Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?—A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Critical Thinking
1.2. Beliefs about the Nature of Science
1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses
- RQ2: Does test performance differ depending on the number of learning opportunities? Because previous findings pointed to the importance of learning opportunities for the development of CT skills (e.g., [41]) and NOS beliefs (e.g., [90]), we expected pre-service biology teachers enrolled in the master’s program to perform better on both variables than those enrolled in the bachelor’s program (H3). In addition, we expected those who were aspiring to a teaching qualification in two scientific subjects to outperform those who were aspiring to a teaching qualification in only one scientific plus one non-scientific subject (H4). The latter assumption seems plausible considering an overall increase in specific learning opportunities for NOS [90], which in turn could also have a positive impact on CT skill development [43,96].
- RQ3: What is the relationship between CT skills and NOS beliefs? Does it differ between the groups compared to answer RQ2? The available literature suggests that both NOS frameworks are useful for developing CT skills [8,97] and, conversely, CT frameworks are useful for developing NOS beliefs [9,98]. Given this, we expected a positive relationship between both constructs (H5). Considering a different number of learning opportunities (see H3 and H4), we further expected this relationship to be closer for pre-service biology teachers enrolled in the master’s program than for those enrolled in the bachelor’s program (H6), and likewise to be closer for those who were aspiring to a teaching qualification in two scientific subjects than for those who were aspiring to a teaching qualification in only one scientific plus one non-scientific subject (H7).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Assessments
2.1.1. Critical Thinking Skills
2.1.2. Beliefs about the Nature of Science
2.1.3. Need for Cognitive Closure
2.2. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. RQ1: How Do Pre-Service Biology Teachers Perform on Tests That Assess Their CT Skills and Their NOS Beliefs?
3.2. RQ2: Does Test Performance Differ Depending on the Number of Learning Opportunities?
3.3. RQ3: What Is the Relationship between CT Skills and NOS Beliefs? Does It Differ between the Groups Compared to Answer RQ2?
4. Discussion
4.1. RQ1: How Do Pre-Service Biology Teachers Perform on Tests That Assess Their CT Skills and Their NOS Beliefs?
4.2. RQ2: Does Test Performance Differ Depending on the Number of Learning Opportunities?
4.3. RQ3: What Is the Relationship between CT Skills and NOS Beliefs? Does it Differ between the Groups Compared to Answer RQ2?
4.4. Limitations
- All of the pre-service teachers in our sample were studying at only one German university, which undoubtedly limits the generalizability of our results. It seems essential to conduct studies with a comparable focus in other contexts (e.g., other universities, other countries) for a broader and more valid insight.
- For reasons of test economy, we decided to answer our RQ exclusively for pre-service biology teachers at this stage. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether similar results may also be found for groups of pre-service chemistry or physics teachers. Future studies focusing on this specific question could provide valuable information on whether there are comparable or differential effects.
- In terms of our study’s internal validity, it should be noted that possible self-selection effects might have contributed to the differences found between the 1S and 2S groups. For example, it seems possible that 2S group participants already had a stronger interest in science, and thus perhaps a better understanding of NOS, prior to entering their teacher education program. Furthermore, such potential baseline differences could have been intensified by major-specific communication and interaction (e.g., [120]). To validly estimate such mediating and moderating effects, future research would require longitudinal designs and appropriate baseline measures at the beginning of university teacher education.
