The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“It's the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science*
Abstract
This study examined the knowledge, intentions, and instructional practices of two beginning secondary science teachers as they learned the subject matter of nature of science (NOS) and attempted to teach NOS during their student teaching experience and during their first year of full‐time teaching. This is a case study comparison of two success stories. However, the reasons for and levels of success are as varied as the factors that influence teaching practice. Details of the participants' progression, along with descriptions of the challenges they faced in the learning and teaching of NOS offer insight into the complexity of the fulfillment of one's instructional intentions. The results of the study suggest that depth of NOS understanding, subject‐matter knowledge, and the perceived relationship between NOS and science subject matter affected the participants' learning and teaching of NOS. The views of NOS as an inherent part of all science content or as “the nature of the beast” facilitated the inclusion of NOS within traditional science content lessons. The participant with the more extensive science background, who also held well‐developed NOS views, was better able to address NOS throughout his teaching. His subject‐matter knowledge enabled him to use a variety of examples to enhance NOS instruction. The other participant's more limited subject‐matter knowledge and compartmentalized view of NOS seemed to inhibit her incorporation of relevant NOS topics within a traditional science content. The importance of subject‐matter knowledge, NOS knowledge, and NOS instruction intentions to the development of pedagogical content knowledge for NOS and the actualization of intentions in the classroom are discussed. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 205–236, 2002
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
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Cited by
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3‐year professional development program
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20159 · Cited by 334
Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science
Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20404 · Cited by 194
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in higher education: A systematic scoping review
Sarkar, M., Gutierrez-Bucheli, L., Yip, S. Y., Lazarus, M., Wright, C., White, P. J., Ilic, D., Hiscox, T. J., & Berry, A. (2024) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2024.104608 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 205-236
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2126183340
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 52.79
- 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: “It's the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.10021
- The paper
- Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It's the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science*. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10021
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.