56 0 0 27 22 0 0 23.0 < 0.00001 − 0.59 - - -
Well-being 53 44 0 0 23 19 1 1 13.9 .0002 − 0.51 - - 0.13
Subtotal 380 108 0 0 167 63 1 1 53.2 < 0.00001 − 1.31 - - 0.13
Criteria focusing on empirical and theoretical adequacy
Consistency of argumentation
Compatibility with personal 24 20 37 33 10 9 20 16 4.81 .028 − 0.31 7.59 .006 − 0.30
understanding
Logical correctness 3 3 30 27 4 4 13 12 0.15 .70 0.05 7.01 .008 − 0.36
Comprehensiveness of arguments 0 0 6 6 2 2 3 3 - - 0.19 1.04 .31 − 0.14
Replicability 0 0 6 6 1 1 6 5 - - 0.13 0.10 .76 0.00
Face validity of argumentation
Proposed explanation 0 0 43 40 0 0 27 24 - - – 5.64 .018 − 0.28
Result 0 0 36 35 0 0 20 17 - - – 8.16 .004 − 0.30
Methodology 0 0 14 14 0 0 11 10 - - – 0.75 .39 − 0.08
Scale of the study 2 2 11 10 6 5 8 8 1.33 .25 0.17 0.24 .62 − 0.10
Subtotal 29 23 183 94 23 18 108 66 0.75 .39 − 0.10 18.0 .00002 − 0.65
Criteria focusing on the social aspects of the sources of information
Conflict of interest 7 7 4 4 84 69 14 13 77.3 < 0.00001 1.34 5.16 .023 0.34
Expert consensus 2 2 31 31 65 61 71 80 77.4 < 0.00001 1.27 43.7 < 0.00001 0.62
Professional recognition 0 0 12 10 64 57 77 61 - - 1.35 54.1 < 0.00001 1.24
Peer review 0 0 1 1 9 9 40 34 - - 0.42 37.0 < 0.00001 0.83
Subtotal 9 8 48 37 222 90 202 95 124 < 0.00001 1.88 63.7 < 0.00001 1.34
Criteria focusing on value judgement
Personal value 14 13 9 8 4 4 4 4 5.16 .023 − 0.32 1.41 .24 − 0.19
Stakeholder value 11 11 0 0 5 4 0 0 3.51 .061 − 0.20 - - -
Universal value 9 8 0 0 5 5 1 1 0.74 .40 − 0.14 - - 0.13
Subtotal 34 28 9 8 14 12 5 5 7.82 .005 − 0.37 0.74 .40 -0.15
Criteria focusing on completeness of information
Table 3 (continued)
Empirical support 2 2 10 10 13 12 14 12 7.63 .006 0.38 0.20 .65 0.11
Agent/theory 0 0 17 16 0 0 11 9 - - - 2.21 .14 − 0.14
Methods 0 0 4 3 3 3 5 5 - - 0.24 0.52 .47 0.04
Social context 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 - - 0.19 - - -
Subtotal 2 2 31 28 18 17 30 22 13.0 .0003 0.49 0.93 .33 −0.02
Criteria focusing on the nature of scientific knowledge
Tentativeness of science 7 7 22 19 18 17 34 31 4.68 .031 0.30 3.73 .054 0.22
Criteria focusing on writing and language
Biased reporting 2 2 4 5 13 11 10 11 6.62 .010 0.34 2.43 .12 0.21
Manipulative language 1 1 1 2 4 4 3 3 1.84 .18 0.18 0.20 .65 0.14
Subtotal 3 2 5 5 17 13 13 11 8.66 .003 0.36 2.43 .12 0.23
Total 464 110 298 110 479 110 393 110 - - 0.08 - - 0.47
271
Those criteria that the participants considered most important at pre-course exhibited a
significant decrease at post-course, with a large effect size for the pros and cons of the reported
issue (p < 0.00001; d = − 1.31) and a small effect size for value judgement (p = .005; d = −
0.37) in the GEET article, and with a medium effect size for empirical and theoretical
adequacy (p = .00002; d = − 0.65) in the CRISPR article. Overall, the total number of counts
of all criteria increased from 464 to 479 for the GEET article and from 298 to 393 for the
CRISPR article. This suggested that the intervention tended to support evaluation of SSI from
multiple perspectives.
The qualitative results of the interviews offered a deeper understanding of the students’ shift
to using NOS understanding in their SSI evaluation, as evidenced by Olivia in the reflective
task (all names used here are pseudonyms):
Previously, my criteria for examining new results were mainly based on scientific
knowledge and underlying mechanisms. However, this is often not practical as frontier
science is too difficult for a non-science student to clearly understand. In this course, I
learned more comprehensive criteria, such as the level of professional recognition and
peer review, to help me evaluate science-related social issues instead of only using
scientific knowledge. (Olivia, reflective task, emphasis added)
Olivia relied on ‘scientific knowledge and underlying mechanisms’ in her evaluation in the
pre-course essay. However, in the reflective task, she expressed concerns about this ‘insider’
approach by pointing out its limitations as ‘not practical’ because frontier science is ‘too
difficult’ for ‘non-science students’. Instead of relying only on scientific knowledge, Olivia
noted her use of the newly learned criteria, including professional recognition and peer review,
to evaluate SSI. This supported her development of multi-perspective evaluation.
The results of the follow-up interview also revealed a similar pattern of a shift from an
insider to an outsider approach, as illustrated by the following interview excerpts:
After coming to this course, I realised that the key is not to analyse scientifically, as I am
not a scientist. Thus, I am only able to give premature judgements based on under-
standing the workings and mechanics behind the production of science-related news…
(Leo, follow-up interview, emphasis added)
… after completing this course, I learnt to evaluate these news items in a more critical
way. For example, apart from merely comparing the number of experts and scientists for
and against a particular claim [i.e., expert consensus], we can look more deeply into their
background, and can even trace to see if there is any possible underlying interest
between the authorities [i.e., conflict of interest]. By applying these, even if a person
is not scientifically educated, he or she can still evaluate science-related news precisely
and objectively. (Anissa, follow-up interview, emphasis added)
Similar to Olivia, Leo acknowledged the limitation of giving ‘premature judgements’ by using
a scientist’s perspective, i.e., as insiders to science. Anissa suggested that, by considering the
target NOS aspects (i.e., expert consensus and conflict of interest), one would still be able to
reach a reasoned judgement about science-related news even when s/he was ‘not scientifically
educated’. These excerpts echoed the quantitative findings about participants’ shift from an
‘insider’ perspective to an ‘outsider’ perspective to science in evaluating SSI news.
In line with Olivia, the following excerpts from Alex’s interview and Sarah’s reflective task
