www.ijcrsee.com
77
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
Original scientic paper
Received: September 23, 2023.
Revised: November 20, 2023.
Accepted: November 27, 2023.
UDC:
37.013.31
37.091.12:005.963
10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-1-77-87
© 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*Corresponding author: badmus.ot@ufs.ac.za
Olalekan Taofeek Badmus1* , Loyiso C Jita1
Preservice Teachers’ Level of Knowledge on Elements and Rationale for
Nature of Science: Towards Advancing Quality Instruction
1School of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein, Republic of South Africa
e-mail: badmus.ot@ufs.ac.za; jitalc@ufs.ac.za
Abstract: This study investigates preservice teachers’ knowledge of elements and rationale for Nature of Science (NOS). Skill
gap is established in the literature on pedagogical practices of preservice as well as novice teachers of science, reecting deciency
in their professional training and eventual classroom practice. Examining preservice teachers’ knowledge in these aspects (elements
& rationale) of NOS through a quasi-experiment of one-group pretest and post-test design was done. Instructional intervention over
two years along with assignments and presentation with researchers as moderators on the science pedagogy module (History
of Science and Philosophy of Science) serves as stimuli over the period. Three research questions and two hypotheses were
raised to guide this study. One hundred and thirty-six (112 Life Science and 24 Physical Science) preservice teachers were the
participants. Element of NOS (ENOS) and Rationale for NOS (RNOS) were the instruments. Reliability of the instruments yielded
Cronbach alpha values of .83, .91 and .86 across dimensions of clarity, coherence and relevance by fteen experienced science
educators. Data was analysed using t-test and ANCOVA. The study found the intervention to effectively improve the knowledge of
elements and rationale for NOS. Better prepared teachers (More Knowledge Order [MKO] have the potential to improved Zone of
Proximal Development [ZPD] in learners) by implication have the competence to guide learners for qualitative and effective learning.
The instruments in this study is recommended for foundational training of preservice teachers on NOS for enhanced instruction.
Keywords: elements, NOS, preservice reachers, rationale, instruction.
Introduction
This opening paragraph provides basic knowledge of Nature of Science (NOS) to novice audience
to assist their understanding of succeeding paragraphs. Culture may be regarded as a way of life of a
people. Such people are known for their traits, practices and ways which distinguishes them from others.
Culture and tradition are amalgamated into history. Like other fields of knowledge or discipline, science
is with its culture, tradition and history. In this instance, scientist have observation and experimentation
as means of drawing inferences. The inferences drawn culminate into new knowledge which assist in
better understanding of nature. Postulation, hypotheses (assumptions), theories and laws are traditional
to science, and it processes. New knowledge often evolves from an assumption which is usually the
starting point. However, the technology available for discovery at a particular time determines the extent of
knowledge evolution. The umbrella name for culture, tradition and history is characterised as nature. The
culture, tradition and history of science may literarily mean Nature of Science (NOS) without denouncing
its philosophical and epistemological limits. Impacting the knowledge of science is science education,
and science educator/teachers own this prerogative. Integrating NOS into classroom practices of science
teachers for instruction has gained prominence. Storytelling, rote memorisation and field trip were ways
of impacting the knowledge of science before now. Inquiry, argumentation among others have proven to
better support learners’ needs in recent time.
www.ijcrsee.com
78
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
Positions in the literature have establish the need to improve the teaching of science through
NOS integration (Bartos and Lederman, 2014; Clough, 2018; Mesci, 2020; Nouri and McComas,
2019; Yacoubian, 2021). Previous scholarly arguments have evolved the contexts [contextualised and
decontextualised] (McComas, 2020; Mulvey and Bell, 2017; Wahbeh and Abd-El-Khalick, 2014; Wheeler
et al., 2019), approaches [implicit and explicit] (McComas and Clough, 2020; Nouri and McComas , 2019;
Nouri et al., 2021; Sweeney and McComas, 2022; Yacoubian, 2021) and explicit reflective integration
(Hanuscin, 2013; Lederman et al., 2019; Vygotsky and Cole, 1978, p. 86; Wahbeh and Abd-El-Khalick,
2014). There is no doubt on the need to improve the way science is taught owing to growing demand and
the need for expertise in Science Technology Robotics Engineering Arts (aesthetics) and Mathematics
(STREAM) and the responsibility therewith (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Clough, 2018).
