International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

An analysis of the nature of science represented in

Chinese middle school chemistry textbooks

Yuanze Zhu & Aibin Tang

To cite this article: Yuanze Zhu & Aibin Tang (2023) An analysis of the nature of science
represented in Chinese middle school chemistry textbooks, International Journal of Science
Education, 45:4, 314-331, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2022.2160939

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2160939

Published online: 07 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 410

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 314–331
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2160939

An analysis of the nature of science represented in Chinese

middle school chemistry textbooks
a b
Yuanze Zhu and Aibin Tang
a
Research Institute of Basic Education, Jiangsu Institute of Education Science, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People’s
Republic of China; bCollege of Educational Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of
China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Understanding the nature of science (NOS) is an important goal of Received 17 April 2022
science education, and textbooks are a key factor in shaping Accepted 17 December 2022
students’ conceptions of NOS. In this study, we analysed NOS
KEYWORDS
represented in middle school chemistry textbooks in the Chinese Nature of science; chemistry
mainland. The selected materials were three most commonly textbooks; science
adopted textbook series, which were published in 2001, 2001, curriculum
and 2012. The analysis was conducted from 11 aspects –
empirical, inferential, creative, theory-driven, tentative, myth of
‘the scientific method’, scientific theories, scientific laws, social
dimensions of science, social and cultural embeddedness of
science, limitations of science – to determine the distribution of
different representation types (explicit-informed, implicit-
informed, implicit-naïve, and explicit-naïve) in each NOS aspect in
each textbook series. Textbook analysis results indicated that
each textbook series had mixed conceptions of NOS and most
NOS representations were informed and implicit. The frequencies
of NOS representations in the selected textbook series were
roughly identical; however, the last two textbook series had
relatively higher error rates than the first one. Moreover, there
was an overall imbalance in the representations of NOS aspects.
Our findings, combined with previous studies, were also discussed.

Introduction
Helping students understand the nature of science (NOS) is an important goal of science
education, which has been acknowledged by the science education community. The con-
struct of NOS has been advocated as a critical educational outcome by various science
education reform documents worldwide (Lederman, 2007). NOS commonly refers to
‘the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs
inherent to scientific knowledge and its development’ (Lederman, 1986, 2007). Several
variables affect children’s views of NOS and science textbooks are among them.
Science textbooks are essential materials that shape students’ conceptions of NOS and
are necessary for both teaching and learning. To some extent, textbooks dominate

CONTACT Yuanze Zhu zyzandzyz@126.com Jiangsu Institute of Education Science, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210013
People’s Republic of China; Aibin Tang 781154872@qq.com College of Educational Science, Nanjing Normal
University, Nanjing, 210097 People’s Republic of China
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 315

curricula at all educational levels (Apple, 1985). For example, nationwide surveys in the
United States found that most teachers still use commercially published textbooks in
science teaching (Banilower et al., 2013, 2018). Other empirical studies in recent years
from different contexts (Brunner & Abd-El-Khalick, 2020; Kim & Park, 2018) have sup-
ported that the materials for science learning and teaching can influence students’ views
of NOS. Thus, we aimed to examine NOS represented in science textbooks.
There have been numerous works on this topic, and the analysed textbooks were from
different regions in the world ranging from North America (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2008,
2017; DiGiuseppe, 2014; Krishnaswamy, 2014) to Africa (Ramnarain & Chanetsa, 2016;
Ramnarain & Padayachee, 2015; Upahi et al., 2020). Some researchers even focused on
university-level general chemistry textbooks (Niaz & Maza, 2011). Meanwhile, in
recent years, students from different regions of China have shown remarkable academic
performance in large-scale assessments, such as the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) initiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (OECD). In particular, the participants from the Chinese mainland (referred to
as the Chinese territory excluding Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) outperformed most
of their foreign peers in science tests (OECD, 2014, 2016, 2019), which attracted much
attention from other countries. It is thus valuable for researchers and educators to
focus on the textbooks they use. Meanwhile, there have been some latest works (Li
et al., 2020; Zhuang et al., 2021) that discuss physics textbooks in the Chinese mainland
through the lens of NOS.
Given the considerations above, we determined the research question: How do middle
school chemistry textbooks in the Chinese mainland represent NOS? Specifically, we
aimed not only to find all the representations, but also to enumerate their frequency
and distribution. This would show us the accuracy, manner, and completeness of repre-
senting NOS.

Literature review
Researchers have conducted their works related to this topic in different ways. Irez (2009)
employed a qualitative-oriented approach and used ethnographic content analysis as the
methodological framework to analyse NOS representations in five Turkish high school
biology textbooks. DiGiuseppe (2014) conducted a qualitative case study to investigate
the development of NOS representations in one unit of a Canadian high school chemistry
textbook from the perspective of author-editor-publisher interactions. Meanwhile, most
researchers used a framework to analyse the selected textbooks. For instance, the recent
analyses of some chemistry textbooks were based on the NOS aspects identified in the
NSTA position statement (Aydin & Tortumlu, 2015; Upahi et al., 2020). However, two
analytical frameworks were the most commonly used, and they can be described in
detail as follows.

NOS analytical framework by Chiappetta and Fillman (2005, 2007)

This framework originates from the work by Garcia (1985). Drawing on previous
research, Garcia (1985) categorised scientific literacy into four major aspects – basic
knowledge of science, investigative skills of science, science as a way of thinking, and
316 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

interaction of science, technology, and society – to investigate their presentation in earth

science textbooks. This categorisation was then used to examine the distribution of the
four themes in science textbooks (Chiappetta, Fillman, and Sethna, 1991, Chiappetta,
Sethna, and Fillman, 1991, 1993). Subsequently, Chiappetta and Fillman (2005, 2007)
used it as a framework to analyse NOS included in U.S. high school biology textbooks.
This framework includes four themes: (1) science as a body of knowledge; (2) science
as a way of investigating; (3) science as a way of thinking; and (4) the interaction of
science, technology, and society. This framework was further used to study NOS-
related content in various kinds of science textbooks, including general science (Ali
et al., 2017; Phillips, 2006; Phillips et al., 2015), physical science (Alshamrani, 2008;
Brooks, 2008; Krishnaswamy, 2014; Vesterinen et al., 2013), and life science textbooks
(Lee, 2007; Ramnarain & Padayachee, 2015).
These researchers used the framework focusing on scientific literacy to analyse NOS
represented in science textbooks under the assumption that scientific literacy and NOS
are the same. However, there is an obvious contrast between the meanings of the two
concepts. Thus, it would be far-fetched to base our textbook analysis on this framework.