also supported the development of multi-perspective evaluation of SSI as a result of the
intervention:
The lecture given on the peer review mechanism also provided me with a stronger
position regarding my stance against the ‘gene repair’ claim. A lack of peer review
greatly damages the overall reliability of the claim, which strongly helped my claim.
Instead of contemplating only the logic and flaws in content, as I did in the initial essay,
demonstrating the point’s unreliability due to the lack of peer review is a lot more
convincing. (Alex, follow-up interview, emphasis added)
Having studied this course, I still have the same viewpoint as my initial essay. However,
I have consolidated my view towards these questions with more different reasons from
more different angles… (Sarah, reflective task, emphasis added)
Similar to Olivia, Alex no longer only considered ‘the logic and flaws in content’, and tended
to give more weight to whether findings had been peer reviewed at post-course. While Sarah
did not change her viewpoint, she reported that she had considered ‘more different reasons
from more different angles’ at post-course. These qualitative findings echoed the quantitative
findings on participants’ development of multi-perspective evaluation of SSI news.
How Did the Intervention Affect Students’ Use of NOS Understanding?
(1) Explicit instructions on the use of NOS understanding, as opposed to implicit instructions
that assumed students’ ability to grasp the use of NOS understanding simply by engaging them
in SSI evaluation, were found to account for the shift in students’ use of NOS understanding,
as illustrated by the following excerpt:
During the tutorials, our instructor taught us different ways to formulate socioscientific
arguments by providing us with detailed examples. She also taught us how to identify
the controversies and arguments around articles and how to evaluate their quality by
applying different criteria, such as the tentativeness of a claim ... (Kian, reflective task,
emphasis added)
The change was brought about by the application of steps as introduced by the NOS
worksheet in the tutorial, which pointed out how to demonstrate a certain point, such as
reflect on professional recognition by considering the professionals’ backgrounds. The
instructor demonstrated how to evaluate using NOS ideas. I remember there were
several criteria… we practised using these criteria in the activity. (Denise, follow-up
interview, emphasis added)
Kian attributed his change to the explicit instructions on the use of NOS understanding, as
indicated by his excerpt on learning ‘how to evaluate their quality by applying different
criteria’ to evaluate SSI (aspect 1). Kian also found the ‘detailed examples’ of explicit
instructions useful for his learning. Similarly, Denise attributed her change to the teaching of
‘application of steps’, in which the use of NOS in SSI news was demonstrated, coupled with
opportunities for hands-on practice.
(2) Hands-on practice in diverse SSI contexts. Both Josie and Kayla attributed their change
to the hands-on practice of using NOS for SSI evaluation, as illustrated by the following
excerpts:
All of these changes would not have happened without the frequent practices in lectures
and small group discussions in the tutorials. The instructor also gave us many opportu-
nities to analyse different SSI during the tutorials and taught us how to apply the
knowledge gained from the lectures. (Josie, reflective task, emphasis added)
Worksheets allowed for sufficient writing practice and provided exemplars of how to make
socioscientific argumentation (Kayla, reflective task, emphasis added).
Not only ‘frequent practices’ (Josie) and ‘sufficient writing practice’ (Kayla) (aspect 1), but
also the ‘many opportunities to analyse different SSI’ were found to account for the shift in
their use of NOS understanding and enable them to master the use of new criteria (aspect 2).
Engaging students in diverse SSI at a poster fair was also identified to account for participants’
shift to NOS understanding as illustrated by the following excerpt:
There was a peer evaluation during the poster fair and I could analyse different issues.
Many useful arguments were also expressed in the poster presentation. The advantages
of the poster fair were the simple introduction of each topic and the brief explanation of
the cases from beginning to end, which broadened my horizon. (Rylan, reflective task,
emphasis added)
In the peer evaluation activity of the poster fair, Rylan appreciated the opportunity to be
exposed to ‘different issues’ (i.e., across a range of SSI topics) (aspect 2), through which he
learned from his peers how different SSI were evaluated.
(3) Peer interaction. The participants not only benefitted from the poster fair as an
audience, but also as presenters of their own SSI evaluations. Serene attributed her change
to peer interaction in the poster fair and its preparation, as indicated in her reflective task:
During the presentation task … by thoroughly examining one specific issue with my
groupmates and creating a poster for others to read and understand, I strengthened my
ability to analyse various aspects of an SSI ... (Serene, reflective task, emphasis added)
By working with her peers, Serene had the opportunity to thoroughly analyse an SSI. She
found this process useful for approaching an SSI from ‘various aspects’, supporting a multi-
perspective evaluation of SSI. Given the differences in mentality of different individuals, the
participants were more likely to engage in multi-perspective evaluation by working in groups
than alone (aspect 5). Joanne also shared a similar view:
… During the task [poster fair], my groupmates and I chose a specific science-related
social issue, and created a poster introducing the current situation of the issue, opinions
from various parties, and the future prospects of that issue. Through examining one
specific issue in depth and creating material for others to read and understand, I
strengthened my ability to analyse various aspects of an article with better understand-

