Research in Science & Technological Education

ISSN: 0263-5143 (Print) 1470-1138 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Representation of NOS aspects across chapters

in Singapore Grade 9 and 10 Biology textbooks:
insights for improving NOS representation

Jia Xun Chua, Aik-Ling Tan & Umesh Ramnarain

To cite this article: Jia Xun Chua, Aik-Ling Tan & Umesh Ramnarain (2018): Representation
of NOS aspects across chapters in Singapore Grade 9 and 10 Biology textbooks: insights
for improving NOS representation, Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI:
10.1080/02635143.2018.1542377

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1542377

Published online: 09 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crst20
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1542377

Representation of NOS aspects across chapters in Singapore

Grade 9 and 10 Biology textbooks: insights for improving
NOS representation
a
Jia Xun Chua , Aik-Ling Tana and Umesh Ramnarainb
a
Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore; bDepartment of Science and Technology Education, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Background: Nature of Science (NOS) is defined to be the episte- Nature of science; NOS
mology of science, and comprised of distinctive defining aspects. aspects; biology textbook;
The representation of these NOS aspects in school science text- history of science
books is likely to affect how students understand NOS.
Representation of NOS aspects can differ between topics even
within the same textbook and these topical differences may shed
light on the different improvements required for a progressive and
more balanced representation of NOS aspects.
Purpose: This study aims to (1) analyse the representations of NOS
aspects in Singapore biology textbooks; (2) identify and discuss
topical differences in the representation of NOS aspects; and (3)
suggest some ways to improve NOS representation in textbooks.
Method: Three Singapore secondary school biology textbooks
were analysed for their representations of 11 key NOS aspects
using a document analysis approach. Textual material was coded
into discrete categories in a topic-by-topic manner independently
by two coders.
Results: Informed statements regarding NOS aspects were predo-
minantly implicit in nature. High scores for eight NOS aspects were
obtained in one textbook incorporating experimental work in
many chapters to support and illustrate scientific concepts. High
scores for the creative NOS and the nature for scientific theories
were scored in another textbook that was found to utilise History
of Science to provide a context for presenting scientific informa-
tion. Topics with consistently low NOS representations were pre-
dominantly presented in a descriptive, factual manner, while
topics with consistently high scores generally approached the
topics by discussing the historical development of knowledge.
Conclusions: Using experimental work to present scientific knowl-
edge and discussions of the historical development of scientific
knowledge are both effective approaches to represent many NOS
aspects well in a textbook. These two approaches can be used in
combination in a textbook in order to further improve NOS repre-
sentation and overcome the individual limitations of each
approach.

CONTACT Aik-Ling Tan aikling.tan@nie.edu.sg National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological

University, Singapore.
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

Introduction
There is an on-going and increasing focus on Nature of Science (NOS) in school curricula
both worldwide (Lederman 2007; Ministry of Education, New Zealand 2014; National
Science Teachers Association [NSTA] 2000) and in Singapore (Curriculum Planning &
Development Division) [Curriculum Planning & Development Division [CPDD] 2012). This
emphasis stems from the belief that understanding NOS is important for scientific
literacy (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman 2000; Akerson and Donnelly 2010; Lederman
2007). Scientific literacy can generally be taken as ‘what the public should know about
science in order to live more effectively with respect to the natural world’ (DeBoer 2000,
594). Scientific literacy is often a desired outcome of science education in many coun-
tries, which may be achieved by helping students understand NOS.
There is no single agreed definition for NOS among the education research commu-
nity, but a common general definition often cited (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000;
Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008; Akerson and Donnelly 2010; Lederman and
Lederman 2014; Ramnarain and Chanetsa 2016) was put forward by Lederman (1992).
He defined NOS to be the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing and the
values and beliefs central to the development of scientific knowledge. Lederman, Bartos,
and Lederman (2014) also described NOS to be the characteristics that make science
unique and hence different from other disciplines such as history or philosophy.
The various aspects of NOS are still being debated (Allchin 2011) but there are some
aspects of NOS that are considered non-controversial, the most important of which were
delineated by Lederman (2007) and Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le (2008). These key
NOS aspects are: Empirical, Inferential, Creative, Theory-driven, Tentative, Myth of the
‘Scientific Method’, Nature of Scientific Theories, Nature of Scientific Laws, Social
Dimensions of Science, Social-Cultural Embedded-ness of Science and the difference
between Science and Pseudoscience. These aspects are central to how science is done
and what the scientific process is like (McComas 1998). Over the past decade, there had
been an increasing number of research studies on the representation of these key NOS
aspects in school science textbooks (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2017; Abd-El-Khalick, Waters,
and Le 2008; Aydin and Tortumlu 2015; Irez 2009; Ramnarain and Chanetsa 2016). These
studies aimed to understand the extent with which key NOS aspects were represented in
their analysed textbooks, as well as the manner in which these NOS aspects were
represented.
The focus on examining textbooks in these research studies is likely due to the highly
significant role textbooks play in teaching and learning science. Studies have consis-
tently shown that there is a high reliance on textbooks in the classroom (Chiappetta
et al. 2006; Chiappetta, Sethna, and Fillman 1991; Weiss et al. 2001). Valverde et al.
(2002) also found that students experienced school subjects through textbooks, while
Chiang-Soong and Yager (1993) found that many students expected to learn science
almost entirely from their textbooks. Based on these studies, students’ understanding of
key NOS aspects is likely to be affected by the representation (or lack thereof) of these
NOS aspects in their science textbooks. While the teacher plays a crucial role in helping
students understand NOS, there is indirect evidence to suggest that the teacher alone is
insufficient to help students understand NOS fully. Schwartz, Lederman, and Crawford
(2004) found that well-informed teacher conceptions of NOS, while necessary, is
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

insufficient to positively affect students’ understanding of NOS. In addition, Abd-El-

