4_Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature

Sci & Educ (2013) 22:1839–1855 DOI 10.1007/s11191-011-9400-1 Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature of Science in Nordic Upper Secondary School Textbooks Using Framework of Analysis Based on Philosophy of Chemistry Veli-Matti Vesterinen • Maija Aksela • Jari Lavonen Published online: 18 October 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract The aim of this study was to assess how the different aspects of nature of science (NOS) were represented in Finnish and Swedish upper secondary school chemistry textbooks. The dimensions of NOS were analyzed from five popular chemistry textbook series. The study provides a quantitative method for analysis of representations of NOS in chemistry textbooks informed by domain-specific research on the philosophy of chemistry and chemical education. The selection of sections analyzed was based on the four themes of scientific literacy: knowledge of science, investigate nature of science, science as a way of thinking, and interaction of science, technology and society. For the second round of analysis the theme of science as a way of thinking was chosen for a closer inspection. The units of analysis in this theme were analyzed using seven domain specific dimensions of NOS: tentative, empirical, model-based, inferential, technological products, instrumenta- tion, and social and societal dimensions. Based on the inter-rater agreement, the procedure and frameworks of analysis presented in this study was a reliable way of assessing the emphasis given to the domain specific aspects of NOS. All textbooks have little emphasis on the theme science as a way of thinking on a whole. In line with the differences of curricula, Swedish textbooks emphasize the tentative dimension of NOS more than Finnish textbooks. To provide teachers with a sufficiently wide variety of examples to discuss the different dimensions of NOS changes to the national core curricula are needed. Although changing the emphasis of the curricula would be the most obvious way to affect the emphasis of the textbooks, other efforts such as pre- and in-service courses for developing teachers understanding of NOS and pedagogic approaches for NOS instruction to their classroom practice might also be needed. 1 Introduction Enhancing scientific literacy is the central educational objective of science education worldwide. This is also the case in Nordic countries, where scientific literacy is seen at the V.-M. Vesterinen (&) Á M. Aksela Á J. Lavonen University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: veli-matti.vesterinen@helsinki.fi 123

1840 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. core of curricular aims of science education (Vesterinen et al. 2009). In fact, scientific literacy has developed into an umbrella term covering most aims of science education (Laugksch 2000). Although there is wide diversity in rationales for promoting scientific literacy, it is agreed that scientific literacy requires a wider understanding of science than what is attainable by focusing only on the products of science (e.g. facts, laws and theo- ries). The knowledge about the process of science is described by the concept of nature of science (NOS). NOS is widely considered to be an integral part of scientific literacy and one of the central aims of science education (Matthews 2004). As teachers often rely on textbooks to organize teaching, they are one of the most important science teaching resources (Yager 1996; Ahtineva 2000). As an integral part of scientific literacy, NOS has become a popular topic in textbook analysis (e.g. Niaz 2000; Rodriguez and Niaz 2002; Williams 2002). Although most descriptions of NOS have described things relevant to all fields of natural sciences, recently research on NOS has been more and more influenced by domain specific knowledge of scientific knowledge and enterprises. One of the fields of growing interest has been the application of the domain specific and interdisciplinary field of philosophy of chemistry to chemical education.1 There are several studies, which have examined NOS aspects in handling of specific chemistry concepts and topics,2 and more recently Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) and Niaz and Maza (2011) have investigated broader themes of NOS in upper secondary school chemistry textbooks. In all three studies, the textbooks under study did not include accurate and complete handling of NOS dimensions defined by the authors. The study presented here is based on the frameworks of analysis developed by Chiappetta et al. (1991a, b), Lederman et al. (2002) and Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008), but the perspective is unique, as it investigates the issue from the perspective of Nordic education, provides a new proce- dure for quantitative analysis of the whole textbook, and is informed by the research on philosophy of chemistry and chemistry education. Previous research has concentrated on textbooks published in the USA. Most Nordic upper secondary schools follow and use textbooks based on national core curricula. To appraise the situation in Nordic countries, there is a need to investigate representations of NOS in Nordic textbooks. Such a research has also value for the international research community. Describing educational contexts from different cultures and educational sys- tems can provide new perspectives and an opportunity for the educators and researchers to reflect on the goals and practices they might take for granted (Guo 2007). Earlier studies on NOS dimensions (e.g. Niaz and Maza 2011) have concentrated analysis on only certain chapters of the textbooks. By combining methods and frameworks of analysis this study provides a quantitative method for analyzing the NOS dimension from all the chapters of the analyzed textbooks. Although there is no general agreement on the exact definition of NOS, there seems to be some sort of consensus regarding the central dimensions of NOS that should be covered in science education (see e.g. Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Niaz 2008). These elements include philosophical and sociological perspectives on science, such as the empirical nature of scientific knowledge, the distinction and relationship between theories and laws, and the historical development of scientific knowledge (e.g. Lederman et al. 2002; Osborne et al. 1 See Erduran (2001), Erduran and Scerri (2002), Scerri (2003), Erduran and Duschl (2004), Lombardi and Labarca (2007). 2 See Niaz (1998, 2001), Staver and Lumpe (1993), Brito et al. (2005), and Chiappetta et al. (1991c). 