Analysis of Five Junior High School Physics TextbooksUsed in China for Representations of Nature of Science

Xiying Li1 & Zuyu Tan1 & Jiliang Shen2 & Weiping Hu1 &

Yinghe Chen2 & Jingying Wang3

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Based on the analytical framework of nature of science (NOS) in junior schoolscience textbooks, a content analysis method was adopted to analyze the NOS in junior middleschool physical textbooks (grade 8) of five editions authorized by the Ministry of Education ofChina, and the features of NOS were analyzed and compared. It was found that all fivetextbooks presented poor representations of NOS. None of these five editions were scientif-ically objective, nor did they include discussions of scientific laws and theories. Furthermore,they rarely presented empirical evidence to support their arguments. The explicit representa-tions of NOS were particularly inadequate.

Keywords Junior High School Physics Textbooks . Textbook evaluation . Nature of sciencecontent analysis method

Introduction

With the rapid development of the global economy and the arrival of the age of the knowledgeeconomy, China’s medium and long-term education reform and development plan (2010–2020) calls for a Bstudent-centered, teacher-guided system of education that makes full use ofstudent initiative to produce hundreds of millions of quality workers with a multitude ofprofessional talents, and a large number of cutting edge, creative leaders.^ (China Central

Res Sci Educhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9713-z

* Jingying Wangwangjingying8018@126.com

1 MOE Key laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710062,People’s Republic of China

2 Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People’sRepublic of China

3 Normal College & School of Teacher Education, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, People’sRepublic of China

Government 2010). In order to meet this challenge, countries throughout the world have beenstriving to reform education, with curriculum reform at the core.

Scientific inquiry has already become a trend in science education throughout the world.Many countries and regions, including the USA, England, Japan, Australia, and Taiwan, havemade inquiry-based science education and the development of students’ scientific literacy themain objective of science education reform. In 2001, China implemented a new round of basiceducation curriculum reform. China’s Science (7th–9th grade) course objectives state thatBstudents should understand science knowledge through inquiry, obtain scientific skills, graspscientific processes and methods, begin to understand the nature of science, form scientificattitudes, emotions, and values, and develop students’ innovative minds and practical abilities^(Chinese Ministry of Education 2001). The newly revised curriculum standards for science in2011 further emphasized the importance of scientific inquiry in science education (ChineseMinistry of Education 2001). Science textbooks play a key role in basic education reform(Chiappetta et al. 1991; Chiappetta and Fillman 2007; Tarr et al. 2008). Since sciencetextbooks play such an important role in science education, they should reflect the trends ineducation reform. Therefore, it is pertinent to investigate how China’s science textbookscharacterize NOS, and whether or not they satisfy the requirements of China’s new curriculumreforms in terms of scientific inquiry (Chinese Ministry of Education 2001, 2011).

To some extent, textbooks determine students’ general perceptions of science (Valverdeet al. 2002), and because textbooks serve as the specific manifestations of course objectives, itis the teacher’s responsibility to select the best resources for his or her classes. Due to theimportant role that science textbooks play in science education, numerous studies haveevaluated textbooks from various perspectives. For example, textbooks have been assessedaccording to gender equality (Elgar 2004), question level (Pizzini et al. 1992), the quantity ofscientific vocabulary (Groves 1995), content accuracy (Hubisz 2003), whether biology andchemistry textbooks discuss NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008; Chiappetta and Fillman 2007;Irez 2009; Niaz 2005), and the concept of error in textbooks (King 2010). However, NOS is animportant component of scientific literacy and arguably constitutes the main objective to betaught in science education (Matthews 2004; Miller 1983, 1998). An understanding of NOShelps students obtain scientific knowledge. It encourages students to maintain a positiveattitude towards science (Ireland et al. 2014; McComas and Olson 1998). Therefore, manystudies have investigated whether or not science textbooks incorporate sufficient content onNOS. For example, Chiappetta et al. (1991) and Lumpe and Beck (1996) studied thecharacterization of NOS in science textbooks and found that science textbooks mainly payattention to scientific knowledge and overemphasize scientific terminology. On the other hand,they tend to underemphasize the relationships between science, technology, and society, andscience. Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) analyzed NOS the content of American high schoolchemistry textbooks and discovered that little had changed throughout the editions over thepast 40 years. The status quo had been maintained and NOS was still under-represented (NRC2000). Chiappetta and Fillman (2007) analyzed five American biology textbooks and discov-ered that compared to the editions that were 15 years older, the newer editions contained moreNOS concepts. Phillips and Chiappetta (2007) analyzed 12 middle school science textbooksand discovered that compared with previous research, newer middle school science textbookstend to discuss NOS more than they had previously.