Khalick, Waters, and Le (2008) contends that NOS misrepresentation in science textbooks
had contributed significantly to incorrect ideas regarding key NOS aspects in the
majority of students and teachers.
Most studies that analysed secondary biology textbooks for NOS representation
found that most textbooks accorded very little attention to NOS. Lumpe and Beck
(1996) found that US secondary biology textbooks gave scant attention to the science
literacy theme of ‘science as a way of knowing’, which is closely related to NOS. Irez
(2009) reported that Turkish secondary biology textbooks neglected some important
NOS aspects and represented NOS very inadequately. More recently, Abd-El-Khalick et al.
(2017) comprehensively analysed US secondary biology textbooks for representation of
NOS aspects and reported that the analysed textbooks accorded a very low proportion
of pages to NOS. The study also found that many of the analysed textbooks ‘did not
address, neither explicitly nor implicitly, many NOS aspects’ (102), while ‘in most cases. . .
a NOS aspect received no more than a single isolated or passing mention in an entire
textbook’ (102).
Studies on NOS representation in school science textbooks predominantly analysed
US textbooks (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2017; Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008; Chiappetta
and Fillman 2007; Chiappetta, Sethna, and Fillman 1991; Lumpe and Beck 1996; etc.),
with a few studies analysing textbooks from Turkey, South Africa and Nordic countries
(Aydin and Tortumlu 2015; Irez 2009; Ramnarain and Chanetsa 2016; Vesterinen, Aksela,
and Lavonen 2013). To the best of our knowledge, there have been no studies analysing
NOS representation in science textbooks from the South-East Asian area that included
textbooks published and used in Singapore. Singapore textbooks are written in English,
and are in demand in many parts of the world. This demand is in part due to the good
performance of Singapore students in international benchmarking studies such as the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) and Programme of
International Student Assessment (PISA) (Teh 2013). This global demand and usage
makes Singapore textbooks worth analysing. Furthermore, it is likely that Singapore
science textbooks contribute at least partially to good conceptions of science in
Singaporean students, allowing them to excel in the afore-mentioned benchmarking
studies. While Singapore textbooks are published by publishers originating from foreign
countries such as US and UK, they are written by Singaporean authors and approved by
the Ministry of Education for use in Singapore schools. Studies by Abd-El-Khalick and his
colleagues in 2008 and 2017 had shown that textbook authors have a relatively stronger
impact on NOS representation in textbooks when compared to textbook publishers,
indicating the Singapore science textbooks are still worth studying despite having
a non-Singaporean publisher.
The studies discussed and highlighted previously have identified the low NOS repre-
sentation in secondary biology textbooks, as well as identified NOS aspects that are both
typically well-represented and typically misrepresented. The studies however did not
identify the differences in NOS representation between content topics beyond simple
identification of common topics (such as cells, photosynthesis and genetics) to analyse
(Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2017; Irez 2009). Representation of NOS aspects can differ greatly
between topics even within the same textbook, with some topics showing a good
representation of several NOS aspects, and other topics showing no representation of
4 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

NOS. This aspect of topical difference has not been explicated in any study. We argue
that these topical differences may shed light on the different improvements required for
a higher and more balanced representation of NOS aspects.
The purpose of this study is to fill these current gaps in knowledge, by aiming to (1)
analyse the representation of NOS aspects in Singapore biology textbooks; (2) identify
and discuss topical differences in the representation of NOS aspects; and (3) offer a few
suggestions for improving NOS representation in textbooks based on the findings. The
following research questions guide our analysis to ensure that the aims are fulfilled: (1)
how does representation of NOS aspects differ between chapters? and (2) what can be
changed to improve the score of NOS representation in the analysed textbooks?

Method
Biology curriculum in Singapore
In Singapore, biology is taught as a stand-alone subject. This means that it is not taught
together with other sciences such as chemistry and physics at grades 9 and 10. The two-
year biology curriculum is standardised, and culminates in a national GCE ‘O’ level
examination at the end of grade 10. The ‘O’ level curriculum aims to empower students
to be scientifically literate; be aware of some aspects of NOS; develop skills useful in
studying science as well as in everyday life; and to be interested in scientific advance-
ments as well as the environment (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board
[SEAB] 2017). One of the key resources in supporting the biology curriculum is text-
books. Secondary schools in Singapore typically use textbooks in biology classes and
students typically use their textbooks for revision in semestral tests and examinations.

Selection of textbooks
Three biology textbooks used in Singapore for grades 9 and 10 were selected for
analysis. The textbooks selected were the three most commonly found in bookstores
in the country, as well as being the three most commonly used in Singapore secondary
schools. Despite the unavailability of market share data or readership data, it is safe to
assume that these three textbooks combined are read by the majority of secondary
science students in Singapore. These will be pseudo-named Book A, Book B and Book
C. 428 pages were analysed in Book A, 360 pages in Book B and 339 pages in Book C.

NOS aspects
Lederman (2007) and Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le (2008) identified and delineated
some key NOS aspects, which were subsequently adopted by Ramnarain and Chanetsa
(2016) as well as Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2017) for analysing science textbooks in their
respective studies. In this study, 11 key NOS aspects were also adopted for analysing
biology textbooks, namely: Empirical, Inferential, Creative, Theory-driven, Tentative,
Myth of the ‘Scientific Method’, Nature of Scientific Theories, Nature of Scientific Laws,
Social Dimensions of Science, Social-Cultural Embedded-ness of Science and the differ-
ence between Science and Pseudoscience. These aspects were chosen for analysis
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

because they align with earlier studies and hence comparison may be possible.
Secondly, these aspects of NOS are appropriate for grades 9 and 10 students to under-
stand. These NOS aspects are detailed and explained in Table 1, that was adopted from
Abd-El-Khalick et al. and slightly modified.

Explicit versus implicit representation

Textual materials can be explicit or implicit when addressing NOS aspects. Previous
studies in this area had made a distinction between explicit and implicit approaches in
representing NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2017; Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008;
Ramnarain and Chanetsa 2016; etc.). The core difference between explicit and implicit

Table 1. Explanation of NOS aspects (adopted from Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008).
NOS aspect Essential dimensions (to consider as ‘informed’)
Empirical Scientific claims are derived from and are consistent with observations of natural
phenomena. These observations are made through observation apparatus and
are hence mediated by the underlying assumptions of these apparatus.
Inferential In contrast to observations which are descriptive statements, inferences are
statements about phenomena that are not directly accessible to the senses.
These include scientific explanations or scientific constructs.
Creative Generating scientific knowledge involves human creativity in the sense of
scientists inventing explanations and theoretical entities. Together with the
inferential nature of science, scientific entities (e.g. atoms, energy and species)
are functional theoretical models rather than ‘reality’.
Theory-driven Theoretical commitments and beliefs influence scientists’ work. Hence,
background theoretical knowledge affect the method of investigation, as well as
what is observed. Observations are always motivated and guided by theoretical
perspectives, and are interpreted in terms of those theories.
Tentative Scientific knowledge is reliable and durable, but never absolute or certain. They
are subject to change. Scientific claims change as new evidence (made possible
through conceptual and technological advances) is found.
Myth of the ‘Scientific Method’ There is an erroneous belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise procedure to do
science. There is no single sequence of practical or conceptual activities that will
unerringly lead to valid claims, let alone ‘certain’ knowledge.
Nature of Scientific Theories Scientific theories are highly substantiated and internally consistent systems of
explanations. They are based on assumptions and propose the existence of non-
observable entities. Only indirect evidence supports and validates theories.
Scientists derive specific testable predictions from theories and check them
against observations. An agreement between predictions and observations
increases confidence in the tested theory.
Nature of Scientific Laws In general, laws are descriptive statements of relationships among observable
phenomena. Theories, in contrast, are inferred explanations for those
phenomena. Theories and laws are not hierarchically related (theories do not
become laws when ‘enough’ supporting evidence is garnered). Theories are as
legitimate a product of science as laws; laws are tentative and open to change
as well.
Social Dimensions of Science Scientific knowledge is socially negotiated. There are established avenues for
communication and criticism, to enhance the objectivity of collectively
scrutinised scientific knowledge.
Social and Cultural embedded- Science is embedded and practised in the context of society and culture.
ness of science Therefore, science affects and is affected by various cultural elements, such as
worldview, religion, and political and economic factors. Such effects can
manifest in terms of public funding for scientific research and in the very nature
of ‘acceptable’ explanations of natural phenomena
Science vs. Pseudoscience There is a need to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Other disciplines of
inquiry such as religion and philosophy are often mistaken as science. However,
because they as not empirical, these disciplines are not science; instead, they
are pseudoscience.
6 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

approaches is that the former directly prompts readers to think about a targeted NOS
aspect through epistemological messages, while the latter is subtle in addressing
a targeted NOS aspect and understanding of epistemological ideas can only be inferred.
There is considerable evidence in favour of explicit approaches over implicit approaches
with regard to helping readers understand NOS, with research showing that implicit
approaches were relatively ineffective in enhancing conceptions of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick,
Bell, and Lederman 1998; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman 2000; Lederman 2007; Lederman
and Lederman 2014). Hence, it is important to ascertain whether NOS representation in
the analysed textbooks were explicit or implicit in nature, with explicit representation
much more desirable than implicit representation.

Informed versus naïve representation

Representation of NOS can also either be informed or naïve. Informed representation
refers to positive treatment of the NOS aspects. Learners can understand the NOS aspects
accurately when reading informed statements. On the other hand, naïve representation
refers to misrepresentation of NOS aspects, which will mislead learners to an incorrect
understanding of NOS aspects. Naïve statements are hence undesirable in a textbook. The
scheme of analysis must hence take into account this stark difference in representation.

Scheme of analysis
The three textbooks were analysed for their representations of the 11 key NOS aspects
using a document analysis approach. This approach involved the identification of all
relevant textual materials and subsequently coding them into discrete categories.
Textual material (including statements, figures, tables, charts, etc.) relevant to the 11 key
NOS aspects were highlighted and annotated with (1) the NOS aspect that was repre-
sented; (2) whether the representation was explicit or implicit, as well as (3) whether the
representation was informed or naïve. As an example, the annotation would look like
‘Empirical, explicit, informed’ and ‘Tentative, implicit, naïve’. Content, discourses and
language usage were not analysed; only ideas regarding NOS were coded for.
Textbooks were analysed independently by two coders, and the entire textbook was
coded in a topic-by-topic manner. The coded textual materials were then collated into
a document for easy reference and analysis, and categorised by topics and by targeted
NOS aspects. For each topic, all the relevant textual materials coded for each NOS aspect
were assessed together holistically. A scoring rubric developed and validated by Abd-El-
Khalick, Waters, and Le (2008) was modified and then applied to assign a score ranging
from +3 to −3 to each NOS aspect for each chapter. The scoring rubric scored NOS
aspects in a topic based on the manner of representation (explicit versus implicit;
informed versus naïve), giving a summative number indicative of how well a particular
NOS aspect was represented in a particular topic in the textbook. A higher positive score
denotes a better representation of the NOS aspect for that topic, while a negative score
indicates a misrepresentation of the NOS aspect for that topic. Table 2 describes the
scoring rubric used for the analysis. In addition to scoring each chapter independently,
a holistic score for the overall textbook representation of each NOS aspect was also
obtained using the scoring rubric.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

Table 2. Scoring rubric used for the analysis (adapted from Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008).
Score Description
+3 Explicit discussion of NOS aspects:
The target NOS aspect is explicitly and directly discussed and addressed.
+2 Explicit and informed representation:
There are explicit statements that give an informed representation of the target NOS aspect. In addition,
there is consistency in representation of the target NOS aspect (there needs to be at least one more explicit
or implicit informed statement addressing the target NOS aspect, and no naïve statements).
+1 Implicit and informed representation:
There are implicit statements that can lead to an inferred informed representation of the target NOS
aspect. There are no naïve statements that are inconsistent with the inferred implicit representation.
0 Target NOS aspect is not addressed:
There is no explicit or implicit statements regarding the NOS aspect.
−1 Implicit misrepresentation:
There are naïve statements regarding the target NOS aspect.
−2 Explicit and inconsistent misrepresentation:
There are explicit statements that clearly show a naïve representation of the target NOS aspect. However,
this misrepresentation is inconsistent as there are informed statements made regarding the target NOS
aspect.
−3 Explicit and consistent misrepresentation:
There are explicit statements that clearly show a naïve representation of the target NOS aspect. There are
no informed statements regarding the target NOS aspect.

For purposes of analysis and comparison between topics found in the three text-
books, the score for all NOS aspects for each topic were totalled. In addition, the
common scores for each NOS aspect for all the topics in the textbook were also totalled
for comparison of how well each NOS aspect was represented across the entire text-
book. The number of instances of informed statements regarding NOS aspects in each
topic was also noted, as was the number of pages with informed statements regarding
NOS aspects in each topic expressed as a percentage of total number of pages in the
chapter. This can be considered a proxy for the consistency of NOS representation in the
textbook.

Reliability of analysis and score

Analysis of NOS representation is, by its nature, inferential and subjected to the
coder’s biases. To ensure reliability of the analysis and to reduce subjectivity, there
were two scorers, and measures were taken to ensure inter-rater reliability. Each of
the two researchers first analysed a sample portion of the textbook independently.
The researchers then compared their analysis and scoring in order to standardise
their analysis approach and rating schemes. After that, each of the two researchers
analysed the entire textbook independently, with periodic comparison of their ana-
lysis and scores to continuously ensure standardisation of their rating schemes.
Differences between the two analyses resulted in extended discussions between
the two researchers, with each researcher providing justification for the analysis
done. Ultimately, all differences between the two analyses were resolved through
such discussions, with the two researchers agreeing on a particular way of analysis or
scoring based on textual support and justification. This ensures high inter-rater
reliability and accuracy of the analysis.
8 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

Results
Table 3 shows the overall holistic textbook score received by Book A, Book B and Book
C for each NOS aspect based on the scoring rubric. Book A represented seven NOS
aspects in an informed manner and three in a slightly naïve manner (aspect score of −1).
Book B represented nine NOS aspects in an informed manner and two in a slightly naïve
manner. Book C represented all NOS aspects in an informed manner. Table 4 shows
a comparison of the general NOS representation of the three textbooks. Generally, Book
C shows the best NOS representation while Book A is lacking in comparison. All three
textbooks obtain a positive score for overall textbook score, indicating an informed NOS
representation on the whole, but this score varies between the textbooks. Out of a total
possible score of +33 (score of +3 over 11 NOS aspects), Book A received a low score of
+6, Book B received a score of +10, while Book C received a high score of +18. This is
mirrored in the summative score, which is a summation of the scores received by each
NOS aspect for every topic. The number of explicit statements is the highest in Book
C (13), while Book A shows the highest number of naïve statements (5).
Coding of the textbooks also revealed generally how scientific content was presented
in the textbooks: Book A predominantly employed a factual, descriptive style of pre-
senting scientific information; Book B utilised History of Science greatly to provide
context for presenting scientific information; while many chapters in Book C incorpo-
rated experimental work and empirical studies to support and illustrate scientific con-
cepts. The identification of these different approaches in the three textbooks in relation
to their representation of NOS aspects offered hints on how to best represent NOS in
textbooks.

