Hatice Baykara, Zeha Yakar, Shiang-Yao Liu


The goals of this study are to determine the Turkish preservice science teachers’ views about scientific inquiry. In this research, simple descriptive survey is conducted for the purpose of describing pre-service science teachers’ views about scientific inquiry. For this purpose, “Views about Scientific Inquiry (VASI) Questionnaire” was utilized to collect data. Seventy two senior preservice teachers in a Science Teacher Education Program at a large university participated in this study. Data were collected using qualitative research methods of individual open-ended instrument, and semi-structured interviews. Findings revealed that the majority of the preservice teachers’ responses of the scientific inquiry aspects are naive. On the other hand, for only three aspects of SI, the pre-service science teachers have informed views. These aspects are inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked and all scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results. In this research “All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results” was the best understood aspect of inquiry and “Scientific investigations all begin with a question” was the least understood aspect of inquiry. This lack of aspect means that senior PST were not well aware that investigations are based on questions. Also, data analysis indicated that preservice science teachers have difficulties with defining the experiment, observation, data, evidence, and different scientific methods.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



pre-service science teachers; scientific inquiry; scientific literacy; views about scientific inquiry

Full Text:



Abd-El-Khalick, F,2013. Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.

Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998 - Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G, 1998. The nature of science and ınstructional practice: Making the Unnatural Natural. Science Education, 82, 417–437.

Achieve Inc. 2013. Next generation science standards.

Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F, 2003. Teaching elements of nature of science: a yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049.

Allchin, D, 2011. Evaluating the knowledge of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 918- 942.

American Association for The Advancement of Science, 1989. Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bartos, S.,A, 2013. Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of scıence and scıentıfıc ınquıry and their classroom practice. Department of Mathematıcs and Science Education, Doctor in Philosophy in Mathematics and Science Education in the Graduate College of The Illinois Institute of Technology.

Chin, C, 2005. First‐Year pre‐service teachers in Taiwan—Do They enter the teacher program with satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science? International Journal of Science Education, 27 (13).

D'Costa, A. R., & Schlueter, M. A, 2013. Scaffolded ınstruction ımproves student understanding of the scientific method & experimental design. The American Biology Teacher, 75(1), 18-28.

Faikhamta, C, 2013. The development of in-service science teachers’ understandings of and orientations to teaching the nature of science within a pck-based nos course. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 847-869

Kober, N, 2015. Reaching Students: What research says about effective ınstruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 256 Pp.

Laugksch, R, 2000. Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. A., Antink Meyer, A. & Schwartz, R, 2014. Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—the views about scientific ınquiry (vası) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.

Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G, 2004. Early elementary students’ and teachers’ understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from project ICAN. Paper Presented At the Annual Meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Lederman, N. G, 1992. Students’ and teachers’ concetions of the nature of science: a review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.

Lederman, N. G, 1999. Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or ımpede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.

Lederman, N. G, 2006. Syntax of nature of science within ınquiry and science ınstruction. L. Flick, & N. Lederman, Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications For Teaching, Learning, And Teacher Education (S. 301-317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. 2002. Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S, 2012. Nature of science, scientific ınquiry, and socio-scientific ıssues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science and Education, 1-18.

Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., Khishfe, R., Druger, E., Gnoffo, G., & Tantoco, C, 2003. Project ICAN: A multi-layered model of professional development. A paper presented at the annual meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A, 2013. Nature of Science And Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.

Liu, A.Y., & Lederman, N.G., 2007. Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307.

Mayring, P., 2013. Qualitative content analysis – theoretical foundation and basic procedures. www. Qualitative-Content-Analysis. Aau.At. Accessed 25 Oct 2013.

McComas, W.F, 1996. Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10-16.

MEB, 2013. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Temel Eğitim Genel Müdürlüğü. İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.

Millar, R. 2005. Tweny first century science: design and ımpact of a scientic literacy approach in school science. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference, Barcelona.

National Research Council (NRC) , 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC), 2007. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academy Press, Washington.

National Research Council (NRC), 2008. How people learn: Brain, experience and school. J.R. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Committee on developments in the science of learning, commission on behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council, (NRC), 2012. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC.

Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., Duschl, R., & Collins, S. 2003. What ideas about science' should be taught in school science?: A Delphi Study Of The Expert Community. 40(7), 692-720.

Roberts, D.A., 2007. Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–280). Mahwah, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, D.A., 2011. Competing visions of scientific literacy: The influence of a science curriculum policy image. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D.A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Ryder, J., 2001. Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in science education, 36, 1-42.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., and Lederman, J. S., 2008. An ınstrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. The annual meeting of the National Association For Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD.

Solbes, J. & Vilches, A., 1996. STS Interactions and the teaching of physics and chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 81, 377-386.

The National Academies Press. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), 2007. NSTA position statement scientific inquiry. Retrieved 7 Nov 2008 from

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M., 2008. Beyond the Scientific method: model based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science ınvestigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Hatice Baykara, Zeha Yakar, Shiang-Yao Liu

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).