Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks

A Global Perspective

Christine McDonald, Fouad Abd-El-Khalick

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317307266
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Teaching Science & Technology

Bringing together international research on nature of science (NOS) representations in science textbooks, the unique analyses presented in this volume provides a global perspective on NOS from elementary to college level and discusses the practical implications in various regions across the globe. Contributing authors highlight the similarities and differences in NOS representations and provide recommendations for future science textbooks. This comprehensive analysis is a definitive reference work for the field of science education.

1 Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks

Christine V. McDonald and Fouad Abd-El-Khalick

The development of informed nature of science (NOS) views is considered an integral component of scientific literacy, and a central focus of the majority of national science education reform documents worldwide (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015; National Research Council [NRC], 2012; Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS], NGSS Lead States, 2013). Reform documents in the United States and elsewhere have articulated a range of NOS concepts students need to know to become scientifically literate. More broadly, to be scientifically literate demands acquiring the ability to 1) apply and reason scientifically, 2) command the discourse of science, and 3) understand the historical and epistemological significance of the learned concepts. Numerous studies have explored the views held by teachers and students about NOS, and many of these studies have indicated that students and teachers hold deep-seated, uninformed views about NOS that are resistant to change. They have also indicated that NOS ideas need to be taught more deliberately and explicitly for positive change to occur (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Importantly, it is an undeniable reality that in the larger majority of science classrooms across the world, textbooks become the curriculum and determine, to a much larger extent than envisioned by science educators, what is taught and learned about science in these classrooms (Kahveci, 2010; Roseman, Stern, & Koppal, 2010). Such an impact gains significance in light of the fact that very few, if any, commercially viable science textbooks have been recently designed specifically to help K-12 students develop informed conceptions of NOS, as emphasized in current science education reform documents.

Previous research exploring how NOS is represented in school science textbooks is limited (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, & Le, 2008; Irez, 2009; Vesterinen, Akesla, & Lavonen, 2013), with findings generally indicating NOS does not receive much attention and is not represented in an informed manner. This raises a number of important questions, for example, are these findings typical for different countries with diverse education systems? Are there differences in NOS representations in science textbooks across the years of schooling (from elementary grades through college level), and between science textbook disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics)? What are the possible reasons for the inadequate representations of NOS in school science textbooks? How can representations of NOS be improved in school science textbooks? Thus, there is a need for further scholarship in this vitally important area. This book attempts to fill this void by presenting the findings of the latest research currently being conducted across the globe.

This chapter provides a rationale for the need for research exploring representations of NOS in school science textbooks. The first section will discuss the role of textbooks in school science education, with a consideration of the current usage of textbooks, and the limitations and affordances of textbooks. A review of previous research on representations of NOS in school science textbooks will follow, categorized into three lines of research. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the contribution of this book to the field, and an overview of the individual chapters reporting on empirical studies examining NOS representations in school science textbooks in a variety of science disciplines, year levels, and countries across the world.

The Role of Textbooks in School Science Education

Textbooks play a central role in school science education in both developing (Irez, 2009; Kahveci, 2010; Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2007), and developed countries (Chambliss & Calfee, 1998; Roseman et al., 2010). Bensaude-Vincent (2006) noted that textbooks surfaced as a literary genre early in the eighteenth century, and a typical textbook in this era was part of a tradition that “focused on commentary rather than to a scientific tradition based on the observation of nature” (p. 668). A shift occurred in the nineteenth century with the mandatory inclusion of science education from primary school to university level in many Western countries, resulting in the emergence of the ‘science textbook’ as an independent genre. Since that time, the science textbook has carved out a niche as a key instructional resource, and in the twenty-first century is considered to be a dominant influence in school science classrooms, often ‘becoming’ the curriculum (Chiappetta & Koballa, 2002).

International studies have indicated that both classroom instruction and homework activities are heavily organized around the textbook (Chiappetta, Ganesh, Lee, & Phillips, 2006; Lumpe & Beck, 1996). Textbooks have been shown to strongly influence the sequence of learning and teaching strategies employed by teachers, and having a significant influence on the learning experiences of students (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002; Penney, Norris, Phillips, & Clark, 2003). A recent, large-scale National Science Foundation (NSF) study conducted with 7752 science and mathematics teachers in the United States found that approximately three-quarters of middle school and high school science classes use textbooks, and just under 70 percent of elementary classes use textbooks (Banilower et al., 2013). Similar findings have been reported in the United Kingdom and Australia with over 80 percent of junior secondary, and high school teachers currently using science textbooks in their classrooms (King, 2010; McDonald, 2016).