Table 3. Overall textbook representation of each NOS aspect (ranging from −3 to +3).
NOS aspect Book A Book B Book C
Empirical 2 2 3
Inferential 2 1 2
Creative 1 1 1
Theory-driven 1 2 1
Tentative −1 −1 3
Myth of the ‘Scientific Method’ −1 1 2
Scientific Theories 1 2 1
Scientific Laws 1 1 1
Social Dimensions −1 1 2
Social Cultural Embeddedness 1 1 1
Science vs. Pseudoscience 0 −1 1

Table 4. Comparison of general NOS representation of the three textbooks.

Book A Book B Book C
Number of informed statements 66 135 294
Number of pages with informed statements 46 63 88
Percentage of pages with NOS representation 11% 18% 26%
Overall Textbook Score 6 10 18
Summative Score 43 72 93
Number of Explicit statements 5 6 13
Number of Naïve statements 5 2 0
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

Comparison between NOS aspects

Table 5 shows a comparison of the summative scores received by each NOS aspect over all
the chapters in each textbook. The average score received by each NOS aspect across the
three textbooks was also calculated in order to obtain a general sense of how each NOS
aspect was represented. For all three textbooks, almost all NOS aspects were addressed, and
in an overall informed manner as well. Out of all the NOS aspects, the empirical NOS was the
best represented for all three textbooks. The inferential NOS, theory-driven NOS and
tentative NOS were relatively better represented in the three textbooks as well. In addition,
Book C scored the highest for all the NOS aspects except for the creative NOS, the nature of
scientific theories and the difference between science and pseudoscience. The highest
summative scores for these three aspects were received by Book B. For the empirical NOS
and inferential NOS, Book C scored much better than the other two textbooks. Some NOS
aspects were consistently under-represented in all three textbooks however. The nature of
scientific laws received a summative score of only +1 in all three textbooks. This under-
representation was similar for the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Comparison between common topics

Between the three textbooks, there were common topics that were found in all of
them corresponding to the required syllabus of the GCE ‘O’ level examination. Some
topics comprised several sections that were either grouped together or separated in
the three analysed textbooks. Table 6 shows a comparison of scores of the common
topics, with separated sections grouped together for easier comparison. The scores
varied greatly between the topics, ranging from 0 to +11. None of the topics
compared received a negative score, but several topics across the three analysed
textbooks received a low score of 0 or +1. Topics that consistently under-represent
NOS aspects in all three textbooks (consistently receive a score equal or less than +2)
included Reproduction in Humans, Homeostasis and Coordination and Response. On the
other hand, the topic on Inheritance is consistently better-represented, receiving
a score of at least +6 across all three textbooks. Some common topics are inconsis-
tently represented in the three textbooks, having received a high score in one text-
book and a low score in another. These topics include Transport in Plants (+10 in Book
B while +4 in Book A and +2 in Book C) and Respiration/Breathing (+8 in Book B while
+1 in Book A and +3 in Book C).

Table 5. Comparison of summative scores received by each NOS aspect.

NOS aspect Book A Book B Book C Average score
Empirical 18 15 30 21
Inferential 8 10 18 12
Creative 5 7 3 5
Theory-driven 5 8 9 7
Tentative 2 9 11 7
Myth of the ‘Scientific Method’ −2 3 3 1
Scientific Theories 2 8 3 4
Scientific Laws 1 1 1 1
Social Dimensions 3 7 8 6
Social Cultural Embeddedness 1 2 6 3
Science vs. Pseudoscience 0 2 1 1
10 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

Table 6. Comparison of scores of common chapters.

Chapter Book A Book B Book C
Cells 2 3 1
Movement of Substances 4 4 3
Biological Molecules Nutrients: 1 7 2
Enzymes: 5
Nutrition in Plants 3 6 7
Nutrition in Animals (Digestion) 1 3 3
Transport in Plants 4 10 2
Transport in Animals (Blood Circulation) 1 6 2
Respiration (Breathing) 1 8 3
Excretion 3 0 0
Homeostasis (Temperature Control) 1 2 0
Coordination and Response Nervous System: 1 Co-ordination: 2
(Nervous System) 0
Human Eye: 0 Senses: 0
Hormones: 0
Cell Division 0 3 Single chapter together with Molecular
Basis: 2
Reproduction in Plants 1 0 Sexual: 3
Asexual: 0
Reproduction in Humans 0 0 1
Inheritance (Heredity, Variation, Evolution) 7 11 Heredity: 1
Variation/Evolution: 6
Molecular Basis of Inheritance (Applied 5 8 Single chapter together with Cell Division: 2
Genetics)
Ecology Ecology: 1 0 Interdependence: 0
Impact: 2 Human Impact: 3
Conservation: 0

Table 7 shows a comparison of the percentage of pages that addressed NOS aspects
in the common topics, with values rounded up for clarity. This was considered a proxy
for the consistency of NOS representation in the textbook chapters, especially when
combined with the results in Table 6. Topics that received low scores of 0 or +1 had
a low percentage representation, understandably so as there was little or no attention
given to NOS in those chapters. Some of the common topics that received higher scores
also showed a higher percentage representation, such as Molecular Basis of Inheritance in
Book B (score of +8, 42% of pages addressing NOS aspects) and Nutrition in Plants in
Book C (score of +7, 58% of pages addressing NOS aspects).
On the other hand, there were also some common topics which received a high score
but with a low percentage of pages representing NOS as well. This was most apparent in
Book B. For example, the topic Transport in Plants in Book B received a score of +10
while NOS aspects are represented in only 24% of pages in the chapter; conversely, the
same topic in Book C received a score of only +3 but is represented in a high 65% of
pages in the chapter. This suggested that the former concentrated its representation of
NOS aspects in a limited number of pages, while the latter addressed fewer NOS aspects
more consistently throughout the chapter.

