Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2001
How do Pre-service and In-service
Science Teachers View the Nature of
Science and Technology?
HASSAN H. TAIRAB, Department of Science and Mathematics Education, University of
Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam
ABSTRACT This study explored views held by pre-service and in-service science teachers regarding the nature of
science and technology particularly: (a) the characteristics of science and technology; (b) the aim of science and
scientiŽc research; (c) the characteristics of scientiŽc knowledge and scientiŽc theories; and (d) the relationship between
science and technology. The views held by science teachers at pre-service and in-service levels were assessed using a
questionnaire. The Žndings revealed that generally science teachers at both pre-service and in-service levels showed
similar views in relation to the nature of science and technology. While the participants displayed mix views regarding
science as content oriented or process oriented, technology was viewed as an application of science. Implications of
these views for classroom teaching and learning are presented.
Introduction
It is widely believed that unless science teachers recognise the nature of scientiŽ c
enterprise it will be difŽ cult for them to assist their students to gain a sound understanding of scientiŽ c concepts (Hodson, 1988; Abell & Smith, 1994; Palmquist & Finley, 1997;
Murcia & Schibeci, 1999). Indeed, although there exists no consensus around the world
concerning the content of science curricula, or concerning the most desirable methods
of delivering their content, there is a strong agreement on the importance of understanding the nature of science (Lederman, 1992; Meichtry, 1992, 1993; Tsai, 1999). Everyone
seems to agree that science education curricula should promote scientiŽ c literacy and
prepare individuals to participate in rapidly changing scientiŽ cally and technologically
oriented societies. According to Smith and Scharmann (1999), such an understanding is
‘crucial to responsible personal decision-making and effective local and global citizenship’
(p. 494).
Equally important is the need to develop a critical understanding of the nature of
technology and how it relates not only to science but also to society. According to Rubba
and Harkness (1993), concern over issues and problems attributed to technology, such as
acid rain, global warming and application of medical technology, have reinforced the
need to integrate science–technology–society into the school curriculum and that much
is needed to integrate the social aspects of technology in school technology education.
Fleming (1987) and Zoller et al. (1990) are among many who have argued that developing
ISSN 0263-514 3 print; 1470-113 8 online/01/020235-1 6 Ó
DOI: 10.1080/0263514012008775 9
2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
236
H. H. Tairab
an adequate understanding of the nature of science and technology and their interactions
in and with society are fundamentally important at all levels in science education.
If the importance of an appreciation of the nature of science and technological
development is accepted, then science teachers are obliged to strive for better ways to
improve students’ understanding of the nature of science and technology. Consequently,
it becomes singularly important to explore how science teachers conceptualise the nature
of science and technology. That is the case because teachers’ views, conceptions and
philosophies in uence what transpires in the classroom more than what is planned in
school curriculum statements (Rampal, 1992). Indeed, the knowledge science teachers
bring to the classroom is critical to effective classroom learning. Views held by teachers
directly or indirectly in uence the way they present learning experiences in classrooms
(Palmquist & Finley, 1997).
On the Meaning of the Nature of Science and Technology
Research into the nature of science, scientiŽ c knowledge and technology has yet to
produce any agreed deŽ nitions of those terms. Despite the lack of agreement, Aikenhead
and Ryan (1992), Palmquist and Finley (1997), Meichtry (1992, 1993), Abd-El-Khalick
and Lederman (2000) and McGinn (1991) nevertheless provided frameworks for the
characterisation of the constructs.
Aikenhead and Ryan (1992) showed that the nature of science can be viewed from
various perspectives (e.g. public versus private, theory versus practice, and ontology
versus epistemology). Aikenhead and Ryan (1992) argued further, that these dichotomies
and the various perspectives on the multidimensional nature of science might have
contributed to the development of alternative views of the nature of science held by
students and teachers. Palmquist and Finley (1997) who reviewed eight past research
studies identiŽ ed 24 different nature of science perspectives that had been investigated.
Each of these perspectives was found to Ž t into areas such as scientiŽ c knowledge,
scientiŽ c method, scientiŽ c theory, scientiŽ c law and the role of the scientist.
Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) acknowledged that no consensus exists at
present among those concerned with the nature of science such as philosophers of
science, historians, and science educators. Nevertheless, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman
used a general characterisation to refer to science as ‘a way of knowing or the values and
beliefs inherent to the development of scientiŽ c knowledge’ (p. 666).