- In the case of the RQ3-related statistical analyses, an adequate level of power was not achieved in some cases, resulting in a quite high risk of type II error [121]. Regarding the correlation analysis for the 1S group, the power was only 0.52, implying that 55 instead of 27 participants would have been needed to detect the medium effect of rCT―NOS = 0.33 with sufficient power of 0.80. This problem did not exist in the case of the 2S group, where the power was sufficient to detect the large effect of rCT―NOS = 0.62. In a comparable manner, the power of the two group comparisons in terms of correlation levels was only 0.55 (BA vs. MA) and 0.27 (1S vs. 2S), respectively. Both comparisons would have required group sizes of 141 participants each to detect medium effects with sufficient power of 0.80. Therefore, a replication of our study that takes a larger sample in order to clearly prove all effects at an adequate level of statistical power would be desirable.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chowdhury, T.B.M.; Holbrook, J.; Rannikmäe, M. Socioscientific Issues within Science Education and their Role in Promoting the Desired Citizenry. Sci. Educ. Int. 2020, 31, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, T.D.; Barab, S.A.; Scott, B. What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry? Res. Sci. Educ. 2007, 37, 371–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Educational; Scientific and Cultural Organization. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Available online: https://www.unesco.de/sites/default/files/2018-08/unesco_education_for_sustainable_development_goals.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Osborne, J.; Pimentel, D.; Alberts, B.; Allchin, D.; Barzilai, S.; Bergstrom, C.; Coffey, J.; Donovan, B.; Kivinen, K.; Kozyreva, A.; et al. Science Education in an Age of Misinformation. Available online: https://sciedandmisinfo.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj25316/files/media/file/science_education_in_an_age_of_misinformation.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Global Partnership for Education. 21st-Century Skills: What potential role for the Global Partnership for Education? A Landscape Review. Available online: https://assets.globalpartnership.org/s3fs-public/document/file/2020-01-GPE-21st-century-skills.pdf?VersionId=AuC_VhezU86_sZPi05xgN3tW6LhxPEw4 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. PISA 2024 Strategic Vision and Direction for Science: A Vision for What Young People Should Know about Science and Be Able to Do with Science in the future. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA-2024-Science-Strategic-Vision-Proposal.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Osborne, J. Teaching Critical Thinking? New Directions in Science Education. Sch. Sci. Rev. 2014, 95, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
- Yacoubian, H.A. Teaching Nature of Science through a Critical Thinking Approach. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Rationales and Strategies, 1st ed.; McComas, W.F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 199–212. [Google Scholar]
- Krell, M.; Khan, S.; Vergara, C.; Cofré, H.; Mathesius, S.; Krüger, D. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Scientific Reasoning Competencies: Analysing the Impact of Contributing Factors. Res. Sci. Educ. 2022, 53, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharon, A.J.; Baram-Tsabari, A. Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? Sci. Educ. 2020, 104, 873–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 9th ed.; Worth: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- DeBoer, G.E. Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2000, 37, 582–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent-Lancrin, S.; Urgel, J.; Kar, S.; Jacotin, G. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom? OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Dowd, J.E.; Thompson, R.J., Jr.; Schiff, L.A.; Reynolds, J.A. Understanding the Complex Relationship between Critical Thinking and Science Reasoning among Undergraduate Thesis Writers. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2018, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murtonen, M.; Salmento, H. Broadening the Theory of Scientific Thinking for Higher Education. In Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education: Higher-Order Thinking, Evidence Based Reasoning and Research Skills, 1st ed.; Murtonen, M., Balloo, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3–29. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, B.J.; Croker, S.; Masnick, A.M.; Zimmerman, C. The Emergence of Scientific Reasoning. In The Emergence of Scientific Reasoning, 1st ed.; Kloos, H., Morris, B.J., Amaral, J.L., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 61–82. [Google Scholar]
- Lederman, N.G. Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, 1st ed.; Abell, S.K., Lederman, N.G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 831–879. [Google Scholar]
- Lederman, N.G. A powerful way to learn. Sci. Child. 2010, 48, 8–9. [Google Scholar]
- Lederman, J.; Lederman, N.; Bartels, S.; Jimenez, J.; Akubo, M.; Aly, S.; Bao, C.; Blanquet, E.; Blonder, R.; Bologna Soares de Andrade, M.; et al. An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh grade students’ understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2019, 56, 486–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National Research Council. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
