2016 MC Comasand Nouri NOSand NGSS

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/281113235
The Nature of Science in the Science Curriculum, Instructional Standards and

in Teacher Education Programs in the United States
Chapter · December 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_61
CITATIONS READS
32 1,813
1 author:
William F. Mccomas
University of Arkansas
206 PUBLICATIONS 5,984 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Editorship of The American Biology Teacher View project
Science Fairs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by William F. Mccomas on 27 September 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Nature of Science and the Next
Generation Science Standards: Analysis
and Critique
William F. McComas & Noushin Nouri
Journal of Science Teacher Education

The official journal of the Association for
Science Teacher Education
ISSN 1046-560X
Volume 27
Number 5
J Sci Teacher Educ (2016) 27:555-576

DOI 10.1007/s10972-016-9474-3
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by The Association
for Science Teacher Education, USA. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
J Sci Teacher Educ (2016) 27:555–576
DOI 10.1007/s10972-016-9474-3
The Nature of Science and the Next Generation Science

Standards: Analysis and Critique
William F. McComas1 • Noushin Nouri1
Published online: 14 May 2016

The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2016
Abstract This paper provides a detailed analysis of the inclusion of aspects of

nature of science (NOS) in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). In this
new standards document, NOS elements in eight categories are discussed in
Appendix H along with illustrative statements (called exemplars). Many, but not all,
of these exemplars are linked to the standards by their association with either the
‘‘practices of science’’ or ‘‘crosscutting concepts,’’ but curiously not with the rec-
ommendations for science content. The study investigated all aspects of NOS in
NGSS including the accuracy and inclusion of the supporting exemplar statements
and the relationship of NOS in NGSS to other aspects of NOS to support teaching
and learning science. We found that while 92 % of these exemplars are acceptable,
only 78 % of those written actually appear with the standards. ‘‘Science as a way of
knowing’’ is a recommended NOS category in NGSS but is not included with the
standards. Also, several other NOS elements fail to be included at all grade levels
thus limiting their impact. Finally, NGSS fails to include or insufficiently empha-
size several frequently recommended NOS elements such as creativity and sub-
jectivity. The paper concludes with a list of concerns and solutions to the challenges
of NOS in NGSS.
Keywords Nature of science Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

Science Framework Science curriculum Science learning standards
& William F. McComas

mccomas@uark.edu
1
College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, 310 Peabody Hall,
Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
123
556 W. F. McComas, N. Nouri
Introduction
The term nature of science (NOS) is widely used in science education and represents
for most in the field one of the most important goals of science instruction, to provide to
students some appreciation for and understanding of knowledge generation and
validation. Few would argue that assisting students in understanding the nature of science
must accompany content as equally vital instructional goals. McComas, Clough and Al-
mazroa (1998) suggest that NOS is the domain that blends insights and expertise from the
philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology of science resulting in ‘‘a rich description
of what science is, how it works, how scientists operate as a social group and how society
itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavors’’ (McComas et al., 1998, p. 4).
Lederman (2007) adds that NOS refers to ‘‘the epistemology of science, science as a way
of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its
development’’ (p. 833). These two definitions neatly span the landscape that most science
educators would consider a reasonable delineation of the kinds of issues that comprise the
NOS domain that should be infused into science teaching and inform science learners.
Starting more than 100 years ago and continuing through the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS), studies and expert opinion (Lederman, 1992; McComas
et al., 1998; Matthews, 2014) have demonstrated the importance of including
elements of NOS in school science programs. Only though NOS as an instructional
domain, will students come to understand how science works, how scientific
knowledge is created and validated, how scientists do what they do, and how
science can be distinguished from non-science.
Certainly there have been some debates about the ultimate shared meaning of NOS
that might be shared by philosophers of science, historians of science, and science
educators (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998). However, any disagreement
about the ultimate definition of NOS and its sub-elements has little to do with its
importance as a vital aspect of school science instruction. The issue of elucidating
what NOS aspects to include in the science classroom remains an important goal.
Science educators have recommended numerous different aspects of NOS to include
in K–12 science teaching. For example, Lederman (2007) and McComas (2005) listed
seven and nine aspects of NOS, respectively. A meta-analysis by Alshamrani (2008)
which reviewed recommendations from multiple sources (Abd-El-Khalick, 2004;
Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Bell, 2004; Chen, 2006; Clough, 2000; Lederman, 1998;
Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Liu & Lederman, 2002; McComas, 2004; Osborne,
Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004;
Tao, 2003) found 12 NOS aspects recommended in at least two of these reports. These
key aspects of NOS are shown in the following list.
Key Aspects of the Nature of Science: Elements of NOS Most Commonly

Recommended for Inclusion in School Science Programs
1. Scientific knowledge is not entirely objective

2. Scientists use creativity
123
The Nature of Science and the Next Generation Science… 557
3. Scientific knowledge is tentative but durable

4. Scientific knowledge is socially and culturally embedded
5. Laws and theories are distinct kinds of knowledge
6. Scientific knowledge is empirically based
7. There is no universal stepwise scientific method
8. There is a distinction between observations and inferences
9. Science cannot answer all questions (and is therefore limited in its scope)
10. Cooperation and collaboration are part of the development of scientific
knowledge
11. There is a distinction between science and technology
12. Experiments have a role in science
One might argue that these elements, or some subset of them, ought to inform
any proposal designed to enhance science teaching and learning and we are pleased
to report that the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013) in the USA seem to have reached
that same conclusion. Given the importance of NOS and these new science
standards, it is reasonable to closely examine NGSS since they will guide science
teaching and science teacher preparation in the US states which adopt them. At the
same time, NGSS seems to have become a topic of significance in nations beyond
the USA and even in those states that will not ultimately fully adopt them. Thus, the
findings of the report here are of potential consequence to all of those involved in
science teaching and learning. To some the findings will help define what NOS
should be included in school science settings, and to others the results provided here
will help guide plans for the education of future science teachers. All of those who
work involves the enhancement of science instruction will be interested in the way
in which this vital dimension of science is incorporated into the most important
science standards document of the twenty-first century—at least in the USA.
NOS and Science Teaching in the US Context
As reported by McComas (2014) in an analysis of the US context for NOS, this