Furthermore, attempts have been made by stakeholders to up-skill practising teachers to integrate NOS in
their instruction. An effort which is usually driven by on-the-job training which deviates from the traditional
way preservice content are structured. Those effort mostly arose from capacity building workshops,
training and occasional self-development (Badmus and Jita, 2022). Substantively, what is required of
science teacher educators and trainers for the training of preservice teachers on NOS instruction for
improved practice has a place in the literature. In addition, science teacher educator in research and
practice have identified competencies required by teachers for NOS integration (Nouri et al., 2021).
Developing preservice science teachers’ NOS integration capacity to better facilitate students’
learning and conceptualisation remain important in science education. For this goal to be achieved,
teacher training and development should be prioritised. Recent studies have provided guidance on
NOS integration (Alameh et al., 2023, Alameh and Abd-El-Khalick, 2018; Lederman and Lederman,
2019), NOS competencies (Nouri et al., 2021), structural elements of scientific explanations as well as
models for teaching NOS and questionings (Allchin, 2017; Khishfe, 2022) to guide science teachers
practices. Positions deducible from literature suggest that sizeable attention has been given to teacher
development on the job and not teacher training before certification with respect to NOS integration. The
study of Vygotsky and Cole, 1978, p. 86) identified convergent, divergent and evaluative questioning in
student-centred classroom while Alameh et al., (2023) researched the nature of scientific explanations
with emphasis on goodness and quality of explanations by college students, teachers and scientist to
emphasize the importance of qualitative scientific explanations. Answers have also been availed in the
literature regarding the construction of scientific explanations to suit students’ conceptualisation of science
(National Research Council [NRC], 2012). A shift from teacher development to Students’ knowledge of
NOS through socio-scientific issues has also added to the debate on NOS and its integration (Kahn and
Zeidler, 2019; Khishfe, 2017, 2019, 2022; Lederman et al., 2014). Arising from the forgoing, adequate
attention is required in preservice science teacher training especially when guidance on competencies,
quality of explanations and more are well grounded within scholarly depth.
Teacher training forms the basis upon which professional and further development are built,
especially for science teachers and science teacher educators. As such, preservice teacher training
on NOS integration, competencies, models, templates and frameworks for pedagogical and didactic
synchronisation with the curriculum is yet to gain prominence. Admittedly, possible variations may exist
with respect to implementation and the universality of the curriculum components. However, presently
lacking in the literature are foundational templates to guide the training of preservice teachers on the
rationale and elements for NOS and its modes of assessment. Today’s teachers are a product of prior
academic and professional development. Evidently, inadequacies have been established in the literature
regarding classroom practices of science teachers with respect to the quality of explanations students are
availed (Alameh and Abd-El-Khalick, 2018; Mesci and Schwartz, 2017n with more capable peers’Mesci and Schwartz, 2017n with more capable peers’; Tang,
2016). To substantiate the afore-stated, Erduran (2006) documented the difficulties both students and
teachers encounter when constructing scientific explanations. Furthermore, scholars have posited the
existence of competence gap in teachers as reflected in explanations provided to students in science on
scientific processes. It becomes imperative to improve science teacher training for preservice teachers on
NOS, especially its integration to improve their pedagogical and didactic skills.
Theoretical Framework
Vygotsky defined zone of proximal development as ‘the distance between the actual development
www.ijcrsee.com
79
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
level (of the learner) as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development
as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers’
(Vygotsky and Cole, 1978, p. 86)
Lev Vygotsky in 1978 proposed the theory of learning and development with More Knowledge
Order (MKO) and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) at the time. While the goal of every teacher is
to provide appropriate support for learners to develop learning experiences to realise their full potential.
It is also imperative to understand that learner must be coming from a place of inferior knowledge or
assumptions. That said, there needs to be knowledge difference for learning to take place (MKO).
NOS integrated instruction provides appropriate and deliberate pedagogical support to equip teachers
on ways to better assist individual learner based on their peculiarities. According to Vygotsky, teaching
precedes development, as such, adequate attention is deserved of science teacher training considering
the advancements in pedagogical research in science and science education. Collaboration is essential
in NOS integration as well as ZPD with respect to thinking, pairing and sharing of knowledge and ideas.
