This study assessed the (i) ways in which, and extent to which, several aspects of nature of science (NOS) are represented in high school biology and physics textbooks in the United States (U.S.); (ii) extent to which these representations have changed over the course of several decades; and (iii) relative impact of discipline, and textbook publishers versus authors on the observed patterns. NOS aspects included the empirical, tentative, inferential, creative, theory‐laden, and social NOS; myth of “The Scientific Method”; nature of theories and laws; and social and cultural embeddedness of science. The sample included 34 (16 biology and 18 physics) textbooks, which commanded significant shares of the U.S. science textbook market. Textbooks were selected from seven “connected series” (three in biology and four in physics), which spanned 1–5 decades, with five series spanning, at least, 3 decades. Textbooks were scored for the accuracy and manner in which, as well as the extent (in textbook pages) to which, the target NOS aspects were represented. Analyses indicated that, on average, only less than 2.5% of the analyzed textbook pages were dedicated to addressing NOS constructs. Overall, representations of NOS in the textbooks did not differ by content area, were discernibly less than favorable, and did not improve substantially over the past several decades. These trends are incommensurate with the emphasis placed in U.S. reform efforts on helping precollege students develop informed NOS conceptions. Finally, the data strongly suggested that textbook authors have a relatively greater impact on the observed patterns when compared to textbook publishers. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 54: 82–120, 2017

Reasoning skills are major contributors to academic and everyday life success. Epistemological commitments (ECs) are believed to underlie reasoning processes and, when considered, could do much in delineating the complex nature of scientific reasoning. This study examined the relationship between ECs and scientific reasoning among college science students. Prior knowledge (PK) was factored in as an intervening variable. Participants were 139 college students enrolled in two physics courses in a large Midwestern university. They completed an online questionnaire, which assessed their PK regarding buoyancy in liquids and EC to the consistency of theory with evidence. Responses to the online questionnaire were used to select 40 participants with varying levels of PK and EC. These participants were divided into four groups, each with 10 students, representing four conditions: High PK–High EC, High PK–Low EC, Low PK–High EC, and Low PK–Low EC. These groups allowed using a 2 × 2 factorial quasi‐experimental design to examine the relationship between participants' reasoning and ECs, accounting for their PK. The quality of participants' reasoning was assessed during individual interviews, which presented them with four problem‐solving tasks involving objects immersed in water. Two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated the absence of interaction between PK and EC. The results showed that the higher the ECs were, the higher the quality of reasoning was for comparable levels of PK. Additionally, it was found that PK impacted reasoning more strongly when ECs were weaker. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 1064–1093, 2010

This study examined the impact of two epistemic commitments on the quality of college students" scientific reasoning in the domain of hydrostatics. These were the commitment to the consistency of theory with prior knowledge and commitment to the consistency of theory with evidence. Participants were 12 sophomore science majors enrolled in a large Midwestern university in the United States. They were first administered a 10 short-answer item questionnaire to assess their understandings of buoyancy, and then participated in an individual, think-aloud interview centered on four paper-and-pencil scenarios involving systems of objects immersed in water. During the interview, participants also were asked to justify their responses and explain certain reported "observations" in each scenario. The interviews aimed to explore the impact of participants" epistemic commitments on their reasoning. A majority of participants did not demonstrate coherent reasoning schemes when working with buoyancy problems. To be sure, participants" prior conceptions of buoyancy interacted with the target epistemic commitments in impacting their reasoning. Still, there was a discernable impact for the target epistemic commitments on the quality of participants" reasoning.

No abstract