The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Students' views of the nature of science: A critical review of research
Abstract
This review examines 105 empirical studies that investigate students' views of the nature of science (VNOS), effects of curricular interventions on changing students' VNOS, and relations between VNOS and demographics, majors, and learning of science. The reviewed studies can be categorized into three theoretical frameworks: the unidimension, the multidimension, and the argumentative resource frameworks. Each framework is reviewed first with regard to its theoretical foundation, methods of data collection and analysis, and the respective findings. This is followed by a critical discussion on the methodological issues and the strengths and limitations of the framework. Potential directions regarding theoretical framework, methodology, and pedagogy are suggested in the future directions section. For example, this review proposes the shift to argumentative resource framework for VNOS research and a refinement for judging the “sophistication” of student VNOS. The role of inquiry in student VNOS is also discussed. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:961–999, 2011
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187
Cited by
Chiu, Y.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-013-9103-x · Cited by 92
Self-citationPeffer, M., & Renken, M. (2016) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.15-12-0252 · Cited by 40
School of Education, C. O. B., & Mat Noor, M. S. A. (2021) · Science Education International · doi:10.33828/sei.v32.i4.9 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-09-30
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 961-999
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2162751531
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 77.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Students' views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sce.20460
- The paper
- Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students' views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20460
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