In addition, inquiry and argumentation have roles in both NOS integration and ZPD in nurturing and
automating a scaffold to assist learners. Teachers in training otherwise known as preservice teachers
must be open enough to negotiate learning in their classrooms for learners’ internalisation and autonomy.
The state of science teaching research is an aberration from past practice in terms of expected outcomes
from all learners. Knowledge currently is individualised and contextualised, as such, preservice and in-
service teachers are now more than ever required to know the best ways to support learners to maximise
their potentials.
Vygotsky’s theory has since evolved to accommodate possibilities of potential development
among learners of equal peers, less capable peers and those working alone within their ZPD using learning
strategies. However, teachers as experts have the advantage of accommodating learners’ views through
discussion and collaboration especially among learners themselves. As teachers, recruiting learners’
interest is imperative to mastery, as such, both cognitive and affective domains must be supported to
assist learners in developing self-efficacy, motivation, engagement and willingness in a socially mediated
space. With NOS integration, teachers are better equipped with the requisite capacity and skill to support
the development of learners through culture, history and tradition of science that allows for mastery of
not only the knowledge of science but the mastery of science processes. ZPD is not static, when properly
guided, learner ZPD are more sensitive to learning. How intellectual development is assisted through
social interaction with peers and expert (teacher) to remediate the inadequacy of learners in science is
our focus.
Literature Review
For teachers of science and those in training (preservice teachers), the construct from which
inferences are made on scientific issues for classroom practice is germane. Subsequently important,
is the construction of explanations for learners’ appropriate conceptualisation of socio-scientific issues
and scientific literacy which is embedded in NOS. The essence of learning science is to be functional
enough to take informed decision as literates. Positions in the literature are explored here to aggregate
scholarly findings on NOS with respect to why, what and how it is necessary in classroom practices
of science teachers. Alameh et al., (2023) researched quality of scientific explanation among scientist,
science teachers and college students. Scientific phenomena as explained by the three categories of
participant were analysed along the Nature of Scientific Explanations (NOSE). The study found scientist
to provide superior explanations to scientific phenomena than teachers and college students. The
type of explanations provided in the study by these categories share construct similarities but differs
in dimensions. An analytical framework was devised in the study to examine the construct and types of
scientific explanation which by implication could assist in the training of both teachers and preservice
teachers of science on elements and constructs of scientific explanations.
In a similar study, Mesci et al., (2023) emphasized the need for early professional development of
teachers in training by advancing argumentation-based NOS instruction influence on preservice teachers’
views and practices in a single experimental design with multiple data sources-like Views on Nature of
Science [VNOS] (Lederman et al., 2002), interview, argumentation-based NOS report and research note.
Explicit reflective method was adopted over a two-semester period among 41 preservice teachers at
www.ijcrsee.com
80
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
a state university in Turkey. It was found that preservice teachers lesson planning and argumentation-
based teaching improved significantly despite their inability to teach correctly at their first attempt. The
study affirms the need for consistent practice of NOS knowledge in training for preservice teachers to
perfect their NOS knowledge transfer to teaching. The position of Mesci et al., (2023) advanced the state
of literature from Abd-El-Khalik and Akerson, 2004 which emphasized a conceptual change in the views
of preservice teachers on NOS. Earlier study identified mediating factors which may hinder training while
the later study avail literature the progress made so far in preservice teacher training on NOS and its
integration.
Secondary science preservice teachers were examined along contextualised and decontextualised
NOS instruction to elicit data on conception and instructional intentions by Bell et al., (2016). The study
sampled from two cohort of seventy master of teaching program where participants had explicit instruction
on NOS conceptions using varied degree of contextualised which accommodated conceptual change
principle in the first year of instruction. Evaluation of pre- and post-conception was done using VNOS-C
questionnaire (Lederman et al., 2002) and interview. Participants’ conceptions were categorised based
on degree of alignment with NOS conception. Unlike the present study which sought to evaluate rationale
for NOS among preservice teachers with a separate instrument, Bell and colleagues sought and reported
significance in alignment to NOS instruction between pre and post conception. There was a shift in the
conception of participants to plan future NOS instruction with sufficient rationale for integration especially
in the teaching of evolution. The research substantiates the need for scaffolding in NOS lessons to change
conception and instructional intention of preservice teachers with recommendations for future research in
post-method course and post-program NOS instruction.