Non-content chapters
Aside from content topics that targeted the GCE ‘O’ Level syllabus objectives, non-
content topics were included in two of the analysed textbooks as well. Non-content
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 11

Table 7. Comparison of the percentage of pages that address NOS aspects in the common chapters.
Chapter Book A Book B Book C
Cells 19% 25% 22%
Movement of Substances 12% 24% 33%
Biological Molecules Nutrients: 5% 24% 13%
Enzymes: 29%
Nutrition in Plants 11% 41% 58%
Nutrition in Animals (Digestion) 5% 11% 10%
Transport in Plants 21% 24% 63%
Transport in Animals 3% 22% 7%
(Blood Circulation)
Respiration (Breathing) 11% 8% 38%
Excretion 11% 0% 0%
Homeostasis (Temperature Control) 7% 18% 0%
Coordination and Response Nervous System: 8% Co-ordination:9%
(Nervous System) 8%
Human Eye: 0% Senses: 0%
Hormones: 0%
Cell Division 0% 27% Single chapter together with Molecular Basis:
20%
Reproduction in Plants 6% 0% Sexual: 33%
Asexual: 0%
Reproduction in Humans 0% 0% 8%
Inheritance (Heredity, Variation, 24% 25% Heredity: 13%
Evolution) Variation/Evolution: 64%
Molecular Basis of Inheritance 29% 42% Single chapter together with Cell Division:
(Applied Genetics) 20%
Ecology Ecology: 4% 3% Interdependence: 0%
Impact: 11% Human Impact: 15%
Conservation: 0%

topics did not focus on any particular biological topic and are not directly related to the
GCE ‘O’ Level Biology syllabus. These chapters were also coded in order to understand
how they contribute to the representation of NOS aspects in a textbook. Book
A contained the chapter The Science of Life as an introduction to the study of biology.
This chapter received a score of +1 and contained two implicitly naïve statements
regarding two NOS aspects, an example of which is ‘In 1753, the Swedish naturalist,
Carolus Linnaeus, devised a system of classification, which is still used today’ which
implied that this body of knowledge had not changed at all and is a misrepresentation
of the tentative NOS. Book C contained the chapter Development of Biological Ideas that
discussed the history of how important biological concepts came about and changed
over time. This chapter received a high score of +13 and represented NOS aspects on
every page. In addition, this chapter addressed all of the NOS aspects except for the
myth of the ‘Scientific Method’. Book C also contained the non-content chapter
Observation and Experiment as well, which addressed the role of experimental evidence
and drawing inferences from experimental results in scientific discoveries. This chapter
received a score of +8 and represented NOS aspects in 86% of pages.
The two non-content chapters in Book C were dedicated to discussing how science
was done, and by extension, addressed many NOS aspects in the process. These two
chapters both received high scores, with the chapter Development of Biological Ideas
achieving the highest score out of all the chapters in the three analysed textbooks. Both
these chapters were also more consistent in representing NOS aspects in the chapters’
12 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

pages. It is hence fair to say that the non-content chapters in Book C represented NOS
aspects better than its content chapters.

Discussion
General NOS representation
With regard to general NOS representation, our findings are contrary to those of other
studies. Abd-El-Khalick et al. (2017, 102) found that ‘dismal attention [was] accorded to NOS’
in US secondary science textbooks, and ‘many textbooks did not address, neither explicitly
nor implicitly, many NOS aspects’. Ramnarain and Chanetsa (2016, 929) analysed three
South African secondary science textbooks in a similar manner and reported that the
textbooks scored a range of +4 to +7, indicating that ‘all three textbooks poorly portrayed
the aspects of NOS’. Our analysis of three Singapore secondary biology textbooks revealed
a better NOS representation, with scores ranging from +6 to +18 and a good majority of
NOS aspects targeted. This is a welcoming sign for the NOS initiative in Singapore and
signalled that attention is accorded to the representation of NOS in Singapore textbooks
that may offer insights on improving NOS representations in textbooks. However, our
findings showed that informed statements regarding NOS aspects were predominantly
implicit in nature, despite the significant number of studies suggesting that explicit state-
ments are more effective at helping students conceptualise NOS. Hence, there is still a need
to examine how these implicit statements could be improved to become explicit ones.
Between the three textbooks, Book A fared the worst for NOS representation, provid-
ing more evidence that a descriptive and factual style of writing is relatively ineffective
for representing NOS. On the other hand, Book C’s focus on empirical studies might be
the reason as to why it had the best NOS representation in the three textbooks, while
Book B’s use of History of Science might have allowed it to represent certain NOS
aspects well. The effectiveness of these two approaches at representing NOS aspects
will be further explored in subsequent sub-sections.

Comparison between NOS aspects

Our analysis showed that the empirical NOS, inferential NOS, theory-driven NOS and
tentative NOS were relatively better represented. This is similar to the findings of other
studies such as Aydin and Tortumlu (2015) and Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le (2008),
suggesting that these aspects are either easier to represent in textbooks or deemed to
be more important by textbook authors. Care has to be taken when addressing the
tentative NOS however, as three naïve statements implying that scientific knowledge
was unchanging or ‘facts’ were found in two of the textbooks analysed. This also
indicated the robustness of our analysis scheme that identified an overall good repre-
sentation of this NOS aspect despite some infrequent slip-ups.
Book C scored the highest for these NOS aspects as well as four other NOS aspects,
suggesting that employing experiments to present and support scientific knowledge
was effective in representing the majority of NOS aspects. This was especially so for the
empirical NOS and inferential NOS, as experimental work was observed to offer a good
basis on which to illustrate the need for empirical evidence in scientific work, as well as
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 13

the need to draw inferences from the data obtained. The key however was to be explicit
with the representation, as many informed statements regarding these two aspects in
Book C were implicit in nature. That also meant that the approach of employing
experimental work was not about listing experimental procedures or expected out-
comes; rather, the purpose of conducting the experiment had to be clearly conveyed,
and how the results linked to the conclusion had to be explained. This way, the
empirical NOS and inferential NOS could be explicitly represented and help students
to understand these NOS aspects. In addition, this approach provided a good platform
to discuss some other NOS aspects. For example, the theory-driven NOS could be
discussed by highlighting the experimental design, and the tentative NOS could be
directly addressed by explaining that the experimental results could only seek to
disprove scientific claims but not prove them, in order to illustrate that scientific knowl-
edge is never absolute or certain. Book C represented the theory-driven NOS implicitly
and tentative NOS explicitly in multiple instances partially in this manner.
However, Book C’s approach with experiments was ineffective in representing the
creative NOS, the nature of scientific theories, the nature of scientific laws and the
difference between science and pseudoscience. This might be because these aspects
were more subtle and difficult to surface through empirical experiments, requiring
explanation that might be tough to weave into the narrative of empirical studies. For
example, an experimental approach might find it difficult to bring out the idea that
scientists invented explanations and theoretical entities (creative NOS), or the idea of
scientific theories as consistent systems of explanations for a phenomenon (nature of
scientific theories).
On the other hand, we found that Book B represented the creative NOS and the nature of
scientific theories much better, with a score of +7 and +8, respectively. Book B’s approach of
employing History of Science might have been crucial in better representing these two NOS
aspects, and may offer hints for improving their representation. Understanding how to
better represent the creative NOS becomes even more important when recognising that
many textbooks in different countries overlooked this aspect, as seen in other studies (Abd-
El-Khalick et al. 2017; Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008; Aydin and Tortumlu 2015). In
addition, Ramnarain and Chanetsa (2016) also reported that the textbooks they analysed
completely disregarded the aspect nature of scientific theories.
Book B started many of its chapters with the historical development of the main
concepts in the chapter. This provided readers with an overview of how different
scientists contributed to the current scientific knowledge and how scientific knowl-
edge changed over time, which naturally allowed it to clearly represent the social
dimensions of science and the tentative NOS. As for the creative NOS and nature of
scientific theories, the historical narrative offered good opportunities to showcase
how scientists utilised modelling or invented theoretical entities in order to concep-
tualise and propose theories to explain phenomena. Table 8 shows short excerpts
from Book B that illustrated this. This historical approach should also help to
represent the nature of scientific laws by showing how scientists in the past derived
scientific laws through observation, but this was not exhibited by Book B. This might
be partially due to the limited number of scientific laws covered under the GCE ‘O’
Level syllabus.
14 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