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) identiŽ es three
perspectives of the nature of science, namely, scientiŽ c worldview, scientiŽ c method
of inquiry and the nature of scientiŽ c enterprise. More recently, Botton and Brown
(1998) observed that most research concerned with the nature of science has primarily
focussed on the tentative and the revisionary aspect of scientiŽ c knowledge. Citing the
work of Cotham and Smith (1981), Botton and Brown argued that science draws its
tentative and revisionary characteristics from a complex interaction of its assumptions
rather than a simple recognition of the continuous change and evolution of human
scientiŽ c knowledge. They maintained that ‘the tentativeness of science can be viewed as
a combination of views with respect to several well-recognized dichotomies: realist/instrumentalist, conclusive/tentative, subjectivist/objectivist, and induction/invention’ (pp.
53–54).
McGinn (1991), on the other hand, provided a functional interpretation of what is
science and what is technology. McGinn presented four contrasting meanings of science.
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
237
Two of these meanings emphasised the total societal enterprise and the human cultural
activity; views which characterise both science and technology. He argued that science
could also be thought of as an organised and well-founded body of knowledge and a Ž eld
of systematic inquiry into nature. At the same time technology can be thought of as
technics, to refer to material products of human making, and technology, to refer to the
complex of knowledge, methods and materials used in making certain kinds of technics
(McGinn, 1991).
Gardner (1999), while acknowledging that science and technology differ, presented
comprehensive analyses of the relationship between science and technology. Gardner
identiŽ ed four views pertaining to the relationship between science and technology.
First, technology is seen as an applied science and a person’s technological capability
is seen as highly dependent on prior acquisition of scientiŽ c knowledge. Gardner’s second
perspective is of a demarcation nature. Here, science and technology are viewed as
independent and that ‘scientists and technologists are people who have different
goals, use different methods and produce different outcomes’ (p. 332). The third
perspective that views technology from a materialistic stance assumes that technology
is historically prior to science and that science to a great extent depends on technological
advances. The fourth perspective suggested by Gardner is one that views technology
and science as engaging in a two-way complex and interactive interaction. Such an
interactionist view will help interpret the dependability of science and technology on each
other.
Given the complex and varied nature of science and technology, it was recognised that
exploration of views held by science teachers in Brunei on the nature of science and
technology is an important step forward towards documenting views and beliefs held by
these teachers.
Purpose
This study was part of a large-scale project exploring various avenues that may have
impact on student understanding of the nature of science and technology at the
secondary school level (Tairab, 1999; Tairab et al., 1999). One of these avenues is how
science teachers themselves view the nature of science and technology.
The purpose of this study was therefore to explore pre-service and in-service science
teachers’ views about the nature of science and technology, particularly (a) the characteristics of science and technology, (b) the aim of science and scientiŽ c research, (c) the
characteristics of scientiŽ c knowledge and scientiŽ c theories and (d) the relationship
between science and technology.
Previous research studies such as those of Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000),
Aikenhead et al. (1987), Fleming (1987), and Rubba and Harkness (1993), have shown
that an understanding of the nature of science and technology, their similarities and
differences and their interdependence are necessary if individuals are to develop the
knowledge and skills necessary for effective participation in rapidly changing societies. It
is hoped that this study will provide an additional dimension as to how science teachers
at pre-service and in-service levels view the nature of science and technology. Given the
scarcity of research Ž ndings on how science and technology are understood by science
teachers in Brunei, it is also hoped that the Ž ndings of this study will contribute to our
current understanding of views and beliefs held by science teachers regarding the nature
of science and technology.
238
H. H. Tairab
Methodology
The data for the present study were collected using a newly developed instrument
entitled the Nature of Science and Technology Questionnaire (NSTQ). The instrument contains
26 items measuring various aspects of the nature of science and technology. Only
eight items, which are related to the purpose of the study, were used in this study
(Appendix). Items 1 to 7 require respondents to select from given responses the one
that best re ects their personal representation. Item 8 on the other hands requires
the respondents to provide written views about the difference(s) between science
and technology. Items of the NSTQ were modiŽ ed from the Views On Science–
Technology –Society (VOSTS) instrument (Aikenhead and Ryan, 1992) which is a pool
of 114 empirically developed items. Because VOSTS items cover a wide range of issues
and were meant to be used with secondary school students, it was felt that, and for
the purpose of the study, a selection and modiŽ cation of items was necessary. All
the items of the NSTQ were modiŽ ed not only in structure but also in the format of
scoring.
The VOSTS has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument when used with
secondary school students (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992), college science students
(Schoneweg et al., 1995), and pre-service science teachers (Rubba et al., 1996; Botton &
Brown, 1998).