Problem Statement
Strengthening preservice teachers’ knowledge of the Nature of Science (NOS) to achieve a
thorough understanding for deliberate and thoughtful integration into their future classroom practices has
garnered attention from scholars (Alameh et al., 2023; Alameh et al., 2023). Within the realm of science
education, teachers are expected to possess not only content knowledge but also pedagogical expertise
to effectively convey scientific principles and processes to students in a genuine and meaningful manner.
Recent perspectives in science education have favored explicit and reflective integration over implicit
methods (McComas and Clough, 2018; Mesci, 2020; Mesci et al., (2023); Sweeney and McComas, 2022).
As a result, there’s an expectation for a shift in science education pedagogy to address uncertainties
regarding scientific processes, cultural aspects, and socio-scientific issues among future educators
(preservice teachers).
The existing environment of science teacher training in South Africa reflects elements of detached
and implicit teachings on NOS. To progress towards explicit and contextualized NOS education in teacher
training, a revaluation of the history and philosophy of science is necessary to introduce course content
capable of enhancing preservice teachers’ capabilities. Various dimensions have been explored in
assessing preservice teachers’ understanding of NOS during their professional training (Alameh et al.,
2023; Alameh et al., 2023; Mesci et al., (2023)). The study focus sits in creating assessment tools pointing
at the elements and rationale behind NOS for preservice teachers in their second and third years, aiming
to evaluate the adequacy of their knowledge in this domain.
Aim
To devise and test assessment instruments to guide preservice teachers’ training on Nature of
Science elements and rationale.
Objectives
1. To devise templates to assess preservice teachers’ knowledge of elements and rationale for
NOS.
2. To validate assessment templates on elements and Rationale for NOS.
3. To investigate the effect of instructional intervention among preservice teachers’ knowledge of
elements and rationale for NOS.
www.ijcrsee.com
81
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
Questions
1. Is the Assessment template on elements and rationale for NOS reliable across dimensions
(Relevance, coherent and Clarity)?
2. Do preservice teachers possess adequate knowledge of element and rationale for NOS for
eventual classroom integration?
3. Does difference exist in the knowledge of NOS integration between physical and life science
preservice teachers?
Hypothesis
H01: Instructional intervention will not significantly influence preservice teachers’ knowledge of
elements and rationale for NOS.
H02: There is no significant difference in the post-test score of physical and life science students’
knowledge of elements and rationale for NOS.
Materials and Methods
Design
This study adopts quasi-experiment design of one-group pre-test and post-test design to evaluate
preservice teachers’ knowledge of elements and rationale for NOS from a positivist paradigm (Cohen,
Manion and Morrison, 2020), to examine the effect of the review of course content in history and philosophy
of science from second year to third year (two years intervention). The review included the knowledge of
elements and rationale for NOS and Nature of Scientific Explanations [NOSE] (Stimulus).
Experimental O1 X O2
Context of the Study
One hundred and thirty-six second year Physical and Life Science education students from a
public university were the participants in the study. Science pedagogy modules (History and Philosophy
of Science) which spanned from second year to the third was the intervention (stimulus). Aspect of this
study was embedded in second- and third-year courses on history and philosophy of science as part
of course review to improve preservice teachers’ didactic skills. Participants knowledge of element and
rationale for NOS were tested before the commencement of the intervention to ascertain their level of
knowledge on elements and rationale for NOS. The choice of these participant was informed by the
need to update science preservice teacher training to accommodate contextualised, explicit and reflective
NOS for their eventual classroom practices. Argumentation, inquiry and problem-based methods were
favoured in students’ presentation on assignments where they were divided into three groups. The
grouping took into account spread in both physical and life sciences education by making sure that there
was fair representation. One hundred and twelve (112) students were in life sciences and twenty-four in
physical sciences education. The twenty-four participants were shared into three groups of eight (physical
sciences), 37 participants each joined the first and second group while 38 participants joined the last
group from students studying life sciences. Prior to the module review, History and Philosophy of science
is a compulsory pedagogical course for second- and third-year preservice teachers. The course review
added Nature of Science and Nature of Scientific explanations with emphases on argumentation, inquiry
and Problem-based Methods.