ing... (Joanne, follow-up interview, emphasis added)
Joanne found this experience, which involved working with peers on an in-depth examination
of a specific SSI and communicating their findings to others, useful in enabling her to ‘analyse
various aspects’ of an SSI, which, in turn, supported multi-perspective evaluation.
(4) Emphasis on a layperson’s perspective. Unlike traditional science lessons, which
typically focus on a scientist’s perspective, the intervention emphasised a layperson’s perspec-
tive instead. Such emphasis seemed to influence the participants’ affective dimension and
empower them to become competent outsiders to science, as suggested by Vera and Charles:
I am very happy that the ‘layman’s perspective’ was emphasised during the course. I am
a complete layman, I don’t have to worry whether a layman can understand or not
because personally I am one ... (Vera, follow-up interview, emphasis added)
I think that learning to read the news in this way was very useful. I am just a layman, so I
thought I could only trust what journalists wrote before taking this course. Now, I think
that I can read the news and have my own judgement on an issue by assessing the
trustworthiness of the experts’ arguments (Charles, reflective task, emphasis added).
As a non-science student, Vera was ‘very happy’ with the attention given to a layperson’s
perspective during this course, which eased her concerns about understanding the concepts of
the course (aspect 4). The emphasis on a layperson’s perspective not only elicited positive
emotions among participants, it also enhanced the participants’ self-efficacy in evaluating SSI.
As pointed out by Charles, being ‘just a layman’, he could only trust the information presented
by the journalists. In other words, he had reservations about his ability to form a judgement on
SSI before the course. Upon course completion, he agreed that it was within his reach as a
layperson to evaluate these issues. Hence, the emphasis on a layperson’s perspective increased
the participants’ self-efficacy and helped them realise their potential to reach informed
judgement on SSI as laypersons (aspect 4).
(5) Developing knowledge of NOS. Emphasis on knowledge of NOS in the first module, as
opposed to NOS as knowledge-in-use, was identified by the participants as crucial for their
change, in particular for those with a limited understanding of NOS, as illustrated in the
following excerpts:
This course changed my fixed stereotypes about science. I used to think that science was
objective and could not be affected by social or cultural factors. All of the views in the
science news seemed to be trustworthy to me … (Mina, reflective task, emphasis added)
Before the course, I believed that once scientists had proved some points, I would
basically believe them without doubt because I would fully trust the fact that the
scientists had proved their points through their experiments. However, I did not realise
that sometimes the findings are subjective and affect readers’ points of view. Or there are
some benefits for the scientists that influence them in some studies or findings [i.e.,
conflicts of interest]. (Grace, follow-up interview).
Mina used to believe in the ‘fixed stereotypes’ that science was ‘objective’ and ‘not affected
by social or cultural factors’, and Grace did not realise the subjectivity of science and would
passively assent to any claims by scientists as long as they were supported by experimental
findings. Both held the assumption that all of the views presented in science news were
trustworthy. By developing participants’ understanding of the social embeddedness and
subjectivity of science, this seemed to raise their attention to the need for critical evaluation
of SSI news by readers and might account for the shift to NOS understanding by being more
sensitive to the social context of science (e.g., conflicts of interest as suggested by Grace).
Despite the emphasis on a practice-oriented approach to teach NOS in this study, such findings
do not rule out the importance of NOS understanding as a form of declarative knowledge.
Discussion
This study investigated whether and how students’ use of NOS understanding in their
engagement with SSI was changed by a practice-based approach. The results showed that
the participants’ use of criteria shifted to the social aspects of the sources of information and
the tentativeness of science at the post-course. Both the quantitative and qualitative data
suggested that (1) participants shifted from taking an expert ‘insider’ perspective to a layperson
‘outsider’ perspective to science and (2) a multi-perspective evaluation of SSI news developed
as a result of the practice-based intervention. The qualitative results of this study identified the
teaching components explaining these participants’ shifts. These teaching components are
discussed below with respect to the five aspects of the Apt-AIR framework.
Explicit instructions on the use of NOS understanding, supported by examples and hands-
on practice in diverse SSI contexts, were relevant to engaging the participants in cognitive
processes that reliably achieve the epistemic aim of critical evaluation of SSI news using the
target NOS aspects as epistemic ideals (aspect 1). Engaging students in hands-on practice
across a range of SSI topics (aspect 2) enabled them to master the use of NOS. It cannot be
assumed that students can draw on their NOS understanding when dealing with real life issues
if they have not had the opportunity to use their understanding in the educational context.
The participants identified a number of components that enabled them to experience
motivational-affective dispositions to achieve valuable epistemic aims (aspect 4). The empha-
sis on a layperson’s perspective was found to elicit positive emotions and foster the partici-
pants’ self-efficacy in their engagement with SSI. Activating positive emotions, such as
happiness, is believed to strengthen motivation and the voluntary pursuit of academic goals
(Pekrun et al. 2002). However, there is concern that being worry-free is a deactivating positive
emotion that may be detrimental in the short term by reducing momentary motivation,
although it can be beneficial in the long term by reinforcing motivation after completing a
task (Pekrun et al. 2002). By emphasising a layperson’s perspective from the start of the 12-
week intervention, the participants’ motivation was likely to be reinforced by this ‘worry-free’
emotion—despite the possibility of being temporarily reduced at a certain point in the early
phase of the intervention—as supported by the significant shift to NOS understanding at the
end of the course.
The participants identified peer interaction during the poster fair as important for their
change (aspect 5). By engaging students in working with their peers, peer interaction was
valuable for exploring an SSI through the minds of different individuals, supporting a multi-
perspective evaluation of SSI. By communicating their findings to others, this engaged the
participants to take a reader’s perspective to look at their own SSI evaluation. Both offered
opportunities for the participants to view an SSI beyond their own perspective. While the peer
evaluation in the poster fair was intended to develop their epistemic meta-competence (aspect
3), some participants (e.g., Rylan) may have been diverted to the development of epistemic
competence instead; i.e., by focusing on how their peers evaluated an SSI rather than how well
they performed in the evaluation. One reason may be that the learning objective of the peer
evaluation was not explained to the participants. In the future teaching, explicitly explaining
the learning objective of this activity and how it supports epistemic aims may cultivate a sense
of purposefulness by directing students toward the intended learning objective (Brophy 2008).
Unlike prior studies that have conceptualised NOS as a form of knowledge, this study
conceptualised NOS as the ability to use NOS knowledge. Despite this focus, however, the
importance of NOS as declarative knowledge should not be downplayed. Although not
explicitly stated in the Apt-AIR framework, developing NOS as declarative knowledge was
found to contribute to the change by clarifying the need for a shift to NOS understanding in
critical evaluation of SSI news. Even at the university level, some participants still naïvely
believed that science was completely objective and value-free. Therefore, they tended to
passively accept scientific results. This result echoed the notion that the same NOS aspects
should be taught at various learning stages (Leden and Hansson 2019). It also corroborated
Ford’s argument (2015) about the need for descriptive articulations to declaratively explain
certain aspects of the practice to learners.
Implications
Previous studies have identified a number of effective approaches for teaching NOS, e.g.,
SSI, historical cases and student-directed investigations. Informed by prior studies of
students’ scant attention to the epistemic and social aspects of NOS in their evaluation
of SSI and their strong adherence to methods of inquiry in evaluating science-related
issues, more emphasis was placed on the epistemic and social aspects of NOS than on
methods of inquiry in the programme under study. Given this particular context, SSI,
coupled with historical cases, were useful in highlighting these target NOS aspects to the
target group of students. Other NOS learning goals, e.g., the cultural goal of appreciating
science as an element of contemporary culture or the scientific goal of facilitating the
learning of science content (Driver et al. 1996), for another group of learners would likely
entail other NOS aspects and other ways to integrate the three approaches. In other words,
the teaching approach used (i.e., how to teach NOS) is guided by the needs (i.e., what NOS
aspects to cover) of learners (i.e., whom NOS is for) in achieving specific learning goals of
NOS (i.e., why NOS is being learned). In addition, the findings from this study highlight
the need to consider the whether question, i.e., whether NOS is a form of knowledge or an
ability to use such knowledge. This question then informs the how question to best support
students to achieve specific NOS learning goals, as different NOS conceptualisations
likely require different teaching approaches. Prior studies have consistently shown that
an explicit reflective approach is effective in developing students’ understanding of NOS,
yet these studies have tended to focus on developing students’ understanding of NOS
rather than the subsequent use of such understanding. This is likened to equipping students
with NOS knowledge as a tool, which enriches their pool of cognitive resources for SSI
evaluation, without guiding them how to use said tool. Understanding of NOS, while
important, is not sufficient to prepare students in becoming functional citizens who are
able to make informed judgements about SSI. This study challenged the conceptualisation