The validity and reliability of the NSTQ can be discussed and established in the same
way as that of the VOSTS. According to Aikenhead and Ryan (1992) and Rubba et al.,
(1996), the validity and reliability of empirically developed instruments arise from the
research paradigm and it is therefore not appropriate to apply the traditional sense of the
constructs. For Aikenhead and Ryan, an empirically developed instrument is concerned
with the perspective and viewpoints of the respondents and not the researcher. Nevertheless, the NSTQ was Ž rst content validated by two science educators who were familiar
with the VOSTS. The two science educators were asked to examine the items in terms
of relevance to the dimensions of the nature of science and clarity and suitability to the
respondents. Consequently, their comments and observations were incorporated into the
Ž nal form of the questionnaire.
Second, procedures developed by Rubba et al. (1996) were used to generate data
that can be tested through inferential statistics. It was assumed that because of the
nature of the questionnaire items, which were similar to those of the VOSTS,
data cannot appropriately be inferentially tested without modiŽ cation. Hence, the
procedure used by Rubba et al. (1996) was deemed to be suitable. Options for
the questionnaire items were classiŽ ed as R ‘realistic’, HM ‘has merit’ and N ‘naïve’. A
‘realistic’ item is the one that re ects an appropriate view about the nature of science or
technology. Similarly a ‘has merit’ option is the one that, while not being completely
appropriate, re ects a reasonable and plausible view. On the other hand, a ‘naïve’ view
is seen as the one that expresses a view that is not relevant or appropriate to the nature
of science or technology. Thus, a scoring procedure of 3, 2 and 1 was developed
and accordingly, a 0·67 reliability index (alpha) was obtained for those items using the
whole sample of the present study (n 5 95). This value was regarded as sufŽ cient for the
purpose of the present study. In another study concerning the validation of the
NSTQ, Tairab (1999) used the procedure developed by Botton and Brown (1998)
following a test-retest approach on the pre-service sample (N 5 41). Tairab found that 22
of the 26 items of the NSTQ (including six of the items used in this study) were reliable
on this basis.
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
239
Sample
The sample of the study consisted of 95 respondents drawn from two groups of science
teachers. The two groups were regarded as convenience samples. One group, the
pre-service sample, consisted of all pre-service science teachers who enrolled in a
secondary methods course during the Ž rst semester of the 1998/1999 academic year at
the University of Brunei. The in-service group consisted of those who responded by
completing and returning the questionnaire. The pre-service group (N 5 41) was given
the instrument at the end of their course, while the in-service sample (N 5 54) was given
the questionnaire at their respective schools. Among the 95 subjects participating in the
study, 44·2% were males (31·7% of the male population came from the pre-service
teachers). About 34·7% of the subjects were chemistry teachers, 25·3% were integrated
science teachers, 24·2% were biology teachers, and 15·8% were physics teachers. The
majority of pre-service subjects (41·5%) were being trained to become integrated science
teachers.
All the pre-service science teachers had had 6 weeks’ teaching experience as part of
their training, while the in-service science teachers had had a wide range of teaching
experience ranging from 6 to 27 years of teaching science.
In addition to the questionnaire, the participants were requested to articulate further
their understanding of the difference(s) between science and technology by writing them
down at the end of the questionnaire. It was felt that it was necessary to supplement the
questionnaire to provide a wider perspective of what the participants really mean by the
term science and technology. Taken together, the questionnaire and the written responses have helped to formulate constructs as to the types of views and representations
held among the participants.
Data gathered from the two samples were analysed for each of the items using
frequency distribution to characterise trends in the respondents’ views of the nature of
science and technology. Although the analyses of the data were restricted to frequency
distribution, it was felt that and for the purpose of the study, the frequency distribution
would provide reasonable characterisation to the current views held by respondents.
Second, while the method used by Rubba et al. (1996) for the purpose of validation of
the NSTQ can generate data to be statistically treated for relationships, it was also felt
that it might not be appropriate to interpret Ž ndings in terms of statistical relationships.
This is because the focus of the study was primarily on detecting the general indicators
that exemplify the predominant views held by participants about the nature of science
and technology rather than detecting relationships among and between respondents’
views.
Results and Discussion
The views held by pre- and in-service science teachers regarding the nature of science
and technology are presented in Tables I–IV. These results showed that generally
pre-service and in-service science teachers have comparable views in relation to the
nature of science and technology.