Table 8. Excerpts of historical accounts in Book B.

NOS aspect
Chapter addressed Excerpt
Biological Creative The lock-and-key model postulated by Emil Fischer in 1894 has been
Molecules Scientific Theories used to explain how enzymes work. In 1959, it was suggested that the
Tentative active site of the enzyme need not provide an exact fit for the
Empirical substrate. This theory, known as the induced fit model, has been
Social Dimensions supported by pictures obtained from X-ray diffraction studies and is
the current preferred model.
Respiration Social Dimensions Unfortunately, Mayow’s theory was ignored because of the widespread
Social Cultural popularity of another theory which proposed the existence of
Embeddedness a substance called phlogiston. It took almost a hundred years before
Tentative the phlogiston theory was disproved by Antoine Lavoisier.
Molecular Basis of Theory-driven The race to unravel the DNA structure: Linus Pauling had worked out the
Inheritance Myth of the helical structure common to many fibrous proteins. Since evidence
‘Scientific Method’ indicated that DNA was also a fibrous molecule, he then attempted to
Empirical derive the structure of DNA based on that model. Maurice Wilkins and
Creative Rosalind Franklin of King’s College were tackling the same problem
using the technique of X-ray crystallography. This involved passing
X-rays through pure fibres of the salt of DNA in order to obtain
complex X-ray diffraction patterns. A third approach by James Watson
and Francis Crick involved building a model of the DNA molecule that
incorporated information they could gather. Their final model of the
DNA molecule consisted of two chains of polynuceleotides, with each
chain in the form of a helical spiral (figures included in textbook).

Comparison between common topics

The topics Reproduction in Humans, Homeostasis and Coordination and Response were
found to consistently under-represent NOS aspects. These topics represented two or
fewer NOS aspects in a few pages. Closer analysis of these three topics in the three
textbooks revealed that the content in these chapters were predominantly presented in
a descriptive, factual manner. This occurred in Book B and Book C as well, which was
a significant departure from their respective general approaches. Instead, Book B and
Book C adopted a descriptive approach for these topics, which translated to lower NOS
representation compared to other topics in their respective textbooks. This puzzling shift
in approach could be because these chapters were primarily concerned with processes
that were more abstract and complex. These processes included the menstrual cycle and
the negative feedback loop that many secondary school students were unfamiliar with
and had difficulty in visualising. It was possible that attention was redirected away from
NOS representation and accorded to explaining these abstract processes, so as to help
students better understand these difficult concepts. In that sense, the author’s priority to
explain scientific knowledge might have resulted in the choice of a descriptive approach
and a decreased NOS representation.
In addition, these chapters were perhaps unsuitable to adopt either an experimental
approach or historical approach as previously discussed. The abstract nature of these
chapters meant that there were likely to have few relevant experiments that secondary
school students could understand and appreciate, or that it would be prohibitively difficult
to explain the experiments in the textbook. Similarly, the historical development for these
chapters involved sophisticated experiments and theories. Presenting a historical account
might indeed improve NOS representation, but doing so would entail a far higher complex-
ity than even the syllabus requirements. Simply presenting the conclusions of scientists in
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 15

the past in order to reduce the intellectual load would miss the point of representing NOS
aspects, as well as unintentionally reinforce the myth of a ‘Scientific Method’.
On the other hand, the topic on Inheritance consistently represented NOS aspects
well, with at least six NOS aspects represented for each of the analysed textbooks. The
consistent representation of the different aspects of NOS suggested that the textbooks
shared a common characteristic that allowed for better representation of NOS aspects.
This was seen by how all three textbooks generally approached the topic through
History of Science, by discussing the development of knowledge through the work of
scientists in the past such as Mendel, Lamarck, Darwin and Wallace. As discussed earlier,
employing History of Science helped to bring out representation of several NOS aspects,
which was exhibited by this chapter. The textbooks discussed the theoretical models
proposed by the various scientists, as well as how they supported their theories by
making inferences from observational evidence. Discussing Lamarck’s theory of acquired
characteristics together with Darwin’s and Wallace’s evolutionary theory also served to
dispel the myth of the ‘Scientific Method’, as well as showcase how scientific knowledge
is subject to change (tentative NOS). These examples were only a few general ways in
which the textbooks represented NOS aspects through historical accounts, which ulti-
mately contributed to the consistently good NOS representation for this chapter. This
chapter might have been suitable to employ a historical approach due to these features
in the historical development of inheritance, resulting in the same general delivery
approach by all three textbooks.
Book B’s higher scores over the other two textbooks in the chapters Transport in Plants
and Respiration/Breathing might also be a result of Book B’s use of historical accounts. More
NOS aspects were represented in an informed and explicit manner in these chapters in Book
B that primarily occurred when the textbook discussed the historical development of the
respective concepts. The observed connection between a History of Science approach and
a good NOS representation is certainly worth exploring. Historical accounts could provide
a platform to address NOS aspects, without being jarring and interrupting the flow of the
text. The possibility of directly mentioning and addressing NOS aspects from this platform
was certainly there as well that would greatly improve learners’ conception of NOS by being
explicit and clear with the NOS aspect addressed. Several studies (Lederman 1992;
McComas, Clough, and Almazroa 1998; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman 2000) had also recom-
mended the use of History of Science to improve learning or instruction of NOS. However, as
recognised earlier, not every topic is appropriate for employing this useful approach
depending on its historical development and complexity.
While the scoring rubric accounts for the manner of representation (informed/naïve,
implicit/explicit), it did not take into consideration the extent of informed representation in
the chapter/textbook. A textbook with only a few informed statements might obtain the same
score as one with many informed statements, but the latter would be more helpful in
improving students’ conceptions of NOS by being more consistent and regular in represent-
ing NOS aspects. Students did not necessarily read textbook chapters from end-to-end, nor do
they assimilate everything that they read in the chapter. Having a more consistent represen-
tation of NOS aspects increases the chances of students coming across informed statements
regarding NOS aspects in the textbook, as well as increasing the frequency in which they
might be prompted by informed statements to think deeper about NOS aspects. We propose
measuring the percentage of pages with informed statements so as to account for the
16 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