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1841 2003). However, Schwartz and Lederman (2002) argue that there is no single ‘‘nature of science’’ that describes all fields of science. There are cultural, methodological and epis- temological differences between the different domains of science (see e.g. Dalgety et al. 2003) and all questions that are essential for NOS in general are not necessarily essential for NOS in chemistry and vice versa. NOS itself can be seen in the intersection of four fields of science studies: philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science and psychology of science (McComas and Olson 1998). The interdisciplinary field of the philosophy of chemistry highlights the domain-specificity of the nature of chemical knowledge (Erduran and Scerri 2002). Research published on journals devoted to philosophy on chemistry (e.g. HYLE—Inter- national Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry and Foundations of Chemistry) has been interested in all the four fields of science studies, thus providing new insights regarding NOS. This study provides a framework for quantitative textbook analysis for dimensions of NOS informed by domain-specific research on philosophy of chemistry and chemical education. It reports on the ongoing investigations into the topic and extends the analytical framework created by analyzing the NOS related educational objectives on Nordic core curricula (Vesterinen et al. 2009). Purpose of this study was to formulate a procedure and framework for quantitative analysis of domain specific NOS aspects in chemistry textbooks and to determine the emphasis of themes of scientific literacy and domain specific NOS aspects in Finnish and Swedish upper secondary school textbooks. 2 Methods Both in Finland and Sweden, textbooks are based on the national core curricula. The Finnish frame curriculum for upper secondary schools (Finnish National Board of Edu- cation 2003) includes a syllabus for five chemistry courses (one compulsory and four optional). From Finland two most popular textbook series (Kaila et al. 2005a, b, c, d, e; Lehtiniemi and Turpeenoja 2004a, b, c, d, e), with combined market share of 70% (MAOL ry 2007), were selected for the analysis. Both series contain five books: one for each upper secondary school chemistry course. The natural science program outlined in the current Swedish frame curriculum for upper secondary education (National Agency for Education 2001) includes three chemistry courses: two compulsory and one optional. As the publishers usually do not provide the exact sales numbers for textbooks, there was no recent and trustworthy information on the market shares of Swedish textbooks. Three popular and widely used textbook series from different publishers were chosen for analysis—Bore´n et al. (2005, 2008), Engstro¨m et al. (2005, 2008), Henriksson (2007a, b). All three series include two textbooks—one for each compulsory course. As most chemistry textbooks series in Sweden, the series in question did not provide a third book for the optional course. Teacher utilizes the textbooks of the compulsory courses also on the optional course, uses some other textbook for the third course, or holds the course without a textbook. Books were analyzed in two rounds. In the first round, representative samples of textbooks were analyzed to provide an overview of the themes covered by the textbooks. This was done using an analytical framework described and validated by Chiappetta et al. (1991a, b, c, 1993). On the second round of analysis, textbooks were carefully read through and units for analysis were chosen using the framework validated during the first round of 123

1842 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. the analysis. Finally, selected units of analysis were analyzed using an analytical frame- work based on extant literature,3 as well as on research of the philosophy of chemistry.4 2.1 Procedure and Framework of Analysis for the First Round of Analysis To provide an overview on the relative emphasis given to NOS issues, we used the procedure developed by Chiappetta et al. (1991a, b, c, 1993). Method of analysis was chosen to provide frequency distribution of different themes of scientific literacy. A pro- cedures manual produced by the developers (Chiappetta et al. 1991a) provides a rather straightforward and reliable way of appraising the emphasis relative to the four themes of scientific literacy. In the manual, the major the four themes are described as follows. 2.1.1 The Knowledge of Science (Theme I) The intent of the text in this category is to present, discuss, or ask the student to recall information, facts, concepts principles, laws, theories, etc. It reflects the transmission of scientific knowledge where the student receives information. This category typifies most textbooks and presents information to be learned by the reader. Textbook material in this category presents facts, concepts, hypotheses, theories, and models, or asks students to recall knowledge or information. 2.1.2 The Investigative Nature of Science (Theme II) In this category, the intent of the text is to stimulate learning by asking the student to ‘‘find out’’. It reflects the active aspect of inquiry and learning, which involves the student in the methods and processes of science such as observing, measuring, classifying, inferring, recording data, making calculations, and experimenting. This type of instruction can include paper and pencil as well as hands-on activities. Texts in this category engage students in a thought experiment or activity, or require students to reason out or calculate an answer. 2.1.3 Science as a Way of Thinking (Theme III) Intent of the text in this category is to illustrate how science in general or a certain scientist in particular went about ‘‘finding out’’. This aspect of scientific literacy represents thinking, reasoning, and reflecting, where the student is told how the scientific enterprise operates. This type of text also presents scientific method(s) and problem solving. Textbook material in this category describes how a scientist experimented, shows the historical development of science, emphasizes the empirical nature and objectivity of science, illustrates the use of assumptions, shows how science has historically proceeded and still proceeds by inductive and deductive reasoning, gives cause and effect relationships, or discusses evidence and proof. 3 Specifically Osborne et al. (2003), Lederman et al. (2002), Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) and Vesterinen et al. (2009). 4 Specifically Nye (1993), Schummer (1997), van Brakel (2000), Aftalion (2001), Kovac (2002), Laszlo (2006). 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1843 2.1.4 Interaction of Science, Technology and Society (Theme IV) This aspect of scientific literacy pertains to the application of science and how science and technology help and hinder humankind. Social issues and careers are also involved in this aspect. Texts in this category describe the usefulness of science and technology on society, stress the negative effects of science and technology on society, discuss social issues related to science or technology and bring out careers and jobs in scientific and technological fields. Units of the analysis included complete paragraphs, questions, figures, tables with captions, marginal comments, and complete steps in a laboratory or hands on activity. Chiappetta et al. (1991a) recommend at least five percent sample of the textbook. A 10% random sample of pages was selected for the first round of analysis, which should thus represent a valid and reliable quantity of text. Two raters independently read the sample and placed each unit of analysis into one of the four categories. Cohen’s kappa coefficients were calculated to assess the inter-rater agreement. As in the previous studies using the same analytical framework (e.g. Chiappetta et al. 1993; Lumpe and Beck 1996; Wilkinson 1999), inter-rater agreement was high: percentual agreements ranged from 84 to 92, with corresponding Cohen’s kappas ranging from .79 to .87. 