- Education Council. National STEM School Education Strategy: A Comprehensive Plan for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education in Australia. Available online: https://www.education.gov.au/education-ministers-meeting/resources/national-stem-school-education-strategy (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Department for Education. The National Curriculum in England: Framework Document. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Bulletin Officiel de l’Education Nationale. Programmes Pour les Cycles 2, 3, 4. Available online: https://www.education.gouv.fr/au-bo-special-du-26-novembre-2015-programmes-d-enseignement-de-l-ecole-elementaire-et-du-college-3737 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Ministry of Education. Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education for Elementary School, Junior High and General Senior High Schools: The Domain of Natural Science. Available online: https://www.naer.edu.tw/eng/PageSyllabus?fid=148 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Lederman, J.S.; Lederman, N.G.; Bartos, S.A.; Bartels, S.L.; Meyer, A.A.; Schwartz, R.S. Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Understandings About Scientific Inquiry: The Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI) Questionnaire. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2014, 51, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blömeke, S.; Jentsch, A.; Ross, N.; Kaiser, G.; König, J. Opening up the black box: Teacher competence, instructional quality, and students’ learning progress. Learn. Instr. 2022, 79, 101600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tommasi, F.; Ceschi, A.; Sartori, R.; Gostimir, M.; Passaia, G.; Genero, S.; Belotto, S. Enhancing critical thinking and media literacy in the context of IVET: A systematic scoping review. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2021, 47, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewey, J. How We Think, 1st ed.; D C Heath: Lexington, MA, USA, 1910. [Google Scholar]
- Heard, J.; Scoular, C.; Duckworth, D.; Ramalingam, D.; Teo, I. Critical Thinking: Skill Development Framework. Available online: https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/41 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Facione, P.A. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction; California Academic Press: Millbrae, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, H. What (good) are thinking dispositions? Educ. Theory 1999, 49, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, D.M.; Kruglanski, A.W. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 1049–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cross, J.R.; Cross, T.L. Motivated dogmatism and the high ability student. In Confronting Dogmatism in Gifted Education, 1st ed.; Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R.J., Sriraman, B., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 128–140. [Google Scholar]
- DeBacker, T.K.; Crowson, H.M. The Influence of Need for Closure on Learning and Teaching. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 21, 303–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortier, A.; Burkell, J. Influence of need for cognition and need for cognitive closure on three information behavior orientations. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hitchcock, D. Critical Thinking. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2022 ed.; Zalta, E.N., Nodelman, U., Eds.; Stanford University/The Metaphysics Research Lab: Stanford, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Perkins, D.; Ritchhart, R. When Is Good Thinking. In Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Development and Functioning, 1st ed.; Dai, D.Y., Sternberg, R.J., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 351–384. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, M. Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2013, 32, 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, A. A. A Disciplined Approach to Critical Thinking. In The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, 1st ed.; Davies, M., Barnett, R., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Ney York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 169–182. [Google Scholar]
- Haber, J. Critical Thinking, 1st ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bailin, S. Critical Thinking and Science Education. Sci. Educ. 2002, 11, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinslow, A.T.; Sadler, T.D. Making Science Relevant: Using Socio-Scientific Issues to Foster Critical Thinking. Sci. Teach. 2018, 86, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- Kultusministerkonferenz. Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für die Allgemeine Hochschulreife [Educational Standards in Biology for the Allgemeine Hochschulreife]. Available online: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2020/2020_06_18-BildungsstandardsAHR_Biologie.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Pithers, R.T.; Soden, R. Critical thinking in education: A review. Educ. Res. 2000, 42, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arum, R.; Roksa, J. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Available online: https://doc.lagout.org/Others/University.of.Chicago.-.Academically.Adrift.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Flores, K.L.; Matkin, G.S.; Burbach, M.E.; Quinn, C.E.; Harding, H. Deficient Critical Thinking Skills among College Graduates: Implications for leadership. Educ. Philos. Theory 2012, 44, 212–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, C.R.; Kuncel, N.R. Does College Teach Critical Thinking? A Meta-Analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 431–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fikriyati, A.; Agustini, R.; Suyatno, S. Pre-service Science Teachers’ Critical Thinking Dispositions and Critical Thinking Skills. In Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Proceedings of the Eighth Southeast Asia Design Research (SEA-DR) & the Second Science, Technology, Education, Arts, Culture, and Humanity (STEACH) International Conference (SEADR-STEACH 2021), Surabaya, Indonesia, 20–21 October 2021; Atlantis Press SARL: Paris, France, 2022; Volume 627, pp. 176–181. [Google Scholar]