The participants and the researchers (moderators/facilitators) agreed to select one difficult topic
in Physical (Electricity & Magnetism) and two topics in Life sciences (Transport Systems in Mammals &
Human Evolution) curricula at Further Education and Training [FET] phase of Curriculum and Assessment
Policy Statement [CAPS] to accommodate integration of NOS, as well as construction of scientific
explanations. The three groups were opportune to present on each of the three topics where moderators
provided guidance. Each group were to use argumentation, inquiry and Problem-based Methods in each
of the topic presentations at different times. i.e., each group employed one of the three methods for
www.ijcrsee.com
82
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
their presentation and assignments. For emphasis, learning outcome 3 on page 32 of physical sciences
curriculum [https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/CD/SUBSTATEMENTS/Physical%20Science.https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/CD/SUBSTATEMENTS/Physical%20Science.
pdf?ver=2006-08-31-122200-000pdf?ver=2006-08-31-122200-000] and life sciences [https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/CD/National%20
Curriculum%20Statements%20and%20Vocational/CAPS%20FET%20_%20LIFE%20SCIENCES%20_%20GR%20
10-12%20Web_2636.pdf?ver=2015-01-27-154429-123%20] on page 22 reiterated the need for NOS, construction
and application of scientific knowledge.
Instruments
Table 1. Internal consistency by experts across dimensions
Dimensions Clarity Coherence Relevance
Elements of NOS .83 .91 .86
Rationale for NOS .87 .90 .84
The criteria for selecting experts were- Ph.D. holders in Science Education, hold a faculty position
in a department of science education or an equivalent in a university, must be teaching science pedagogy
module for at least 2 year and should be willing to assess the instruments. A total of 15 experts judged
the 12 items each on both elements and rationale for NOS. As shown on Table 1, the two instruments
(ENOS & RNOS) were reliable as the internal consistency from the Cronbach’s Alpha values across the
dimensions of clarity, coherence and relevance show strong degree of agreement among experts. All the
values obtained were above .70 in each of the instances indicating acceptable internal consistency and
reliability.
Analysis
In the rating of the items, we assigned 1 to agree while neutral, disagree and don’t know were
assigned 0 in both ENOS and RNOS. Analysis was done using mean and standard deviation as descriptive
statistics to make meaning of the research questions while inferential statistics of Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) and t-test was employed to test the hypotheses.
Procedure
The administration of the pretest (ENOS & RNOS) was done after the introductory class of
the second year for all the participants. Data was coded in Microsoft Excel while the teaching of the
reviewed course content History of Science (HOS) which included the introduction of NOS, scientific
process and Nature of Scientific Explanations (NOSE) commenced. HOS is a prerequisite to third-year
course titled Philosophy of Science (POS), wherein, a continuation of NOS, scientific process and NOSE
were elaborated. Assignments and presentations were done by the groups on the selected topics. The
researchers were moderators of the sessions. At the end of the classes in the third year, the instruments
(ENOS & RNOS) were post-tested. The data obtained from the post-test was coded in Microsoft Excel
and analysed with SPSS.
Ethical considerations
Participants voluntarily signed the consent forms to participate in this study. Purpose, procedure,
confidentiality, risk, benefits, rights to volunteer as respondents were explained in the consent form.
Pseudonyms were used to encrypt the identity of participants. This research was approved by the Ethical
Committee of the University of the Free State with clearance number: UFS-HSD2022/1029/22/3.
www.ijcrsee.com
83
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
Results
Table 2. Descriptives and demography
Participants Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest on Ele-
ments of NOS
Physical Sciences 3.08 1.640 24
Life Sciences 2.61 2.072 112
Total 2.69 2.006 136
Post-test on Elements
of NOS
Physical Sciences 10.12 1.624 24
Life Sciences 10.37 1.605 112
Total 10.32 1.605 136
Pretest on Rationale
for NOS
Physical Sciences 2.83 1.736 24
Life Sciences 4.27 1.786 112
Total 4.01 1.854 136
Post-test on Rationale
for NOS
Physical Sciences 11.17 .637 24
Life Sciences 11.57 1.096 112
Total 11.50 1.040 136
A total of one hundred and thirty-six preservice teachers took part in this study. From the sample,
one hundred and twelve of the participants were Life Sciences major while twenty-four of the respondents
were majoring in Physical Sciences. Table 2 shows the demography is the participants as well as the
pretests and post-tests on both elements and rationale for NOS. Deducible from Table 2, preservice
teachers were not knowledgeable in both instances of elements and rationale in the pretest with their mean
scores far below the average of 6 from 12 items in each of the instance. However, after the intervention,
rapid improvement is noticeable through the mean scores which is above 10 within the two groups and in
each of the instance.
Hypotheses Testing
H01: Instructional intervention will not significantly influence preservice teachers’ knowledge of
elements and rationale for NOS.
Table 3. t-test of pre and post-test on elements of NOS
Levene’s Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
FSig. t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Score Element Equal variances assumed 9.209 .003 -34.650 270 .000
Equal variances not as-
sumed -34.650 257.621 .000
Table 3 shows significant difference in the pre and post-test scores of preservice teachers on
elements of NOS. The confidence interval in this case is 95% which implies that a test of significance
is measured at p< .05. As seen on Table 3, the p value (.003) is less than .05. By implication, the null
hypothesis is rejected. This means that there was significant difference between the pretest and post-test
score of preservice teachers on elements of NOS as against the null hypothesis. Instructional intervention
significantly influenced the knowledge on elements of NOS.
www.ijcrsee.com
84
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
Table 4. t-test of pre and post-test on rationale for NOS
Levene’s Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Score Rationale Equal variances assumed 50.113 .000 -41.067 270 .000
Equal variances not as-
sumed -41.067 212.307 .000
Table 4 reports significant difference in the pre and post-test score of preservice teachers on
rationale for NOS. The confidence interval in this case is also 95% which implies that a test of significance
is measured at p< .05. From Table 4, the p value (.00) is less than .05. This means that the null hypothesis
in this case is also rejected. There was significant difference between the pretest and post-test score of
preservice teachers on rationale for NOS as against the null hypothesis. Instructional intervention had
significant influence on preservice teachers’ knowledge on rationale for NOS.
H02: There is no significant difference in the post-test score of Physical and Life Science preservice
teachers’ knowledge of elements and rationale for NOS.
Table 5. ANCOVA on elements of NOS
Source Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected Model 44.697a 2 22.348 9.807 .000 .129
Intercept 4414.794 1 4414.794 1937.412 .000 .936
TotalPrE 43.548 1 43.548 19.111 .000 .126
Students .219 1 .219 .096 .757 .001
Error 303.068 133 2.279
Total 14842.000 136
Corrected Total 347.765 135
a. R Squared = ,129
(Adjusted R Squared
= .115)
Table 5 reveals the analysis of covariance of post-test scores between preservice teachers of Life
Science and Physical Science using the pretest as covariate on elements of NOS. From Table 5, the
table value (.757) is greater than p value (.05). By implication, the hypothesis which states that there is
no significant difference in the post-test score of Physical Science and Life Science preservice teachers’
knowledge of elements of NOS is retained. No statistical significance is recorded in the post-test score of
preservice teachers in both Life and Physical Science on element of NOS.
Table 6. ANCOVA on rationale for NOS
Source Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected Model 14.290a2 7.145 7.457 .001 .101
Intercept 3470.835 1 3470.835 3622.116 .000 .965
TotalPrR 13.817 1 13.817 14.419 .000 .098
Students 3.090 1 3.090 3.224 .075 .024
Error 127.445 133 .958
Total 18266.000 136
Corrected Total 141.735 135
a. R Squared = .101 (Adjusted R Squared = .087)
Table 6 shows the analysis of covariance of post-test scores between preservice teachers of Life
Sciences and Physical Sciences using the pretest as covariate on rationale for NOS. The table value
www.ijcrsee.com
85
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
(.075) is slightly greater than p value (.05). Consequent from Table 6, the hypothesis which states that
there is no significant difference in the post-test score of Physical Science and Life Science preservice
teachers’ knowledge on rationale for NOS is not rejected. Statistical significance is not recorded in the
post-test score of preservice teachers in both Life and Physical Sciences on rationale for NOS.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to devise and test instruments to guide preservice teachers’ training for
improved teaching and eventually learning. Better prepared science teachers (with knowledge of [NOS
& NOSE] have the potential to enhance the quality of teaching through explanations they afford their
learners (Abd-El-Khalik and Akerson, 2004; Alameh et al., 2023). The knowledge of element and rationale
for NOS could be assumed non-existent in the participants before the intervention in this study owing to
the mean scores obtained in the pretest. Early professional training as done in this study for preservice
science teachers on elements and rationale for NOS has proven to influence the views, conceptual
change and practices of preservice teachers in the literature Mesci et al., (2023). While the studies of
Mesci et al., (2023) and Lederman et al., 2002 measured intervention on professional development of
preservice teachers through argumentation-based teaching and VNOS respectively, the intervention in
this study took different approach, method and locale but all on NOS. Instructional intentions are expected
to be pre-determined by teachers of science, as such, the development of preservice teachers to focus
on knowledge negotiation with their learners through inquiry, argumentation and problem-based methods
is encouraged. This intervention will allow for preservice teachers to contextualise future teaching within
NOS to improve scientific literacy as posited in the study of Bell et al., (2016) on science method courses.