Table I shows that the views expressed by the participating science teachers were
divided between content-oriented and process-oriented science. Generally the views were
spread unevenly along the line of naïve, merited and realistic perspectives (Rubba &
Harkness, 1993). For example, about a third of the participants (34·1% of pre-service and
35·2% of in-service science teachers) displayed the view that science is a systematic
Science is:
A study of Ž elds such as biology, chemistry
and physics
Carrying out experiments to solve problems
of interest
A systematic investigative process and the
resulting knowledge
Inventing and designing things
Finding and using knowledge to make this
world a better place
A body of knowledge that explains the world
around us
Exploring the unknown and discovering new
things about the world
An organisation of people called scientists
who have ideas and techniques for discovering
new knowledge
Do not know
Aim of science:
To ascertain reality
To understand, interpret and explain the
continued change in nature
To discover, collect and group facts about nature
To Ž nd ways to make people’s lives better
Do not know
ScientiŽ c research:
To make new discoveries
To try out scientists’ explanations for why things
happen
To collect as much data as possible
Do not know
9·8
17·1
34·1
2·4
7·3
19·5
9·8
0
0
2·4
73·2
7·3
14·6
2·4
19·5
31·7
36·6
2·4
7
14
1
3
8
4
0
0
1
30
3
6
1
8
13
15
1
%
4
f
Pre-service
22
18
1
9
36
5
13
0
0
0
0
3
14
7
19
0
8
3
f
%
40·7
33·3
1·9
16·7
66·7
9·3
24·1
0
0
0
0
5·6
25·9
12·9
35·2
0
14·8
5·6
In-service
35
33
2
17
66
8
19
1
1
0
0
7
22
10
33
1
15
7
f
All
36·8
34·7
2·1
17·9
69·5
8·4
20·0
1·0
1·0
0
0
7·4
23·2
10·5
34·7
1·0
15·9
7·4
%
TABLE I. Frequencies and percentages of respondents’ views on what is science, its aim and the nature scientiŽ c research
240
H. H. Tairab
42
3
8
1
0
0
0
73·2
4·9
14·6
4·9
2·4
0
0
0
0
1·8
0
14·8
5·6
77·8
%
f
%
Technology is:
The application of science to enhance life
30
Manufactured artifacts such as appliances, tools
and scientiŽ c instruments
2
The hardware, techniques, processes, people
associated with items such as tools, appliances
and scientiŽ c instruments
6
Inventing, designing, developing and testing
things such as appliances, tools and scientiŽ c
instruments
2
Very similar to science
1
The process of manufacturing and the
underlying know-how
0
Do not know
0
f
In-service
Pre-service
TABLE II. Frequencies and percentages of respondents’ views on technology
0
0
3
1
14
5
72
f
All
0
0
3·2
1·0
14·7
5·3
75·8
%
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
241
ScientiŽ c knowledge:
Is a well-organised collection of facts
Is based on scientiŽ c perspectives, ideas and
interpretations from the past
Today’s scientists produced today’s scientiŽ c
knowledge
Do not know
A scientiŽ c theory:
An idea about what will happen
The most appropriate interpretation that has
been approved by scientists
A fact that has been proved by many experiments
Do not know
22
56·1
4·9
17·1
7·3
58·5
29·3
4·9
23
2
7
3
24
12
2
32
16
2
4
2
3
35
13
59·3
29·6
3·7
7·4
3·7
5·6
64·8
24·1
%
f
%
9
f
In-service
Pre-service
56
28
4
7
4
10
58
22
f
All
58·9
29·5
4·2
7·4
4·2
10·5
61·1
23·2
%
TABLE III. Frequencies and percentages of respondents’ views of the nature of scientiŽ c knowledge and scientiŽ c theory
242
H. H. Tairab
Technological innovations bring about environmental
problems such as pollution and acid rain
Science and technology often make our lives
healthier, easier and more comfortable
The prosperity of a nation depends to a great extent
on science and technology
Science and technology rarely do harm to our lives
We cannot solve the problems we face by the power
of science and technology alone
Science, technology and society are mutually
independent· They do not affect each other
Science and technology affect society and society
affects science and technology
Statement
63·4
68·3
48
17·1
70·7
9·8
58·5
28
20
7
29
4
24
%
26
Agree
Pre-service
43
1
44
40
6
43
38
Agree
79·6
1·9
81·5
74·1
11·1
79·6
70·4
%
In-service
67
5
73
60
13
71
64
Agree
All
70·5
5·3
76·8
63·2
13·7
74·7
67·4
%
TABLE IV. Frequencies and percentages of respondents’ views of the relationship between science–technology–society
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
243
244
H. H. Tairab
investigative process, a view that was regarded by Rubba and Harkness as a realistic view
about science, indicating the appropriateness of the responses. Similarly, the second
highest numbers of both groups of teachers combined (23·2%) gave the view that science
is a body of knowledge that explains the world, which was also seen as a plausible view
about science as it expresses the content-oriented nature of science. While both groups
of participants re ected similar representations with regard to science as a body of
knowledge, there was a tendency among the in-service teachers to favour science as a
body of knowledge more than the pre-service sample (25·9% compared with 19·5%).