consistency of representation. This measure represented the spread of informed statements in

the chapter/textbook. Our findings showed that there is no clear correlation between NOS
scores and percentage of pages representing NOS in the textbooks analysed, suggesting that
these were separate indicators that accounted for different areas of NOS representation in the
textbook.
Some chapters received a high score but had a low percentage of pages representing
NOS, and these are mainly found in Book B. These topics included Transport in Plants and
Respiration/Breathing, which generally employed History of Science to represent NOS
aspects. While historical accounts were effective in representing several NOS aspects as
discussed earlier, it seemed that the historical development of concepts were typically
presented in a few pages in the textbook, that in turn led to a more concentrated and
less consistent NOS representation in the topics. It appeared that the use of historical
accounts to represent NOS, by itself, might be insufficient for a consistent and thorough
representation of NOS aspects, unless a secondary approach was also adopted for
representing NOS aspects apart from historical accounts.

Non-content chapters
Non-content chapters represented a unique opportunity to discuss NOS explicitly
without the difficulty of having to contextualise the discussion in content. The
inclusion of non-content chapters into textbooks themselves might also represent
an acknowledgement or understanding by textbook authors that science is not
simply a collection of knowledge; that there is more to learning about science than
simply remembering content. One might naturally assume that non-content chapters
would have a good representation of NOS aspects, as they were often times sup-
posed to target the scientific process or how science works. This was not necessarily
the case: Textbooks that were analysed by Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le (2008)
which contained non-content chapters addressing the scientific process or how
science works were not effective in representing key NOS aspects, with at most
only a few informed statements scattered around the textbook chapter. In other
words, these chapters had low scores and low percentage of pages representing
NOS. It seemed that even though these chapters aimed to discuss NOS, they were not
representing key NOS aspects well. Students were unlikely to understand NOS well
even if these chapters were present.
This trend was exhibited by the non-content chapter in Book A as well. It seemed that
non-content chapters typically missed out on the potential to represent NOS aspects
well. Against this backdrop, the strong NOS representation by the two non-content
chapters in Book C was especially noteworthy. The non-content chapter Development of
Biological Ideas received a high score of +13 and addressed 10 out of the 11 NOS
aspects, both parameters of which were much higher than any content chapter. This, in
combination with the representation of NOS aspects in all of the pages in the chapter,
suggested a consistent and thorough representation of NOS aspects. The other non-
content chapter Observation and Experiment received a respectable score of +8 and
represented NOS aspects in 86% of pages as well.
The good representation of NOS aspects in these two chapters was certainly encoura-
ging, and hints at what textbook NOS representation could potentially become and
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 17

achieve. One consideration when analysing non-content chapters was that they were
likely to be read less frequently than content chapters, because students were likely to
pay more attention to the latter during revisions for examinations. Therefore, NOS
representation in non-content chapters would possibly be less useful in improving
students’ conceptions of NOS than content chapters due to the reduced contact
frequency. However, as mentioned earlier, non-content chapters provided an opportune
platform for discussing NOS aspects unfettered that may complement and supplement
NOS representation in content chapters.
As its namesake suggests, the chapter Development of Biological Ideas explicitly
discussed key moments in the historical development of some biological concepts,
using them to address key aspects of NOS. The approach of this chapter bore similarity
to the History of Science approach previously discussed, providing additional evidence
for the applicability of historical accounts in NOS representation. As the entire chapter
focused on the historical development of some biological concepts, this chapter did not
face the same issue of concentrated and inconsistent representation of NOS aspects, but
instead had an impressive 100% of pages representing NOS aspects. This finding also
showed the opportunity provided by non-content chapters to dedicate attention on
NOS representation and address almost all NOS aspects.
The chapter Observation and Experiment, on the other hand, drew attention explicitly to
the importance of experimental evidence and making inferences (empirical NOS and
inferential NOS). This was different from the experimental approach previously described
that utilised experimental work to convey and explain scientific knowledge. Instead, this
chapter directly addressed key characteristics and attributes of scientific investigations. For
example, the chapter discussed hypothesis testing, experimental design, data collection as
well as the uncertainty of experimental results, with a strong emphasis on the importance of
experimentation in science. The dedicated attention accorded to how scientific investiga-
tions were done provided a good platform on which informed statements regarding NOS
aspects were presented, especially for the empirical NOS and inferential NOS. In addition,
this chapter highlighted the possibility of directly and explicitly addressing certain NOS
aspects in a non-content chapter as well. This chapter engaged the empirical NOS and
inferential NOS through mentioning and discussing some areas of doing science, and hence
it would not difficult to imagine that other non-content chapters could be included to
directly and explicitly address each of the various NOS aspects in a similar manner.

Recommendation
Based on the findings, a textbook’s NOS representation was affected by its approach to
the presentation of scientific content. Utilising experimental work to present and sup-
port scientific knowledge was also found to be effective in representing the majority of
NOS aspects, especially for the empirical NOS and inferential NOS. However, this
approach did not help in the representation of the creative NOS and nature of scientific
theories. Historical accounts were found to be effective in representing several NOS
aspects, especially for the creative NOS and nature of scientific theories, which were
usually under-represented according to other studies. A drawback of this approach was
a concentration of representation in a low proportion of pages, resulting in low con-
sistency of representation.
18 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

Both these approaches were found to be good platforms on which to address several
NOS aspects, albeit with their respective drawbacks. The key is to recognise that these
two approaches are not standalone, mutually exclusive strategies. They could be
employed together, or combined with other effective approaches, to further strengthen
the representation of NOS and overcome their individual limitations. As an example,
a chapter could begin with an historical account of the development of the scientific
knowledge, before transitioning to experimental studies to support the chapter’s con-
tent. The History of Science approach could compensate for the experimental
approach’s under-representation of the creative NOS and the nature of scientific the-
ories, while the latter could supplement the consistency of representation throughout
the topic/textbook. Using a combination of strategies wisely could lead to a more
informed, explicit and consistent representation of NOS aspects.
Our analysis also revealed that some abstract topics were less suitable to adopt either the
History of Science approach or an experimental approach due to the intrinsic complexity of
the experiments involved in its historical development. Hence, we recommend the inclusion
of non-content chapters to supplement the overall textbook representation and compen-
sate for some chapters’ lack of NOS representation. As discussed earlier, non-content
chapters were opportune platforms on which to directly, explicitly and consistently address
NOS aspects. Such chapters could possibly mention certain NOS aspects explicitly and
explain them in-text, possibly in the context of discussing how science is done, as is
somewhat demonstrated by the chapter Observation and Experiment in Book C. Both
positive and negative examples could be provided to illustrate what the NOS aspects
mean. Having this direct and targeted approach to representation of NOS aspects would
be feasible in non-content chapters as they could discuss NOS unfettered by syllabus
content, and would likely lead to a more informed, explicit and consistent NOS representa-
tion. The findings and recommendations from this study will be communicated to receptive
authors and publishers of the analysed textbooks in the hopes that future editions of these
biology textbooks will improve in their NOS representations, benefitting learners.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Institute of Education (NIE) under the Teaching Scholars
Programme (TSP) and the Research Support for Senior Academic Administrator (RS-SAA) grant;
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) under the Undergraduate Research Experience on
CAmpus (URECA) programme.