However, studies have shown that textbooks tend to present an overly superficial under-standing of science (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008; Chiappetta and Fillman 2007; Chiappettaet al. 1991; Lumpe and Beck 1996). In the last 40 years, textbooks’ incorporation of NOS has

Res Sci Educ

changed little, and if anything, it has become worse. This goes for all science books (biology,chemistry, etc.) (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008). Steps must be taken to change this trend andtextbooks must adopt consistent, explicit presentations of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008).Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) demonstrated that there is an Bauthor’s effect^ on the character-ization of Nature of Science (NOS), rather than a Bpublisher’s effect.^ That is, the authors ofscience textbooks pay more attention to whether or not textbooks include NOS than publishersdo. This is worrisome because authors of science textbooks usually emphasize one aspect ofNOS and remain loyal to it (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008). In addition, authors of sciencetextbooks generally do not assimilate the newest requirements of national and internationaleducational restructuring or the opinions of scholars from such diverse disciplines as philos-ophy, history, and social sciences into their work. For example, in the 1960s, there was anincreased interest in NOS from the perspective of several academic disciplines. Over thefollowing 10 years, many studies on NOS began to appear. As a result, in the world ofacademia, there was a major shift in the way in which NOS was perceived (Abd-El-Khalickand Lederman 2000). However, this shift was not reflected in any textbooks that have beenpublished in the last 40 years. Textbooks still tend to treat NOS in the same way, and they havenot changed much (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008). For example, regarding the myth of thescientific method, the world of academia has already rejected the view it previously held.However, taking into account this exception, textbooks continue to express this very naïveview. Considerable changes regarding the theory-driven NOS, the social nature of scientificundertakings, and the societal and cultural embeddedness of science have occurred over thelast 40 years. However, the textbooks analyzed still mistakenly characterize or neglect tomention these changes (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008).

Notably, other studies have looked into the differences in understanding NOS acrossdifferent age and educational groups, as represented in their textbooks. For example, Gibbsand Lawson (1992) used the same NOS standards to analyze 14 university-level and eight highschool-level science textbooks. Niaz (1998) and Rodriguez and Niaz (2002) employed sameNOS standards to analyze first-year university chemistry textbooks that they used for middleschool chemistry textbooks. While European and American science historians, science phi-losophers, scientists, and students of education disagree on the content of the concept of NOS(Osborne et al. 2003), scholars agree that middle and elementary school students should betaught non-controversial characteristics about NOS (Lederman 1998). The American NationalAssessment of Education Progress also believes that there should be an age limit when itcomes to teaching students concepts related to NOS.

McComas and Olson (1998) analyzed eight curriculum standards documents such asBenchmarks for Scientific Literacy and others from New Zealand, Canada, the UnitedKingdom, and Australia and found that not only does a national consensus about theelements of NOS that should be taught at the school in the USA, but there is alsointernational consensus. However, Osborne et al. (2003) believed that although these curric-ulum documents apparently seem to have achieved some agreement in defining what shouldbe taught about NOS, this agreement is rather than a coherent account of NOS. Therefore,Osborne et al. (2003) used a three-stage Delphi questionnaire with 23 experts of varioussciences to determine empirically the extent of consensus. From their results, they generatednine themes of NOS that represent the basic minimum and that their recommendation shouldbecome a core rather than a marginal part of the science curriculum. However, Osborne et al.(2003) also believed that Bno one method and no one group of individuals can provide auniversal solution as to what should be the essential elements of a contemporary science

Res Sci Educ

curriculum.^ Furthermore, until 2001, Chinese curriculum standards for science emphasizedthe importance of NOS in science education (Chinese Ministry of Education 2001). This mayhave led to some differences on which elements of NOS should be taught in middle schoolbetween China and other countries (Wang, Jou, Lv, Huang 2018). For the above reasons, Li(2016)’s study had explored which elements of NOS should be taught in middle school in China(a structured NOS analysis framework). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use thestructured NOS analysis framework to analyze and evaluate five physics textbooks approved bythe Chinese Ministry of Education for eighth grade students to determine whether theyadequately characterized NOS.