Examining Table I also reveals that despite the content-oriented and process-oriented
views, a considerable number of both groups showed similar dissident tendencies of
comparable magnitudes. For example, almost similar representation among the participants (four pre-service and three in-service) as regard to representing science as merely
an act of ‘carrying out experiments to solve problems’.
Interestingly, neither pre-service nor in-service science teachers regarded science as a
social enterprise (Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992) or as a form of human cultural activity
(McGinn, 1991).
On the other hand, there was a high degree of convergence between the views
expressed by both groups of science teachers on issues pertaining to the aim of science.
High percentages of pre-service and in-service science teachers (73·2% and 66·7%,
respectively) regarded science as explanatory and interpretative of nature, a view that is
consistent with the early view that regards science as a systematic investigative process.
Nevertheless, utilitarian views were also apparent with 14·6% of pre-service science
teachers and 24·1% of in-service science teachers thinking that the aim of science is to
help Ž nd ways to make people’s lives better.
Likewise, when participants were asked to select a position as to the aim of scientiŽ c
research, 89·4% of combined respondents opted for statements that subscribed to an
instrumentalist perspective. They regarded science as a tool and instrument for change
with a more instrumental end. SpeciŽ cally, 68·3% of pre-service and 74% of in-service
science teachers opted for the views that regard scientiŽ c research as either an undertaking designed to ‘Ž nd explanations for why things happen’ or to ‘collect as much data as
possible’.
Although the majority of science teachers, both at pre-service and in-service levels,
hold realistic and merited views about science, its aim and the nature of scientiŽ c
research, the nature of technology was naively conceived by the participating science
teachers. The participants’ views regarding the nature of technology conŽ rm the concern
highlighted by Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) that the instrumentalist view often confuses
science with technology, especially in regard to the social purpose of both.
Table II shows that 75·8% of the participants (nearly three-quarters of pre-service
science teachers and more than three-quarters of in-service science teachers) viewed
technology as an application of science—a view that was characterised by Rubba and
Harkness (1993) as naïve. Only small percentages of the participants expressed views that
re ect McGinn’s (1991) ‘four-levels’ deŽ nition of technology. Less than 15% of both
groups of science teachers expressed a belief in technology as material products of human
making. Moreover, fewer pre-service and in-service science teachers (4·9% and 5·6%,
respectively) indicated that they believed in technology as artifacts—such as appliances,
tools and materials used in making certain kinds of technics (McGinn, 1991). The fact
that for this question none of the participating teachers selected the category ‘I do not
know’ substantiates to a great extent the evidence that these teachers were quite certain
about their choice of technology as an application of science. These views were projected
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
245
again when the participants were asked to state their understanding of the difference
between science and technology. The following quotes are typical examples of these
views:
T1:
T2:
T3:
Technology is the application of scientiŽ c knowledge and facts in our
everyday life.
Technology is the application of science to produce useful products to
serve humanity. It is the use of scientiŽ c matters including the physics and
mathematical side of them.
Technology is the science of industrial nature—something to do with
making equipment. It uses science to help us do work better.
Gardner (1999) observed that the idea that technology is an applied science is dominant
among science educators and has strong cultural roots. Gardner argued that, in order to
justify their positions, people tend to ‘point to artifacts and systems that followed scientiŽ c
discoveries’ (p. 333) such as atomic physics that has led to nuclear power generation and
electrical research that has led to dynamos and transformers. Gardner drew on the
common expressions of concern about technological competence that re ected in calls
for more science and mathematical education rather than mere technology education.
The belief is that people ‘just learn science and one can become a technologist merely
by applying scientiŽ c ideas’ (p. 330).
Gardner (1999) argued for a clear distinction between science and technology and
advocated interactionist perspectives in which contributions of scientists and technologists
would be highlighted. Possible cultural interpretations of the dominant view among the
participating science teachers that technology is an application of science can also be
drawn from Gardner’s work. In most cultures, particularly in the cultural context of the
present study, there is a tendency among people to value science more than technology.
Science, from an Islamic perspective, represents knowledge, which is a necessity for all
Muslims in order to understand their value systems and obligations towards other
members of the society. Hence, acquisition of scientiŽ c knowledge is seen as a necessary
duty for all Muslims. Gardener also observed that educational systems tend to place
science as a core subject while technology, if it is offered, is given less prestige, and hence
this situation could very well explain the dominant view that technology is an applied
science.
