A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks

Abstract

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

Nature of Science as Portrayed in the Middle School Science and Technology Curriculum: The Case of Turkey

“…In this study, we examined the Turkish science and technology curriculum as a reform document and science and technology textbook to show how these external factors portray NOS to support and mediate Turkish teachers" instruction and students"s learning of NOS. As earlier studies indicated the critical role of reform documents in guiding school districts, teachers and textbook publishers to prioritize and give more attention to some instructional units such as NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al, 2016;Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008), this study also showed the role of reform document in the Turkish educational system in guiding and motivating teachers, students and textbooks to prioritize NOS as a main aim of science education to produce scientifically literate citizens. Unfortunately, the results of the study showed that the Turkish science curriculum including TNSES, GLEs and teacher"s edition textbook is not capable at a high level of guiding and motivating teachers and students in terms of NOS.…”

“…One part of these efforts has focused on designing courses and professional development activities for pre-service and inservice teachers to improve teachers" understanding of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick, 2005;Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004). Though researchers have shown the benefits of such courses and professional development activities (enacted curriculum), these efforts have been insufficient to transform teachers" understanding of NOS into classroom practices because of insufficient emphasis on NOS in curriculums (planned curriculum) and textbooks (experienced curriculum) (Abd-El-Khalick et al, 2016;Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). The results of the study also evidenced the lack of alignment between the planned curriculum and experienced curriculum for Turkish middle school science and technology curriculum.…”

“…Although there has been progress to advance students" and teachers" understanding of NOS, recent research shows that teachers and students still hold naïve views about some particular aspect of NOS such as the tentative nature of scientific knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick, 2005;Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004;Bora, Aslan, & Cakiroglu, 2006). Many obstacles such as limited implementation of NOS in pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, the inconsistency between reform documents and textbooks regarding their NOS perspectives, the difficulty of integrating NOS into curriculum, and representation of NOS in science textbooks have been found to be some of the common reasons behind the limited understanding of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al, 2016;Driver et al, 1996;McComas, et al, 1998;Rudolph, 2002).…”

“…Also, in terms of tentativeness dimension of NOS, Swedish textbooks were found to be more successful than Finnish textbooks. Recently, Abd-El- Khalick et al (2016) analyzed 34 textbooks, consisting of 16 biology and 18 physics books, published in the United States. Based on their purpose, they chose textbooks that had at least five series and had been published for at least 3 decades.…”

“…Hence, school science textbooks and science standards should reflect current educational research suggestions on NOS to provide better NOS instruction. A small amount of empirical research has assessed how NOS is portrayed in science education standards and textbooks, and to what extent the textbooks respond to the science education reform documents (Abd-El-Khalick et al, 2016;Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, & Le, 2008;Irez, 2009;McComes & Olson, 2002;Niaz, 2010;Vesterinen, Aksela, & Lavonen, 2013).…”