Factors affecting the formation of views of nature of science: A mixed-methods study

References

• AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aikenhead, G. S., and G. R. Ryan. 1992. “The Development of a New Instrument: ‘Views on Science-Technology-Society’ (VOSTS).” Science Education 76: 477–491. doi:10.1002/sce.3730760503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akerson, V. L., D. L. Hanson, and T. A. Cullen. 2007. “The Influence of Guided Inquiry and Explicit Instruction on K–6 Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 18 (5): 751–772. doi:10.1007/s10972-007-9065-4.
   Google Scholar
• Asli, S., B. Oktay, and O. A. Fulya. 2015. “Investigation of the Relationship Between Pre-Service Science Teacher’s Epistemological Beliefs and Beliefs About Nature of Science.” Mevlana International Journal of Education 5 (2): 96–116.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, P., and M. C. Linn. 2000. “Scientific Arguments as Learning Artifacts: Designing for Learning from the Web with KIE.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (8): 797–817. doi:10.1080/095006900412284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai, C. S., F. Deng, B. Wong, and Y. Qian. 2010. “South China Education Majors’ Epistemological Beliefs and Their Conceptions of the Nature of Science.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 19 (1): 111–125. doi:10.3860/taper.v19i1.1512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., M.-J. Benus, and M. B. Yarker. 2016. “Using Models to Support Argumentation in the Science Classroom.” The American Biology Teacher 78 (7): 549–559. doi:10.1525/abt.2016.78.7.549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Q., and R. Liu. 2007. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2nd ed. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-C., and J. Steenhoek. 2013. “A Negotiation Cycle to Promote Argumentation in Science Classrooms.” Science Scope 36 (9): 41–50. doi:10.2505/4/ss13_036_09_41.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M. H., D. M. Lankford, and D. J. Wescott. 2011. “Exploring the Relationships Among Epistemological Beliefs, Nature of Science, and Conceptual Change in the Learning of Evolutionary Theory.” Evolution Education & Outreach 4 (2): 313–322. doi:10.1007/s12052-011-0324-7.
   Google Scholar
• Eng, S., and A. G. Woodside. 2012. “Configural Analysis of the Drinking Man: Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analyses.” Addictive Behaviors 37: 541–543. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eymur, G. 2019. “The Influence of the Explicit Nature of Science Instruction Embedded in the Argument-Driven Inquiry Method in Chemistry Laboratories on High School students’ Conceptions About the Nature of Science.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 20: 17–29. doi:10.1039/C8RP00135A.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, Z., and J. Feng. 2011. New Theory of Teaching—Psychological Principles of Structured and Directed Instruction. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C. 2007. “A Set-Theoretic Approach to Organizational Configurations.” Academy of Management Review 32: 1180–1198. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagne, R. M. 1974. Essentials of Learning for Instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Ganter, A., and A. Hecker. 2014. “Configurational Paths to Organizational Innovation: Qualitative Comparative Analyses of Antecedents and Contingencies.” Journal of Business Research 67: 1285–1292. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadjilouca, R., N. Papadouris, and C. P. Constantinou. 2021. “Teaching Aspects of the Interrelationship Between Science and Technology: Explicit or Implicit Approach?” Research in Science & Technological Education 41: 482–504. doi:10.1080/02635143.2021.1912726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K. 2002. “Personal Epistemology as a Psychological and Educational Construct: An Introduction.” In Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, 3–14. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K. 2004. “Epistemological Understanding as a Metacognitive Process: Thinking Aloud During On-Line Searching.” Educational Psychologist 39 (1): 43–55. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Y. 2009. Educational Psychology. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., and S. Erduran. 2007. “Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview.” In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, edited by S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 3–27. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, Z. 2005. The Construction of the Metacognitive Ability Scale for College Students. Taiyuan: Shanxi University (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R.B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kujawski, D. J. 2015. “Present, Critique, Reflect, and Refine: Supporting Evidence-Based Argumentation Through Conceptual Modeling.” Science Scope 38 (4): 29–34.