- Said, M.N.H.M.; Ali, M.F.; Tahir, L.M.; Junaidi, J.; Zaid, N.M.; Mamman, B.; Yaacob, F.S. Levels of Critical Thinking Skills among Pre-Service Teachers’ in a Nigerian University: A Preliminary Study. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education (TALE), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 10–13 December 2019; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Q.; Yan, C.; Zhao, S.; Liu, L.; Xing, L. A preliminary investigation into critical thinking of in-service and pre-service middle school chemistry teachers in Shaanxi province of China. Asia-Pac. Forum Sci. Learn. Teach. 2012, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Gashan, A.K. Exploring Saudi Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of Critical Thinking Skills and their Teaching Perceptions. Int. J. Educ. Lit. Stud. 2015, 3, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herman, B.C.; Clough, M.P. Teachers’ Longitudinal NOS Understanding After Having Completed a Science Teacher Education Program. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2016, 14, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. OECD Learning Compass 2030: A Series of Concept Notes. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- McComas, W.F.; Almazroa, H.; Clough, M.P. The Nature of Science in Science Education: An Introduction. Sci. Educ. 1998, 7, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lederman, N.G.; Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Bell, R.L.; Schwartz, R.S. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39, 497–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lederman, N.G. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 331–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lederman, N.G.; Zeidler, D.L. Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Sci. Educ. 1987, 71, 721–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lederman, N.G.; Lederman, J.S. Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry: Building Instructional Capacity through Professional Development. In Second International Handbook of Science Education, 1st ed.; Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K.G., McRobbie, C.J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 335–359. [Google Scholar]
- McComas, W.F.; Clough, M.P. Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Meaning, Advocacy, Rationales, and Recommendations. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Rationales and Strategies, 1st ed.; McComas, W.F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 3–22. [Google Scholar]
- Clough, M.P. History and Nature of Science in Science Education. In Science Education, 1st ed.; Taber, K.S., Akpan, B., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 39–51. [Google Scholar]
- Lampert, Y. Teaching the Nature of Science from a Philosophical Perspective. Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 1417–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, R.S.; Lederman, N.G.; Lederman, J.S. An Instrument to Assess Views of Scientific Inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD, USA, 30 March–2 April 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Neumann, I.; Kremer, K. Nature of Science und epistemologische Überzeugungen: Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede [Nature of Science and Epistemological Beliefs: Similarities and Differences]. Z. Didakt. Nat. 2013, 19, 209–232. [Google Scholar]
- Cofré, H.; Núñez, P.; Santibáñez, D.; Pavez, J.M.; Valencia, M.; Vergara, C. A Critical Review of Students’ and Teachers’ Understandings of Nature of Science. Sci. Educ. 2019, 28, 205–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allchin, D. Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95, 518–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allchin, D. Beyond the Consensus View: Whole Science. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 2017, 17, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erduran, S.; Dagher, Z.R. Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Irzik, G.; Nola, R. A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science for Science Education. Sci. Educ. 2011, 20, 591–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaya, E.; Erduran, S. From FRA to RFN, or How the Family Resemblance Approach Can Be Transformed for Science Curriculum Analysis on Nature of Science. Sci. Educ. 2016, 25, 1115–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McComas, W.F. The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. In The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, 1st ed.; McComas, W.F., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 53–70. [Google Scholar]
- Wellcome Trust. Wellcome Global Monitor 2018. Available online: https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wellcome-global-monitor-2018.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Dobson, G.P. Wired to Doubt: Why People Fear Vaccines and Climate Change and Mistrust Science. Front. Med. 2022, 8, 2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrett, R.K.; Weeks, B.E. Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiss, M.J. Trust, Science Education and Vaccines. Sci. Educ. 2022, 31, 1263–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.D. Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States in 2016: A Report Prepared for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by the University of Michigan. Available online: https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/NASA%20CSL%20in%202016%20Report_0_0.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Siarova, H.; Sternadel, D.; Szönyi, E. Research for CULT Committee: Science and Scientific Literacy as an Educational Challenge. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL_STU(2019)629188 (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Abd-El-Khalick, F. Over and Over and Over Again: College Students’ Views of Nature of Science. In Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, 1st ed.; Flick, L.B., Lederman, N.G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 389–425. [Google Scholar]
- Akgun, S.; Kaya, E. How Do University Students Perceive the Nature of Science? Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 299–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, M.C.D.; Montplaisir, L.M.; Offerdahl, E.G.; Cheng, F.-C.; Ketterling, G.L. Comparison of Views of the Nature of Science between Natural Science and Nonscience Majors. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2010, 9, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parker, L.C.; Krockover, G.H.; Lasher-Trapp, S.; Eichinger, D.C. Ideas About the Nature of Science Held by Undergraduate Atmospheric Science Students. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2008, 89, 1681–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akerson, V.L.; Cullen, T.A.; Hanson, D.L. Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009, 46, 1090–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azninda, H.; Raharjo, J.; Sunarti, T. Teachers’ Views about Nature of Science (NOS) Using Reconceptualised Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science (RFN) Questionnaire. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1747, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cofré, H.; Vergara, C.; Lederman, N.G.; Lederman, J.S.; Santibáñez, D.; Jiménez, J.; Yancovic, M. Improving Chilean In-service Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science using Self-contained NOS and Content-Embedded Mini-Courses. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2014, 25, 759–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cofré, H.; Cuevas, E.; Becerra, B. The relationship between biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and the understanding and acceptance of the theory of evolution. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2017, 39, 2243–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesci, G.; Schwartz, R.S. Changing Preservice Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Why Some Conceptions May be More Easily Altered than Others. Res. Sci. Educ. 2017, 47, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahbeh, N.; Abd-El-Khalick, F. Revisiting the Translation of Nature of Science Understandings into Instructional Practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2014, 36, 425–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krell, M.; Koska, J.; Penning, F.; Krüger, D. Fostering pre-service teachers’ views about nature of science: Evaluation of a new STEM curriculum. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2015, 33, 344–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.-Y.; Tsai, C.-C. Differences in the Scientific Epistemological Views of Undergraduate Students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2008, 30, 1055–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruckermann, T.; Ochsen, F.; Mahler, D. Learning Opportunities in Biology Teacher Education Contribute to Understanding of Nature of Science. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mesci, G. The Influence of PCK-Based NOS Teaching on Pre-service Science Teachers’ NOS Views. Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 743–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lederman, N.G.; Lederman, J.S. Teaching and learning nature of scientific knowledge: Is it Déjà vu all over again? Discip. Interdscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 2019, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moutinho, S.; Torres, J.; Fernandes, I.; Vasconcelos, C. Problem-Based Learning and Nature of Science: A Study with Science Teachers. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 191, 1871–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mesci, G. Difficult topics in the nature of science: An alternative explicit/reflective program for pre-service science teachers. Issues Educ. Res. 2020, 30, 1355–1373. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, F.; Westbroek, H.; Landa, I.; van der Ploeg, B.; Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. Perspectives for Teaching about How Science Works. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Rationales and Strategies, 1st ed.; McComas, W.F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 253–269. [Google Scholar]
- Yacoubian, H.A. Framework for Guiding Future Citizens to Think Critically About Nature of Science and Socioscientific Issues. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 2015, 15, 248–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmaltz, R.M.; Jansen, E.; Wenckowski, N. Redefining Critical Thinking: Teaching Students to Think like Scientists. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santos, L.F. The Role of Critical Thinking in Science Education. J. Educ. Pract. 2017, 8, 159–173. [Google Scholar]
- SAP America. Qualtrics Survey (Online Survey Software). Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/ (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Watson, G.; Glaser, E.M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B, Manual; The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, G.; Glaser, E.M. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Form S, Manual; The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, G.; Glaser, E.M. Technical Manual and User Guide: Watson-Glaser™ II Critical Thinking Appraisal. Available online: https://www.talentlens.com/recruitment/assessments/watson-glaser-critical-thinking-appraisal.html (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Bernard, R.M.; Zhang, D.; Abrami, P.C.; Sicoly, F.; Borokhovski, E.; Surkes, M.A. Exploring the structure of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Think. Skills Creat. 2008, 3, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadzella, B.M.; Hogan, L.; Masten, W.; Stacks, J.; Stephens, R.; Zascavage, V. Reliability and validity of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal-Forms for different academic groups. J. Instr. Psychol. 2006, 33, 141–143. [Google Scholar]
- Hassan, K.E.; Madhum, G. Validating the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. High. Educ. 2007, 54, 361–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, L.L.; Chen, S.; Chen, X.; Kaya, O.N.; Adams, A.D.; Macklin, M.; Ebenezer, J. Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument. Asia-Pac. Forum Sci. Learn. Teach. 2008, 9, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Edgerly, H.S.; Kruse, J.W.; Wilcox, J.L. Quantitatively Investigating Inservice Elementary Teachers’ Nature of Science Views. Res. Sci. Educ. 2022, 52, 1467–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Green, S.B.; Lissitz, R.W.; Mulaik, S.A. Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1977, 37, 827–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlink, S.; Walther, E. Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit [Short and sweet: A German-language short scale to assess the need for cognitive closure]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 2007, 38, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bleidorn, W.; Hopwood, C.J.; Back, M.D.; Denissen, J.J.A.; Hennecke, M.; Hill, P.L.; Jokela, M.; Kandler, C.; Lucas, R.E.; Luhmann, M.; et al. Personality Trait Stability and Change. Personal. Sci. 2021, 2, e6009:1–e6009:20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bleidorn, W.; Hopwood, C.J. Stability and Change in Personality Traits over the Lifespan. In Handbook of Personality Development, 1st ed.; McAdams, D.P., Shiner, R.L., Tackett, J.L., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 237–252. [Google Scholar]
- Rosman, T.; Mayer, A.-K.; Peter, J.; Krampen, G. Need for cognitive closure may impede the effectiveness of epistemic belief instruction. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2016, 49, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemi, T.O. The Effective use of Standard Scores for Research in Educational Management. Res. J. Math. Stat. 2011, 3, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
- Happ, M.; Bathke, A.C.; Brunner, E. Optimal sample size planning for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Stat. Med. 2019, 38, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rusticus, S.A.; Lovato, C.Y. Impact of Sample Size and Variability on the Power and Type I Error Rates of Equivalence Tests: A Simulation Study. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2014, 19, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, L.; Sirois, M.J. Spearman Correlation Coefficients, Differences between. In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, 1st ed.; Kotz, S., Read, C.B., Balakrishnan, N., Vidakovic, B., Johnson, N.L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; Volume 12, pp. 7901–7903. [Google Scholar]
- Lorencová, H.; Jarošová, E.; Avgitidou, S.; Dimitriadou, C. Critical thinking practices in teacher education programmes: A systematic review. Stud. High. Educ. 2019, 44, 844–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahler, D.; Bock, D.; Bruckermann, T. Preservice Biology Teachers’ Scientific Reasoning Skills and Beliefs about Nature of Science: How Do They Develop and Is There a Mutual Relationship during the Development? Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, S.; Upmeier zu Belzen, A.; Krüger, D.; Pant, H.A. Scientific Reasoning in Higher Education. Constructing and Evaluating the Criterion-Related Validity of an Assessment of Preservice Science Teachers’ Competencies. Z. Psychol. 2015, 223, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Rooij, E.C.M.; Fokkens-Bruinsma, M.; Goedhart, M.J. Identifying Potential Secondary School Teachers among Science University Students: A Latent Profile Analysis. J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 2020, 31, 556–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cumming, G. Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis, 1st ed. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
- Hattie, J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2008.