ORCID
Jia Xun Chua http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1529-7914
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 19

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., R. L. Bell, and N. G. Lederman. 1998. “The Nature of Science and Instructional
Practice: Making the Unnatural Natural.” Science Education 82 (4): 417–436. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., and N. G. Lederman. 2000. “Improving Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature
of Science: A Critical Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (7):
665–701. doi:10.1080/09500690050044044.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., J. Y. Myers, R. Summers, J. Brunner, N. Waight, N. Wahbeh, A. A. Zeineddin, and
J. Belarmino. 2017. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Extent and Manner of Representations of
Nature of Science in US High School Biology and Physics Textbooks.” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 54 (1): 82–120. doi:10.1002/tea.21339.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., M. Waters, and A. P. Le. 2008. “Representations of Nature of Science in High
School Chemistry Textbooks over the past Four Decades.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 45 (7): 835–855. doi:10.1002/tea.20226.
Akerson, V., and L. A. Donnelly. 2010. “Teaching Nature of Science to K-2 Students: What
Understandings Can They Attain?” International Journal of Science Education 32 (1): 97–124.
doi:10.1080/09500690902717283.
Allchin, D. 2011. “Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science.” Science Education 95
(3): 518–542. doi:10.1002/sce.20432.
Aydin, S., and S. Tortumlu. 2015. “The Analysis of the Changes in Integration of Nature of Science
into Turkish High School Chemistry Textbooks: Is There Any Development?” Chemistry Education
Research and Practice 16 (4): 786–796. doi:10.1039/C5RP00073D.
Chiang-Soong, B., and R. E. Yager. 1993. “Readability Levels of the Science Textbooks Most Used in
Secondary Schools.” School Science and Mathematics 93 (1): 24–27. doi:10.1111/j.1949-
8594.1993.tb12186.x.
Chiappetta, E. L., and D. A. Fillman. 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. doi:10.1080/09500690601159407.
Chiappetta, E. L., T. G. Ganesh, Y. H. Lee, and M. C. Phillips 2006. “Examination of Science Textbook
Analysis Research Conducted on Textbooks Published over the past 100 Years in the United States.”
Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Chiappetta, E. L., G. H. Sethna, and D. A. Fillman. 1991. “A Quantitative Analysis of High School
Chemistry Textbooks for Scientific Literacy Themes and Expository Learning Aids.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 28 (10): 939–951. doi:10.1002/tea.3660281005.
Curriculum Planning & Development Divison [CPDD]. 2012. “Science Syllabus Lower Secondary
Express/Normal (Academic).” https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/educa
tion/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-secondary-2013.pdf
DeBoer, G. E. 2000. “Scientific Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and Its
Relationship to Science Education Reform.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (6): 582–601.
10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::A ID-TEA5>3.0.CO.2-L. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
Irez, S. 2009. “Nature of Science as Depicted in Turkish Biology Textbooks.” Science Education 93
(3): 422–447. doi:10.1002/sce.20305.
Lederman, N. G. 1992. “Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of
the Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29 (4): 331–359. doi:10.1002/
tea.3660290404.
Lederman, N. G. 2007. “Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future.” Handbook of Research on
Science Education 2: 831–879.
Lederman, N. G., S. A. Bartos, and J. S. Lederman. 2014. “The Development, Use, and Interpretation
of Nature of Science Assessments.” International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and
Science Teaching (Netherlands: Springer Netherlands). doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_29.
Lederman, N. G., and J. S. Lederman. 2014. Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science.
In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II, edited by N. G. Lederman and S. K.
Abell, 600–620. New York, NY: Routledge.
20 J. X. CHUA ET AL.

Lumpe, A. T., and J. Beck. 1996. “A Profile of High School Biology Textbooks Using Scientific
Literacy Recommendations.” The American Biology Teacher 147–153. doi:10.2307/4450103.
McComas, W. F. 1998. The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. The
Nature of Science in Science Education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/
0-306-47215-5_3.
McComas, W. F., M. P. Clough, and H. Almazroa. 1998. “The Role and Character of the Nature of
Science in Science Education.” The Nature of Science in Science Education Netherlands: Springer
Netherlands. 3–39. doi:10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand. 2014. “Science Learning Area Structure.” http://nzcurriculum.
tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Science/Learning-area-structure
National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. 2000. “NSTA Position Statement: The Nature of
Science.” http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
Ramnarain, U. D., and T. Chanetsa. 2016. “An Analysis of South African Grade 9 Natural Sciences
Textbooks for Their Representation of Nature of Science.” International Journal of Science
Education 38 (6): 922–933. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985.
Schwartz, R. S., N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford. 2004. “Developing Views of Nature of Science
in an Authentic Context: An Explicit Approach to Bridging the Gap between Nature of Science
and Scientific Inquiry.” Science Education 88 (4): 610–645. doi:10.1002/sce.10128.
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board [SEAB]. 2017. “GCE O-Level Syllabuses Examined in
2017.” https://www.seab.gov.sg/pages/nationalExaminations/GOL/School_Candidates/syllabus/
2017_GCE_O
Teh, L. W. 2013. “Singapore’s Performance in PISA: Levelling up the Long Tail.” Educational Policy
Innovations Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. 71–83. Doi:10.1007/978-981-4560-08-5_5.
Valverde, G. A., L. J. Bianchi, R. G. Wolfe, W. H. Schmidt, and R. T. Houang. 2002. “Textbooks and
Educational Opportunity.” In According to the Book: Using TIMSS to Investigate the Translation of
Policy into Practice through the World of Textbooks, 125–138. Dordrecht: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Vesterinen, V. M., M. Aksela, and J. Lavonen. 2013. “Quantitative Analysis of Representations of Nature
of Science in Nordic Upper Secondary School Textbooks Using Framework of Analysis Based on
Philosophy of Chemistry.” Science & Education 22 (7): 1839–1855. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9400-1.
Weiss, I. R., E. R. Banilower, K. C. McMahon, and P. S. Smith. 2001. Report of the 2000 National Survey
of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.