This paper aimed to investigate the existing ideas of nature of science (NOS) teaching in Thailand biology classroom. The study reported the existing ideas of nature of science (NOS) teaching of one biology teacher Mrs. Mali who had been teaching for 6 years at in a school in Khon Kaen city. Methodology regarded interpretive paradigm. Tools of interpretation included 2 months of classroom observation, interviewing, and questionnaire of NOS. The findings revealed Mali held good understanding of the nature of science in the aspect of the use of evidence, the aspect of knowledge inquiry through different observation and deduction, the aspect of creativity and imagination influencing science knowledge inquiry, and the aspect of changeable scientific knowledge. Her biology teaching indicated that she used both the deficient nature of science approach and the implicit nature of science approach. The implicit nature of science approach was applied mostly in 7 periods and only 2 periods were arranged using the deficient nature of science approach. The paper has implication for professional development and pre-service program on NOS teaching in Thailand.

1.
Abd-El-Khalick
,
F.
,
Bell
,
R. L.
, &
Lederman
,
N. G.
The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural
.
Science Education, 82
,
417
436
. (
1998
).
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
.
Chapter 1 The Nature of Science
. Retrieved 5 July 2006 from http://www.project2061.org/publications/rsl/online/SFAA/CHAP1.HTM#Nature. (
2006
).
3.
Bell
,
R. L.
,
Lederman
,
N. G.
, &
Abd-El-Khalick
,
F.
Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study
.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
37
,
563
581
. (
2000
).
4.
Chen
,
S.
Development of an Instrument to Assess Views on Nature of Science and Attitudes Toward Teaching Science
.
Science Education
,
90
,
803
819
. (
2006a
).
5.
Chen
,
S.
.
Views on science and education (VOSE) questionnaire
.
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching
,
7
(
2
). (
2006b
).
6.
Good
,
R.
,
Lederman
,
N.
,
Gess-Newsome
,
J.
,
McComas
,
W.
, &
Cummins
,
C.
Nature of science: Implications for research, assessment, and teacher education
.
A symposium and paper presented at the annual international meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science
,
Akron, OH
. (
2000
).
7.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST).
The Manual of Content of Science Learning
.
Bangkok, Thailand
:
Curusapha ladphoa
. (
2002
).
8.
Khishfe
,
R.
, &
Abd-El-Khalick
,
F.
Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science
.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
39
,
551
578
. (
2002
).
9.
King
,
B. B.
1991
.
Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history andphilosophy of science
.
Science Education
,
75
,
135
141
10.
Kourany
,
J. A.
Scientific knowledge: Basic issues in the philosophy of science
.
Belmont, CA
:
Wadsworth Publishing Company
. (
1998
).
11.
Kuhn
,
T. S.
 The structure of scientific revolutions.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
. (
1970
).
12.
Lederman and Malley Students’ Perceptions of Tentativeness in Science: Development, Use, and Source of Change
.
Science Education
,
74
(
2
),
225
239
. (
1990
).
13.
Lederman
,
N. G.
Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research
.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
29
,
331
359
. (
1992
).
14.
Lederman
,
N. G.
Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship
.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
36
,
916
929
. (
1999
).
15.
Lederman
,
N.
, &
Abd-El-Khalick
,
F.
 Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In
W. F.
McComas
(Ed.),
The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies
(pp.
82
126
).
Boston
:
Kluwer Academic Publishers
. (
1998
).
16.
McComas
,
W. F.
Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science
.
School Science and Mathematics
,
96
,
10
16
. (
1996
).
17.
Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC).
Learning Reform: A Learner-Centred Approach
.
Bangkok, Thailand
:
Wattana Panit Printing & Publishing Company Limited
. (
2000
).
18.
Pomeroy
,
D.
Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers
.
Science Education
,
77
,
261
278
. (
1993
).
19.
Popper
,
K.
 The rationality of science revolutions. In
J. A.
Kourany
(Ed.),
Scientific knowledge
(pp.
286
300
).
Wadsworth, CA
:
Belmont
. (Reprinted from Problems of scientific revolution: progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences, pp. 72–101, by R. Harre, Ed., 1975, Oxford: Clarendon Press.). (
1998
).
20.
Schwartz
,
R. S.
, &
Lederman
,
N. G.
It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science
.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
39
,
205
236
. (
2002
).
21.
Smith
,
M. U.
,
Lederman
,
N. G.
,
Bell
,
R. L.
,
McComas
,
W. F.
, &
Clough
,
M. P.
How great is the disagreement about nature of science? A response to Alters
.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
,
34
,
1101
1104
. (
1997
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.