- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Impact of the history of physics course on university non-STEM students’ views on the nature of science

Chunying Zuo1, Qinxuan Zhou2, Wei-Zhao Shi1,3,*, and Jingying Wang4,†

  • *Contact author: vcshih@aliyun.com
  • †Contact author: wangjingying8018@126.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020124 – Published 28 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/rv88-pf62

Abstract

Empirical research on whether offering history of science electives at the university level enhances students’ understanding of the nature of science (NOS) remains scarce. This study aims to investigate the impact of enrolling in a history of science course on undergraduates’ understanding of the nature of science. In this study, the history of physics elective employed three distinct instructional methods: conventional lecture-based teaching, lecture-based teaching combined with explicit instruction and individual reflection, and lecture-based teaching combined with explicit instruction and group reflection. Teaching effectiveness was assessed by administering the SUSSI questionnaire to 160 participants before and after the course, supplemented by cognitive network analysis of students’ reflective reports on the nature of science within the authentic context of the COVID-19 pandemic. A randomly selected control group of non-STEM majors who did not enroll in the course was included for comparison. Results demonstrated that all three instructional models significantly improved students’ NOS conceptions across multiple dimensions, with the explicit instruction and group reflection approach showing optimal comprehensive effectiveness. However, none of the instructional models produced a statistically significant improvement in students’ understanding of the scientific laws and theories dimension.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (48)