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. FAQ: Humanities and Social Sciences. Available online: https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/faq/geistes_sozialwissenschaften/index.html (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- World Medical Association. WMA’s Declaration of Helsinki Serves as Guide to Physicians. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1964, 189, 33–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
CT Skill | Ability to … |
---|---|
Inference (19 items) | … rate the probability of truth of inferences based on given information |
Recognition of assumptions (8 items) | … identify unstated assumptions or presuppositions underlying given statements |
Deduction (12 items) | … determine whether conclusions follow logically from given information |
Interpretation (8 items) | … weigh evidence and decide whether data-based generalizations or conclusions are justifiable |
Evaluation of arguments (9 items) | … evaluate the strength and relevance of arguments regarding a particular issue |
NOS Aspect | Related (Informed) Views |
---|---|
Observations and inferences (4 items) | Science is based on both observations (descriptive statements) and conclusions (interpretations of observations), which in turn are guided by current and diverse scientific perspectives. |
Tentativeness (4 items) | It is reasonable to have confidence in scientific findings, but one should be aware that these findings are subject to change and may be revised considering new evidence. |
Scientific theories and laws (4 items) | Scientific theories (well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world) explain (some) scientific laws (generalized relationships of natural phenomena under certain conditions) but are clearly distinguishable from them. |
Social and cultural embeddedness (4 items) | As a human endeavor, scientific practice as well as interpretations and acceptance of scientific results are influenced by the particular reference society and culture. |
Creativity and imagination (4 items) | Scientists use their imagination and creativity throughout their scientific investigations (e.g., in generating hypotheses and theories or in explaining scientific results). |
Scientific methods (4 items) | Different scientific disciplines use different methods, theories, and standards to generate scientific knowledge, so there is no one-size-fits-all scientific approach that all scientists follow. |
Baseline Characteristics | Total Sample | BA | MA | 1S | 2S | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n = 151 | n = 73 | n = 76 | n = 27 | n = 27 | ||
Gender | 77% female 23% male | 75% female 23% male 2% other | 78% female 22% male | 70% female 30% male | 70% female 30% male | |
1S/2SBA/MA and BA/MA 1S/2S | n/a 1 | 84% 1SM 16% 2SM | 80% 1SM 20% 2SM | 54% BA 46% MA | 56% BA 44% MA | |
Age | M | 23.54 | 22.25 | 24.82 | 24.30 | 23.07 |
SD | 3.45 | 2.53 | 3.80 | 3.94 | 3.19 | |
Semester | M | 5.93 | 4.49 | 7.30 | 5.85 | 6.33 |
SD | 1.63 | 1.06 | 0.52 | 1.43 | 1.44 | |
NCC | M | 3.37 | 3.40 | 3.37 | 3.25 | 3.27 |
SD | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.78 | 0.54 | |
Difference Testing | Gender | = 1.08, p = 0.583 | = 0.00, p = 1.000 | |||
1S/2SBA/MA and BA/MA 1S/2S | = 0.27, p = 0.601 | = 0.47, p = 0.494 | ||||
Age | U = 4281.50, p < 0.001 | U = 295.50, p = 0.227 | ||||
Semester | U = 5548.00, p < 0.001 | U = 285.00, p = 0.222 | ||||
NCC | U = 2453.00, p = 0.248 | t(50) = 0.10, p = 0.460 |
Group | n | WGCTA | SUSSI | Difference Testing | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | ||||
BA | 73 | 40.60 | 7.78 | 79.36 | 8.43 | WGTCA | U = 3489.50, p < 0.01 |
MA | 76 | 44.38 | 8.66 | 79.63 | 10.84 | SUSSI | t(141.01) = 0.17, p = 0.432 |
1S | 27 | 38.56 | 6.53 | 75.92 | 7.93 | WGTCA | U = 506.50, p < 0.01 |
2S | 27 | 44.11 | 8.87 | 82.74 | 9.01 | SUSSI | U = 505.50, p < 0.01 |
Group | n | rCT―NOS 1 | p | Difference Testing |
---|---|---|---|---|
Total sample | 151 | 0.36 | <0.001 | n/a 2 |
BA | 73 | 0.30 | <0.05 | z = 0.90, p = 0.184 |
MA | 76 | 0.43 | <0.001 | |
1S | 27 | 0.33 | n/s 3 | z = 1.32, p = 0.093 |
2S | 27 | 0.62 | <0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 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/).
Share and Cite
Welter, V.D.E.; Emmerichs-Knapp, L.; Krell, M. Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?—A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13030279
Welter VDE, Emmerichs-Knapp L, Krell M. Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?—A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(3):279. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13030279
Chicago/Turabian StyleWelter, Virginia Deborah Elaine, Lars Emmerichs-Knapp, and Moritz Krell. 2023. "Are We on the Way to Successfully Educating Future Citizens?—A Spotlight on Critical Thinking Skills and Beliefs about the Nature of Science among Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Germany" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 3: 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13030279