The views expressed by the science teachers who participated in this study regarding
the nature of technology, have great implications for the teaching and learning of science
and technology education. Science teachers should be encouraged to make a clear
distinction between science and technology so that their students can realise the
complexity and the interactive nature of the relationship between science and technology
in the absence of such a distinction, a misguided belief that simply learning science would
provide the necessary knowledge to develop technological skills (Gardner, 1999) will
continue to hold. It follows that there is a need for a richer sense of the relationships
linking science and technology. Perhaps an interactionist perspective may be necessary
to maintain the distinction between science and technology and at the same time
highlighting the contributions of both science and technology to each other. Another
avenue that could forge a richer understanding of the relationship between science and
technology is the study of the history of science and technology. Naturally, this entails the
inclusion of curricular topics in the history of science and technology to illustrate the
246
H. H. Tairab
importance of technology to science and science to technology. Such inclusion can help
develop a clearer understanding of the nature of both science and technology.
Table III presents the participants’ views on scientiŽ c knowledge and a scientiŽ c
theory. Although the participants’ responses pointed towards a diversity of views, the
majority of both groups of science teachers regarded scientiŽ c knowledge as a product
of scientists’ perspectives and ideas interpreted from the past, a view that supports the
tentativeness of scientiŽ c knowledge. On the other hand, 22% and 24·1% of pre-service
and in-service science teachers, respectively, held static views about scientiŽ c knowledge.
These results reinforce the results related to the deŽ nition of science (see Table I). They
also supported the view that science is a collection of facts or a body of knowledge that
explains the world and that the purpose of scientiŽ c research is to collect as much data
as possible. Interestingly, 17·1% and 5·6% of pre-service and in-service, science teachers
respectively, showed no views of scientiŽ c knowledge. If a science teacher’s view of the
nature of science is re ected in his/her teaching, then it is obvious that these Ž ndings
have great implications for the teaching and learning of science. For example, one would
expect more emphasis on teaching science as content oriented and less emphasis on
science as an investigative process.
Over half of both groups of science teachers conceived a scientiŽ c theory as ‘the most
appropriate explanation and interpretation put forward by scientists’. Table III shows
that similar percentages of both groups of science teachers (29·3% of pre-service and
29·6% of in-service science teachers) confused a scientiŽ c theory with a scientiŽ c fact
suggesting that theories were facts before being proven by experiments. These views were
similar to those conŽ rmed by Rubba and Harkness (1993) that science teachers often
visualise the relationship between theories, laws and facts as developmentally related.
The entries in Table IV summarise the participants’ views of the relationship between
science, technology and society. A vast majority of the participants expressed agreement
about the interaction of science, technology and society. All participants except one
in-service science teacher and four pre-service science teachers agreed that science,
technology and society are mutually dependent. Similarly, about 58% of pre-service and
79·6% of in-service science teachers expressed the view that science and technology affect
society and in turn society affects science and technology. Although the participants’
views of the relationship between science, technology and society were relatively realistic
(Rubba & Harkness, 1993), they tended to exhibit a negative image of science and
technology. The participants agreed with the view that technology may bring environmental problems and that science and technology may do harm to our lives. Pre-service
science teachers seem to be less optimistic than in-service science teachers about the role
of science and technology in contributing to a nation’s prosperity (48% compared with
74·1%) and about the contribution science and technology makes to human lives (68·3%
compared with 79·6%).
These results suggest that, while the participants expressed the view that technology
does affect society, more exposure to the role of technology in our lives is needed if these
teachers are to understand the positive role of technology. Taking into account the fact
that most of the participants, particularly the pre-service science teachers, have very little
exposure to science–technology–society issues during their educational training, an
adoption of a science–technology–society approach as part of the pre-service training
could result in greater emphasis being given to the interdependence of science, technology and society. This could evoke better image formation and, thus, enable the
relationship between science, technology and society to be better understood.
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
247
Conclusion
This study explored the views held by pre-service and in-service science teachers
regarding the characteristics of science and technology and the relationship between
science and technology. The Ž ndings point to the fact that generally pre-service and
in-service science teachers participating in this study held similar views regarding science
and technology. Although the majority of participants exhibited either a content-related
or a process-related view about science, a considerable proportion of the participants
viewed science as a distinct discipline divided into biology, chemistry and physics. These
Ž ndings also support other similar studies that are contextually different, such as those
of Aikenhead and Ryan (1992), Jegede and Ogawa (1999) and Rubba and Harkness
(1993). Science was seen by the participants as largely activities of an investigative nature
that generate new knowledge, thereby ascertaining the tentativeness of science. It was
also evident that process-oriented investigative activities are largely driven by our
theories, conceptions and points of view.