   Google Scholar
• Kutluca, A. Y., and A. Aydın. 2017. “Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Understandings After Being Involved in Explicit Nature of Science and Socioscientific Argumentation Processes.” Science & Education 26 (6): 637–668. doi:10.1007/s11191-017-9919-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G. 1986. “Students’ and Teachers’ Understanding of the Nature of Science: A Reassessmen.” School Science Mathematics 86 (2): 91–99. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1986.tb11593.x.
   Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G. 1992. “Students’ and teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 29 (4): 331–359. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell, and R. S. Schwartz. 2002. “Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of learners’ Conceptions of Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (6): 497–521. doi:10.1002/tea.10034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. G., J. S. Lederman, and A. Antink. 2013. “Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy.” International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 1 (3): 138–147. doi:10.18404/ijemst.19784.
   Google Scholar
• Legewie, N. 2013. “An Introduction to Applied Data Analysis with Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 14: 1–45. doi:10.17169/FQS-14.3.1961.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Y. 2020. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Configuration Comparison Method Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Thinking.” Journal of Guangxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 56 (3): 89–110. doi:10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2020.03.008.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, Y. 2005. “A Study of Science teachers’ View of Nature of Science.” Educational Sciences 21 (6): 59–61.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, X., X. Xiao, and H. Chen. 2016. “Performance Assessment of Scientific Argumentation Abilities of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers.” Chinese Journal of Chemical Education 37 (16): 43–47. doi:10.13884/j.1003-3807hxjy.2015100026.
   Google Scholar
• Masue, O. S., I. L. Swai, and M. G. Anasel. 2013. “The Qualitative-Quantitative ‘Disparities’ in Social Science Research: What Does Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Brings in to Bridge the Gap?” Asian Social Science 9 (10): 211–221. doi:10.5539/ass.v9n10p211.
   Google Scholar
• Matkins, J. J., and R. L. Bell. 2007. “Awakening the Scientist Inside: Global Climate Change and the Nature of Science in an Elementary Science Methods Course.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 18: 137–163. doi:10.1007/s10972-006-9033-4.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, C. V. 2010. “The Influence of Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction on Preservice Primary teachers’ Views of Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (9): 1137–1164. doi:10.1002/tea.20377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merill, R., and D. Butts. 1969. “Vitalizing the Role of the Teacher.” In Designs for Progress in Science Education, edited by D. Butts, 35–42. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• MoE (Ministry of Education). 2018. The General Senior Secondary School Chemistry Curriculum Standards (The 2017 Version). Beijing: People’s Education Press (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Navarro-Mateu, D., L. Alonso-Larza, M. T. Gómez-Domínguez, V. Prado-Gascó, and S. Valero-Moreno. 2020. “I’m Not Good for Anything and That’s Why I’m Stressed: Analysis of the Effect of Self-Efficacy and Emotional Intelligence on Student Stress Using SEM and QCA.” Frontiers in Psychology 11: 295. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, D. T., and T. M. T. Nguyen. 2015. “Can Knowledge Be Transferred from Business Schools to Business Organizations Through In-Service Training Students? SEM and fsQca Findings.” Journal of Business Research 68 (6): 1332–1340. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., and L. M. Phillips. 2003. “How Literacy in Its Fundamental Sense is Central to Scientific Literacy.” Science Education 87: 224–240. doi:10.1002/sce.10066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2015. PISA 2015 Results inFocus. Accessed January 2021. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ordanini, A., A. Parasuraman, and G. Rubera. 2014. “When the Recipe is More Important Than the Ingredients: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of Service Innovation Configurations.” Journal of Service Research 17 (2): 134–149. doi:10.1177/1094670513513337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozgelen, S. 2012. “Exploring the Relationships Among Epistemological Beliefs, Metacognitive Awareness and Nature of Science.” International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 7 (3): 409–431.
   Google Scholar
• Ozturk, A. 2017. “An Investigation of Prospective Science teachers’ Socio-Scientific Argumentation Processes in Terms of Metacognition: A Causal-Comparative Study.” Pegem Egitim Ve Oğretim Dergisi 7 (4): 547–582. doi:10.14527/pegegog.2017.020.