curriculum element has had a highly variable history of inclusion in the past
century, despite widespread recommendations of its importance. A detailed study by
McComas, Lee, and Sweeney (2009) of all the relevant documents revealed that
most states offered some recommendations regarding NOS, but the policies were
highly variable. Some states had a robust focus on NOS and included all the specific
elements often suggested by science educators, whereas other states barely
mentioned the topic. The NOS situation improved slightly with the development
of Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
1989), the related Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and the National
Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), all of which
included some NOS recommendations.
However, the NOS situation has changed in a generally positive direction with the
advent of the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Before discussing this new initiative, it
is important to remind readers—particularly from outside the USA—that while there
123
is much in common in the educational methods and goals across the nation, education
governance remains the responsibility of each state and territory. Until recently, each
state had its own set of guidance documents detailing educational goals in various
disciplines. However, many state officials have come to realize that developing high-
quality policies to govern curriculum development is an expensive and time-
consuming task and have joined ranks to produce shared documents. Currently these
include the Common Core in mathematics and literacy as well as NGSS. Given the
inherent ‘‘states-rights’’ issue associated with education, some states have already
rejected joining any collaborative with respect to shared curriculum standards.
However, it is clear that NGSS already has the potential to bring the nation closer to a
consensus on the issues of science teaching and learning than have past initiatives.
NGSS and NOS: Framework to Standards
NGSS grew from a report called A Framework for K–12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, authored by a committee charged
with creating a conceptual framework for the actual K–12 science education
standards (National Research Council, 2012). The group that designed the
Framework represented a number of scientists with broad interests in education
but, remarkably, involved very few individuals who might be classified as science
educators. This may explain why inclusions such as crosscutting themes have more
promience in NGSS than most teachers would have preferred.
The Framework was designed to provide a blueprint for developing NGSS, ‘‘to help
realize a vision for education in the sciences and engineering in which students, over
multiple years, actively engage in science and engineering practices and apply
crosscutting concepts to deepen their understanding of the core ideas in these fields’’
(National Research Council, 2012, pp. 8–9). The lengthy Framework document is
structured on the basis of three dimensions: (1) scientific and engineering practices, (2)
crosscutting concepts (such as patterns, cause and effect, systems, stability and change,
and other such ideas), and (3) disciplinary core ideas in science and engineering.
It is easy to note the lack of prominence of NOS, although NOS topics appear
throughout if one looks specifically for them. For instance, the Framework states that
there is a strong consensus about characteristics of the scientific enterprise that should
be understood by an educated citizen, and it includes a section called ‘‘Understanding
How Scientists Work.’’ For example, we find that the myth of the single scientific
method is strongly refuted. The Framework reminds us that scientists use deductive
reasoning, search for patterns, classify, generalize after making observations, and
engage in the process of inferential thinking. We even find a section (p. 46) describing
how science and engineering differ. The Framework discusses the roles of critique and
argumentation, peer review, evidence, inference, imagination, creativity, prediction,
and collaboration and generally describes science as a ‘‘synthesis of content
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and epistemic knowledge’’ (p. 78).
While there are robust and vital elements related to the overarching notion of
‘‘how science works,’’ in the Framework, and while this is encouraging, it is hard
not to be critical of the approach taken, for several reasons: (1) NOS appears
123
throughout the Framework, rather than in one well organized and clear section; (2)
NOS is integrated with crosscutting themes and science and engineering practices
thus reducing the perceived importance of this domain; (3) there seems to be an
assumption that teachers will refer back to the Framework even with the release of
NGSS to examine the NOS recommendations in that document; and that (4) with
three main recommendations of NGSS that there will be time to feature NOS in
classroom instruction.
When the first draft of NGSS was released, NOS representation had actually
declined in spite of the implicit Framework recommendations. When members of
the science education community commented on that first draft, they expressed
surprise and dismay, as revealed by the countless postings to the NGSS author team.
What occurred next was profound. The authors listened, and NOS aspects appeared
throughout a revised version of NGSS. However, rather than engage in the
wholesale revision of NGSS that should have occurred, they included NOS as
Appendix H of the final document, in the form of eight NOS elements (called
‘‘categories’’ in NGSS), along with more than 80 related exemplars written to help
illustrate the nature of science found within the eight categories.
It is true that NOS now appears in association with almost of all of the standards,
but is found at the bottom of the existing columns (see Fig. 1) linked either to the
science and engineering practices or crosscutting themes. Although the NGSS
authors apparently realized their failure to feature NOS prominently, they presum-
ably did not want to delay delivery of the NGSS document and hence appear to have
put NOS in where they could rather than as its own clear section as should have been
the case. Many in science education now talk about Three Dimensional Science
Teaching (content, cross-cutting concepts and science and engineering practices),
when in reality the final version of NGSS asks for a new vision of science teaching
that features four major notions—with NOS properly included.
Fig. 1 An example of how the four dimensions (core ideas, science and engineering practices,
crosscutting concepts, and NOS) are organized in the Next Generation Science Standards. This example
is from the recommendations for teaching physical science at the middle school level (3-LS1: From
Molecules to Organisms; NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 27). In this case, note that the NOS element from
Category II is linked to the Science and Engineering Practices
123
It is unfortunate that the Framework failed to provide a single robust treatment of

NOS such that it could have served as a more useful reference to educators who
might look to that document for guidance. In our opinion, the core science ideas
along with NOS should have been ‘‘front and center’’ in NGSS rather than
potentially confounding or even disguising NOS by linking it to science and
engineering and crosscutting concepts. Furthermore, we are concerned about the
utility of the philosophically interesting but pedagogically suspect crosscutting
concepts. What are teachers to do with these themes and why in NGSS are they
more prominently featured than NOS? We are also worried about the potentially
negative consequences of blending science and engineering. As will be discussed
later in this report, we feel that uninformed students and even teachers may assume
that science and engineering are much the same when, in fact, are quite different
philosophically and in practice.
NOS in the Next Generation Standards
Since the release of the final NGSS document in April 2013, state representatives
have been debating, accepting, modifying, and even rejecting some of the
recommendations of NGSS. However, it seems clear that a majority of states will
ultimately adopt NGSS, thus offering the United States the first shared and powerful
tool directing curriculum development, guiding teacher preparation, and directing
the design of shared assessments of educational progress.
The encouraging news, from an NOS perspective, is that nature of science really
is a fourth major aspect of NGSS. As stated, the NOS recommendations are found in
Table 1 Nature of science categories included in Appendix H of the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS Lead States, 2013)
Category number as used in the tables that follow NGSS NOS category
in the analysis here
I Scientific investigations use a variety of methods

II Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence
III Scientific knowledge is open to revision in light of
new evidence
IV Science models, laws, mechanisms, and theories
explain natural phenomena
V Science is a way of knowing
VI Scientific knowledge assumes an order and
consistency in natural systems
VII Science is a human endeavor
VIII Science addresses questions about the natural and
material world
Each of these categories is accompanied by exemplars designed to expand or explain the category. The
exemplars are designed for use at various grade levels and are contained in two tables, one related to the
practices of science (I–IV) and the other to what are called ‘‘crosscutting concepts’’ (V–VIII)
123
Appendix H (and provided here in Table 1). In addition, NGSS features two more
detailed tables, also organized around grade levels: one links NOS (Categories I–IV)
to the practices of science, and the other relates NOS (Categories V–VIII) to
crosscutting concepts but with little explanation or justification for why this is done.
In addition, each NOS category is accompanied by statements (called here
exemplars) to provide additional commentary and explanation. In turn, many of
these NOS categories (and their related exemplars) are found throughout the overall
document, associated with the ‘‘big three’’ of content, science practices, and
crosscutting concepts.
To exemplify the way NOS is generally included in the body of the standards,
consider Fig. 1 from NGSS focusing on specific life-science concepts for
elementary students. This is a typical page from NGSS showing the science and
engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. There is
not a NOS aspect provided for every standard, but when NOS does appear it is
always associated with either the crosscutting concepts or the practices, as in the
example shown here as Fig. 1. Most of the information about NOS is contained
either in the Framework or in Volume 2 of the NGSS (Volume 1 contains the
standards of most interest to teachers). This has resulted in the situation in which
NOS does not have the prominence of the other three NGSS elements. This may
lead some to infer that NGSS makes a recommendation only for ‘‘three-
dimensional’’ science teaching. However, given the discussion of NOS in the
Framework and in NGSS Volume 2, we might have expected the authors of NGSS
to include four columns on each page, showing that NGSS promotes four
dimensions of science teaching.
Research Questions and Methods
With this introduction as context, we considered the following research questions

to guide the present study:
1. How accurate are the NOS exemplars as presented in NGSS?

2. How frequently do the various NOS categories (and related exemplars) appear
in the four grade-level strands (K–2, 3–5, Middle School, and High School)?
3. How complete is the NOS as included in NGSS when compared with a broader
recommended list of such elements?
To address the issue of the accuracy of the exemplars, an expert panel of five
science educators with knowledge of and interest in NOS and science instruction
were asked to look first at a specific each NOS category and then rate each of the
included exemplars appearing in Appendix H of Volume 2 of NGSS. The task was
simple; raters either said ‘‘acceptable’’ if the exemplar was well related to the NOS
category or ‘‘unacceptable’’ if they thought the exemplar statement was not
appropriate. An inspection of the number of ‘‘acceptable’’ or ‘‘unacceptable’’ ratings
resulted in a final valuation of the exemplar if 80 % or more of the raters made the
same judgement and an ‘‘OK’’ if the judgement was split.
123
Please note that a ‘‘unacceptable’’ rating could be achieved if the exemplar with
either inaccurate or was judged not to relate to the category for which it was written.
In total, there were 430 decisions made by these 5 raters; about 6.9 % of the
decisions did not match resulting in an interrater agreement of 93.1 %. An example
of an ‘‘acceptable’’ and an ‘‘unacceptable’’ exemplar aligned with its category is
shown in Table 2.
For the second research question, we applied summative content analysis as
recommended by Hsieh and Shannon (2005) who state ‘‘Typically, a study using a
summative approach to qualitative content analysis starts with identifying and
quantifying certain words or content in text with the purpose of understanding the
contextual use of the words or content’’ (p. 1283). The process was extended with
the interpretation of the content. We carefully reviewed the NGSS document and
found instances where NOS specifically appears in the categories, exemplars, and
text. We counted the number of times that each exemplar appears within the
document; the number is related to the value of that exemplar in the document.
The third research question was addressed simply by comparing a master list of
‘‘Key Aspects’’ (see above; Alshamrani, 2008) with the NOS exemplars included in
NGSS. We found that looking at the exemplars rather than just the NGSS NOS
categories gave a more valid picture of exactly what NOS is in the standards
document. Having said, that one would have to have an extensive understanding of
NOS and take the time to examine every NOS category and every NOS exemplar to
make the final judgement about what is in and not in NGSS.
Data
Summary data related to the research questions appear in Tables 3 and 4 related
to questions 1 and 2, respectively. The data are derived from close examination and
counting NOS exemplars within NGSS without reference to any ideal or desired set
Table 2 Examples of an ‘‘acceptable’’ exemplar (one that is both accurate and highly related to the
nature of science (NOS) category with which it appears) and an ‘‘unacceptable’’ exemplar (not accurate or
not related clearly to the NOS category to which it is linked) from the Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013)
Example of an Category I: Scientific investigations This is considered a good exemplar of
‘‘acceptable’’ use a variety of methods the category because it aligns with it. In
NOS exemplar Illustration (I-4): Science this case, it simply restates the
from NGSS investigations use a variety of narrative of the category and does not
methods, tools, and techniques shed much new light on the category
itself. 100 % of the raters considered
this as an ‘‘acceptable’’ statement for
this category
Example of an Category VII: Science is a human The statement is certainly true, but is
‘‘unacceptable’’ endeavor considered ‘‘unacceptable’’ because it
NOS exemplar Illustration (I-9): Technological seems only distantly related to the
from NGSS advances have influenced the category itself. In this case, 80 % of the
progress of science and science has raters agreed that this is not a useful
influenced advances in technology example statement
123
Table 3 An analysis of the nature of science (NOS) categories as they appear within the Next Generation Science Standards
(A) NOS categories from (B) NOS exempar statements in Appendix H of NGSS that (C) Total number and percent of (D) Percentages of
Appendix H of NGSS appear in the standards sections of the document (number in NOS exemplars actually found acceptable (A), OK and
(number of exemplars) parentheses is the total exemplars at that level) w/the standards unacceptable (U)
exemplars in the category
Grades K–2 Grades 3–5 Middle school High school (%)
(12) (13) (17) (25)
I Scientific investigations use a I-1 (1) OK I-3 (0) A I-5 (0) A I-9 (1) A 6/13 76.9 (A)
variety of methods (13) I-2 (3) A I-4 (1) A I-6 (0) A I-10 (1) U 46 % appear w the standards 7.7 (OK)
I-7 (0) OK I-11 (1) A 15.4 (U)
I-8 (0) U I-12 (0) A
I-13 (0) A
II Scientific knowledge is based on II-1 (4) A II-2 (3) A II-4 (6) A II-6 (2) A 8/9 100 (A)
empirical evidence (9) II-3 (0) A II-5 (1) A II-7 (1) A 88.9 %
II-8 (1) A
II-9 (2) A
III Scientific knowledge is open to III-1(0) A III-2 (0) A III-3 (0) A III-6 (0) A 3/8 100 (A)
The Nature of Science and the Next Generation Science…
revision III-4 (0) A III-7 (1) A 37.5 %