Method

Analytical Framework

This study applied a structured NOS analysis framework that is based on previousstudies and is appropriate for middle school students in China using a descriptivestudy with 21 participants drawn from the communities of experts of science educa-tors, educational psychologist, and expert science teachers in middle school (Li 2016).Higher-level NOS elements were omitted from the system of NOS concepts used toevaluate textbooks in this study.

Nature of Science

Philosophers, social science scientists, and historians, as well as science educators andscientists maintain different views on the content of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998;Osborne et al. 2003). The ten categories used to assess NOS content of science textbooksas presented in documents related to the American national reform has earned theapproval of many scholars (AAAS 1993; NRC 1996; NSTA 2000). Specifically, theseaspects are as follows: empirical, inferential, creative, theory-driven, tentative, the mythof the Scientific Method, scientific theories, scientific laws, social dimensions of science,and social and cultural embeddedness. The National Assessment of Education Progress1989 (USA) claims that NOS consists of scientific knowledge, values, and methodscontained in the domain of science, and that it cannot be understood by students of allages. An NOS–age–level distribution table is therefore proposed. In the table, studentsaged 9 through 13 years old demonstrated their understanding of NOS in terms of itstentative, open, empirical, replicable, and historical characteristics. Within this group,only differences in the level or depth of understanding were noted. Combining the tenaspects used by documents related to the American national reform to test NOS contentof science textbooks and the age level divisions for understanding NOS established bythe National Assessment of Education Progress 1989, Li (2016)’s research used adescriptive study and allowed 21 science education to investigate the appropriate levelof NOS understanding that is expected from middle school students in China. The resultsshowed that experts consistently believe that middle school students should grasp thetentative, empirical, subjective, creative, inferential, scientific theory, and scientific lawcharacteristics of NOS. Therefore, this research adopted all seven of these characteristics,which are listed in Table 1.

Res Sci Educ

Explicit Versus Implicit Approaches to Addressing NOS

Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) are of the opinion that any analysis of NOS in science textbooksshould be divided into explicit and implicit characteristics. Furthermore, compared withimplicit characteristics, explicit characteristics are more effective in developing students’scientific activities or doing science into a deeper understanding of NOS. Implicit perspectivesoften lack structured activities or prompts, and they do not lend themselves well to studentreflection and internalization of NOS.

Table 1 Explication of NOS aspects targeted in the middle school science textbooks

NOS aspect Dimensions emphasized in textbook analysis

Tentative Scientific knowledge is reliable and durable, but never absolute or certain. All categories ofknowledge (facts, theories, laws, etc.) are subject to change. Scientific claims change asnew evidence, made possible through conceptual and technological advances, is broughtto bear; as extant evidence is reinterpreted in light of new or revised theoretical ideas; ordue to changes in the cultural and social spheres or shifts in the directions of establishedresearch programs.

Empirical Scientific claims are derived from, and/or consistent with, observations of natural phe-nomena. Scientists, however, do not have Bdirect^ access to most natural phenomena:their observations are almost always filtered through the human perceptual apparatus,mediated by the assumptions underlying the functioning of Bscientific^ instruments,and/or interpreted from within elaborate theoretical frameworks.

Subjective Different scientists might draw different conclusions from the same set of data. The reasonis that they have different experiences, backgrounds, and educations.

Inferential There is a crucial distinction between observations and inferences. Observations aredescriptive statements about natural phenomena that are accessible to the senses (orextensions of the senses) and about which observers can reach consensus with relativeease (e.g., objects released above ground level tend to fall to the ground). Inferences, onthe other hand, are statements about phenomena that are not directly accessible to thesenses (e.g., objects tend to fall to the ground because of Bgravity^). Scientific constructs,such as gravity, are inferential in the sense that they can only be accessed and/ormeasured through their manifestations or effects.