The Ž ndings of this study, to a large extent, agree with previous research that often
science teachers show instrumentalist views about science (Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992).
Nevertheless, the participants of this study showed utilitarian views of science, believing
that science and scientiŽ c research should help improve our living conditions.
On the other hand, the participants’ views about technology were less encouraging.
The participants tended to confuse technology with science and saw technology as an
applied science. If the views about technology revealed in this study are representative
of science teachers’ views at large, then one would expect an inverse effect of these views
on the classroom practices of these teachers. This is particularly relevant in the light of
recent curricular emphasis of the relationship between science and technology. Such
integration of science and technology carries with it the need for science teachers to
develop sound understanding of not only the nature of science, but also the nature of
technology and how it relates to science. (Rubba & Harkness 1993). The Ž ndings of the
present study, however, showed that although the participants exhibited adequate
representation of the nature of science, the same may not be said of their representations
of technology. Clearly more is needed to help these teachers develop a better understanding of the nature of technology. There is a need to highlight the interactive and symbiotic
nature of science and technology so that these teachers can develop a richer understanding of the nature of technology. To help science teachers acquire a sound representation
of the nature of science and technology, more time needs to be spent in pre-service
method courses and indeed in-service training programmes looking at the relationship
between science and technology. The nature of technology needs to be explicitly outlined
and discussed so that science teachers develop an appropriate view of the nature and
characteristics of technology.
Correspondence: Dr H.H. Tairab Department of Science and Mathematics Education.
University of Brunei Darussalam. B8B BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam.
REFERENCES
ABD-EL-KHALICK, F. & LEDERMAN, N. (2000) Improving science teachers’ conceptions of science a
critical review of the literature, International Journal of Science Education, 22 pp. 665–701.
248
H. H. Tairab
ABELL, S. & SMITH, D. (1994) What is science?: pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of the
nature of science, International Journal of Science Education, 16 pp., 475–487.
AIKENHEAD , G., FLEMING, R. & RYAN, G. (1987) High school graduates’ beliefs about science–technology–society. 1. Methods and issues in monitoring student views, Science Education, 71, pp.
145–161.
AIKENHEAD , G. & RYAN, G. (1992) The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science–
Technology–Society” (VOSTS) Science Education, 76, pp. 477–491.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy
(New York, Oxford University Press).
BOTTON, C. & BROWN, C. (1998) The reliability of some VOSTS items when used with pre-service
secondary science teachers in England Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, pp. 53–71.
COTHAM, J. & SMITH, E. (1981) Development and validation of the conceptions of scientiŽ c
theories test, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, pp. 387–396.
FLEMING, R. (1987) High school graduates’ beliefs about science–technology–society II. The
interaction among science, technology and society Science Education, 71, pp. 163–186.
GARDNER, P. (1999) The representation of science–technology relationships in Canadian physics
textbooks International Journal of Science Education, 21, pp. 329–347.
HODSON, D. (1988) Towards a philosophically more valid science curriculum, Science Education, 72,
pp. 19–40.
JEGEDE , O. & OGAWA, M. (1999) A study of science teachers’ views about the connections between modern
science and indigenous culture. A paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching Annual Meeting, Boston, USA.
LEDERMAN, N. (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of
research Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 pp. 331–359.
MCGINN, R. (1991) Science, Technology and Society (New Jersey, Prentice Hall)
MEICHTRY, Y. (1993) The impact of science curricular on student views about the nature of
science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, pp. 429–443.
MEICHTRY, Y. (1992) In uencing student understanding of the nature of science: data from a case
of curriculum development, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, pp. 389–407.
MURCIA, K. & SCHIBECI, R. (1999) Primary student teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science,
International Journal of Science Education, 21, pp. 1123–1140.
PALMQUIST, B. & FINLEY, F. (1997) Pre-service teachers’ views of the nature of science during a
postbaccalaureate science teaching programme, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, pp.
595–615.
RAMPAL, A. (1992) Image of science and scientists: a study of school teachers’ views. I. Characteristics of scientists, Science Education, 76, pp. 415–436.
RUBBA, P. & HARKNESS, W. (1993) Examination of pre-service and in-service science teachers
beliefs about science–technology–society interactions, Science Education, 77, pp. 407–431.
RUBBA, P., SCHONEWEG BRADFORD, C. & HARKNESS, W. (1996) A new scoring procedure for the
Views on Science–Technology. Society instrument, International Journal of Science Education, 18, pp.