NOS analytical framework by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008)

This framework originates from the work by Abd-El-Khalick (1998), which assessed the
influence of the history of science courses on college students’ and preservice science tea-
chers’ conceptions of NOS. He elucidated the participants’ views of NOS from several
perspectives, including the empirical, tentative, creative and imaginative, and subjective
and theory-laden nature of the scientific knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). Adapted
from this work, the analytical framework was developed to examine U.S. high school
chemistry textbooks (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2008). It comprises 10 aspects: (1) empirical,
(2) inferential, (3) creative, (4) theory-driven, (5) tentative, (6) myth of ‘the scientific
method’, (7) scientific theories, (8) scientific laws, (9) social dimensions of science,
and (10) social and cultural embeddedness of science. This framework was used to
further analyse U.S. high school physics and biology textbooks (Abd-El-Khalick et al.,
2017). Their works appealed to many researchers, and the framework was used to
reveal NOS representations in different countries.
Yet, the way that these researchers used the framework varied. Some adopted it
immediately to unfold NOS represented in German school chemistry textbooks
(Marniok & Reiners, 2017), middle school integrated science (Wei et al., 2013) and
high school physics textbooks (Zhuang et al., 2021) from the Chinese mainland, and
biology textbooks from Thailand (Chaisri & Thathong, 2014). Others used it with
some revisions for textbook analysis. For example, Li et al. (2020) only adopted the
first seven dimensions of this framework to analyse NOS representations in middle
school physics textbooks. Meanwhile, Ramnarain and Chanetsa (2016) included an
additional NOS aspect ‘science vs. pseudoscience’, and used the framework with 11
dimensions to analyse middle school science textbooks. This framework was further
applied to analyse the representations of NOS in Singapore biology textbooks (Chua
et al., 2019).
This framework fits the definition of NOS, making it appropriate for our research.
Meanwhile, it still has some weaknesses to be improved.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 317

First, the meaning of the tentative nature must be clarified further. This dimension
means that scientific knowledge and claims are never absolute or certain but are
subject to change over time. However, such tentativeness has two cases according to
the theory of paradigm (Kuhn, 2012) and the methodology of scientific research pro-
grammes (Lakatos, 1978), and it is necessary to differentiate them in science education.
One case is that scientific knowledge is complemented or slightly adjusted when a para-
digm remains the same, which shows the linear development of science. Another one is
paradigm shift, or the revolutionary development of science. The two cases are not iden-
tical but have coexisted for centuries in the development of modern science, and the fun-
damental difference between them is whether the development of science is linear.
Although the frequency and durations of a scientific revolution is limited, we cannot
ignore its critical importance. Otherwise students would develop a one-sided under-
standing of its tentative nature. Schools should not teach students what have been
proved to be false, for example, the phlogiston theory. However, this does not mean
such theories should be removed from science education. On the contrary, they
should be regarded as another kind of success (Popper, 1963, p. 329) and have unique
values in science teaching to sharpen students’ understanding of NOS (Bhakthavatsalam,
2019).
Second, it is necessary to enrich the main idea of the social dimensions. Science is a
human endeavour (NGSS Lead States, 2013), while the essence of human is ‘the ensemble
of the social relations’ (Marx, 1975). As living beings, scientists inevitably bring their
social nature into scientific work. For one thing, scientific enterprise is a career of all
humanity. Men and women from different backgrounds can work as scientists, while
their backgrounds can influence their work (NGSS Lead States, 2013). The things stu-
dents learn in schools are ‘the work of many generations, produced by enthusiastic
effort and infinite labor in every country of the world’ (Einstein, 1954, p. 56). For
another, scientists must communicate and cooperate with each other when pursuing
scientific research, no matter what the form is. Communication and cooperation
among scientists involves working in teams and exchanging ideas alongside getting
involved in scientific communities and basing their research on previous works (includ-
ing traditions and paradigms in the communities). The remark by Isaac Newton – ‘If I
have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’ – actually expressed his
realisation that ‘scientific advance involves the collaboration of past and present gener-
ations’ (Merton, 1973, p. 275–276). This is exactly the case, not just in science and tech-
nology, but in most areas of academic research.
Third, the limitations of science should be an integral part of the comprehensive
understanding of NOS. Nothing in this world is perfect, and science is no exception.
It has some limitations as not all problems can be addressed by science (NGSS Lead
States, 2013). Throughout the development of modern science, at least the following
points can reflect its limitations. To begin with, science, unlike technology or engineer-
ing, is ‘the study of the natural world’ (National Research Council [NRC], 2009, p. 17)
and not to pursue pragmatism. Only by transforming into technology can science be
used to serve people and society. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of NOS to over-
emphasise or exaggerate the pragmatic feature of science. What’s more, science can do
little to address issues that involve meaning or values. The development of modern
science heavily depends on mathematics and excludes precisely the questions of the
318 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

meaning or meaninglessness of the whole of human existence (Husserl, 1970, p. 6).

Moreover, modern science is genetically programmed to have an aggressive attitude
toward nature and can easily worsen human-nature relations. It is assumed in the pro-
gress of science, humans have considered themselves to be above nature, and their under-
standing of nature ‘does not draw its (a priori) laws from nature, but prescribes them to
it’ (Kant, 2004, p. 72). A scientist must behave as ‘an appointed judge who compels the
witnesses to answer questions which he has himself formulated’ (Kant, 1929, p. 20).
These lead to deteriorating human-nature relations and environmental problems.

An overview of science education reform in the Chinese mainland

December 1978 was a turning point in the development of China. The policy of reform
and opening-up began to be implemented in the Chinese mainland. This enabled people
from nearly all walks of life, including those in science education, to learn about useful
experiences from other countries and regions, especially the U.S. and Europe. Many dis-
tinguished works were translated into Chinese, and valuable ideas on education were
introduced into the Chinese mainland and appreciated by an increasing number of
researchers and teachers. In the 1980s, the report Science for All Americans (SFAA)
was released (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989).
Four years later, the book Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) was published
as a companion report of SFAA. They described NOS from three aspects – the scientific
world view, scientific inquiry, and the scientific enterprise (AAAS, 1989, 1993), paving
the way for the development of National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC,
1996). NSES included NOS as part of the category ‘history and nature of science’ in
the content standards (NRC, 1996). Despite a science education document in the U.S.,
NSES (especially its ideas about NOS, scientific inquiry, and scientific literacy) had an
important impact on the science education community worldwide, including the
Chinese mainland. These ideas on science education potentially influenced the process
of revising the middle school chemistry syllabus (Ministry of Education of the People’s
Republic of China [MOE-PRC], 2000), and the revised syllabus had an implicit manifes-
tation of these ideas. In 2001, the education ministry initiated a new round of school cur-
riculum reform in the Chinese mainland which has continued to the present date. The
trial edition of the chemistry curriculum standard (MOE-PRC, 2001) replaced the sylla-
bus and inherited the ideas that the syllabus borrowed from NSES. The pilot standard
then evolved into a new one (MOE-PRC, 2012), and the revised text immediately
included the same invaluable ideas. For example, it is clearly stated in the preface that
chemistry education in the stage of compulsory education should ‘guide students to
know the chemistry-technology-society-environment relationship and to understand
the nature of science, in an effort to improve students’ scientific literacy’ (MOE-PRC,
2012, p. 1).
In the context of curriculum reform, textbook policy in the Chinese mainland experi-
enced a dramatic change from ‘one syllabus, one textbook’ into ‘one standard, multiple
textbooks’. There was no press for publishing school textbooks in 1949 when the People’s
Republic of China was founded, and students and teachers used outdated textbooks. To
provide good-quality teaching materials, including textbooks, the central government
established the People’s Education Press (PEP) in December 1950, which is a state-
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 319

owned publishing house affiliated to the education ministry, and invited many distin-
guished specialists and experienced teachers to produce textbooks for each subject.
The policy ‘one syllabus, one textbook’ was executed from that time until 2001. This
means that the education ministry issued the syllabuses as guidelines for textbook pro-
duction and classroom teaching, while PEP organised expert panels to participate in text-
book design and development according to the syllabuses. Most people in the expert
panels were full-time textbook editors from PEP’s editorial office in each subject. The
textbooks were to be reviewed and approved by the education ministry before being pub-
lished. In June 1990, the Curriculum and Teaching Materials Research Institute
(CTMRI), the first academic institution in the Chinese mainland dedicated to research
on curriculum and teaching materials in school education, was established and began
to work jointly with PEP. Staff members in the editorial offices are also academic
researchers in CTMRI. Their daily work encompasses editing and researching teaching
materials in their own subjects. In this way, PEP has been on a path of professional devel-
opment, and is therefore well known for its high-quality textbooks. However, the mech-
anism of the marketplace with its competition was introduced into the curriculum
reform to further promote the overall quality of school textbooks, and textbook policy
was transformed into ‘one standard, multiple textbooks’. In other words, every publisher
registered in the Chinese mainland can organise an expert panel for a particular subject
to design and produce textbooks according to the curriculum standard. Once reviewed
and approved by the education ministry, these textbooks can be formally published
and sold in bookstores. For example, there are six versions of approved middle school
chemistry textbooks at present (see Appendix A for detail). They are developed by six
teams organised by different corporations. Every district and school can decide which
textbook best suits their students and should be used by them. Based on what we have
described in this section, we employed the chemistry textbook series published by PEP
in this study.

Method
Textbook selection
This work is a textbook analysis from the perspective of NOS. It therefore should be a key
point to select a representative sample of middle school chemistry textbooks in the
Chinese mainland. As we described previously, the ideas on NOS in science teaching
were introduced into the Chinese mainland in the late 1990s and influenced the syllabus
released in the new millennium (MOE-PRC, 2000). Hence, we selected the textbooks that
were published in the Chinese mainland from 2000 to the present. In other words, the
selected materials needed to be connected, coherent, and produced according to the
three chemistry curriculum documents (MOE-PRC, 2000, 2001, 2012). In addition to
the time span, another important factor is the market share. Before the new round of
school curriculum reform, only PEP textbooks are available for learning and teaching
middle school chemistry because of the policy ‘one syllabus, one textbook’. There have
been really multiple options in textbook adoption since curriculum reform was initiated;
however, the textbooks published by PEP in each subject, including middle school chem-
istry, are still best-sellers. PEP has a good reputation for its distinguished expertise and
320 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

people regard it as the most authoritative textbook publisher. As a result, every PEP text-
book series is used widely in schools and accounts for more than half of the market share.
Considering the above, we selected the textbook series published by PEP. They are
referred to as TS1 (Chemistry Editorial Office in the People’s Education Press [CEO-
PEP], 2001), TS2 (Hu et al., 2001a, 2001b), and TS3 (Wang & Zheng, 2012a, 2012b),
and are each typically representative to each period. More importantly, the authorial
teams of the three textbook series were relatively stable, which enables us to identify
the potential changes in NOS represented in middle school chemistry textbooks as the
introduction of the ideas on NOS teaching to the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, the
scope of our analysis included the preface, appendices, and all of the chapters in each
book. This differs from some previous studies that only analysed a few sections in the
selected textbooks (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2008, 2017; Chaisri & Thathong, 2014; Wei
et al., 2013). Processing the materials in such a way is partial and can eventually generate
misleading results. For each textbook series, the representation of NOS expressed in one
place does not necessarily mean the same elsewhere. Students use the whole series to
learn about science rather than study from parts of the book. To avoid biased
findings, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the selected chemistry textbook
series.