Creative Science is not an entirely rational or systematic activity. Generating scientific knowledgeinvolves human creativity in the sense of scientists inventing explanations and theoreticalentities. The creative NOS, coupled with its inferential nature, entail that scientificentities (atoms, force fields, species, etc.) are functional theoretical models rather thanfaithful copies of Breality .̂

Scientific Theories Scientific theories are well-established, highly substantiated, internally consistent systemsof explanations, which (a) account for large sets of seemingly unrelated observations inseveral fields of investigation, (b) generate research questions and problems, and (c)guide future investigations. Theories are often based on assumptions or axioms and positthe existence of non-observable entities. Thus, direct testing is untenable. Only indirectevidence supports and validates theories: scientists derive specific testable predictionsfrom theories and check them against observations. An agreement between predictionsand observations increases confidence in the tested theory.

Scientific Laws In general, laws are descriptive statements of relationships among observable phenomena.Theories, by contrast, are inferred explanations for observable phenomena or regularitiesin those phenomena. Contrary to common belief, theories and laws are not hierarchicallyrelated (the naıve view that theories become laws when Benough^ supporting evidence isgarnered, or that laws have a higher status than theories). Theories and laws are differentkinds of knowledge and one does not become the other. Theories are as legitimate aproduct of science as laws. Hypothesis and law are two different types of scientificknowledge, and a hypothesis cannot become a law Eastwell (2014).

Adapted from Abd-El-Khalick (1998) and Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008).

Res Sci Educ

Selection of Materials for Analysis

According to the course objectives established by the Chinese Ministry of Education, differentregions or academic organizations have composed their own physics textbooks. The Ministryof Education gave these books strict reviews for approval according to the course objectives.Only textbooks approved by the Ministry of Education can be used. Currently, the most widelyused eighth grade physics textbooks that have earned the Ministry of Education’s approval arethe series published by Press A, Press B, Press C, Press D, and Press E. This study analyzedthese five series.

It was not advisable to randomly select content for analysis. Instead, relatively completecontent was analyzed according to the research objectives. Also, in order to convenientlycompare NOS of various publishers’ eighth grade physics textbooks, the same content wasselected for analysis from each textbook (Table 3).

Analysis Procedures

The six encoders employed in this study were all master’s degree students in physics educationtheory. The first step in the analysis process consisted of the examination and discussion of theanalytical framework and scoring details by the encoders. Second, in order to become familiarwith the encoding process, the encoders practiced assigning classification codes. Third, theyencoded the other sections of the textbooks (not covered in this study). This encoding wascompared among encoders to ensure a consistent encoding practice among them. Next, each ofthe encoders worked independently to analyze and encode the sections of the textbook ascovered in this study. Each code was supported by corresponding content from the textbook.Then, the authors and two other physics tutors (PhD professors) discussed each item of theencoders’ analyses. Discrepancies between the encoders’ analyses were analyzed anddiscussed until consensus was achieved among researchers.

Trustworthiness and Reliability

NOS scoring indexes in this research came in part from descriptions of functional levels ofscientific literacy from the American Association for the Advancement of Science andNational Research Council science education reform documents (AAAS 1990; NRC 1996)and from history, philosophy, and social science research (Abd-El-Khalick 2005; Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000). Also, the distinction between implicit and explicit perspectivesin the scoring standards came from the results of related empirical research. Nevertheless, thescoring indexes and standards used in this research were inferred. Therefore, when analyzingtextbooks, other important factors, such as expert experience, can confirm the reliability of theanalysis (Babbie 1998). For instance, as has been previously stated, all six of the analysts inthis study were physics education theory master’s degree students. Another influential factorwas the analytical process. A standardized analysis procedure helped to ensure reliability amongthe textbook analysts. First, each of the scorers conducted their analyses and scoring independently.Also, each score correlated with supporting content from the textbook. When encoders analyzedthe textbooks and examined the sevenNOS characteristics evaluated in this study, if they found thatsome portion of a textbook corresponded with the implicit or explicit NOS, the page number andline number were marked in a column to note that it was either an implicit or explicit, along with abrief description of the content. The cumulative NOS content of each book was evaluated in this

Res Sci Educ

way. Then, all of the NOS contents of each book were divided among the seven NOScharacteristics. If a book presented a certain NOS characteristic from an entirely explicitperspective, it earned three points. If the book presented a certain NOS characteristicfrom an entirely implicit perspective, it earned one point. After assigning each NOScharacteristic a point value, the total points were added. Third, the authors and two otherphysics tutors (PhD professors) discussed the scores and analyses item by item. Theyalso discussed and analyzed discrepancies between the scorers’ results, and finally,consensus was achieved among researchers.