Interestingly, approximately 75 percent of middle and high school teachers in the recent NSF study considered their textbooks to be of relatively high quality (Banilower et al., 2013), with results from other countries, such as Australia, showing similar trends (McDonald, 2016). These findings are somewhat surprising, given the large body of research highlighting the limitations of science textbooks. Previous studies report textbooks often present vast amounts of information in a superficial manner (Chiappetta, Sethna, & Fillman, 1993), contain high quantities of technical terms (Groves, 1995; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002), and place specialized language demands on students (e.g., Carnine & Carnine, 2004; Unsworth, 1997). Textbooks have been shown to emphasize lower cognitive-level questioning (Overman, Vermunt, Meijer, Bulte, & Brekelmans, 2013; Shepardson & Pizzini, 1991) and fail to take into account students’ prior knowledge (Stern & Roseman, 2004). They have been found to contain scientific misconceptions, inaccuracies, and generalizations (Holliday, 1991; Hubisz, 2003), and promote gender biases (Bazler & Simonis, 1991; Elgar, 2004). Other studies report limited attention to science-technology-society (STS) topics (Chiang-Soong & Yager, 1993; Rosenthal, 1984), and the absence of a multidisciplinary emphasis when integrating socio-scientific issues (SSIs) into school science textbooks (Morris, 2014). Recent studies focused on scientific practices have reported science textbooks provide limited opportunities to engage students in reasoning with data (Morris, Masnick, Baker, & Junglen, 2015), and continue to implicitly emphasize a narrow and traditional view of scientific methodology (Binns & Bell, 2015).

However, it is also imperative to recognize the body of research reporting on the affordances of science textbooks, as studies have shown that science textbooks can help to organize information, guide inquiry, present important scientific facts, improve problem solving skills, consolidate learning, illustrate abstractions, and develop reading skills (e.g., Chiappetta et al., 2006; Dunne, Mahdi, & O’Reilly, 2013; Lee, Eichinger, Anderson, Berkheimer, & Blakeslee, 1993; Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2007; Penney et al., 2003; Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1997). Previous research suggests that teachers have an increased reliance on textbooks when they are inexperienced or teaching outside of their subject area (Ball & Feiman-Nemser, 1988; Reddy, 2005; Stern & Roseman, 2004). In developed countries, such as the United States and Australia, many teachers in the middle school/junior secondary years tend not to hold a university major in science, or lack adequate tertiary preparation to teach science, thus limiting their ability to plan and teach science classes effectively (McKenzie, Kos, Walker, & Hong, 2008; Weis, 2013). Thus, it is imperative these teachers have access to high quality textbooks to support their classroom instruction.

Consequently, calls to remove textbooks from science classrooms might be overzealous and surely impractical for a number of reasons. Kloser (2013) reminds us that textbooks play an integral role in science education, as the practices of reading and writing are core components of the scientific enterprise. For example, scientists are required to develop and communicate their knowledge via grant applications, journal articles, and conference presentations, amongst other practices. To successfully engage in these practices, scientists require highly developed literacy skills, thus, it is important to ensure these skills are developed in students to promote scientific literacy. In recent times, science education scholars have extended their conceptualization of scientific literacy to focus on the ‘literacy’ component of the construct (Fang & Wei, 2010; Johnson & Zabrucky, 2011; Norris & Phillips, 2003). These scholars claim that student conceptualizations of science are developed via oral and written communication, thus highlighting the central role of literacy practices in science education. Furthermore, these practices need to be explicitly integrated into science classrooms, as reading and writing are often de-emphasized in favor of practical, hands-on activities.

Unfortunately, research suggests that students’ motivation to read deteriorates in early adolescence (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), with research from the United States indicating that up to three-quarters of students in some middle and high school classes are unable to read textbooks effectively (Carnine & Carnine, 2004). Fang and Wei (2010) argue that limited reading skills hamper the development of deep understanding of science concepts. In addition, the manner in which textbooks are written influences the development of students’ scientific literacy, as students are required to negotiate meaning from the written text, which requires an understanding of the structure and organization of expository texts (Penney et al., 2003). Recent recommendations in the United States now require students to use expository or informational texts from the first grade of primary school, with the goal of ensuring students are ‘college literate’ by the time they finish high school (Bryce, 2013).

Finally, it is important to be mindful that textbook development and production are highly influential processes impacting the content and structure of textbooks. The multi-billion-dollar industry of commercial textbook production is influenced by a myriad of factors, as textbooks are commodities produced by publishers who are under economic, political, social, and cultural constraints to design books with marketability to a range of stakeholders. A recent study conducted by DiGiuseppe (2014) examined the role of the author, publisher, editor and reviewers of a Canadian twelfth grade high school chemistry textbook with respect to how representations of NOS were developed and incorporated in two chapters of the textbook. A number of factors were found to significantly influence the development and incorporation of NOS representations in the textbook; however, two factors—marketability and workplace resources—appeared to have an overarching influence.