   Google Scholar
• Park, H., W. Nielsen, and E. Woodruff. 2014. “Students’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Perspectives from Canadian and Korean Middle School Students.” Science & Education 23 (5): 1169–1196. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9613-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulsen, M. B., and K. A. Feldman. 1999. “Student Motivation and Epistemological Beliefs.” New Directions for Teaching Learning 78: 17–25. doi:10.1002/tl.7802.
   Google Scholar
• Pi, L. 2000. Psychology of Learning and Teaching. Revised Edition. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Priyanda, E. R. P., A. Mudzakir, and A. B. D. Nandiyanto. 2021. “Analyzing Senior High School students’ View of Nature of Science and Technology (VNOST).” Journal of Physics: Conference Ser 1521: 042057. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042057.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C. 2018. User’s Guide to Fuzzy-Set/qualitative Comparative Analysis 3.0. Irvine, California: Department of Sociology, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C. C., and S. Davey. 2016. Fuzzy-Set/qualitative Comparative Analysis 3.0. Irvine, California: Department of Sociology, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Ramsey, G., and R. Howe. 1969. “An Analysis of Research on Instructional Procedures in Secondary School Science.” The Science Teacher 36: 62–68.
   Google Scholar
• Rihoux, B., and C. C. Ragin. 2017. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Beijing: China Machine Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rooy, W. V. 1993. “Teaching Controversial Issues in the Secondary School Science Classroom.” Research in Science Education 23 (1): 317–326. doi:10.1007/BF02357076.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., and D. B. Clark. 2008. “Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions.” Science Education 34 (10): 1443–1485. doi:10.1002/sce.20276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schommer-Aikins, M. 2004. “Explaining the Epistemological Belief System: Introducing the Embedded Systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach.” Educational Psychologist 39: 19–29. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schraw, G., and R. S. Dennison. 1994. “Assessing Metacognitive Awareness.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 19: 460–475. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H. 2003. Perspective of Education. 3rd ed. Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Press (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Seawright, J. 2005. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis Vis-A-Vis Regression.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40: 3–26. doi:10.1007/BF02686284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengul, O., P. J. Enderle, and R. S. Schwartz. 2020. “Science teachers’ Use of Argumentation Instructional Model: Linking PCK of Argumentation, Epistemological Beliefs, and Practice.” International Journal of Science Education 42 (7): 1068–1086. doi:10.1080/09500693.2020.1748250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soysal, Y. 2015. “A Critical Review: Connecting Nature of Science and Argumentation.” Science Education International 25 (4): 501–521.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vis, B. 2012. “The Comparative Advantages of fsQca and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses.” Social Research Methods 41: 168–198. doi:10.1177/0049124112442142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. P., V. Sampson, C. O. Zimmerman, and J. A. Grooms. 2011. “A Performance-Based Assessment for Limiting Reactants.” Journal of Chemical Education 88 (9): 1243–1246. doi:10.1021/ed1006629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, J. 2010. “A Comparative Study of Chinese and American Science teachers’ Views of Nature of Science.” Global Education 39 (10): 86–90.
   Google Scholar
• Woodside, A. G. 2013. “Moving Beyond Multiple Regression Analysis to Algorithms: Calling for Adoption of a Paradigm Shift from Symmetric to Asymmetric Thinking in Data Analysis and Crafting Theory.” Journal of Business Research 66: 463–472. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, M. L. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling: Operations and Applications of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, F.-Y., Y.-H. Chen, and M.-J. Tsai. 2013. “How University Students Evaluate Online Information About a Socio-Scientific Issue and the Relationship with Their Epistemic Beliefs.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 16 (3): 385–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yenice, N. 2015. “An Analysis of Science Student Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs and Metacognitive Perceptions About the Nature of Science.” Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 15 (6): 1623–1636. doi:10.12738/estp.2015.6.2613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerrick, R. K. 2000. “Lower Track Science students’ Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (8): 807–838. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807:AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong, T. 2018. A Study on the Psychological Influences of Preservice Chemistry teachers’ View of Nature of Science. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, Y. 2011. Research on Epistemology Belief of College Students. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, Y., and D. Tan. 2016. “Development of the Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire for Undergraduate Students.” Psychological Exploration 36 (3): 281–286.
   Google Scholar