of NOS as strictly a form of declarative knowledge rather than knowledge that can be
actively used and applied in everyday life. Its findings supported a ‘practice turn’ in
learning about science by demonstrating the effect of a practice-based approach for
promoting students’ use of NOS understanding in SSI evaluation. This offered empirical
support to the call for a shift from teaching NOS as a form of declarative knowledge to
teaching how to apply NOS knowledge as an active ability (Ford 2008). The study also
shed light on the inconclusive findings on the link between NOS understanding and SSI
evaluation reported by previous studies, with its new finding that a practice-based ap-
proach can potentially narrow the gap between NOS understanding and the use of such
understanding for SSI evaluation. This invites further studies of the utilisation of a
practice-based approach to serve other NOS learning goals at other grade levels and
course settings.
This study has practical implications for curriculum development. In her analysis of the
inclusion of NOS in international science education standards, Olson (2018) stated that NOS
knowledge often appears in learning expectations without being identified as a learning
outcome. She noted that ‘Unfortunately, how NOS is connected to the performance expecta-
tion is unclear, and NOS does not appear in the performance expectations ...’ (p. 644). This
study offers a way to understand NOS that can be reflected in performance expectations
through its application in the engagement with SSI.
Limitations
First, the findings of this study were limited to the NOS learning goal of informing judgement
about SSI, with university students as the target audience. Questions remain about whether this
approach would also serve other NOS learning goals in other course settings. Second, the
results of this study were limited to the chosen news articles. It cannot be concluded with
certainty whether the results only apply to these news articles or can be generalised to other
SSI news. Third, this study used the same news articles to assess the shift to NOS under-
standing so that the results would not be altered by a change of context. However, the ability of
students to transfer their use of NOS understanding from one context to another was not
examined. Furthermore, the durability of the shift was only examined up to 6 months after
completing the course. It is unclear whether students would revert to their prior use of NOS
understanding beyond 6 months. Further research on the transferability and durability of the
use of NOS understanding is needed.
Conclusion
The significant shift to NOS understanding in SSI evaluation as a result of the intervention
suggested that a practice-based approach can support better integration between NOS
understanding and evaluation of SSI. Supplementing students’ current schema with NOS
understanding using a practice-based approach can play a productive role in engagement
with SSI from multiple perspectives. If science education is to prepare students to become
scientifically literate citizens who can tackle challenging tasks, such as decision-making
and participation in the debate about SSI for life outside of formal education, students
must be guided and given the opportunity to engage in the practice of these processes in
the academic context.
Appendix 1: Essay Writing Task
Part I: Evaluation of Science in the Media
As an educated layperson (NOT a scientist!!), read these two articles and answer the questions.
Article 1: Environmentalists are urging the USDA to reject this genetically engineered
eucalyptus tree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/08
/environmentalists-are-urging-the-usda-to-reject-this-genetically-engineered-eucalyptus-
tree/?utm_term=.ee6fced431a6
Article 2: Scepticism surfaces over CRISPR human embryo editing claims.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/skepticism-surfaces-over-crispr-human-embryo-
editing-claims
1. With respect to Article 1, should the USDA approve or restrict the commercial production
of the genetically engineered eucalyptus tree? Why? Provide as many reasons as possible
to justify your choice.
2. With respect to Article 2, do you believe that Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated
paternal gene using CRISPR? Why? Provide as many reasons as possible to justify your
choice.
Part II: Reflection (for week 12 essay only)
3. Comparing the answer in Part I with your previous answer, has your standpoint and its
justifications changed?
If yes, explain how it differs from your previous answer and how this change was brought
about. You can refer to, but are not limited to, the learning experience in this course.
If no, explain how your view may have been reinforced. You can refer to, but are not
limited to, the learning experience in this course.
Appendix 2: Interview Protocol
There is no right or wrong answer to the questions. It is your view that we value.
1. Do you find a difference in your evaluation of science in the media between the beginning
of the course, the end of the course and now (i.e., 12 weeks after completing the course)?
If yes, why is there such a difference? What explains the change?
2. I notice that in the post-course essay, you justified your viewpoint based on
_______________ [criteria related to NOS understanding], but you did not do so at the
beginning of the course. Could you tell me how your perspective was changed?
Appendix 3
Description of criteria
Criteria Definition