in light of new evidence (8)
III-5 (1) A III-8 (1) A
IV Science models, laws, mechanisms, IV-1(0) A IV-3 (0) OK IV-5 (0) A IV-10 (1) A 7/14 85.7 (A)
and IV-2 (1) A IV-4 (1) A IV-6 (0) A IV-11 (3) A 50 % 14.2 (OK)
theories explain natural phenomena
(14) IV-7 (1) A IV-12 (1) A
IV-8 (0) OK IV-13 (1) A
IV-9 (0) A IV-14 (0) A
V Science is a way of knowing (10) V-1 (0) A V-2 (0) A V-4 (0) A V-7 (0) A 0/10 100 (A)
V-3 (0) A V-5 (0) A V-8 (0) A 0%
V-6 (0) A V-9 (0) A
V-10 (0) A
563
123
Table 3 continued
564
(A) NOS categories from (B) NOS exempar statements in Appendix H of NGSS that (C) Total number and percent of (D) Percentages of
Appendix H of NGSS appear in the standards sections of the document (number in NOS exemplars actually found acceptable (A), OK and
123
(number of exemplars) parentheses is the total exemplars at that level) w/the standards unacceptable (U)
exemplars in the
Grades K–2 Grades 3–5 Middle school High school category (%)
(12) (13) (17) (25)
VI Scientific knowledge assumes order and VI-1 (1) A VI-3 (3) A VI-5 (3) A VI-7 (2) A 6/8 100 (A)
consistency VI-2 (1) A VI-4 (0) A VI-6 (0) A VI-8 (2) A 75 %
in natural systems (8)
VII Science is a human endeavor (15) VII-1 (0) A VII-3 (0) A VII-7 (0) A VII-11 (0) A 6/15 86.7 (A)
VII-2 (0) A VII-4 (2) A VII-8 (0) A VII-12 (0) A 40 % 13.3 (U)
VII-5 (2) A VII-9 (1) A VII-13 (0) A
VII-6 (0) A VII-10(1) U VII-14 (1) U
VII-15 (1) A
VIII Science addresses questions about the VIII-1 (1) A VIII-2 (1) A VIII-3 (0) OK VIII-6 (0) A 5/9 88.9 (A)
natural and material world (9) VIII-4 (0) A VIII-7 (1) A 55.6 % 11.1 (OK)
VIII-5 (3) A VIII-8 (0) A
VIII-9 (1) A
67/86 92.3 (A)
77.9 % 4.1 (OK)
3.6 (U)
Consider the following example when reading the table. In Category I there are 13 exemplars provided. In the K–2 Column, note the code ‘‘I-1(1) A.’’ This means that in
NGSS Appendix H there is an exemplar (marked 1) for this NOS aspect. This illustration appears once (1) in the text of NGSS and is considered an ‘‘acceptable’’
illustration (A). The column ‘‘Total NOS Exemplars’’ indicates how many of those written actually appear within the standards document. Thus, of 13 NOS Category I
exemplars available, only 6 of 13 (46 %) actually appear within the standards sections of NGSS. No reason for this lack of inclusion is provided
Column C shows the total number of NOS exemplar statements provided within the standards
Column D shows the percent accuracy of those exemplars
W. F. McComas, N. Nouri
Table 4 A comparison of various recommended nature of science (NOS) aspects and their appearance in the Next Generation Science Standards. For an explanation of
the coding, see the footer
(A) Specific NOS aspect (B) Source of NOS aspect (C) NOS exemplar statements in Appendix H of NGSS (number in parentheses (D) Total number of NOS
recommended by various denotes how many times an exemplar related to the NOS aspect is found within exemplars found within
experts including NGSS NGSS) NGSS Standards that are
associated with this NOS
Grades K–2 Grades 3–5 Middle school High school aspect
Highly recommended (found in 9 or 12 studies reviewed by Alshamrani, 2008)

(A) Scientific knowledge A, NGSS S/I VIII VII-1 (0) VII-3 (0) VII-7 (0) VII-11 (0) 8
creation has subjectivity VII-2 (0) VII-4 (2) VII-8 (0) VII-12 (0)
(i.e., it is not entirely
objective) VII-5 (2) VII-9 (1) VII-13 (0)
VII-6 (0) VII-10 (1) VII-14 (1)
VII-15 (1)
(B) Scientists use creativity A, NGSS S/I VII VII-6 (0) VII-8 (0) 0
in their work
(C) Scientific knowledge is A, NGSS S/I III III-1 (0) III-2 (0) III-3 (0) III-6 (0) 3
tentative III-4 (0) III-7 (1)

III-5 (1) III-8 (1)
(D) Science is socially and A, NGSS S/I VIII VII-2 (0) VII-3 (0) VII-7 (0) VII-12 (0) 4
culturally embedded VII-4 (2) VII-13 (0)