Results

Analysis results are shown in Table 2. Overall, the five textbooks make no mention ofthe subjective, scientific theory, or scientific laws aspects of NOS. Also, the coverageof the tentative and empirical NOS is not at all satisfactory. Nearly 100,000 charactersworth of content were evaluated in each of the five textbooks, but the tentative andempirical NOS was only found in ten places. With the exception of page 86 in PressB, the five textbooks treated the tentative, empirical, creative, and inferential naturesof science entirely implicitly. For example, the text states,

a light ray is an abstract concept with certain characteristics and laws. A light ray is anabstract physical model. It can vividly describe the propagation of light and its directionof travel. When studying certain light problems, people often choose a few special lightrays to draw the path of light, thereby clearly reflecting the special characteristics andlaws of the particular type of light phenomenon being studied.

On page 82 of Press D, the creative NOS is presented explicitly: BSome of the world’sgreatest inventions are the result of happenstance. However, it takes innovative andthoughtful people to recognize the beginnings of a scientific breakthrough.^ All otherreferences to the creative NOS are implicit. Therefore, the five textbooks lack explicitcharacterizations of NOS.

Comparing the data from the Table 2, Press C, Press D, and the Press A earn relatively highmarks for overall presentation of NOS, scoring 45, 42, and 40 points, respectively. Press Dearned especially high marks for its presentation of the empirical and inferential NOS. Press Ccovered the creative NOS. Press E and the Press A covered the inferential and creative NOSelements best.

Table 2 Comparison of NOS content of five 8th grade physics textbooks

NOS Aspect Press A Press B Press C Press D Press E

Tentative 3 8 7 5 4Empirical 8 6 7 12 4Subjective 0 0 0 0 0Inferential 17 9 8 13 13Creative 22 8 23 12 11Scientific theories 0 0 0 0 0Scientific laws 0 0 0 0 0Total 40 31 45 42 32

Res Sci Educ

Discussions

The results of this study showed that the five Chinese textbooks that were evaluated do nottouch upon three essential NOS concepts (subjectivity, scientific theory, and scientific laws).The results of this study were in accordance with previous studies (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008;Chiappetta et al. 1991; Lumpe and Beck 1996) in determining that science textbooks’representation of NOS is insufficient. Abd-El-Khalick et al.’s (2008) research found that notextbook included all ten NOS elements. In comparison, Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2008) researchconcluded that American textbooks mainly fall short in their handling of the social and culturalembeddedness of science, the social aspects of the scientific enterprise, and theory-drivenNOS. Due to the relationship between age and the understanding of NOS concepts, the deficitsin American textbooks may be explained. They generally do not omit NOS concepts thatshould be grasped before learning at the university level. However, such higher-level NOSconcepts were omitted from the system of NOS concepts used to evaluate textbooks in thisstudy. The seven indexes used to evaluate the characterization of NOS concepts in thetextbooks examined in this study were all appropriate for middle school students andconsisted of NOS concepts that students must understand before attending college. Osborneet al. (2003) believed that these relatively simple elements of NOS represent the basicminimum that any simplified account of science should address and might serve as afoundation for the development of more sophisticated understandings of NOS. Therefore,teaching NOS should become a core part of the science education. However, the five textbooksanalyzed in this study completely omitted any mention of the subjective NOS and of scientifictheories and laws in terms of the elements of NOS. This glaring omission deserves theattention of course designer, textbook editors, and textbook auditors.

In comparing the textbooks in this study, the books published by Press C, Press D, and thePress A scored the highest marks overall for their presentations of NOS (45, 42, and 40 points,respectively). The Press D better covers the empirical and inferential aspects of NOS, and thePress D’s textbook better covers the creative aspect of NOS. The joint publication textbook byPress E, as well as the textbook by the Press A, better covered the inferential and creativeaspects of NOS. However, these should be noted: (1) these are only the best of an overallpoorly performing group and (2) the characterizations of NOS are almost entirely implicit,rather than explicit. Existing research showed that implicit presentations were not effective infacilitating students’ understanding of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson 2004; Akersonet al. 2000; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002).