Analytical framework
As a result of research considerations discussed in the literature review, we revised the
analytical framework by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008). The revised framework has 11
aspects in total, and descriptions for them are shown in Table 1. Referring to the previous
studies (Li et al., 2020; Ramnarain & Chanetsa, 2016; Vesterinen et al., 2013), we used this
framework as the instrument for textbook analysis.
Moreover, we were to identify not only all the NOS representations and the particular
aspect(s) of each one, but also the accuracy and manner. Based on previous studies (Abd-
El-Khalick et al., 2008, 2017; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000), we set the criteria for
accuracy of NOS as informed vs. naïve, and for manner as explicit vs. implicit. For any
single NOS aspect, a representation is informed when the idea conveyed is consistent
with the descriptions of the aspect in our framework; otherwise, it is naïve when the
idea conflicts with them. A representation is explicit when it includes structured, reflec-
tive prompts or explicit statements that can help learners develop an understanding
about the target NOS aspect; while it is implicit when it only provides specific cases
(such as activities, demonstrations, experiments, explanations, historical episodes, and
so on) and lacks such prompt or statement so that the NOS idea has to be inferred
from the material. In this way, each aspect in the framework can have four possible
types of representations: (1) explicit-informed, (2) implicit-informed, (3) implicit-
naïve, and (4) explicit-naïve.

Analysis procedures
To address the research question, we used content analysis to analyse each textbook
series, in an effort to identify type-wise distribution in every NOS aspect. It is necessary
for researchers to determine the unit of analysis before they start to analyse the selected
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 321

Table 1. Descriptions on the revised analytical framework.

NOS aspect Descriptions in detail
Empirical Scientific claims are derived from, and/or consistent with, observations of natural
phenomena. Scientists, however, do not have ‘direct’ access to most natural
phenomena: their observations are almost always filtered through the human
perceptual apparatus, mediated by the assumptions underlying the functioning
of ‘scientific’ instruments, and/or interpreted from within elaborate theoretical
frameworks.
Inferential There is a crucial distinction between observations and inferences. Observations are
descriptive statements about natural phenomena that are accessible to the
senses (or extensions of the senses) and about which observers can reach
consensus with relative ease (e.g. objects released above ground level tend to fall
to the ground). Inferences, on the other hand, are statements about phenomena
that are not directly accessible to the senses (e.g. objects tend to fall to the
ground because of ‘gravity’). Scientific constructs, such as gravity, are inferential
in the sense that they can only be accessed and/or measured through their
manifestations or effects.
Creative Science is not an entirely rational or systematic activity. Generating scientific
knowledge involves human creativity in the sense of scientists inventing
explanations and theoretical entities. The creative NOS, coupled with its
inferential nature, entail that scientific entities (atoms, force fields, species, etc.)
are functional theoretical models rather than faithful copies of ‘reality’.
Theory-driven Scientists’ theoretical and disciplinary commitments, beliefs, prior knowledge,
training, and expectations influence their work. These background factors affect
scientists’ choice of problems to investigate and methods of investigations,
observations (both in terms of what is and is not observed), and interpretation of
these observations. This (sometimes collective) individuality or mind-set accounts
for the role of theory in generating scientific knowledge. Contrary to common
belief, science never starts with neutral observations. Like investigations,
observations are always motivated and guided by, and acquire meaning in light
of questions and problems derived from, certain theoretical perspectives.
Tentative Scientific knowledge is reliable and durable, but never absolute or certain. All
categories of knowledge (‘facts’, theories, laws, etc.) are subject to change.
Scientific claims change as new evidence, made possible through conceptual and
technological advances, is brought to bear; as extant evidence is reinterpreted in
light of new or revised theoretical ideas; or due to changes in the cultural and
social spheres or shifts in the directions of established research programs. The
changes can be both progressive and revolutionary.
Myth of ‘the scientific method’ This myth is often manifested in the belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise
procedure that typifies all scientific practice. This notion is erroneous: there is no
single ‘Scientific Method’ that would guarantee the development of infallible
knowledge. Scientists do observe, compare, measure, test, speculate,
hypothesize, debate, create ideas and conceptual tools, and construct theories
and explanations. However, there is no single sequence of (practical, conceptual,
or logical) activities that will unerringly lead them to valid claims, let alone
‘certain’ knowledge.
Scientific theories Scientific theories are well-established, highly substantiated, internally consistent
systems of explanations, which (a) account for large sets of seemingly unrelated
observations in several fields of investigation, (b) generate research questions
and problems, and (c) guide future investigations. Theories are often based on
assumptions or axioms and posit the existence of non-observable entities. Thus,
direct testing is untenable. Only indirect evidence supports and validates
theories: scientists derive specific testable predictions from theories and check
them against observations. An agreement between predictions and observations
increases confidence in the tested theory.
Scientific laws In general, laws are descriptive statements of relationships among observable
phenomena. Theories, by contrast, are inferred explanations for observable
phenomena or regularities in those phenomena. Contrary to common belief,
theories and laws are not hierarchically related (the naïve view that theories
become laws when ‘enough’ supporting evidence is garnered, or that laws have a
higher status than theories). Theories and laws are different kinds of knowledge
and one does not become the other. Theories are as legitimate a product of
science as laws.