2.2 Procedure and Framework of Analysis for the Second Round of Analysis For the second round of analysis the theme of science as a way of thinking (theme III) was chosen for a closer inspection. The textbooks were read carefully and the units of analysis belonging to theme III were identified and marked. The marked units were then analyzed using an analytical framework created by the authors. The framework was refined in several rounds of organizing and assembling of units to categories, reformulating cate- gories, and comparing the formed categories to views presented in the research. Validity of the categories formed is based on the descriptions of central aspects of NOS, research on NOS instruction, and domain specific knowledge from the research on the philosophy of chemistry and chemistry education. The final analytical framework had seven separate dimensions of NOS. 2.2.1 Tentative Even though some categories of knowledge are more durable, scientific knowledge is never absolute or certain. Models, theories and laws have changed through history and are still subject to change. This tentative nature of scientific knowledge is seen as one of the central elements of nature of science.5 Development of historical models and discovery of previ- ously unknown elements are examples of this aspect. The progress of chemistry can be seen not only on the level of changing laws, theories and models, but also on the development of new instruments and synthesis of new substances (e.g. Nye 1993; van Brakel 2000). This aspect is thus closely related with aspects of instrumentation and technological products. 2.2.2 Empirical Among experts, there are differing opinions on whether we should stress the common elements of scientific research methods. ‘The scientific method’ is suggested as one of the 5 See Lederman et al. (2002), Osborne et al. (2003), Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008), Niaz and Maza (2011). 123

1844 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. central NOS topics by Osborne et al. (2003) and on the other hand seen as a myth by Lederman et al. (2002). For detailed discussion on the differences of the approaches, see Niaz (2008). However, both Osborne et al. (2003) and Lederman et al. (2002) agree that although science is not rigid and uses several methods in creation of scientific knowledge, scientific claims are derived from observations of natural phenomena. Observations about chemical phenomena are often, but not always, obtained through experimentation. This aspect contains discussion about the process of scientific inquiry as well as descriptions of scientific experiments and verification of scientific models through observations. 2.2.3 Model-Based In the recent decades, the model-based view of science inspired by the ideas of philoso- phers Nancy D. Cartright (Cartwright 1983) and Ronald N. Giere (1999) among others has provided much insight to the research of science education (see e.g. Gilbert and Boulter 2000). In chemistry, models representing certain aspects of the world are used as a way to explain phenomena (Carpenter 2000). As we move from macroscopic to microscopic and submicroscopic ‘realities’, the models need more and more idealizations (van Brakel 2000). Hence, chemical models cannot be all-inclusive presentations of the world or faithful copies of reality, and are always level specific and limited in their scope (see Wartofsky 1979; Erduran 2001; Erduran and Scerri 2002). Discussion on the role of models and modelling in chemistry and on the limitations of models are examples of this aspect. 2.2.4 Inferential In creation of models, one has to take into account that chemical phenomena happening on submicroscopic level are not directly accessible to senses (e.g. van Brakel 2000). Models in chemistry are thus inferential, in the sense they can only be measured through effects and scientists use creativity in inventing explanations for and descriptions of the phenomena (see Baird 2000; Lederman et al. 2002; Osborne et al. 2003). 2.2.5 Technological Products Chemistry is not only interested in the properties of molecules, but also in generating new substances and refining the processes of production (Nye 1993). Producing new substances can even be seen as the main activity of chemists during the past 200 years (Schummer 1997; Kovac 2002). Even basic research in chemistry is not only concerned about explaining the world, but also about the manipulation of matter on molecular level. Of the thousands of scientific articles in chemistry published every week, most deal with the creation of new substances (Schummer 1999). New substances are not only the products of the research; they are also the subjects of the research. As 19th century chemist Berthelot pointed out: ‘Chemistry creates its own subject. This creative ability, similar to an art, is the main feature that distinguishes chemistry from the natural and humanitarian sciences’ (as cited in Smit et al. 1998, p. 28). This dimension is thus closely connected with instrumentation. This dimension includes the discussion on the synthesis of new substances as one of the goals of research as well as historical and contemporary examples of such activity. 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1845 2.2.6 Instrumentation Direct observation of phenomena usually happen at level unattainable by our perception, and phenomena are accessed through the window of technology, with instruments specially designed towards refining our current scientific models (Hacking 1983). Technology plays a huge role in the process of creating chemical knowledge, as instruments, experimental settings, and objects of research are all created by scientists. New technology drives forward scientific practice. The way chemical research is done has always been and still is transformed by technological development of instrumentation (Ziman 1984; Baird 2000). Education should take cognizance of this epistemological and cognitive role of instru- mentation in empirical science (Tala 2009). Descriptions of development of new instru- ments and how these instruments have affected research are examples of this aspect. 