In addition, these five eighth grade physics textbooks do not sufficiently characterize thetentative, creative, or empirical aspects of NOS. The source material from each book wasnearly 100,000 characters long, but there were fewer than ten places in the five textbooks thatcharacterized the tentative or empirical aspects of NOS. While the five textbooks did mentionthe tentative, empirical, creative, and inferential aspects of NOS, other than Press B’s charac-terization of the inferential NOS on page 86, and Press D’s characterization of the creativeNOS on page 82, all coverage of NOS was implicit. The five textbooks clearly lack explicitcoverage of the NOS. Although two of the books (14%) in their study did not mention theinferential NOS at all, and four of the books (29%) in their study mentioned it only implicitly,the remaining six (57%) covered the inferential NOS explicitly, completely, and consistently.All 12 textbooks in their study covered the empirical NOS; 64% did so implicitly, while 36%did so explicitly. Seventy-nine percent of the books covered the scientific theory NOSexplicitly and emphasized that scientific theories were not Bideas not yet experimentally

Res Sci Educ

verified^ but were concepts that had already accumulated abundant support from experimentalor observational evidence and had the ability to explain and predict, not to Bbe proven.^Twenty-one percent of the textbooks in their study did not characterize the scientific lawsaspect of NOS, and 29 covered it insufficiently. Fifty-seven percent of the textbooks in theirstudy did not mention the creative NOS. Only 12% explicitly covered the creative NOS. Fifty-seven percent of the textbooks either or briefly mentioned the provisional NOS, or failed tomention it altogether. Therefore, although there are differences among American sciencetextbooks in the ways in which they address NOS, if one examines the seven aspects ofNOS that students must grasp before college, Chinese science textbooks still fall quite short ofmeeting the overall standard that is necessary to prepare students for university-level sciencestudies. This is to be expected, considering that China has only recently begun to emphasizescience education based on scientific inquiry. Science textbook editors and auditors have notyet taken sufficient notice of this changing international trend in science education.

Implications and Opportunities for Further Research

The results of this study have some implications for future research in this field, as well as theauthors and reviewers of textbooks. For the author of the textbook, they must first realize theimportance of the integration of NOS into the science textbook. Secondly, they should realizethe deficiency of NOS in Chinese science textbooks, especially the lack of explicit represen-tation. This situation not only does not meet the international requirements of scientific inquiryteaching, but also does not meet Science Education curriculum standards of the ChineseMinistry of Education (Chinese Ministry of Education 2001). Finally, we suggest that authorsof science textbooks take note of the latest insights from the world of academia and updatetextbooks in a prompt manner in order to assimilate new information into science textbooks.How to integrate the new viewpoints and elements of NOS into science textbook, the existingresearch also provides some inspiration. For example, at the appropriate time, we couldintroduce the real scientific deeds in the textbook; at the appropriate time, we could introducethe process of scientific research to understand the relationship between experiment and theoryin science; at the appropriate time, we could introduce the history which we use science toimprove our life; at the appropriate time, we could elaborate the characteristics of criticalthinking, exploring thinking, and creative thinking that scientists have in the process ofscientific discovery (Li 2016). For the textbook reviewers, our research not only providesthem with specific findings, but also provides them with a method to evaluate textbooks.

Although our research has some conclusions and should provide some reference for futureresearch in this field, there are some limitations in this study. First, although the analyticalframework in our study is based on theoretical and empirical research, which used a descrip-tive study (Li 2016) further to validate, our analytical framework is still tentative and needs tobe further refined. Secondly, in order to improve the reliability of the research, futureresearchers should further refine the operational definition of seven elements of NOS andcoding rule. Thirdly, in order to understand fully the development trend of representations ofNOS in the Chinese science textbooks, future studies could analyze and compare differentperiods of science textbooks in China. Fourthly, in order to uncover the problems anddeficiencies in the representation of NOS in the Chinese science textbooks, it is necessary tocompare the high-quality science textbooks of other countries with the Chinese sciencetextbooks.