VII-15 (1) VIII-9 (1)
(E) There is a distinction A, NGSS D IV IV-1 (0) IV-3 (0) IV-4 (1) IV-9 (0) 9
between scientific laws IV-2 (1) IV-5 (0) IV-10 (1)
and theories
IV-6 (0) IV-11 (3)
IV-7 (1) IV-12 (1)
IV-8 (0) IV-13 (1)
565
123
Table 4 continued
566
123
Moderately recommended (4/12)

(F) Scientific knowledge is A, NGSS D II II-1 (4) II-2 (3) II-4 (6) II-6 (2) 20
empirically based II-3 (0) II-5 (1) II-7 (1)
VIII-4 (0) II-8 (1)
II-9 (2)
(G) There is no single step- A, NGSS D I I-1 (1) I-3 (0) I-6 (0) I-9 (1) 8
by-step (universal) I-2 (3) I-4 (1) I-7 (0) I-10 (1)
scientific method
I-8 (0) I-11 (1)
I-12 (0)
I-13 (0)
(H) There is a distinction A 0
between observations and
inferences
(I) Science cannot answer A, NGSS D VIII VIII-1(1) VIII-2 (1) VIII-3 (0) VIII-6 (0) 7
all questions VIII-4 (0) VIII-7 (1)
VIII-5 (3) VIII-9 (1)
Low level (3/12)
(J) Scientists cooperate and A, NGSS S/I VII VII-4 (2) VII-12 (0) 3
collaborate VIII-9 (1)
(K) Science and A, NGSS S/I VII VII-10 (1) VII-14 (1) 2
engineering influence
each other but are not the
same
W. F. McComas, N. Nouri
Table 4 continued
(L) Experimentation is A, NGSS S/I II and VIII II-1 (4) VIII-2 (1) VIII-4 (0) II-6 (2) 22
important but not the only II-2 (3) II-4 (6) II-7 (1)
way to gain scientific
knowledge II-3 (0) II-5 (1) II-8 (1)
II-9 (2)
Found in NGSS only
(M) Science knowledge NGSS only VI-1 (1) VI-3 (3) VI-5 (3) VI-7 (2) 12
assumes an order and VI-2 (1) VI-4 (0) VI-6 (0) VI-8 (2)
consistency in nature
(N) Science is a way of NGSS only V-1 (0) V-2 (0) V-4 (0) V-7 (0) 0
knowing V-3 (0) V-5 (0) V-8 (0)
V-6 (0) V-9 (0)

V-10 (0)
A = NOS aspect mentioned in Alshamrani’s (2008) study of the NOS elements most frequently recommended by a variety of science education experts (see ‘‘Intro-
duction’’, ‘‘Key Aspects of the Nature of Science’’ sections)

The Roman numeral is the NOS category found in NGSS (see Table 1)
‘‘D’’ indicates that the NOS element appears directly and clearly in NGSS
‘‘S/I’’ indicates that the NOS element is suggested or implied in NGSS. For instance, ‘‘A, NGSS D VII’’ means that the NOS element is recommended in Alshamrani’s
(2008) study and directly in NGSS Category VII
The final code, for instance VIII-7(1), means that there is an illustration (the sevenths on in this category) for this NOS aspect in NGSS Appendix H and that this
illustration appears once in the text of NGSS
567
123
of NOS elements. Therefore, Table 3 reports NOS data from a NGSS-only

perspective. Additionally, Table 3 features information regarding an analysis of the
quality of the exemplars (good or poor), as well as the percentages of good
exemplars in each category. Table 4 examines how NOS in NGSS compares with an
‘‘ideal’’ set of NOS elements.
Discussion
NOS recommendations appear in two places in the NGSS documentation. In

Volume 1: The Standards—Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas and by Topics,
NOS appears associated with the recommendations for content, crosscutting
concepts and science and engineering practices as shown in an example provided as
Fig. 1. However, the bulk of the information about NOS is contained in Appendix
H, and eight page section that includes tables with exemplars, some commentary
and references in Volume 2: Appendixes. As mentioned earlier, there is some
mention of NOS in the Framework, but it is not included in any organized fashion.
It is our contention that only rarely will teachers consult either the Framework or
Appendix H as they design of science lessons and will instead focus almost
exclusively on the document containing the standards. Here, NOS is included both
by category and with exemplars with either the crosscutting concepts or the science
and engineering practices, not in a section of its own. We examined NOS wherever
it appeared in NGSS, but are most interested in how NOS is represented in those
parts of the document likely to be frequently accessed by teachers as guided by the
three research questions.
1. How accurate are the exemplars of the NOS categories presented in NGSS?
We found two challenges associated with accuracy of the NGSS NOS exemplars.
First there were exemplars that were accurate if examined in isolation from their
context, but were not useful for the NOS Category with which they were associated.
We also found exemplars that were simply not correct even on their own. Both of
these occurrences garnered a ‘‘poor’’ rating from the expert panel.
As shown in Table 3, there is some diversity in the accuracy of the NOS
exemplars in NGSS. From the experts’ viewpoint, four of the categories (II, III, V,
and VI) feature exemplars completed related to the category with Categories VII
and VIII acceptable in terms of accuracy. The rest of the categories are not as well
represented by high-quality exemplars. For instance in Category VII, 87 % of the
exemplars are ‘‘good’’ and 13 % are poor. Overall, we found that among a total of
86 exemplars, 92 % are accurate and nicely aligned with their category, 4.1 % are
OK and about 3.6 % are ‘‘unacceptable’’ for that category. It is likely that teachers,
most of whom are not experts in NOS, could be misled by these inaccurate or poorly
aligned exemplars if they consult them at all. This final concern relates to the fact
that NOS is somewhat hidden within the document given its position within
Appendix H and in the exemplars scattered throughout.
123
In additional to the issue of accuracy, we were surprised and confused to discover