Sharma and Buxton (2015) contend that decisions regarding the scope and level of simplification of content in textbooks are not only influenced by concerns about comprehensibility, but also policy and societal discourses in both science and education. As a result, there are strong incentives to maintain a conservative tone in science textbooks, and in many cases this results in superficial coverage of a broad range of non-controversial, established knowledge that fails to illustrate the processes of science, and the manner in which scientific knowledge is justified (Bensaude-Vincent, 2006). As such, students are provided with a false impression of the scientific community, which fails to acknowledge many aspects of the nature of the scientific enterprise.

Previous Research on Representations of NOS in Textbooks

Science textbooks are influential teaching resources that play a dominant role in the classroom. Thus, it is imperative to examine these resources to ascertain how they represent NOS to students, as it is highly likely that the values and assumptions embedded or explicated in the language of the textbook, and its associated images, will influence students’ views about the nature of the scientific enterprise. So, what is NOS? How do we define it? There currently is not, and most likely will never be, a single or straightforward answer to this question as historians, philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists of science actively continue to examine the workings of the sciences, trying to explain the incredible success of this complex and multifaceted human endeavor. Thus, it is inevitable for science educators to transform and translate scholarship about NOS into frameworks that lend themselves to curriculum and instruction in precollege science classrooms. One possible way to group current NOS frameworks are the domain-general (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, Lederman, Osborne, Niaz) versus domain-specific (e.g., Allchin, Duschl, Hodson, van Dijk) perspectives. The domain-general view of NOS can be considered to be the dominant framework utilized in science education with substantial theoretical and empirical support, but has been the subject of criticism by domain-specific scholars (e.g., Duschl & Grandy, 2013; Wong & Hodson, 2010). A domain-general view of NOS asserts that there are a set of largely agreed upon, non-controversial aspects of science that are able to be effectively taught in school science education; whereas a domain-specific view of NOS proposes that different science disciplines have their own distinct natures of science (Kampourakis, 2016). The latter view itself has been the subject of criticism, albeit we believe that, unlike domain-specific scholars, that the two approaches could be synergistic (for details see Abd-El-Khalick, 2012; also see Chapter 3 in this volume for examples).

Importantly, the focus of this book is to explore how NOS is represented in school science textbooks, not to engage in debates about definitions or conceptualizations of NOS. The studies reviewed in this chapter, and the empirical studies presented in the proceeding chapters adopt a variety of theoretical perspectives to guide the development of their analytical frameworks and to inform scholarship in the field. In the final chapter we synthesize findings from these diverse perspectives to provide a set of recommendations for future research and practice. However, prior to this, it is important to review previous studies that have examined NOS in school science textbooks. A literature review of research published in mainstream science education journals over the past 30 years was undertaken, and the reviewed studies were categorized into three lines of research. These included studies that examined science textbooks for the: 1) emphasis given to NOS as a single theme, 2) historical and philosophical accuracy of representations of science content and its development, and 3) accuracy and/or extent of representation of specific aspects or domains of NOS drawn from reform documents.

Emphasis Given to NOS as a Single Theme

The first empirical study published in the mainstream science education literature was conducted 25 years ago by Chiappetta, Sethna, and Fillman (1991), who carried out a quantitative analysis of scientific literacy themes in seven high school chemistry textbooks. This research followed a series of previous studies carried out by Chiappetta’s research group in the late 1980s that addressed themes of scientific...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks
• 2 A Longitudinal Analysis of the Extent and Manner of Representations of Nature of Science in U.S. High School Chemistry, Biology, and Physics Textbooks
• 3 Relationship Between Domain-Specific and Domain-General Aspects of Nature of Science in Science Textbooks
• 4 The Portrayal of Nature of Science in Lebanese Ninth Grade Science Textbooks
• 5 Exploring Representations of Nature of Science in Australian Junior Secondary School Science Textbooks: A Case Study of Genetics
• 6 Nature of Science Representations in Greek Secondary School Biology Textbooks
• 7 Representations of Nature of Science in U.S. Elementary Science Trade Books
• 8 Improving Representation of Nature of Science in Textbooks Through Action Research: A Canadian Perspective
• 9 An Analysis of the Representation of Nature of Science in a Chemistry Textbook in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program
• 10 An Analysis of South African School Science Textbooks for Representations of Nature of Science
• 11 Representations of Nature of Science in German School Chemistry Textbooks
• 12 Where to From Here? Implications and Future Directions for Research on Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks
• List of Contributors
• Index