(Continued)
322 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

Table 1. Continued.
NOS aspect
Social dimensions of science
Social and cultural embeddedness
of science
Limitations of science
Descriptions in detail
Science is a human endeavour, and individuals and teams from many countries
have made contributions to it. Everybody, no matter their backgrounds, can be a
scientist and participate in this career. Most scientists work in teams and form a
community in a domain. Members in a team or a community share findings or
communicate ideas with each other, which serve to enhance the objectivity of
collectively scrutinized scientific knowledge through decreasing the impact of
individual scientists’ idiosyncrasies and subjectivities. In addition, it is nearly
impossible for scientists to start all over again, and they have to base the research
at present on previous works.
Science is a human enterprise embedded and practiced in the context of a larger
cultural milieu. Thus, science affects and is affected by various cultural elements
and spheres, including social fabric, worldview, power structures, philosophy,
religion, and political and economic factors. Such effects are manifested, among
other things, through public funding for scientific research and, in some cases, in
the very nature of ‘acceptable’ explanations of natural phenomena (e.g. differing
stories of hominid evolution have resulted from the advent of feminist
perspectives brought about by increased access, participation, and leadership of
females in the biosocial sciences).
Science has contributed a lot to our living, but it is still imperfect. It has its own
limitations and cannot address all problems. For example, science is to discover
how the natural world works, and is not to pursue pragmatism. The process of its
development results in its indifference and inability to issues that involves
meaning or values. Meanwhile, science, holding an aggressive attitude toward
nature, can easily worsen the human-nature relations. We can only adopt non-
scientific approaches to ease the tension in human-nature relations.

materials. In content analysis, units can be ‘words, characters, themes, time periods,
interactions, or any other result of breaking up a “communication” into bits’ (Neuendorf,
2002, p. 71). In this study, we regarded each paragraph as the unit of analysis.
This study adopted the approach of human coding and employed two coders. The
coders were already aware of the analysis purpose and its framework. They fully under-
stood the meaning of each NOS aspect, discussed concerns and set rules for potential dis-
putes. These measures ensured the quality of our data. The coders independently
analysed the textbooks following the steps shown in Figure 1, according to the analytical
framework (see Appendix B for examples and our analyses). If an analytical unit rep-
resented a NOS aspect in the form of a specific type, it was counted once. It should be
noted that a unit could involve two or more aspects, and their representation types
can also be varied. Under such circumstances, it was counted once for each aspect.
Finally, the two coders submitted their coding results and compared and checked to
see whether their results were identical. The inter-coder reliability was calculated as 0.882
based on Holsti’s formula (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 149). The discrepancies were resolved by
discussion between the two coders until they reached agreement.

Results
The selected textbook series – TS1 (CEO-PEP, 2001), TS2 (Hu et al., 2001a, 2001b), and
TS3 (Wang & Zheng, 2012a, 2012b) – represented NOS 92, 92, and 97 times, respectively.
We then summarised the distribution of different representation types in each NOS
aspect in each textbook series, including frequencies and percentages (see Tables 2, 3,
and 4).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 323

Figure 1. A flow chart for coding the selected textbooks.

Based on the data presented in these tables, we further inferred the following key
points:

. The frequencies that NOS was represented in three chemistry textbook series were 92,
92, and 97, respectively.
. Informed representations in T1, T2, and T3 accounted for 96.8%, 85.9%, and 86.6%,
respectively; while naïve representations accounted for 3.3%, 14.1%, and 13.4%,
respectively.
. The empirical nature was the most commonly represented NOS aspect in each text-
book series and accounted for 51.1%, 37.0%, and 34.1%, respectively; while the
aspect ‘social and cultural embeddedness of science’ was always excluded.
. The error rates, referred to as the proportions of naïve representations in the total, in
the creative nature were 1/5, 3/5, and 1/2; theory-driven were 1/8, 1/2, and 3/7; the
tentative nature were 0, 1/10, and 1/9; scientific method were 0, 1, and 1/2; and limit-
ations of science were 1/4, 1/3, and 5/16.
324 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

Table 2. The distribution of different representation types in each NOS aspect in TS1.
NOS aspect Explicit-Informed Implicit-Informed Implicit-Naïve Explicit-Naïve
Empirical 2 (2.2%) 45 (48.9%) 0 0
Inferential 1 (1.1%) 3 (3.3%) 0 0
Creative 0 4 (4.3%) 0 1 (1.1%)
Theory-driven 0 7 (7.6%) 0 1 (1.1%)
Tentative 0 7 (7.6%) 0 0
Myth of ‘the scientific method’ 0 1 (1.1%) 0 0
Scientific theories 0 9 (9.8%) 0 0
Scientific laws 0 1 (1.1%) 0 0
Social dimensions of science 0 6 (6.5%) 0 0
Social and cultural embeddedness of science 0 0 0 0
Limitations of science 0 3 (3.3%) 1 (1.1%) 0
Total 3 (3.3%) 86 (93.5%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%)

Table 3. The distribution of different representation types in each NOS aspect in TS2.
NOS aspect Explicit-Informed Implicit-Informed Implicit-Naïve Explicit-Naïve
Empirical 2 (2.2%) 32 (34.8%) 0 0
Inferential 1 (1.1%) 4 (4.3%) 0 0
Creative 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%)
Theory-driven 0 3 (3.3%) 1 (1.1%) 2 (2.2%)
Tentative 1 (1.1%) 8 (8.7%) 1 (1.1%) 0
Myth of ‘the scientific method’ 0 0 0 1 (1.1%)
Scientific theories 0 8 (8.7%) 0 0
Scientific laws 0 1 (1.1%) 0 0
Social dimensions of science 0 7 (7.6%) 0 0
Social and cultural embeddedness of science 0 0 0 0
Limitations of science 2 (2.2%) 8 (8.7%) 2 (2.2%) 3 (3.3%)
Total 7 (7.6%) 72 (78.3%) 5 (5.4%) 8 (8.7%)