a very uneven inclusion of the 86 NOS exemplars within the standards themselves.
Beyond the explanation that the NGSS authors were sloppy in their use of the
written exemplars, we can offer not compelling thought about why not all of the
exemplars written were used. Column C of Table 3 shows that the inclusion of the
NOS exemplars in the standards ranges from a low of 0 % for Category V ‘‘Science
is a way of Knowing,’’ to a high of 89 % for Category II, ‘‘Scientific Knowledge is
Based on Empirical Evidence.’’ Taking the most blatant of these omissions, that of
Category V, what possible reason could there be to define the category, write ten
exemplars to help teachers make sense of it and then include nothing in the
standards section itself?
2. How frequently do the various NOS categories (and related exemplars) appear
in the four grade-level strands (K–2, 3–5, Middle School, and High School)?
Several conclusions may be reached regarding the data in Table 3 with respect to
the links between NOS exemplars and the science content in the NGSS document. A
rough approximation of emphasis may be found in Column C of Table 3 showing
how many times a particular category appears at all in the grade-level bands. An
examination of Column B will show how frequently a particular category is
represented across the grade levels. Certainly, one would not expect the most
conceptually advanced NOS aspects such as ‘‘science is open to revision’’ to appear
as frequently in the lower grade levels. Another way of looking at these data is to
work backwards to determine which NOS elements NGSS authors believe to be the
most challenging for younger learners.
Using only the NOS elements recommended in NGSS, we see that Categories II
‘‘empiricism’’ and IV ‘‘order and consistency’’ are well represented by exemplars
across all grade levels. Categories IV ‘‘models, laws and theories’’, VII ‘‘human
endeavor’’, VIII ‘‘science addresses questions about the natural world’’ could be
said to appear across the grade levels in a moderate fashion with this last one not
found in Grades K–2 as expected.
Category I ‘‘variety of methods’’ is a puzzle since it is found at the K–2 and 3–4
levels and High School but curiously not in the standards for middle school. It is
hard to understand why the youngest and oldest students would be expected to know
this concept and yet not reinforce it in the middle grades. Category III ‘‘science is
open to revision’’ appears only three times almost exclusively at the high school
level, but that seems generally appropriate. The real mystery is with Category V
‘‘Science is a Way of Knowing’’ is not linked to any of the standards and this is a
category exclusive to NGSS.
In summary, no grade level includes links to all the NOS categories. Most NOS
categories are not well represented in general; only categories II, IV, VI, and VIII
are found in all grades, but not frequently in any case. Important issues like ‘‘science
uses a variety of methods’’ (I), ‘‘revision’’ (III), and ‘‘science is a human endeavor’’
(VII) have particularly scattered inclusion in the parts of the NGSS document that
teachers would consult for guidance.
123
These are conclusions reached about the distribution of NOS elements from a
review of what best be categories as intern consistency of what the NGSS chose to
include regarding NOS. However, as we will see in the next section, there are
several key NOS elements that were not included in NGSS and this too is a source
of concern. The absence of several of these is striking particularly since some were
included or implied in the Framework.
3. How does the NOS included in NGSS compare with recommended lists of NOS
elements?
In this section, we report on particular NOS aspects as revealed by the

appearance of exemplars in NGSS. The NOS aspects examined are those found on
an ‘‘ideal’’ list of NOS sub-elements proposed by Alshamrani (2008; see
‘‘Introduction’’, ‘‘Key Aspects of the Nature of Science’’ sections). In all cases,
we have been as inclusive as possible by looking at the meaning of the NOS
statements in NGSS rather than search for particular terms or phrases. For instance,
in NGSS, there is a NOS statement that ‘‘science addresses questions about the
natural world…’’ (Category VII); expanding on that, we suggest, therefore, that this
corresponds to a key NOS aspect that there are limits to the questions that science
can and should address.
Table 4 contains the data related to this research question arranged related to how
frequently a particular NOS element was recommended by experts from a study by
Alshamrani (2008). Five NOS elements, such as ‘‘creativity’’, are proposed
frequently, four, like the observation–inference distinction, are moderately recom-
mended and three are rarely recommended by experts. This includes the use of
experimentation and the distinction between science and engineering. Curiously,
two additional NOS elements are found only in NGSS and not in the studies
reviewed by Alshamrani.
In the ‘‘highly recommended’’ NOS group, we see only modest representation in
NGSS. ‘‘Scientific knowledge creation has a subjective aspect (i.e., science is not
entirely objective)’’ and the law/theory distinction appears eight and nine times,
respectively, in NGSS, while other seemly key elements of NOS like the tentative
nature of science and cultural embeddedness appear only three and four times across
the standards. Curiously, one important aspect of science, namely that ‘‘scientists
use creativity in their work,’’ is found only in two exemplars in the appendices but
do not ever appear in the standards themselves.
The NOS elements ‘‘moderately recommended’’ by experts fare somewhat better
in NGSS with one interesting exception. Encouragingly, the concept that ‘‘Scientific
knowledge is empirically based’’ appears 20 times in NGSS, across the grade levels.
‘‘There is no single step-by-step (universal) scientific method’’ is found eight times
in NGSS, although there is no illustration of it for grades 3–5.
‘‘Science cannot answer all questions’’ is found seven times across all grade
levels. ‘‘Science is socially and culturally embedded’’ is in the document in four
places, but not for K–2 and middle school. ‘‘Scientific knowledge is tentative’’ is
found only three times, and only at the middle and high school levels. The
‘‘distinction between observation and inference’’ does not appear at all in the
123
standards. We recognize that some have questioned the importance of the inference/
observation distinction but given the repeated mention of ‘‘inference’’ in the
Framework, it is curious that this notion is not present in the final version of the
standards.
There are three NOS aspects recommended at a fairly low level by the experts
reviewed by Alshamrani, based on the number of reports in which they appear.
From this list, ‘‘Experimentation is important…’’ appears 22 times within NGSS,
and ‘‘Scientists cooperate and collaborate’’ is found three times, but curiously only
for high school and grades 3–5.
The NOS element ‘‘Science and engineering influence each other but are not the
same’’ appears only two times in the NGSS document. This may not seem a
concern, because this NOS aspect is not one typically recommended by experts as
determined by Alshamrani. However, there are at least two reasons why the lack of
this NOS statement in NGSS may be a problem. NGSS offers ‘‘science and
engineering practices’’ as a major issue in the future of US science teaching, even
providing a table illustrating these practices together in what some might infer is a
kind of shared science and engineering ‘‘method.’’ Of course, science and
engineering do not have the same goals and methods, but only the most
sophisticated teachers and learners may realize this. Science and engineering are
quite distinct disciplines both philosophically and practically. Therefore, we should
be much more focus directed to help all those involved with science teaching
understand the important engineering/science distinction. With this in mind, it is
problematic that the NOS distinction between science and engineering appears only
twice in NGSS. Also, many have suggested that blending science and engineering,
and even adding the other two parts of STEM in the elementary grades, is a good
idea. However, we see no note of concern in NGSS that learners—particularly those
in the early grades—understand the separate roles of science and engineering. The
recommended NOS element targeting the distinction does not appear at all at the
elementary level.
The final group in Table 4 contains NOS elements only found in NGSS. ‘‘Science
knowledge assumes an order and consistency in nature’’ (NGSS Category VI) and
‘‘Science is a way of knowing’’ (Category V) does not appear in any of the reports
reviewed by Alshamrani. The issue of consistency appears 12 times and is one of
the rare categories that show up across all grade levels; the second one is completely
absent in the NGSS standards. We are of the opinion that this statement, while
apparently compelling, is somewhat tautological. If asked ‘‘how is science a way of
knowing,’’ the response would likely be to refer the questioner to the other aspect of
the nature of science. In other words, science has limits, there is no step-wise
method, science demands empirical data, etc.
It would be very interesting to know why the recommended aspects of NOS do
not appear in NGSS with the consistency and standing expected just as it would be
fascinating to know on what basis the authors of NGSS, having reviewed various
suggestions for NOS inclusion, accepted several, ignored others, and added two of
their own but failed completely to include one in the actual standards.
123
Conclusions
Members of the science education community should be pleased that NOS