387–400.
RYAN, A. & AIKENHEAD, G. (1992) Students’ precenceptions about the epistemology of science,
Science Education, 76, pp. 559–580.
SCHONEWEG BRADFORD, C., RUBBA, P. & HARKNESS, W. (1995) Views about science–technology–
society interactions held by college students in general education physics and STS courses. Science
Education, 79, pp. 355–373.
SMITH, M. & SCHARMANN, L. (1999) DeŽ ning versus describing the nature of science: a pragmatic
analysis for classroom teachers and science educators, Science Education, 83, pp. 493–509.
TAIRAB, H. (1999) Impact of a method course and school based experience on pre-service science teachers’ views
of the nature of science and technology. Paper presented at the Fifth UNESCO-ACEID conference on
reforming curriculum and pedagogy, Bangkok, Thailand 13–16 December 1999.
TAIRAB, H., KANAGASABAI, S., DHINDSA, H. & SALLEH, S. (1999) Inuence of curriculum materials and
instructional strategies on student understanding of the nature of science at secondary school level. Research
project Brunei Darussalam UBD
TSAI, C.-C. (1999) The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: a case
study of the STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students, International Journal of
Science Education, 21, pp. 1201–1222.
ZOLLER, U., EBENEZER , J., MORELY, K., PARAS, S., SANDBERG, V., WEST, C., WOLTHER , T. & TAN,
S. (1990) Goal attainment in science–technology –society (STS) education and reality: the case
of British Columbia, Science Education, 74, pp. 19–36.
Science Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science and Technology
249
Appendix
The Nature of Science and Technology Questionnaire (NSTQ)
Please read the statements/questions below and circle the answer that best re ects
your opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. What you will circle is a matter of
your opinion.
1. Science is:
(a) A study of Ž elds such as biology, chemistry and physics.
(b) Carrying out experiments to solve problems of interest.
(c) A systematic investigative process and the resulting knowledge.
(d) Inventing and designing things.
(e) Finding and using knowledge to make this world a better place.
(f) A body of knowledge that explains the world around us.
(g) Exploring the unknown and discovering new things about the world.
(h) An organisation of people called scientists who have ideas and techniques for discovering
new knowledge.
(i) Do not know.
2. In your opinion, what does science aim at:
(a) To make sure that what has been discovered about the world is really true.
(b) To understand, explain and interpret the continued change in nature and its characteristics.
(c) To discover, collect and group facts about nature.
(d) To Ž nd ways to make people’s lives better.
(e) Do not know.
3. Why do you think scientists do scientiŽ c research:
(a) To make new discoveries.
(b) To try out their explanations for why things happen.
(c) To make something which will help people.
(d) To collect data as much as possible, and to draw out scientiŽ c laws from data.
(e) Do not know.
4. Which of the following statement about scientiŽ c knowledge would match your understanding
of scientiŽ c knowledge:
(a) ScientiŽ c knowledge is a well-organised collection of facts.
(b) Today’s scientiŽ c knowledge is based on scientiŽ c perspectives, ideas and interpretations
from the past.
(c) Today’s scientists have produced today’s scientiŽ c knowledge.
(d) ScientiŽ c knowledge contains only statements that are 100% true.
(e) Do not know.
5. A scientiŽ c theory is:
(a) An idea about what will happen.
(b) A most appropriate interpretation and explanation which has been approved by scientists.
(c) A fact which has been proved by many experiments.
(d) Do not know.
6. Technology is:
(a) The application of science to enhance life.
(b) Manufactured artifacts such as appliances, tools and scientiŽ c instruments.
(c) The hardware, techniques, processes, people associated with items such as tools, appliances
and scientiŽ c instruments.
(d) Inventing, designing, developing and testing things such as appliances, tools and scientiŽ c
instruments.
(e) Very similar to science.
(f) The process of manufacturing and the underlying know-how.
(g) Do not know.
250
H. H. Tairab
7. Circle all the statements that you agree with:
(a) Technological innovations and/or development of science bring about environmental
problems such as pollution and acid rain.
(b) Science and technology often makes our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable.
(c) The prosperity of the nation depends to a greater extent on science and technology.
(d) Science and technology rarely do harm to our lives.
(e) We cannot solve all the problems which we are facing only by the power of science and
technology.
(f) Because science, technology and society are independent mutually, they do not affect each
other.
(g) Science and technology affect society on the one hand, society affects science and
technology on the other hand.
8. Please state below your understanding of the difference(s) between science and technology.