Positive outcome of the intervention in this study as relayed provide preservice teachers with
enhanced capacity to better support learners as emphasised through Vygotsky’ framework on MKO
and ZPD. Furthermore, science education literature has supported efforts to enhance science teacher
training through NOS as is in the studies of Mesci, 2020; Nouri and McComas, 2019, Yacoubian, 2021.
Particularly and most recently, the studies of Alameh et al (2023), Khishfe (2022), Mesci et al., (2023) and
Sweeney and McComas (2022) supported the position of this study on the need for and influence of NOS
on preservice teachers’ conceptual change, long-term retention, competency and quality of explanations
constructed. Difficulties experienced by learners in science can be better managed through integration of
NOS explicitly and contextually (Mesci, 2020). The intention of professional development is to influence
classroom practices, however, measuring the impact of this development remains futuristic.
Integrating scientific practices in the classroom through NOS in preservice teacher training is
encouraged in this study. Previous scholarly positions emphasised the need for teachers to be equipped
with the knowledge of both elements and rationale for NOS (Clough, 2018; Lederman et al., 2002;
Mesci et al., (2023); Nouri et al., 2021), as in this study. In addition, the teaching of the inter-relationship,
appropriateness and quality of science knowledge require foundational basics for novice teachers and
preservice teachers. Hence, the knowledge of NOS as examined in this study serves as a guide to
the development of pedagogical skills required for competent science teacher training (Hanuscin, 2013;
Mesci and Schwartz, 2017). Past and present literature have reported inadequacy in the knowledge of
science content among novice and expert teachers, as well as the need to intensify efforts to resolve
the inadequacy through training (Mulvey and Bell, 2017; Wahbeh and Abd-El-Khalick, 2014). However,
content knowledge inadequacy may not be as impactful as pedagogical inadequacy. NOS provides a
guide to narrate, discuss, inquire, argue and problematise the teaching of science to sustain interest,
provide quality explanations and impact meaningfully and contextually.
Conclusion
Preservice teachers training on NOS remains germane to improving the quality of explanations
constructed and conceptualisation for meaningful learning in science. Practical approach to explanations
through argumentation, inquiry and problem-based approaches enhanced preservice teachers’
preparation for eventual classroom practice. Admittedly, the instruments (ENOS & RNOS) were to
provide a foundational template to understanding and assess the knowledge of science among preservice
www.ijcrsee.com
86
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
teachers. However, the presentations allowed for moderators to assist preservice teachers to improve
the quality of explanations in the three topics trailed. These instruments assisted in assessing preservice
teachers’ knowledge of elements and rationale for NOS before and after the intervention.
Contribution to Teaching and Learning
Teachers are most likely going to teach the way they are taught. Better prepared teachers have
the potential to impact qualitative learning. This study contributes to science teacher training for improved
explanation and classroom practice. The instrument designed and the rating provides a newer way to
assess preservice teachers’ knowledge of elements and rationale for NOS. Testing preservice teachers’
knowledge in these areas over 2 years proved significant improvement in their knowledge. The group
assignments and presentation allowed for practical demonstration of their knowledge within inquiry,
argumentation and problem-based methods which assisted their ability to construct scientific explanations
for their eventual classroom practice at the fourth/final year for teaching practice and further practice.