Table 4. The distribution of different representation types in each NOS aspect in TS3.
NOS aspect Explicit-Informed Implicit-Informed Implicit-Naïve Explicit-Naïve
Empirical 2 (2.1%) 31 (32.0%) 0 0
Inferential 1 (1.0%) 6 (6.2%) 0 0
Creative 2 (2.1%) 1 (1.0%) 1 (1.0%) 2 (2.1%)
Theory-driven 0 4 (4.1%) 1 (1.0%) 2 (2.1%)
Tentative 1 (1.0%) 7 (7.2%) 1 (1.0%) 0
Myth of ‘the scientific method’ 0 1 (1.0%) 0 1 (1.0%)
Scientific theories 0 9 (9.3%) 0 0
Scientific laws 0 1 (1.0%) 0 0
Social dimensions of science 0 7 (7.2%) 0 0
Social and cultural embeddedness of science 0 0 0 0
Limitations of science 4 (4.1%) 7 (7.2%) 2 (2.1%) 3 (3.1%)
Total 10 (10.3%) 74 (76.3%) 5 (5.2%) 8 (8.2%)

. Naïve representations, in most cases, coexisted with informed representations in the

same NOS aspect of each textbook series.

Conclusions and discussion

According to the results of textbook analysis, we concluded that the chemistry textbooks
had mixed conceptions of NOS, both informed and naïve. In each textbook series, most
of the representations were informed and implicit. The frequencies of NOS represen-
tations in the textbooks remained relatively stable, but the accuracy in the latest
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 325

published textbooks tended to be at a lower level. Moreover, there was an overall imbal-
ance in the representations of NOS aspects. The representations of the empirical nature
accounted for more than one-third of the total in each textbook series. Conversely, there
was no representation of the social and cultural embeddedness of science in any of the
books. The representations of the empirical and inferential nature, scientific theories,
scientific laws, and social dimensions of science were always informed in all of the
books we analysed. However, five aspects – the creative, theory-driven, tentative
nature, scientific method, and limitations of science – were more often to be misrepre-
sented and had higher error rates. For example, the overall error rate in TS3 was
13.4%, but approximately 50% of the representations of creative nature in TS3 were
naïve.
Regarding naïve representations, the textbooks tended to convey the message that
there is no human subjectivity in science; scientific knowledge is the truth and will
remain unchanged; scientific research always follows a fixed sequence; and/or science
can be used to do everything. In addition, the absence of the aspect ‘social and cultural
embeddedness of science’ intends to shield the effects of social, political and/or cultural
factors from the textbooks and describe science as a career isolated from specific social
contexts.
To some extent, our findings in the present research are consistent with some previous
studies (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2008, 2017). In other words, the problems we have men-
tioned above also exist in school science textbooks in various other countries. NOS rep-
resented in science textbooks is surely inseparable from the textbook authors’
conceptions of NOS. However, science textbooks are not just ‘delivery systems’ of
‘facts’, but ‘the results of political, economic, and cultural activities, battles, and compro-
mises’ (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991). Following this theoretical statement, we argue
that it is unfair to impute all the blame on the textbook authors because of the naïve rep-
resentations. To improve the accuracy, manner, and completeness of NOS represen-
tations in science textbooks, it is important to identify the primary impacting factors.
Some researchers found that such factors were from different sources, including both
education and non-education aspects (Cheng, 2014; DiGiuseppe, 2014). These findings
suggest that addressing problems in NOS representations in science textbooks, such as
those found in the current study, is a complicated and difficult task. Science educators
may provide greater clarity about NOS in science education standards and invite scholars
in history and philosophy of science to participate more fully in science textbook devel-
opment. These measures may be a good starting point, but they will likely be insufficient
resolving the problems completely. The long path ahead will require patience, resolve,
and careful consideration.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Yuanze Zhu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5820-4223
Aibin Tang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2191-7964
326 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

References
AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the
nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science
Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., & Summers, R. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent
and manner of representations of nature of science in US high school biology and physics
textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
21339
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high
school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(7), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions
of the nature of science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Oregon State University.
Ali, I., Akhter, N., & Nawaz, M. (2017). Critical analysis of general science textbooks for inclusion
of the nature of science used at elementary level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Journal of Educational
Research, 20(1), 113–131.
Alshamrani, S. M. (2008). Context, accuracy, and level of inclusion of nature of science concepts in
current high school physics textbooks [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of
Arkansas.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans.
Oxford University Press.
Apple, M. W. (1985). The culture and commerce of the textbook. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17
(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027850170204
Apple, M. W., & Christian-Smith, L. K. (1991). The politics of the textbook. In M. W. Apple, & L.
K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the textbook (pp. 1–21). Routledge.
Aydin, S., & Tortumlu, S. (2015). The analysis of the changes in integration of nature of science
into Turkish high school chemistry textbooks: Is there any development? Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00073D
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018).
Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013).
Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research, Inc.
Bhakthavatsalam, S. (2019). The value of false theories in science education. Science & Education,
28(1-2), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00028-2
Brooks, K. M. (2008). A content analysis of physical science textbooks with regard to the nature of
science and ethnic diversity [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Houston.
Brunner, J. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2020). Improving nature of science instruction in elementary
classes with modified science trade books and educative curriculum materials. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 154–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21588
Chaisri, A., & Thathong, K. (2014). The nature of science represented in Thai biology textbooks
under the topic of evolution. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 621–626. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.268
Chemistry Editorial Office in the People’s Education Press [CEO-PEP]. (Eds.). (2001). Textbooks
for three-year junior secondary school in nine-year compulsory education: Chemistry. People’s
Education Press. (in Chinese).
Cheng, K. (2014). Translation of nature of science content in the official physics curriculums in
mainland China and Hong Kong into the corresponding textbooks [Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation]. University of Hong Kong.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2005). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in
the United States for inclusion of nature of science [Paper presentation]. National Association
for Research in Science Teaching Annual International Conference.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 327

Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in
the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science
Education, 29(15), 1847–1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407
Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of
scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A quantitative analysis of high school
chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281005
Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks
provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7),
787–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300714
Chua, J. X., Tan, A., & Ramnarain, U. (2019). Representation of NOS aspects across chapters in
Singapore Grade 9 and 10 biology textbooks: Insights for improving NOS representation.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02635143.2018.1542377
DiGiuseppe, M. (2014). Representing nature of science in a science textbook: Exploring author-
editor-publisher interactions. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1061–1082.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.840405
Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and opinions. Crown Publishers.
Garcia, T. D. (1985). An analysis of earth science textbooks for presentation of aspects of scientific
literacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Houston.
Hu, M., He, S., & Wang, J. (Eds.). (2001a). Trial textbooks for compulsory education curriculum
standards: Chemistry (Book A). People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
Hu, M., He, S., & Wang, J. (Eds.). (2001b). Trial textbooks for compulsory education curriculum
standards: Chemistry (Book B). People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduc-
tion to phenomenological philosophy (D. Carr, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93
(3), 422–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20305
Kant, I. (1929). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kant, I. (2004). Prolegomena to any future metaphysics (G. Hatfield, Trans.). Cambridge University
Press.
Kim, S., & Park, J. (2018). Development and application of learning materials to help students under-
stand ten statements describing the nature of scientific observation. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 16(5), 857–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9823-5
Krishnaswamy, A. (2014). An examination of the nature of science presentation in high school
chemistry textbooks used in the United States and India [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Houston.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (fourth edition). The University of
Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (philosophical papers volume
I). Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1986). Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to changes in students’
conceptions of the nature of science. Science Education, 70(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.
3730700103
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). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, Y. H. (2007). How do the high school biology textbooks introduce the nature of science?
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Houston.
Li, X., Tan, Z., Shen, J., Hu, W., Chen, Y., & Wang, J. (2020). Analysis of five junior high school
physics textbooks used in China for representations of nature of science. Research in Science
Education, 50(3), 833–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9713-z
328 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

Marniok, K., & Reiners, C. S. (2017). Representations of nature of science in German school chem-
istry textbooks. In C. V. McDonald, & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of
science in school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 201–214). Routledge.
Marx, K. (1975). Theses on Feuerbach. In K. Marx, & F. Engels (Eds.), Marx & Engels collected
works (Vol. 5, pp. 3–5). Lawrence & Wishart.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. The
University of Chicago Press.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China [MOE-PRC]. (2000). The chemistry syl-
labus of full-time junior secondary school in nine-year compulsory education (revised trial
edition). People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
MOE-PRC. (2001). The chemistry curriculum standard of full-time compulsory education (trial
edition). Beijing Normal University Press. (in Chinese)
MOE-PRC. (2012). The chemistry curriculum standard of compulsory education (2011 edition).
Beijing Normal University Press. (in Chinese)
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy
Press.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National
Academies Press.
Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks. Springer.
NRC. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects.
The National Academies Press.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – student performance in math-
ematics, reading and science (volume I). OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
Phillips, M. C. (2006). A content analysis of sixth-grade, seventh-grade, and eighth-grade science
textbooks with regard to the nature of science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University
of Houston.
Phillips, M. C., Vowell, J. E., Lee, Y. H., & Plankis, B. J. (2015). How do elementary science text-
books present the nature of science? The Educational Forum, 79(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00131725.2015.1004210
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Ramnarain, U., & Padayachee, K. (2015). A comparative analysis of South African life sciences and
biology textbooks for inclusion of the nature of science. South African Journal of Education, 35
(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.15700/201503062358
Ramnarain, U. D., & Chanetsa, T. (2016). An analysis of South African Grade 9 natural sciences
textbooks for their representation of nature of science. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(6), 922–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985
Upahi, J. E., Ramnarain, U., & Ishola, I. S. (2020). The nature of science as represented in chem-
istry textbooks used in Nigeria. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11165-018-9734-7
Vesterinen, V., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature
of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on
philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22(7), 1839–1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11191-011-9400-1
Wade, L. G., & Simek, J. W. (2017). Organic chemistry (ninth edition). Pearson Education Limited.
Wang, J., & Zheng, C. (Eds.). (2012a). Textbooks for compulsory education: Chemistry (Book A).
People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
Wang, J., & Zheng, C. (Eds.). (2012b). Textbooks for compulsory education: Chemistry (Book B).
People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 329

Wei, B., Li, Y., & Chen, B. (2013). Representations of nature of science in selected histories of
science in the integrated science textbooks in China. School Science and Mathematics, 113(4),
170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12013
Zhuang, H., Xiao, Y., Liu, Q., Yu, B., Xiong, J., & Bao, L. (2021). Comparison of nature of science
representations in five Chinese high school physics textbooks. International Journal of Science
Education, 43(11), 1779–1798. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1933647

Appendix
Appendix A
There have been 12 middle school chemistry textbook series approved by the Ministry of Edu-
cation since 2000. Some details are summarised in Table A1.
Table A1. Publishers and chief editors of the approved middle school chemistry textbook series
since 2000.

