The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature
Abstract
This paper aimed to review, and assess the 'effectiveness' of the attempts undertaken to improve prospective and practising science teachers' conceptions of nature of science (NOS). The reviewed attempts could be categorized into two general approches: implicit and explicit. Implicit attempts utilized science process-skills instruction or engagement in science-based inquiry activities to improve science teachers' conceptions of NOS. To achieve the same goal, explicit attempts used instruction geared towards various aspects of NOS and/or instruction that utilized elements from history and philosophy of science. To the extent that teachers' NOS conceptions were faithfully assessed by the instruments used in the reviewed studies, the explicit approach was relatively more effective in enhancing teachers' views. The relative ineffectiveness of the implicit approach could be attributed to two inherent assumptions. The first is that developing an understanding of NOS is an 'affective', as compared to a 'cognitive', learning outcome. The second ensuing assumption is that learners would necessarily develop understandings of NOS as a by-product of engaging in science-realated activities. However, despite the relative 'effectiveness' of the explicit approach, much is still required in terms of fostering among science teachers 'desired' understandings of NOS. The paper emphasizes that explicitness and reflectivness should be given prominence in any future attempts aimed at improving teachers' concepts of NOS.
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
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
Kuhn, T. S., & Hacking, I. (2012) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001 · Cited by 21,170
Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching
SHULMAN, L. S. (1986) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004 · Cited by 18,546
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
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society
Bijker, W. E., & Latour, B. (1988) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3105094 · Cited by 10,767
Social Theory and Social Structure
Ross, E. J., & Merton, R. K. (1958) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3709394 · Cited by 10,315
(1987) · Cited by 8,955
National Science Education Standards
Shea, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Geological Education · doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.2.102 · Cited by 7,888
The Logic of Scientific Discovery
(2013) · A Realist Theory of Science · doi:10.4324/9780203090732-9 · Cited by 7,731
Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts
Latour, B. (1986) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 7,491
Cited by
Lederman, N. G., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10034 · Cited by 1,908
Self-citationInformal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research
Sadler, T. D. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20009 · Cited by 1,440
Global Patterns in Students’ Views of Science and Interest in Science
van Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F., van Eijck, M. W., Haste, H., den Brok, P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., Savran Gencer, A., & BouJaoude, S. (2015) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6 · Cited by 852
Clough, M. P. (2006) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7 · Cited by 451
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3 · Cited by 295
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G.
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 665-701
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2168608396
- Cited by
- 1,252
- References
- 73
- FWCI
- 87.91
- 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: Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09500690050044044
- The paper
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
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.