appears in NGSS but many agree with Lederman and Lederman (2014), who state:
With the past and current debates and confusion about NOS, the NGSS have
chosen to ‘‘bury’’ NOS within the dimensions of science and engineering
practices and crosscutting concepts. Perhaps you are thinking that ‘‘bury’’ is a
bit too extreme, but given the lack of instructional attention to NOS when the
construct was so openly and strongly emphasized in the National Science
Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), ‘‘bury’’ is not an
extreme characterization to us. (p. 236)
We concur that the NOS recommendations in NGSS fail to have the prominence
of the other three main NGSS elements and are therefore highly concerned that NOS
may continue to be ignored or minimized by science teachers. However, there is
some good news with respect to nature of science in the NGSS. NGSS is the first
major US national science standards document to include strong mention of NOS
and such advocacy is extremely important. NGSS includes eight specific categories
of NOS knowledge, and many useful exemplars associated with these categories to
help teachers and students make sense of them. We found that six of the eight
categories overlap with NOS aspects recommended by science educators. All these
positive findings represent encouraging and useful steps recommending the
inclusion of NOS in science lessons and laboratory activities.
The NOS categories in Appendix H of NGSS are divided between NOS as it
relates to the practice of science and NOS as it relates to crosscutting concepts (such
as energy and matter; scale, proportion, and quantity; and stability and change).
However, the logic and utility of this are hard to determine, and there is little
narrative explaining this decision. For instance, the NOS exemplar ‘‘Science
assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that
are understandable through measurement and observation’’ appears in the realm of
crosscutting concepts, but no reason for this choice is given. It seems that the
inclusion of NOS with these other two dimensions of science teaching was done in
an attempt to raise the profile of the nature of science as a result of comments
gathered during the NGSS review phase. However, inclusion in this fashion feels
much like an afterthought rather than kind of full integration and prominance that
NOS should have been given. We believe that it would have been better to have
provided the NOS categories and exemplars together.
In summary, our analysis revealed several major concerns associated with the
representation of NOS in NGSS:
1. NOS is not as featured as strongly as are the content, crosscutting themes, and
science and engineering practices in spite of the fact that NOS provides
necessary foundation for all science learning and understanding. A clearer
treatment of NOS in NGSS and the Framework, particularly making NOS a
clear fourth dimension, should have occurred.
123
2. NOS is included to a degree in the Framework on which NGSS was based but
unless teachers are knowledgeable about NOS already, the Framework will be
of little assistance in this regard. As has long been the case, teachers will have
to learn about NOS for themselves and will need much guidance to incorporate
it into their classrooms.
3. NGSS fails to include some recommended aspects of NOS, such as subjectivity
and inference, while another—creativity—is effectively hidden in two unused
exemplars from NOS Category VII. Also, since NGSS seems to blend science
and engineering, it would be highly recommended to ensure that students come
to understand the distinction between these two fields, but this was not
addressed.
4. Some of the exemplars provided in NGSS offer a useful and accurate
demonstration of the category they relate to, but others are not well aligned. Our
expert panelists believe that some should either be written with more precision
and those that are not associated with the standards should be. Remember, of
the 86 exemplars, 22 % were not used in the standards at all for some reason!
5. There is no clear pattern of the inclusion of NOS recommendations across grade
levels, and hence we suspect that the various grade-level working groups
perceived the importance of NOS differently, resulting in a final document that
is somewhat disjointed on this point. This issue of NOS inclusion is particularly
problematic for the K–5 grade levels.
6. The fullest presentation of the NOS aspects (called categories) is in Appendix H
in Volume 2, separate from that containing the standards. Therefore, NOS is
less visible than it should be and may seem less important to teachers trying to
become NGSS educators.
7. We believe that several important NOS elements are missing in NGSS and we
remain highly critical of the way in which NOS is represented in NGSS
generally.
Implications for Science Teaching and Science Teacher Education
The good news is that since NOS now appears in a document designed to
influence science teaching and learning across the USA, we hope that teachers and
other stakeholders will now see this domain as a vital feature of science teaching.
We realize that no standards document can also be a manual for how to teach the
desired material but because NOS in NGSS is so poorly represented it is now
incumbent on teacher educators to help future science instructors learn which NOS
is and how to include it in the classroom. This last point is particularly troubling
because the implication about NOS instruction in NGSS seems to be to magically
combine it with either the concepts or practices but give teachers no direction in this
regard. The only explicit statements about NOS instruction from Volume 2:
Appendices is advocacy for two primary modes of NOS instruction. The NGSS
authors suggest that students ‘‘observed patterns and proposed explanations of cause
and effect’’ then ‘‘develop a model system’’ next ‘‘design an investigation to test the
123
Fig. 2 A suggestion for an

