Making Connections

Mulvey, Bridget K.; Parrish, Jennifer C.; Reid, Joshua W.; Papa, Jeffrey; Peters‐Burton, Erin E.

doi:10.1007/s11191-020-00189-5

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though controversy remains over the extent to which knowledge and understanding are distinct concepts (Grimm, 2006), there is some consensus that understanding involves an appreciation of the connection between knowledge propositions (Elgin, 2007;Kvanvig, 2003) and confers an ability to appropriately apply knowledge across contexts (de Regt, 2009;Woodward, 2003). A recent movement in the NOS research programme has seen researchers acknowledging that NOS expertise involves the possession of an interconnected conceptual NOS knowledge structure, rather than just the acquisition of isolated propositions Mulvey et al, 2021;Peters-Burton et al, 2019). We propose that NOS understanding refers to a grasping of the relationships between NOS knowledge and beliefs that supports the ability to transfer learning across contexts.…”

Section: Towards a Clarification Of Learning Goals Related To The Nosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The NOS understanding construct is based on the model of understanding as interconnected knowledge (Davis, 1995;Elgin, 2007;Kvanvig, 2003). This view is increasingly acknowledged in the emerging NOS epistemic network research programme (Mulvey et al, 2021;Peters-Burton et al, 2019). The kind of compound structure described here is unlikely to be easily assessable based on responses to Likert scale probes, and more expansive approaches to the assessment of NOS understanding, for example, case-based open-ended response are likely to be helpful (Allchin, 2011).…”

Section: The Benefits Of a Division Between Nos Belief Knowledge And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Turning to understanding, whilst it is often cited as a particularly valuable epistemic state (de Regt, 2009;Grimm, 2012;Smith & Siegel, 2004), perhaps because of ongoing debates about the nature of the concept itself (de Regt et al, 2009;Grimm et al, 2017), there is a lack of consensus about how understanding in general, and therefore NOS understanding in particular, might be assessed. If a model of understanding as an appropriately connected conceptual structure (Elgin, 2007;Kvanvig, 2003) is adopted, NOS understanding assessment approaches might examine the inter-relationship of knowledge elements elicited from multiple choice probes (Mulvey et al, 2021;Peters-Burton et al, 2019), open-ended responses (Koksal & Cakiroglu, 2010), comments in interviews (Zimmermann & Gilbert, 2010) or essays (Allchin, 2011). Given the graded nature of understanding, when reporting NOS understanding, students' achievements might be described on a continuum, for example, shallow, partial or deep understanding.…”

Section: Implications For Teaching and Assessment Of The Nosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distinguishing Nature of Science Beliefs, Knowledge and Understandings

Brock

Park

2022

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst teaching about the nature of science (NOS) is a significant goal of science education, there remains debate about specifying the NOS and appropriate pedagogies and approaches to researching the NOS. A neglected, but conceptually and practically significant, problem is the proliferation of NOS-related learning goals such as NOS beliefs, views, understandings and knowledge. In this theoretical paper, we argue that such goals are often poorly defined, and different goals cohere with different pedagogical and research strategies. We propose a novel three-part taxonomy of NOS learning goals (as NOS beliefs, knowledge and understandings) and contend that different approaches are appropriate for teaching and assessing NOS beliefs, views and knowledge. An NOS belief refers to a positive attitudinal stance towards some proposition that lacks justificatory support or cannot easily be judged true or false. NOS knowledge indicates justified true beliefs related to the NOS. NOS understanding denotes a grasping of how a collection of NOS knowledge is related. The goals vary by the extent to which they can be judged true or false and the degree of justification they require. For NOS beliefs, a range of stances is acceptable; NOS knowledge must be a true and justified belief; in the case of NOS understanding, teaching and assessment should focus on the appreciation of relationships between justified true beliefs. The novel taxonomy brings needed clarity to a confused aspect of NOS research and may lead to the development of NOS pedagogies and assessment tools more precisely targeted to well-defined learning goals.

show abstract