Author Contributions
Olalekan Taofeek Badmus - Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original
draft preparation; Loyiso C. Jita - writing—review and editing, Validation, Funding acquisition. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice
elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10143
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The inuence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37, 1057–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-
TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C
Alameh, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2018). Towards a philosophically guided schema for studying scientic explanation in science
education. Science & Education, 27(9–10), 831–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0021-9
Alameh, S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Brown, D. (2023). The Nature of Scientic Explanation: Examining the perceptions of the
nature, quality, and “goodness” of explanation among college students, science teachers, and scientists. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 60(1), 100-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21792
Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 17, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271921
Badmus, O. T., & Jita, L. C. (2022). Didactic Handout on Nature of Science: Toward Effective Teaching of Physical Science
Curriculum. Science Education International, 33(3), 306-312. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v33.i3.6
Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientic inquiry: Conceptions
and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21168
Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum:
Preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science
Education, 38(3), 493-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1151960
Clough, M. P. (2018). Teaching and learning about nature of science. Science & education, 27, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11191-018-9964-0
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203224342
Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial science teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45.
Hanuscin, D. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of
science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9341-4
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientic reasoning. Science &
Education, 28, 605-638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2
Khishfe, R. (2022). Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in socioscientic and scientic contexts. International
www.ijcrsee.com
87
Badmus O. T., & Jita L. C. (2024). Preservice teachers’ level of knowledge on elements and rationale for nature of science:
Towards advancing quality instruction, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
(IJCRSEE), 12(1), 77-87.
Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 647-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050488
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1596329
Khishfe, R. (2017). Consistency of nature of science views across scientic and socio-scientic contexts. International Journal
of Science Education, 39(4), 403-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1287976
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. 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, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Teaching and learning nature of scientic knowledge: Is it Déjà vu all over again?.
Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0002-0
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Smith, M. U. (2019). Teaching nature of scientic knowledge to kindergarten through
university students. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00057-x .
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientic inquiry, and socio-scientic issues arising from
genetics: A pathway to developing a scientically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285-302. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
McComas, W. F. (2020). Principal elements of nature of science: informing science teaching while dispelling the myths. In W.
F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–22). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3
McComas, W. F. & Clough, M. P. (2020). Nature of science in science instruction: Meaning, advocacy, rationales, and
recommendations. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp.
3–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_1
Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions
may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47, 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-
015-9503-9
Mesci, G. (2020). Difcult topics in the nature of science: An alternative explicit/reective program for pre-service
science teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 30(4), 1355-1374. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/
informit.606242371483247
Mesci, G., Yeşildağ-Hasançebi, F., & Tuncay-Yüksel, B. (2023). Argumentation based nature of science instruction: Inuence
on pre-service science teachers’ NOS views and practicing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104231. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104231
Mulvey, B. K. & Bell, R. L. (2017). Making learning last: teachers’ long-term retention of improved nature of science conceptions
and instructional rationales. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006
93.2016.1267879
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas.
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Nouri, N. & McComas, W. F. (2019). History of science (HOS) as a vehicle to communicate aspects of nature of science (NOS):
multiple cases of HOS instructors’ perspectives regarding NOS. Research in Science Education, 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11165-019-09879-9
Nouri, N., Saberi, M., McComas, W. F., & Mohammadi, M. (2021) Proposed Teacher Competencies to Support Effective Nature
of Science Instruction: A Meta-Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(6), 601-624,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1871206
Sweeney, S. J., & McComas, W. F. (2022). Early elementary (K-4) teachers’ perceptions of the developmental appropriateness,
importance, and potential for classroom inclusion of key nature of science aspects. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 59(9), 1544-1574. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21766
Tang, K. S. (2016). Constructing scientic explanations through premise–reasoning– outcome (PRO): an exploratory study to
scaffold students in structuring written explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1415–1440.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1192309
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Voss, S., Kruse, J., & Kent-Schneider, I. (2022). Comparing student responses to convergent, divergent, and evaluative nature
of science questions. Research in Science Education, 52(4), 1277-1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10009-7
Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional
practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education,
36(3), 425–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.786852
Wheeler, L. B., Mulvey, B. K., Maeng, J. L., Librea-Carden, M. R., & Bell, R. L. (2019). Teaching the teacher: Exploring STEM
graduate students’ nature of science conceptions in a teaching methods course. International Journal of Science
Education, 41(14), 1905-1925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1647473
Yacoubian, H. A. (2021). Students’ views of nature of science. Science & Education, 30(2), 381-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11191-020-00179-7