Environmental It focused on the ‘causes and consequences and about advantages and
Ecological disadvantages, or pros and cons, of particular propositions or decision
Economic alternatives’ (Zohar & Nemet, 2002, p. 38). The participants considered the
Well-being pros and cons of the reported issue with respect to the environment, ecology,
economy and well-being
Criteria focusing on empirical and theoretical adequacy (Leung et al. 2017; Kolstø et al. 2006)
Consistency of argumentation It emphasised the quality of the argumentation and questioned whether the
conclusion was valid based on the evidence at hand.
Compatibility with personal It focused on the incompatibility between the reported results and the personal
understanding understanding of the reported phenomenon.
Logical correctness It focused on the logic of a scientific claim.
Comprehensiveness of It focused on overlooked variables in the news articles that could have
arguments important bearing on the reported results.
Replicability It focused on whether a scientific claim could be replicated.
Face validity of It emphasised the quality of the argumentation but focused on ‘a single piece of
argumentation information or the general impression an argument gave’ (Kolstø et al.
2006, p. 642).
Proposed explanation The information that the participants focused on could be the scale of a study,
Result the methodology, the result or the proposed explanation for the result.
Methodology
Scale of the study
Criteria focusing on the social aspects of the sources of information (Leung et al. 2017; Kolstø et al. 2006)
Conflict of interest It focused on the ‘possible interests that could have influenced a study,
findings, evaluations, or presentation’ (Kolstø et al. 2006, p. 645).
Expert consensus It focused on the standing of a scientific claim. The participants evaluated it
based on how a scientific claim was commented upon and accepted by the
scientific community and stakeholders.
Professional recognition It focused on the standing of the expert. The participants evaluated the scientific
claim based on the competence of the scientists, as reflected by their
professional status.
Peer review It focused on whether the results were published or not.
Personal value It focused on ideas that a person relies on as criteria for judging the desirability
Stakeholder value of a given action or conclusion (Kolstø, 2005). These ideas were categorised
Universal value according to their value for individuals (personal value), for stakeholders
(stakeholder value) and for all (universal value).
Criteria focusing on completeness of information (Leung et al. 2017; Kolstø et al. 2006; Korpan et al. 1997)
Empirical support It focused on the completeness of the information provided. The participants
Agent/theory expressed concern about the lack of empirical support, agent/theory,
Methods methods and social context.
Social context
Criteria focusing on the nature of scientific knowledge (Leung et al. 2017; Kolstø et al. 2006)
Tentativeness of science It focused on the tentativeness of the reported claim. The participants evaluated
the scientific claim based on the uncertainty associated with the claim or
asked for more results before reaching a more rigid conclusion.
Criteria focusing on writing and language (Leung et al. 2017; Kolstø et al. 2006)
Biased reporting It focused on the writer’s overall presentation, balance and clarity.
Manipulative language It focused ‘on the author’s choice of words, arguments, and pictures, and
examined whether such choices was done to deliberately manipulate
readers’ (Kolstø et al. 2006, p. 647).
Appendix 4
Student excerpts
Criteria Sample excerpts