No. Publisher Chief Editor(s) Curriculum Document

1 People’s Education Press (PEP)
2 Hunan Education Publishing
House
3 People’s Education Press (PEP)
4 Science Press Ltd and
Guangdong Education
Publishing House
5 Shandong Education Press
6 Shanghai Educational
Publishing House
7 Beijing Publishing Group
8 People’s Education Press (PEP)
9 Popular Science Press
10 Science Press Ltd and
Guangdong Education
Publishing House
11 Shandong Education Press
12 Shanghai Educational
Publishing House
Mingrong Cheng (Full Senior Editor at Chemistry The Syllabus (MOE-PRC,
Editorial Office in PEP) and Meiling Hu (Full Senior 2000)
Editor at Chemistry Editorial Office in PEP)
Yiwen Shen (Professor at Chinese Academy of The Standard, trial
Sciences) and Deyu Chen (Professor at Zhejiang edition (MOE-PRC,
University) 2001)
Meiling Hu (Full Senior Editor at Chemistry Editorial
Office in PEP), Shaohua He (Professor at Beijing
Normal University), and Jing Wang (Full Senior
Editor at Chemistry Editorial Office in PEP)
Lincai Jiang (Professor at South China Normal
University)
Hualin Bi (Professor at Shandong Normal University)
Zuhao Wang (Professor at East China Normal
University) and Lei Wang (Professor at Beijing
Normal University)
Xingqi Song (Professor at Tsinghua University) The Standard, 2011
edition (MOE-PRC,
2012)
Jing Wang (Full Senior Editor at Chemistry Editorial
Office in PEP) and Changlong Zheng (Professor at
Northeast Normal University)
Yiwen Shen (Professor at Chinese Academy of
Sciences) and Deyu Chen (Professor at Zhejiang
University)
Lincai Jiang (Professor at South China Normal
University)
Hualin Bi (Professor at Shandong Normal University)
Zuhao Wang (Professor at East China Normal
University) and Lei Wang (Professor at Beijing
Normal University)
330 Y. ZHU AND A. TANG

Appendix B
In this section, we provide several textbook episodes and our comments as examples. This is
believed to be very helpful for readers to better understand how we conducted the textbook
analysis.
When talking about what chemistry is, the textbooks always have the following statements:

. ‘Chemistry is a science based on experiments’ (CEO-PEP, 2001, p. 191).

. ‘Chemistry is a natural science based on experiments. Many great discoveries and research
findings in chemistry were obtained from experiments.’ (Hu et al., 2001a, p. 6; Wang &
Zheng, 2012a, p. 11)

They highlight the critical importance of experiments in chemistry (science), involving the
empirical nature of science. They are explicit statements on this aspect and consistent with the
descriptions of it. As a result, we coded both as explicit-informed representations for the empirical
nature.
Experiments and demonstrations are also very important in science education. The editors of
the selected textbooks frequently used them in the texts, such as:

. ‘According to the measurements in precisely conducted experiments, each molecule of water is

composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. As a result, the chemical formula for water
is H2O.’ (CEO-PEP, 2001, p. 49)
. ‘The demonstration above can prove that the more a combustible substance contacts with oxygen,
the fiercer the combustion will be’ (Hu et al., 2001a, p. 128; Wang & Zheng, 2012a, p. 135).
. ‘We can conclude from the inquiry above that magnesium, zinc, and iron have higher reactivity
than copper, and they can replace hydrogen from hydrochloric acid or diluted sulphuric acid’ (Hu
et al., 2001b, p. 11; Wang & Zheng, 2012b, p. 11).

Such statements are quite common in the selected textbooks. In specific cases, they suggest that
experiments are a key source of scientific knowledge. The idea inferred from them addresses the
empirical nature of science, and is consistent with its descriptions in the framework. Therefore,
they are coded as implicit-informed representations for their empirical nature.
In the process of textbook analysis, we found some cases that represent more than one NOS
aspects. We use the following two cases to demonstrate how these aspects were represented.
In the topic ‘The Composition of Water’, TS2 starts with the following paragraph.

‘What is water composed of? For a long time, water was regarded as an element. Until the end of
eighteenth century, Lavoisier, based on predecessors’ explorations, confirmed that water was
not an element by studying the experiments on the formation and decomposition of water.’
(Hu et al., 2001a, p. 44)

It does not include reflective prompts or explicit statements. Focusing on the topic, it uses a
particular case, Lavoisier’s research on water, in the history of science to show people’s knowledge
of the composition of water and how it was changed. These words have addressed three key points:
(1) Lavoisier’s finding came from the experiments; (2) the understanding of the composition of
water was changed at the end of the eighteenth century because of the work by Lavoisier; (3) pre-
decessors’ works paved the way for Lavoisier’s research. We can infer from this paragraph that
scientific knowledge often derives from experiments, it is not absolute and can change with
time, and scientists must base their research on previous works. Therefore, this paragraph rep-
resents the empirical, tentative, and social nature of science, and is consistent with the descrip-
tions. It should be coded as an implicit-informed representation for each of the three aspects.
Another case is in the section ‘How to Write Chemical Equations Properly’ in three textbook
series. All began with the saying that ‘chemical equations reflect objective facts of chemical reactions’
(CEO-PEP, 2001, p. 76; Hu et al., 2001a, p. 95; Wang & Zheng, 2012a, p. 101). It should be noted
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 331

that chemical equations are the language of chemistry created by scientists and do not exist natu-
rally. To represent a chemical reaction, we can place the reactant(s) on the left side of an arrow and
the product(s) on the right. Evidently, this language inherently includes human creativity. In
addition, it is human subjectivity that produces the so-called ‘objective facts’, leading to chemical
equations reflecting only part of all the facts. This exists especially in organic chemistry. Organic
reactions are relatively more complicated, being accompanied by side reactions and by-products in
many cases. What we list on the right side is just major (and minor) products. Not to mention that
‘the real world with its real reagents and solvents is not as clean as our equations on paper’ (Wade
& Simek, 2017, p. 28). We can see that the ‘facts’ have been edited by our subjectivity and are not
‘objective’ any more. What’s more, writing a balanced chemical equation must depend on the law
of conservation of mass, which itself manifests the effects of prior knowledge on follow-up works.
In brief, this is an explicit statement which intends to disclaim creativity and its effects in science. It
conveys ideas conflicting with the descriptions of the creative and theory-driven nature. Conse-
quently, we coded it as an explicit-naïve representation for both aspects.