enhanced NGSS logo that
logically positions the nature of
science (NOS) at the core of all
high-quality science teaching
and learning
model.’’ In addition they advocate ‘‘using examples from the history of science [as]
another method for presenting the nature of science’’ (NGSS Lead States, 2013,
p. 101). Those who have thought deeply about NOS in classroom recognize far
more engaging ways than these two to enliven and inform the curriculum.
We now need NOS-rich curricula to guide instruction and ‘‘policy levers,’’ like
end-of-course assessments featuring NOS, to encourage teachers to include this
content in their classrooms. Moreover, teacher education programs must promi-
nently feature NOS at both preservice and in-service education levels. Science
teachers at all levels simply do not understand the nature of science as they do more
traditional content. Moreover, teachers do not know how to include it in instruction.
Advocacy for the support of teachers as they include NOS aspects in their classroom
continues to grow (Akerson, Donnelly, Riggs, & Eastwood, 2012; Hanuscin, 2013;
Vesterinen & Aksela, 2013; Wahbeh & Abd-El-Khalick, 2014), and we support this
call for action even as we appreciate the job that the NGSS have done to encourage
the conversation.
A Modest Proposal
One clear conclusion that would flow from this analysis of NOS in NGSS is that
simply accepting the current state of affairs is not acceptable. While it might be
useful to recall NGSS and start again with NOS where it belongs while minimizing
the science and engineering practices and the pedagogically suspect crosscutting
concepts, such an solution is unlikely. Another potentially more acceptable approach
would be to provide a new web-based version of NGSS with the position of NOS
raised and expanded considerably. This would require that NOS be delinked from
practices and concepts, since there is no rationale for having put it those places, and
simply make NOS an instructional and curriculum goal in its own right. Even if
there is a desire to maintain the practices and crosscutting concepts, elevating the
status of NOS would allow us to change the present fictional status of NGSS as
‘‘three dimensional science teaching’’ to a richer, more complete, more nuanced and
ultimately more useful NGSS which support content, concepts, practices and NOS
123
as ‘‘four dimensional science teaching.’’ Doing so would not take much work,
would represent science in a more accurate fashion and, with the smallest tweak in
the existing logo, could include NOS more strategically (Fig. 2). We must work
together to create a version of NGSS with NOS at the center of science learning—
where it belongs!
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L.
B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 389–425).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional
practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–437.
Akerson, V. L., Donnelly, L. A., Riggs, M. L., & Eastwood, J. L. (2012). Developing a community of
practice to support preservice elementary teachers’ nature of science instruction. International
Journal of Science Education, 34, 1371–1392.
Alshamrani, S. M. (2008). Context, accuracy and level of inclusion of nature of science concepts in
current high school physics textbooks. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bell, R. L. (2004). Perusing Pandora’s Box: Exploring the what, when, and how of the nature of science
instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp.
427–446). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward
teaching science. Science Education, 90, 803–819.
Clough, M. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the game of science is played. The
Clearing House, 74(1), 13–17.
Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for
teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 24, 933–956.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (1998, December). The state of science education: Subject matter without context.
Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3. http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/
lederman.html
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science. Science
Teacher, 71, 36–39.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone? Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 25, 235–238.
Liu, S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science. School Science
and Mathematics, 102, 114–123.
Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science
teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.
McComas, W. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. Science Teacher, 71, 24–27.
McComas, W. F. (2005). Seeking NOS standards: What content consensus exists in popular books on the
nature of science. Presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Research in
Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
123
McComas, W. F. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum and in teacher education programs
in the United States. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history,
philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1993–2023). Dordrecht: Springer.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science
in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education:
Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McComas, W. F., Lee, C., & Sweeney, S. (2009). A critical review of current U.S. state science standards
with respect to the inclusion of elements related to the nature of science. In Proceedings of the 2009
NAST annual conference, Garden Grove, CA.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘‘ideas-about-science’’
should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of the nature of science in an
authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.
Tao, P. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science
through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science
Education, 25, 147–171.
Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2013). Design of a chemistry teacher education course on the nature of
science. Science & Education, 22, 2193–2225.
Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings
into instructional practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 36, 425–466.
123
View publication stats

2016 MC Comasand Nouri NOSand NGSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2016 MC Comasand Nouri NOSand NGSS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 MC Comasand Nouri NOSand NGSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Nature of Science in the Science Curriculum, Instructional Standards and

Chapter · December 2014

Editorship of The American Biology Teacher View project

Science Fairs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

William F. McComas & Noushin Nouri

Journal of Science Teacher Education

J Sci Teacher Educ (2016) 27:555-576

The Nature of Science and the Next Generation Science

William F. McComas1 • Noushin Nouri1

Published online: 14 May 2016

Abstract This paper provides a detailed analysis of the inclusion of aspects of

Keywords Nature of science Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)

& William F. McComas

Key Aspects of the Nature of Science: Elements of NOS Most Commonly

1. Scientific knowledge is not entirely objective

3. Scientific knowledge is tentative but durable

NOS and Science Teaching in the US Context

As reported by McComas (2014) in an analysis of the US context for NOS, this

NGSS and NOS: Framework to Standards

It is unfortunate that the Framework failed to provide a single robust treatment of

NOS in the Next Generation Standards

I Scientific investigations use a variety of methods

Research Questions and Methods

With this introduction as context, we considered the following research questions

1. How accurate are the NOS exemplars as presented in NGSS?

revision III-4 (0) A III-7 (1) A 37.5 %

Highly recommended (found in 9 or 12 studies reviewed by Alshamrani, 2008)

tentative III-4 (0) III-7 (1)

culturally embedded VII-4 (2) VII-13 (0)

Moderately recommended (4/12)

V-6 (0) V-9 (0)

duction’’, ‘‘Key Aspects of the Nature of Science’’ sections)

of NOS elements. Therefore, Table 3 reports NOS data from a NGSS-only

NOS recommendations appear in two places in the NGSS documentation. In

In additional to the issue of accuracy, we were surprised and confused to discover

In this section, we report on particular NOS aspects as revealed by the

Members of the science education community should be pleased that NOS

Implications for Science Teaching and Science Teacher Education

Fig. 2 A suggestion for an

You might also like