Environmental ‘The company argued that eucalyptus is a fast-growing tree, which can
significantly increase the supply of wood pellets produced for biomass
energy. However, this will not be good for the environment as the amount
of carbon emitted during the process will be devastating and will contribute
significantly and instantly to climate change’.
Ecological ‘GEETs replacing native pines reduce biodiversity and upset the ecosystem.
As various species whose main food is pine may not adapt to the
introduction of GEET, they may die and lead to a reduction in populations’.
Economic ‘They [GEETs] can be harvested in a decade, reducing the demand for
hardwood and promoting trade in wood pellets and the biofuel industry in
the U.S.’.
Well-being ‘These trees consume a lot of water, leading to the depletion of precious water
sources, especially in the local community, which may radically interrupt
the normal life of individuals’.
Criteria focusing on empirical and theoretical adequacy
Consistency of argumentation
Compatibility with personal ‘I think the team did not carry out control experiments to prove that CRISPR is
understanding the only factor affecting the result, which makes me think that the embryos
obtained without mutation are just a coincidence’.
Logical correctness ‘In Mitalipov’s study, the claim was based on the finding that no mutated gene
was found and that the DNA templates inserted for repair were not used.
Therefore, Mitalipov’s team assumed that the embryos were repaired using
maternal DNA. However, this explanation is logically incorrect because
finding no mutated gene in the embryos does not equate to a successful
repair or to the fact that no repair occurred’
Comprehensiveness of ‘The argument that eucalyptus trees were responsible for aggravating the
arguments recent wildfire in Portugal is fundamentally flawed. The writer noted that
the fire was believed to have been exacerbated by GEET, but other
important factors that could have started or at least accelerated the fire, such
as climate and geographical location, were not considered’.
Replicability ‘Other scientists conducting the same experiment obtained different results …
Although the same experiment does not necessarily lead to the same result,
it seems to show that the experiment conducted by Mitalipov and his team
is not replicable’.
Face validity of argumentation
Proposed explanation ‘In some in vitro fertilization procedures, embryos can occasionally start to
develop from maternal DNA alone. This may also explain the repair of the
mutated paternal gene’.
Result ‘A 72% success rate cannot reasonably be described as a ‘repair’ but simply an
improvement’.
Methodology ‘Mitalipov and his team only performed this experiment with 58 human
embryos, in which 42 embryos were free of mutations (Ledford, 2017). The
sample size is so small that a slight increase in the absolute value can lead to
a significant increase in percentages, which can mislead us into believing
that CRISPR can repair mutated paternal genes with great efficiency’.
Scale of the study ‘The statistics included are mainly based on limited trials in a single study,
which is not sufficiently accurate ...’.
Criteria focusing on the social aspects of the sources of information
Conflict of interest ‘Steven Strauss, a biotechnology researcher at Oregon State University who
supported provisional deregulation, may have been consciously or
(continued)
Criteria Sample excerpts
subconsciously influenced to support ArborGen, which funded his research

in the past and potentially in the future’.
Expert consensus ‘Sixty-five scientists also wrote a letter to show their non-support for biomass
energy, which will likely be encouraged during deregulation’.
Professional recognition ‘Many experts in the scientific field have questioned and opposed research
conducted by ArborGen Corporation. For example, Dr. Rachel Smolker,
co-director of the environmental organization Biofuelwatch, is a profes-
sional in ecology and biology at the University of Michigan. Dr. Beverly
Law, author of more than 200 peer-reviewed publications and a forestry
expert from Oregon State University, who analyzes the effects of climate
change and fire, doubted that GEETs secrete flammable oil and that a high
volume of dead leaves would ignite easily, increasing the risk of deadly
wildfires’.
Peer review ‘Mitalipov’s paper was also peer-reviewed and published in Nature, while
critics published their paper on the preprint server bioRxiv, which is not
peer-reviewed. Making it through the peer review process means that
several scientists from similar fields have approved the paper, making it
more trustworthy’.
Personal value ‘The idea of replacing and continually destroying our natural forests to meet
the demand of the market and satisfy human needs is really selfish and
inconsiderate, not to mention unsustainable’
Stakeholder value ‘Environmental groups have also suggested that the species is invasive and
drains water resources. While their claims may be valid, their role as
environmental groups should not be overlooked, as they would obviously
place a strong emphasis on the environment’.
Universal value ‘The whole scheme is a measure against the global goal of environmental
preservation’.
Criteria focusing on completeness of information
Empirical support ‘Although it has been argued that this may be due to the massive deletion of
embryonic DNA by CRISPR, the hypothesis has not yet been proven
(Reilly, 2017). The proposed explanation lacks empirical evidence’.
Agent/theory ‘The proposed conclusion is contrary to current understanding as the
mechanism cannot be explained and the study did not provide an alternative
theory’
Methods ‘Although Mitalipov claimed that there was a detailed experimental design
with hundreds of human embryos used, this article failed to discuss in detail
the mechanisms and methodology of the study’
Social context ‘The stakeholders of these negative claims are ‘environmental groups’ and
‘scientists’ whose background and level of professionalism are unknown.
Thus, this diminishes the persuasiveness of the potential drawbacks stated’.
Criterion focusing on the nature of scientific knowledge
Tentativeness of science ‘Science is constantly evolving and the fact that Mitalipov’s conclusion goes
against the scientific community’s current understanding of the egg/sperm
at this stage of development does not mean that his conclusion is incorrect’.
Criteria focusing on writing and language
Biased reporting ‘The author devotes a large part of the article to the opinion of
environmentalists and scientists who oppose the eucalyptus proposal, but
lacks clarity to cite sources of information ... This reduces his
persuasiveness because only a few stakeholders are quoted’.
Manipulative language ‘I think the author of the news article tries to avoid any manipulative language.
Even when mentioning the opposition’s claim, strong words, such as
‘disagree,’ ‘object’… are not used. Instead, neutral words, such as ‘share
the same concern,’ appear multiple times’.
References
Abd El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al.
(2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 918–942.
Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.
Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26.
Allchin, D., Andersen, H., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science:
Integrating inquiry, historical cases and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3),
461–486.
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389.
Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multi-faceted
approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35.
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in
practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
53(7), 1082–1112.
Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist,
43(3), 132–141.
Chang Rundgren, S., & Rundgren, C. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific
issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1, article 2), 1-24.
Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information:
Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate
information (pp. 425–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective
nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.
Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of
students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 205–248.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc..
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of
research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the next
generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
55(7), 907–937.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing
nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15),
2289–2315.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185.
Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding.
Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.
Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation
science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.
González-García, F. J., Blanco-López, Á., España-Ramos, E., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2019). The nature of
science and citizenship: A Delphi analysis. Research in Science Education.
Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a
normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting
emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science
teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education.
Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking: Positioning a tangled construct
within science education and beyond. Science & Education, 28, 605–638.
Karisan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues
framework: A review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and
Technology, 5(2), 139–152.
Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1),
67–100.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific
issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–
1016.
Khishfe, R. (2017). Consistency of nature of science views across scientific and socioscientific contexts.
International Journal of Science Education, 39(4), 403–432.
Khishfe, R. (2019). The transfer of nature of science understandings: A question of similarity and familiarity of
contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1159–1180.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented
instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7),
551–578.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated
versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of
science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.
Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.
Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K. ... & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science
students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education,
90(4), 632–655.
Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of
scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515–532.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics,
33(1), 159-174.
Leden, L., & Hansson, L. (2019). Nature of science progression in school year 1–9: A case study of teachers’
suggestions and rationales. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 591–611.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding denatured science: Activities that promote under-
standings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education:
Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G.
Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. E. S. (2002). Views of nature of science
questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues
arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2),
285–302.
Leung, J. S. C. (2020). Students’ adherences to epistemic understanding in evaluating scientific claims. Science
Education. 104(2), 164–192.
Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A.S.L., & Yung, B.H.W. (2015). Understandings of nature of science and multiple
perspective evaluation of science news by non-science majors. Science & Education, 24(7), 887–912.
Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A.S.L., & Yung, B.H.W. (2017). Evaluation of science in the media by non-science
majors. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 219–236.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M.
S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research, concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). New York,
NY: Springer.
McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge,
skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727–752.
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific
literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499–1521.
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress.
Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media.
Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Towards a theory of intellectual communalism for
guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.
Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards
documents. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 637–660.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Positive emotions in education. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.),
Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 149–174). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Berkshire,
UK: Open University Press.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in
response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?
Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.
Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation
in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in
science education (pp. 198–217). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. A. (2011). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual
change. In K. Harris, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology
handbook series: Critical theories and models of learning and development relevant to learning and
teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 257–282). Washington, DC: APA Publications.
Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of
learners’ ideas. New York, NY: Routledge.
van Dijk, E. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.
Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. W. (2009). Turning crisis into opportunity: Nature of science
and scientific inquiry as illustrated in the scientific research on severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science &
Education, 18(1), 95–118.
Wong, S. L., Wan, Z., & Cheng, M. W. (2011). Learning nature of science through socio-scientific issues. In T.
D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with
relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science
Education, 33(3), 371–400.
Yacoubian, H. A. (2015). A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about nature of science and
socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 248–
260.
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science
education. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp.
7–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the
nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based
framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

A Practice-Based Approach To Learning Nature of Science Through Socioscientific Issues

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Practice-Based Approach To Learning Nature of Science Through Socioscientific Issues

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research in Science Education (2022) 52:259–285

A Practice-Based Approach to Learning Nature

Jessica Shuk Ching Leung 1

Published online: 17 June 2020

Keywords Evaluation . Multiple perspectives . Nature of science . News media . Socioscientific

* Jessica Shuk Ching Leung

There is an extensive literature on attempts to characterise NOS in science education. Such

The Why Question

The for Whom Question

The What Question

The How Question

Students’ Understanding of NOS and its Use

A ‘Practice Turn’ in Learning about Science

Context of the Study

Module Week Course content Intervention

the media (module II) and journalism

How Did the Intervention Affect Students’ Use of NOS Understanding?

strengthened my ability to analyse various aspects of an article with better understand-

Appendix 1: Essay Writing Task

Part I: Evaluation of Science in the Media

Part II: Reflection (for week 12 essay only)

Appendix 2: Interview Protocol

Criteria focusing on the pros and cons of the reported issue

Criteria Sample excerpts

Criteria focusing on the pros and cons of the reported issue

Criteria Sample excerpts

subconsciously influenced to support ArborGen, which funded his research

You might also like