2.2.7 Social and Societal Dimensions Science is not completely systematic activity. Scientist use variety of approaches and methods in creating scientific knowledge and creation of scientific knowledge is inherently human enterprise. Cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowl- edge is seen as one of the central ‘ideas-about-science’ by both Lederman et al. (2002) and Osborne et al. (2003). According to them science as a human enterprise is practiced in the context of larger cultural environment and scientific knowledge is produced in a social setting. The acceptable research methods and results are socially negotiated. As science is not done outside society, also societal needs and support in the form of norms, legislation, and funding affect the way science is practiced. Dividing lines between various scientific disciplines and subareas of science are formed, replaced and removed by time, as scientists borrow concepts from other fields of science, from non-scientific disciplines and from general cultural experience (Benfey 2006). All this holds true for the practice of chemistry. However, in describing the larger cultural milieu, in which chemistry is practiced, we have to also acknowledge how closely chemistry as a science is related to chemical industry. As much of the basic research in chemistry has often been and still is use- inspired, the one-dimensional classification of research on the spectrum from pure to applied science is inadequate for chemistry (Kovac 2007). In fact, science and industry seem to have a symbiotic relationship in which chemistry as a science cannot be disso- ciated from the chemical industry (Aftalion 2001; Laszlo 2006). The cooperation inside and between research groups, review process of scientific journals, scientific conferences and institutions, the division of science into various scientific disciplines, as well as research done for practical or commercial purposes are all aspects of this social and societal dimensions of science. To produce a working framework for analysis, decisions about what to be included into framework and what to be left out have to be made (see e.g. Huberman and Miles 1994). Some of the central dimensions of NOS described by Lederman et al. (2002), Osborne et al. (2003), Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) were thus left out or integrated to other dimensions: The difference between laws and theories, considered often as one of the central dimensions of NOS (see e.g. McComas et al. 1998; Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008), is not included in the framework. Among philosophers of chemistry there is no agreement on does chemistry even have laws (see van Brakel 2000). For example, approximate and non- universal chemical laws such as periodic law and laws of definite and multiple proportions may not seem as lawlike as the laws of physics (Christie 1994; Scerri 2007). As textbooks 123

1846 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. did not provide discussion on these aspects of NOS we decided to leave it out of the analysis altogether. This does not mean that nature of laws and theories cannot be dis- cussed in chemistry education. The difference between these different kinds of knowledge is crucial for example while discussing kinetic molecular theory of gases (see Niaz 2000). Creativity of scientists and imaginative nature of scientific knowledge, also considered as one of the central aspects of science (see e.g. Lederman et al. 2002; Osborne et al. 2003), was integrated to other dimension of NOS. As creativity plays a part in every aspect of scientific research from obtaining funding to designing experiments and inventing expla- nations and models, creative NOS can be seen as part of other dimensions of NOS. No explicit discussion of this dimension was found from the analyzed textbooks. The descriptions of dimension presented here were regarded more as themes of dis- cussion rather than tenets of NOS. The authors do not subscribe to view, that teaching of NOS should be about indoctrinating certain positions or transmitting the ‘‘truth’’ about nature of science. Students’ perspectives of NOS are always dependent on the context and content framing the question. Even though explicit discussion is an effective way of promoting understanding of NOS, such discussion should engage students to the culture of argumentation, rather than memorizing ‘‘truths’’ about NOS (Clough 2007). To assess how learning aids such as textbooks could support such discussion, the emphasis was measured in a quantitative way as a proportion of analyzed units, rather than scoring the merits of representations presented. To see how the results relate to a method based on scoring used by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008), and Niaz and Maza (2011), some observations about the way these dimensions were represented are discussed in the results and discussion section. Two researchers independently analyzed the marked units of analysis for representa- tions of each of the dimensions of NOS described in the framework. Researchers then compared their scores and calculated the level of inter-rater agreement with corresponding Cohen’s kappa-values. Independent analyses resulted in a moderate to high-level inter- rater agreement with kappa statistic ranging from .65 to .79. Differences were discussed and final markings negotiated by both researchers taking part in the analysis. Providing direct quotes from the data while presenting results also supports the reliability of the analysis. All direct quotes were translated by the first author from Finnish or Swedish to English. 3 Results and Discussion The results are presented in two parts. The results of the analysis on the main themes of scientific literacy, analyzed from the 10% sample of textbooks are presented first. The results of the second round of analysis, based on the analytical framework created by the authors are presented in Sect. 3.2. 3.1 Themes of Scientific Literacy Based on the analytical framework by Chiappetta et al. (1991a), all of the analyzed Finnish and Swedish upper secondary chemistry textbooks lack a balanced emphasis of themes of scientific literacy (see Table 1). Like most science textbooks published in USA (Chiappetta et al. 1991b, c, 1993; Lumpe and Beck 1996; Wilkinson 1999), the Finnish and Swedish upper secondary school chemistry textbooks seem overtly focused on the content of sci- ence and too little on the dimensions of science as a way of knowing (theme III), and interaction of science, technology and society (theme IV). 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1847 Table 1 Percentage of emphasis on the four themes of scientific literacy Textbook Themes of scientific literacy Kappa Knowledge Investigative Science Interaction of .87 of science nature as a way science, .87 of science of technology .85 thinking and society .81 .83 Lehtiniemi and Turpeenoja 33 53 3 11 (N = 426) 66 28 2 4 Kaila et al. (N = 383) 60 32 3 4 Bore´n et al. (N = 429) 59 28 2 11 Engstro¨m et al. (N = 429) 76 16 3 5 Henriksson (N = 294) The distribution of emphasis is rather similar on the all four series. The themes of knowledge of science (theme I) and investigative nature of science (theme II) get the most coverage. One textbook has more emphasis on the theme investigative nature of science (theme II), as it has more questions requiring students calculate an answer than the other textbooks. The theme this study is interested in, science as a way of thinking (theme III), gets the least emphasis, with less than 5% coverage in every textbook analyzed. The theme of interaction of science, technology and society (theme IV) receives slightly more coverage, with percentages ranging from 4 to 11. According to the curricula analysis several important elements of NOS are missing from Finnish and Swedish curricula and the overall emphasis is on the knowledge of science and investigate nature of science (Vesterinen et al. 2009). As the textbooks should be com- patible with the national frame curricula, this might be one of the reasons for such a small coverage of science as a way of thinking. 3.2 Dimensions of NOS The analyzed textbooks had from 58 to 103 units of analysis discussing science as a way of thinking (theme III). The numbers are in line with the estimations based on the sample presented in table 1. Table 2 presents the percentages and frequencies for the analyzed dimensions of NOS. The tentative nature of science is the most common dimension of NOS emphasized in every series. Most series also provide an explicit description of this dimension (see [1.1] in Table 3). Examples of historical development of scientific ideas included descriptions of the development of the atomic model, the discovery of unknown elements, and the creation of the periodic table (see [1.2] in Table 3). Swedish textbooks emphasize this dimension more than Finnish textbooks. One reason for this might be the emphasis of the national core curricula. Unlike the Finnish core curriculum, the Swedish core curriculum explicitly mentions tentative nature of scientific knowledge (Vesterinen et al. 2009). Although most of the examples are historical, also some contemporary examples of tentative nature of science were provided (e.g. the synthesis of new substances in drug discovery). Multitudes of examples about the empirical nature of chemical research are given in the textbooks (see [2.2] in Table 3). Most of the examples of this dimension are descriptions of historical experiments. As Swedish textbooks contained more descriptions about history of chemistry, they seem to also provide more examples of this dimension (see Table 2). 123

1848 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. Table 2 Percentages (and frequencies) of NOS dimensions represented in the theme of science as a way of thinking Textbook NOS dimension Kappa Tentative Empirical Model-based Inferential Technol. Instrumentation Social products aspects Lehtiniemi and 23% (15) 8% (5) 8% (5) 6% (4) 14% (9) 29% (19) 14% (9) .71 Turpeenoja (N = 65) 14% (8) 9% (5) 10% (6) 14% (8) .76 5% (5) 3% (3) 3% (3) 28% (29) .74 Kaila et al. 20% (12) 10% (6) 24% (14) 8% (5) 3% (2) 12% (7) (N = 58) 3% (3) 7% (6) 3% (3) 5% (3) .79 14% (12) .65 Bore´n et al. 37% (38) 17% (17) 8% (8) (N = 103) Engstro¨m et al. 48% (29) 18% (11) 5% (3) (N = 60) Henriksson 52% (46) 18% (16) 2% (2) (N = 88) Although most analyzed textbook series contain an explicit description of chemistry as an empirical science (see [2.1] in Table 3), they also contain simplistic representations of research as a step-to-step procedure. Such simplistic step-to-step description of scientific process can also be found on the Finnish and Swedish national core curricula (Vesterinen et al. 2009). As Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) point out, despite efforts of debunking, myth of the ‘‘Scientific Method’’ seems still be championed by chemistry textbooks. They argue that for a more informed view of this NOS aspect, science textbooks should ‘‘emphasize attitudes and habits of mind that typify scientists’ work’’ (Ibid. p. 848). Such emphasis was not found from the analyzed chemistry textbooks. For example, the importance of crea- tivity in design of experiments is not explicitly discussed in any of the analyzed textbooks. Understanding that models are used as a way to explain chemical phenomena, and that they are not necessarily mathematically postulated from the laws of physics, is essential in understanding chemical models (Scerri and McIntyre 1997; Erduran 2001). Despite this, the model-based and inferential NOS are discussed in more detail only in one of the analyzed textbook series (see [3.1] and [4.1] in Table 3). The textbook series in question even has an exercise, in which students are asked to reflect on how to use observations in creating models and in establishing the validity of claims. This was one of the very few exercises about the NOS dimensions found in the textbooks. In developing students understanding of NOS, such exercises could prove to be very valuable, as reflection and discussion seems to have a central role in the development of understanding of NOS, by providing the students with structured opportunities for challenging their core beliefs.6 Model-based and inferential dimensions of chemical research are mostly discussed within the context of the development of atomic models or the creation of the periodic table of elements (see [3.2] and [4.2] in Table 3). Properties of models are also discussed in the context of chemical bonding and climate models. All textbooks have historical and contemporary examples of the technological products of chemistry (see [5.2] in Table 3). As also most of the discussion on the interaction of science, technology and society (theme IV) are examples of products of chemical industry, all books provide multitude of examples on how synthesis of new substances affects our 6 See Zeidler (1997), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002, 2004). 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1849 Table 3 Representative samples of the dimensions of NOS NOS dimension Type of Representative example representation (1) Tentative Explicit (1.1) ‘‘Like the models of electron configurations, the models of Implicit chemical bonding have developed through time and are still developing as research continues.’’ (Kaila et al. 2005b, p. 38) (2) Empirical Explicit (1.2) ‘‘Bohr’s model has since then changed. It is still accepted that Implicit electron energy can have only certain values. Meanwhile, it is not thought anymore that electron travels round the nucleus on (3) Model-based Explicit regular trajectories, but rather on a more irregularly.’’ (Engstro¨m et al. 2005, p. 18) Implicit (2.1) ‘‘Chemistry is said to be an experimental or empirical science. (4) Inferential Explicit Word empirical means that is based on observations and Implicit measurements. Empiric knowledge is produced by experiments [emphasis in original].’’ (Lehtiniemi and Turpeenoja 2004a, p. 7) (5) Technological Explicit products Implicit (2.2) ‘‘Ernest Rutherford developed the atomic model with the use of newfound radioactivity. He aimed radiation from a radioactive (6) Instrumentation Implicit substance towards a paper-thin gold foil. […] Behind the gold foil he placed a screen (made out of zinc sulfide) that showed little (7) Social and societal Implicit flashes of light when it met the invisible radiation.’’ (Henriksson dimensions 2007a, p. 25) (3.1) ‘‘We describe surrounding reality with ‘our own language’: by varying metaphors, drawings, sculptures, mathematic equations etc. Models should be potent tools that have explanatory power, with which one can describe and understand, as well as possible, the observations one makes about the surrounding nature and the phenomena within it.’’ (Kaila et al. 2005b, pp. 10–11) (3.2) ‘‘When we talk about electron shells we should know that we are using simplified atomic models in Bohr’s spirit. These models are often sufficient to explain properties of elements and chemical reactions. That is why we are often content with Bohr’s model in this book.’’ (Henriksson 2007a, p. 27) (4.1) ‘‘Observations are statements of facts based on our senses of sight, touch, smell, hear and taste. Inferences are explanations of observations.’’ (Kaila et al. 2005a, p. 144) (4.2) ‘‘When Rutherford made his experiment he discovered that most of the particles went straight through the gold foil. What conclusions could he make from this?’’ (Engstro¨m et al. 2005, p. 18) (5.1) ‘‘Chemistry differs from all other sciences in the way it can in a laboratory environment create and produce new objects of research.’’ (Kaila et al. 2005c, p. 12) (5.2) ‘‘Today’s chemists discover and produce every year thousands of new organic substances. Diversity is possible thanks to the carbon atoms unique ability to form bonds with each other in various branched chains and rings.’’ (Henriksson 2007b, p. 19) (6.1) ‘‘Theoretical chemistry is one of the fields of modern chemistry that is vigorously developing, based mainly on the development of new and more powerful computers and new theoretical innovations.’’ (Lehtiniemi and Turpeenoja 2004c, p. 9) (7.1) ‘‘He started his career on ‘Society of physics’ in Stockholm, where he discussed current topics with colleagues. There he heard a touching story about the origin of the ice-age and the variation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.’’ (Engstro¨m et al. 2005). 123

1850 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. environment and society. Knowing that creation of new substances and developing methods of synthesis are not only applications of science but also an integral part of chemistry as a science is important for understanding how science and technology interact (see e.g. Schummer 1997; Kovac 2007). In spite of its importance, only one of the text- books discusses explicitly the way chemistry creates new objects for research (see [5.1] in Table 3). Although all analyzed textbooks provide some examples of how the development of instruments has affected chemical research, there is no explicit discussion on the role of instrumentation in chemical research. For example, most textbooks describe the impor- tance of development of spectroscopy and both Finnish textbooks provide several exam- ples of use of ICT and molecular modelling in chemical research (see [5.2] in Table 3). Other examples include discussion on how the development of weighting scales and microscopes has changed chemical research. Although some examples are provided in every textbook, explicit discussion on the role instrumentation in research would promote a more scientifically sound and authentic view on the relationship between science and technology (see e.g. Tala 2009). In their analysis of chemistry textbooks used in the United States, Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) found out that social and societal dimensions of chemistry are rarely discussed. This is also the case with most Finnish and Swedish chemistry textbooks (see Table 2). In analyzed textbooks the portrayal of scientists concentrates on the historical characters, which have had a major impact on the development of scientific models. For example John Dalton, Ernest Rutherford, and Dmitri Mendeleev are mentioned in every analyzed series. Developers of historically influential chemical products and processes, such as Alfred Nobel, Max Born, and Fritz Haber, are also mentioned on several occasions. Although use of such historical vignettes can be useful way of discussing NOS issues (see e.g. Roach and Wandersee 1995), portrayals of historical scientists and their work in the analyzed textbooks are mostly anecdotal and hardly provide reader with adequate descriptions of the larger cultural milieu in which scientific discoveries and innovations were made. Although the symbiotic relationship of chemistry as a science and chemical industry is not explicitly discussed in any of the the analyzed textbooks, many historical vignettes describe use-inspired research (Aftalion 2001; Laszlo 2006). Social and societal dimensions of NOS include both descriptions of the various external (e.g. societal, political and economic) influences on the scientific practice as well as descriptions of science as a social practice. Although most textbooks describe the formation of some subareas of science, such as biochemistry or computer assisted, other examples about the social dimensions of scientific practice are few and far between. For example, scientific journals are mentioned by only one textbook series (Bore´n et al. 2005, 2008) and the communication and criticism within the scientific community, such as the double-blind peer-review process used by scientific journals, are not discussed at all. By focusing on anecdotal and highly idealized portrayals of well-known historical figures and by lack of discussion about the social aspects of scientific practice, the textbooks provide a rather clinical view of practice of science. As the textbooks also provide only very few vignettes of living, non-western or women scientists, the practice of chemistry is portrayed as a highly systematic, asocial, uncreative, and masculine activity that evolved within Euro-American culture. Such a portrayal of science might dehumanize chemical research and alienate some students, especially women and minorities (see Aikenhead 2006). 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1851 4 Conclusions and Implications The purpose of this study was to formulate a procedure and framework for quantitative analysis of domain specific NOS aspects in chemistry textbooks and to determine the emphasis of NOS aspects in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks. Based on the inter-rater agreement, the procedure and frameworks of analysis presented in this study was a reliable way of assessing the emphasis given to the domain specific dimensions of NOS. The new dimensions of NOS based on the research on philosophy of chemistry and chemistry education (model-based aspects of NOS, technological products of chemistry and role instrumentation of chemistry) were all found in the analyzed text- books. Although formed within the domain specific framework, these categories need not necessarily be limited to chemistry. For example, modelling in science, subjects of the research created by the scientists, and role of instrumentations are equally important for nanophysics (see Tala 2011). Chemistry is probably not the only science with possibility to provide new perspectives on NOS. For example, by focusing on domain specific dimen- sions of biology and on philosophy of biology one could probably produce whole another set of domain specific dimensions of NOS. Textbooks, as one of the most important science teaching resources (Yager 1996; Ahtineva 2000), should provide teachers with a sufficiently wide variety of examples to discuss the different dimensions of NOS. As only a small fraction of textbook is focusing on NOS issues, this is not the case. Although examples of tentative and empirical NOS were provided, lack of explicit discussion about the creative and social aspects of scientific practice can lead to highly idealized portrayal of scientists and scientific practice. Such a portrayal might support a na¨ıve view of NOS, in which science is seen as highly sys- tematic, asocial, and uncreative activity of applying the ‘‘Scientific Method’’ (see Abd-El- Khalick et al. 2008). What measures could then be made to improve the NOS emphasis in Finnish and Swedish textbooks? The results showed some similarities and differences in emphasis (see Table 2). One of the differences in NOS emphasis between Finnish and Swedish core curricula was that Swedish curriculum explicitly mentions tentative dimension of NOS (Vesterinen et al. 2009). In line with the differences of curricula, also Swedish textbooks in this study emphasized the tentative dimension of NOS more than Finnish textbooks. Based on this, it seems that curricula has some effect on NOS emphasis of textbooks and thus the most obvious way to affect the emphasis of the textbooks would be by changing the emphasis of the curriculum. However, such changes do not necessarily translate into changes in commercial textbooks (e.g. Wilkinson 1999). In addition to curricula and textbooks, summative assessment plays an integral part in defining what the teachers and the students consider relevant. Teachers tend to teach and students tend to study towards success on exams (Tamir 2003). One way to further develop NOS instruction in schools would be by making changes to the exams. Changes made on the emphasis of the Finnish matriculation exam, the only compulsory and standardized exam in Finnish upper secondary schools could have a great impact on textbooks as well as on emphasis of teaching. Although the exams are regulated by the curriculum, the emphasis of exams does not necessarily follow changes made in the curriculum (Tikkanen 2010). Changing the emphasis of exams could also be problematic because assessment of knowledge of NOS would require questions not traditionally seen on science exams (see Aikenhead 2006). However, a change in emphasis of textbooks, curricula, and exams alone is not enough. At the final stage of the curriculum process, teachers are the final implementers of the aims 123

1852 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. and objectives defined by the national frame curricula. Although the lack of suitable teaching materials and pedagogic approaches is one of the central challenges of imple- menting NOS issues in teaching (Ho¨ttecke and Riess 2009), providing teaching materials for NOS issues is not by itself sufficient for meaningful professional development of teachers. Implementing new educational practices is usually not easy and requires highly motivated and skilled teachers (see Aikenhead 2006). The changes in curricula should thus be supported with both pre- and in-service courses. In recent years, several papers have been published about the development and results of such research-informed courses and instructional units for developing teachers understanding of NOS and effective strategies for implementing NOS instruction to their classroom practice.7 References Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Oregon State University, Oregon. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a phi- losophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. Interna- tional Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A.-P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 835–855. Adu´rix-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2009). A research-informed instructional unit to teach the nature of science to pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 18, 1177–1192. Aftalion, F. (2001). A history of the international chemical industry. Philadelphia, PA: Chemical Heritage Press. Ahtineva, A. (2000). Oppikirja—tiedon va¨litta¨ja¨ ja opintojen innoittaja?. Turku: University of Turku. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Baird, D. (2000). Analytical instrumentation and instrumental objectivity. In N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules: New philosophical perspectives on chemistry (pp. 90–113). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Benfey, O. T. (2006). The conceptual structure of the sciences: Reemergence of the human dimension. In D. Baird, E. Scerri, & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline. Dordrecht: Springer. Bore´n, H., Bo¨rner, M., Larsson, M., & Lindh, B. (2008). Kemiboken B. Stockholm: Liber. Bore´n, H., Bostro¨m, A., Bo¨rner, M., Larsson, M., Lillieborg, S., & Lindh, B. (2005). Kemiboken A. Stockholm: Liber. Brito, A., Rodr´ıguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2005). A reconstruction of development of the periodic table based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for general chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 84–111. Carpenter, B. K. (2000). Models and explanations: Understanding chemical reaction mechanics. In N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules: New philosophical perspectives on chemistry (pp. 211–229). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cartwright, N. D. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991a). Procedures for conducting content analysis of science textbooks. Houston, TX: University of Houston, Department of Curriculum & Instruction. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991b). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713–725. 7 E.g. Abd-El-Khalick (2005), Waters-Adams (2006), Niaz (2008), Adu´rix-Bravo and Izquierdo-Aymerich (2009), Vesterinen and Aksela (2009). 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1853 Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991c). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 939–952. Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 787–797. Christie, M. (1994). Philosophers versus chemists concerning ‘laws of nature’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 612–630. Clough, M. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto Forum, 25, http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm. Accessed 5 September 2011. Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences ques- tionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649–668. Engstro¨m, C., Backlund, P., Berger, R., & Grennberg, H. (2005). Kemi A: Tema & Teori (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning. Engstro¨m, C., Backlund, P., Berger, R., & Grennberg, H. (2008). Kemi B: Tema & Teori (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning. Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10, 581–593. Erduran, S., & Duschl, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary characterization of models and the nature of chemical knowledge in the classroom. Studies in Science Education, 40, 111–144. Erduran, S., & Scerri, E. (2002). The nature of chemical knowledge and chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research- based practice (pp. 7–28). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Finnish National Board of Education. (2003). National core curriculum for upper secondary schools 2003. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Guo, C.-J. (2007). Issues in science learning: An international perspective. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 227–256). London: Erlbaum. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and inventing: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henriksson, A. (2007a). Syntes A: Kemi fo¨r gymnasieskolan. Malmo¨: Gleerups Utbildning. Henriksson, A. (2007b). Syntes B: Kemi fo¨r gymnasieskolan. Malmo¨: Gleerups Utbildning. Ho¨ttecke, D., & Riess, F. (2009). Developing and implementing case studies for teaching science with the help of history and philosophy: Framework and critical perspectives on ‘HIPST’—a European approach for the inclusion of history and philosophy in science teaching. Paper presented at the tenth international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA. June 24–28, 2009. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaila, L., Merila¨inen, P., Ojala, P., & Pihko, P. (2005a). Reaktio 2. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Tammi. Kaila, L., Merila¨inen, P., Ojala, P., & Pihko, P. (2005b). Reaktio 3. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Tammi. Kaila, L., Merila¨inen, P., Ojala, P., & Pihko, P. (2005c). Reaktio 4. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Tammi. Kaila, L., Merila¨inen, P., Ojala, P., & Pihko, P. (2005d). Reaktio 5. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Tammi. Kaila, L., Merila¨inen, P., Ojala, P., Pihko, P., & Salo, K. (2005e). Reaktio 1. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Tammi. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry- oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578. Kovac, J. (2002). Theoretical and practical reasoning in chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 4, 163–171. Kovac, J. (2007). Moral rules, moral ideals, and use-inspired research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 159–169. Laszlo, P. (2006). On the self-image of chemists, 1950–2000. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 12, 99–130. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (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, 497–521. Lehtiniemi, K., & Turpeenoja, L. (2004a). Mooli 1. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Otava. 123

1854 V.-M. Vesterinen et al. Lehtiniemi, K., & Turpeenoja, L. (2004b). Mooli 2. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Otava. Lehtiniemi, K., & Turpeenoja, L. (2004c). Mooli 3. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Otava. Lehtiniemi, K., & Turpeenoja, L. (2004d). Mooli 4. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Otava. Lehtiniemi, K., & Turpeenoja, L. (2004e). Mooli 5. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtio¨ Otava. Lombardi, O., & Labarca, M. (2007). The philosophy of chemistry as a new resource for chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 187–192. Lumpe, A. T., & Beck, J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 58, 147–153. MAOL ry. (2007). Lukion opetussuunnitelmakysely: Yhteenvetoraportti. Helsinki: MAOL ry. Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn’s impact on science education: What lessons can be learned? Science Education, 88, 90–118. 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. 3–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer. National Agency for Education. (2001). Natural science programme GY 2000:14. Va¨stera˚s: National Agency for Education and Fritzes. Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82, 527–552. Niaz, M. (2000). A rational reconstruction of the kinetic molecular theory of gases based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Instructional Science, 28, 23–50. Niaz, M. (2001). A rational reconstruction of the origin of the covalent bond and its implications for general chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 623–641. Niaz, M. (2008). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A chemistry teachers’ perspective. Instructional Science, 36, 233–249. Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks. Dordrecht: Springer. Nye, M. J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry: Dynamics of matter and dynamics of disciplines, 1800–1950. Berkeley, CA: University of California 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 Education, 40, 692–720. Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Putting people back into science: Using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 365–370. Rodriguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2002). How in spite of the rhetoric, history of chemistry has been ignored in presenting atomic structure in textbooks. Science & Education, 11, 423–441. Scerri, E. R. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Edu- cation, 80, 468–474. Scerri, E. R. (2007). The periodic table: Its story and its significance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Scerri, E. R., & McIntyre, L. (1997). The case for philosophy of chemistry. Synthese, 111, 213–232. Schummer, J. (1997). Scientometric studies on chemistry II: Aims and methods of producing new chemical substances. Scientometrics, 39, 125–140. Schummer, J. (1999). Coping with the growth of chemical knowledge: Challenges for chemistry docu- mentation, education, and working chemists. Educacio´n Qu´ımica, 10, 92–101. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ‘‘It’s the nature of the beast’’: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205–236. Smit, W. A., Bochkov, A. F., & Caple, R. (1998). Organic synthesis: The science behind the art. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry. Staver, J., & Lumpe, A. (1993). A content analysis of the presentation of the concept of the mole in chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 763–775. Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology education: Technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18, 275–298. Tala, S. (2011). Enculturation into technoscience: Analysis of the views of novices and experts on modeling and learning in nanophysics. Science & Education, 20, 733–760. Tamir, P. (2003). Assessment and evaluation in science education: Opportunities to learn and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education: Part two (pp. 761–785). Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 123

Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature 1855 Tikkanen, G. (2010). Kemian ylioppilaskokeen tehta¨va¨t summatiivisen arvioinnin va¨lineena¨. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto. Van Brakel, J. (2000). Philosophy of chemistry: Between the scientific and the manifest image. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2009). A novel course of chemistry as a scientific discipline: How do prospective teachers perceive nature of chemistry through visits to research groups? Chemistry Edu- cation Research and Practice, 10, 132–141. Vesterinen, V.-M., Aksela, M., & Sundberg, M. R. (2009). Nature of Chemistry in the National Frame Curricula for Upper Secondary Education in Finland, Norway and Sweden. NorDiNa, 5, 200–212. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel. Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 919–944. Wilkinson, J. (1999). A quantitative analysis of physics textbooks for scientific literacy themes. Research in Science Education, 29, 385–399. Williams, J. D. (2002). Ideas and evidence in science: The portrayal of scientists in GCSE textbooks. School Science Review, 84(307), 89–101. Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/technology/society as a reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University Press. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496. Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 123