Res Sci Educ

In conclusion, in order to improve the teaching of science in China, the authors of sciencetextbooks should take a variety of methods and measures to integrate the latest insights andelements of NOS into science textbook.

Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the Education ScienceProgram of Shaanxi Province (SGH16B008), National Social Science Foundation of China (14ZDB160) andNational Natural Science Foundation of China (71704116).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Appendix

References

Abd-El-Khalick F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature ofscience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Oregon.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice:Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: Acritical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the developmentof preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophyof science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal ofScience Education, 27(1), 15–42.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & An-Phong, L. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high schoolchemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.

Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of young children's ideas in science onteaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 363-385.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for All Americans. OxfordUniversity Press. New York.

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Aproject 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Wadsworth: Wadsworth Publishing Company.China Central Government (2010). Outline of China’s National plan for medium and long-term education reform

and development 2010–2020.Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific

literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713–725.Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United

States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.

Table 3 The contents were selected for analysis from various publishers’ eighth grade physics textbooks

Press Chapter Numbers of page Numbers of characters

Press A 2, 3, 4, 5 80 Approximately 90,000Press B 1, 2, 3, 4 87 Approximately 100,000Press C 1, 4, 5 54 Approximately 75,000Press D 3, 4, 5 75 Approximately 79,000Press E 2, 3, 4 80 Approximately 100,000

Res Sci Educ

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2001). Compulsory education physics course standards (draft). Beijing: BeijingNormal University Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2011). Compulsory education physics course standards (2011th ed.). Beijing:Beijing Normal University Press.

Eastwell, P. (2014). Understanding hypotheses, predictions, Laws, and theories. Science Education Review,13(1), 16–21.

Elgar, A. G. (2004). Science textbooks for lower secondary schools in Brunei: Issues of gender equity.International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 875–894.

Gibbs, A., & Lawson, A. E. (1992). The nature of scientific thinking as reflected by the work of biologists & bybiology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 54(3), 137–152.

Groves, F. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary science textbooks. School Science andMathematics, 95(5), 231–235.

Hubisz, J. (2003). Middle-school texts don’t make the grade. Physics Today, 50–54.Ireland, J., Watters, J. J., Lunn Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). Approaches to inquiry teaching: Elementary

teacher's perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1733–1750.Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422–447.Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented

instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.King, C. J. H. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales.

International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565–601.Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of

Science Education, 3(2), 1–12.Li, X. (2016). Science Textbooks Evaluation in Middle School: Theme in Scientific Inquiry. Beijing: Science

Press (China).Lumpe, A. T., & Beck, A. J. (1996). A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy

recommendations. The American Biology Teacher, 58(3), 147–153.Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn’s impact on science education: What lessons can be learned? Science

Education, 88(1), 90–118.McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards

documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies(pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203–223.National Assessment of Education Progress. (1989). National Assessment Science Objectives-1990 assessment

(pp. 18–26). Princeton: National Assessment of Education Progress.National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for

teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2000). NSTA Pathways-Middle School Edition. NSTA Press.

Arlington, VA.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. (2005). Do general chemistry textbooks facilitate conceptual understanding? Quimica Nova, 28(2),

335–336.Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What Bideas-about-science^ should be

taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40(7), 692–720.

People’s Republic of China Ministry of Education. (2001). Full time compulsory education physics coursestandards (experimental draft). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.

Phillips, M. C., & Chiappetta, E. L. (2007). Do middle school science textbooks present a balanced view of thenature of science?New Orleans: Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Researchin Science Teaching.

Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1992). The questioning level of select middle school sciencetextbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 74–79.

Rodriguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2002). How in spite of the rhetoric, history of chemistry has been ignored inpresenting atomic structure in textbooks. Science and Education, 11, 423–441.

Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-gradesmathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal forResearch in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280.

Res Sci Educ

Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book:using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Wang, J.Y., Jou, M., Lv, Y.Z.,& Huang, C. C.(2018). An investigation on teaching performances of model-basedflipping classroom for physics supported by modern teaching technologies. Computers in Human Behavior,84, 36-48.

Res Sci Educ