  1. A. Zetterqvist and F. Bach, Epistemic knowledge—a vital part of scientific literacy?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 45, 484 (2023).
  2. J. Osborne and D. Allchin, Science literacy in the twenty-first century: Informed trust and the competent outsider, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 47, 2134 (2025).
  3. I. P. Canlas and J. Molino-Magtolis, Views on the nature of science, beliefs, trust in the government, and COVID-19 pandemic preventive behavior among undergraduate students, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 21, 2143 (2023).
  4. B. Almeida, M. Santos, and R. Justi, Aspects and abilities of science literacy in the context of nature of science teaching, Sci. Educ. 32, 567 (2023).
  5. J. Osborne, Science education for the twenty first century, EURASIA. J. Math. Sci. Tech. Educ. 3, 173 (2007).
  6. J. Osborne and D. Pimentel, Science education in an age of misinformation, Sci. Educ. 107, 553 (2023).
  7. D. Karisan and D. L. Zeidler, Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: A review of research, Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Tech. 5, 139 (2017).
  8. H. K. E. Stadermann and M. J. Goedhart, Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 997 (2020).
  9. W.-Z. Shi, Understanding the nature of science through COVID-19 reports, Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 311 (2022).
  10. G. Öberg, A. Campbell, J. Fox, M. Graves, T. Ivanochko, L. Matsuchi, I. Mouat, and A. Welsh, Teaching science as a process, not a set of facts, Sci. Educ. 31, 787 (2022).
  11. S. Bartels and J. Lederman, What do elementary students know about science, scientists and how they do their work?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 44, 627 (2022).
  12. F. Abd-El-Khalick, Over and over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science, in Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education, edited by L. B. Flick and N. G. Lederman (Springer, New York, 2006), pp. 389–425.
  13. B. Ibrahim, A. Buffler, and F. Lubben, Profiles of freshman physics views on the nature of science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 248 (2009).
  14. M. S. Koksal and J. Cakiroglu, Examining science teacher’s understandings of the NOS aspects through the use of knowledge test and open-ended questions, Sci. Educ. Int. 21, 197 (2010).
  15. T. P. Thao-Do, D. T. Bac-Ly, and C. Yuenyong, Learning environment in Vietnamese physics teacher education programme through the lens of constructivism: A case study of a state university in Mekong delta region, Vietnam. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 55 (2016).
  16. W. Z. Shi and J. Wang, Comparison on views of nature of science between math and physics students, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 16, 77 (2017).
  17. N. A. Algarni and N. S. Alahmad, Views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching nature of science among chemistry students in saudi universities, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 22, 204 (2023).
  18. J. B. Conant, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1970).
  19. K. M. Jones, The attainment of understandings about the scientific enterprise, scientists, and the aims and methods of science by students in a college physical science course, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 6, 47 (1969).
  20. H. Eshach, H.-K. Wu, F.-K. Hwang, and Y.-S. Hsu, Whole class dialogic discussion meets Taiwan’s physics teachers: Attitudes and culture, J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 23, 183 (2014).
  21. S. C. Nyarko and D. W. Rudge, Using the history of plate tectonics to teach the nature of science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 44, 2022 (1958).
  22. F. Abd-El-Khalick and N. G. Lederman, The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 37, 1057 (2000).
  23. P. M. Dass, Understanding the nature of scientific enterprise (NOSE) through a discourse with its history: The influence of an undergraduate history of science course, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 3, 87 (2005).
  24. M. J. Klein, The first phase of the Bohr-Einstein dialogue, Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 2, 1 (1970).
  25. H. Goldwhite, Clio and chemistry: A divorce has been arranged, J. Chem. Educ. 52, 645 (1975).
  26. L. L. Liang, S. Chen, X. Chen, O. N. Kaya, A. D. Adams, M. Macklin, and J. Ebenezer, Preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: An international collaborative study, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 7, 987 (2009).
  27. J. W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser, Knowing What Studentsknow: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
  28. D. Allchin, Beyond the consensus view: Whole science, Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 17, 18 (2017).
  29. S. L. Wong and D. Hodson, From the Horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge, Sci. Educ. 93, 109 (2009).
  30. D. W. Shaffer, W. Collier, and A. R. Ruis, A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data, J. Learn. Anal. 3, 9 (2016).
  31. S. Y. Liu and N. G. Lederman, Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 1281 (2007).
  32. M. Wang, S. Gao, W. Gui, J. Ye, and S. Mi, Investigation of pre-service teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science based on the LDA model, Sci. Educ. 32, 589 (2023).
  33. B. K. Mulvey, J. C. Parrish, J. W. Reid, J. Papa, and E. E. Peters-Burton, Making connections : A scoping review of epistemic network analysis in science education, Sci. Educ. 30, 527 (2021).
  34. E. E. Peters-Burton, J. C. Parrish, and B. K. Mulvey, Extending the utility of the views of nature of science assessment through epistemic network analysis, Sci. Educ. 28, 1027 (2019).
  35. R. L. Bell, B. K. Mulvey, and J. L. Maeng, Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: Preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 493 (2016).
  36. K. Hopkins, Neuroscience as a contemporary science domain to contextualize nature of science instruction, Sci. Educ. 30, 463 (2021).
  37. M. Niaz, From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks, Sci. Educ. 82, 527 (1998).
  38. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978).
  39. W.-Z. Shi, C. Zuo, and J. Wang, Impact of inquiry-based teaching and group composition on students’ understanding of the nature of science in college physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010134 (2025).
  40. S. Erduran and Z. R. Dagher, Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: Potential new directions for curriculum and assessment on nature of science, Ir. Educ. Stud. 33, 335 (2014).
  41. B. Demirdögen and E. Uzuntiryaki-Kondakçi, Closing the gap between beliefs and practice: Change of pre-service chemistry teachers’ orientations during a PCK-based NOS course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 17, 818 (2016).
  42. G. Mesci and R. S. Schwartz, Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others, Res. Sci. Educ. 47, 329 (2017).
  43. W. Z. Shi and J. Wang, Comparison on views of nature of science between math and physics students, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 16, 77 (2017).
  44. L. C. Parker, G. H. Krockover, S. Lasher-Trapp, and D. C. Eichinger, Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 89, 1681 (2008).
  45. I. Petersen, S. Herzog, C. Bath, and A. Fleißner, Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre-and post-survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the nature of science, Interdiscip. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 16, e2215 (2020).
  46. S. Chen, W.-H. Chang, S.-C. Lieu, H.-L. Kao, M.-T. Huang, and S.-F. Lin, Development of an empirically based questionnaire to investigate young students’ ideas about nature of science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 408 (2013).
  47. N. Lederman, P. Wade, and R. L. Bell, Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective, in The Nature of Science in Science Education, edited by. F. W. McComas (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998), pp. 331–350.
  48. www.epistemicnetwork.org.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020124– Published 28 August, 2026
  • Received 11 December 2025
  • Accepted 18 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation