Preservice Teachers’ Level of Knowledge on Elements and Rationale for Nature of Science: Towards Advancing Quality Instruction

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.

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license .

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, 2017 n 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 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 inservice 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.