Ci e his a icle:
Ga cía-Ca mona, A. (2021). Imp o ing p e-se ice elemen a y eache s’ unde s anding o he na u e o
science h ough an analysis o he his o ical case o Rosalind F anklin and he s uc u e o DNA.
Resea ch in Science Educa ion, 51(2), 347-373. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11165-018-9798-4
Imp o ing P e-se ice Elemen a y Teache s' Unde s anding o he Na u e
o Science h ough an Analysis o he His o ical Case o Rosalind F anklin
and he S uc u e o DNA
An onio Ga cía-Ca mona
Depa amen o de Didác ica de las Ciencias Expe imen ales y Sociales, Uni e sidad de Se illa, Spain.
Email: ga cia-[email p o ec ed]; ORCID: h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5952-0340
Abs ac . This quali a i e s udy analyses how e ec i e an ac i i y based on he c i ical and
e lexi e eading o he his o ical case o Rosalind F anklin and he elucida ion o he molecula
s uc u e o DNA can be o lea ning abou he na u e o science (NOS). The aspec s o NOS
add essed a e he plu ali y o me hods in scien i ic esea ch, esea ch objec i es, he s eng hs
o scien i ic models, and he epis emic and non-epis emic obs acles aced by scien is s in he
cou se o hei esea ch. The ac i i y was implemen ed du ing a Science Teaching cou se o
p e-se ice elemen a y eache s (PETs). The da a we e ex ac ed om he PETs' epo s,
analysing hem wi h a ub ic based on in e - a e ag eemen . The esul s showed he PETs o
ha e o e all imp o ed hei unde s anding o he di e en NOS aspec s add essed, and ha hey
ga e mo e impo ance o non-epis emic han o epis emic ac o s. In sho , he esul s showed
his ype o ac i i y o be educa ionally e ec i e in lea ning abou NOS using cases om he
his o y o science. They also len suppo o he iew ha eaching NOS should ake an
equilib a ed app oach o bo h i s epis emic and non-epis emic aspec s.
Keywo ds: DNA; his o y o science; na u e o science; p e-se ice elemen a y eache ;
Rosalind F anklin; science educa ion.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays a basic unde s anding o he na u e o science (NOS) is conside ed o be a key pilla
o ci izens' scien i ic li e acy (Clough, 2018; Hodson, 2014; NGSS, 2013; OECD, 2017).
Somewha mo e han wo decades ago, D i e , Leach, Milla and Sco (1996) we e al eady
speaking o u ili a ian, democ a ic, cul u al, axiological, and educa ional easons o in eg a ing
a basic knowledge o NOS in o school science cu icula. In he same ein, Shamos (1995)
a gued ha when people e alua e public issues ela ed o science and echnology hey usually
eso o hei (mo e o less well in o med) knowledge o NOS. Also, Bybee (1997) es ablished
ha an unde s anding o NOS o ms pa o he highes le el o ci izens' scien i ic li e acy.
Cu en ly, he e exis some amewo k p og ams o inno a ion and esea ch such as Ho izon
20201 which, among hei basic objec i es, p opose ha ci izens become in e es ed in science,
1 P ojec p omo ed by he Eu opean Union ha is a ailable a
h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/p og ammes/ho izon2020/en/h2020-sec ion/science-and-socie y
2
and ac i ely, c i ically, and esponsibly in e ac wi h he di e en agen s and ins i u ions ha
os e scien i ic and echnological de elopmen . Logically, a good unde s anding o NOS will
help hese in e ac ions o occu wi h mo e solid c i e ia and g ea e esponsibili y (Ace edo-
Díaz & Ga cía-Ca mona, 2017; Lahe o e al., 2018).
Howe e , he science educa ion li e a u e shows ha o en nei he s uden s no hei science
eache s ha e a gene ally well-in o med unde s anding o NOS (Lede man, 2007). In Spain,
in addi ion o he spa se incidence o NOS in science classes a he di e en educa ional le els
(Ace edo & Ga cía-Ca mona, 2016a), explici allusions o NOS in he school science cu icula
a e minimal and clea ly imp o able (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017).
Gi en his si ua ion, i is necessa y o gi e an impulse o eaching p oposals ha encou age
he in oduc ion o basic NOS no ions om ea ly educa ional le els onwa ds (Ake son e al.,
2011). This should be accompanied by speci ic eache aining plans a hese le els (Hanuscin
e al., 2011) aimed a imp o ing p ospec i e eache s' unde s anding o NOS (Ake son e al.,
2006; Ga cía-Ca mona & Ace edo, 2016). Fo p ospec i e p ima y eache s (PETs) in
pa icula , hese aining plans mus also ensu e ha he PETs acqui e he necessa y sel -e icacy
o be able o apply NOS con en in hei own science classes (Bilican & Cakı oglu, 2011). To
his end, designs ha e been sugges ed ep esen ing ealis ic educa ional p oposals wi hou any
o e ly ambi ious objec i es so as o acili a e he in eg a ion o NOS con en in o he no mal
de elopmen o science classes (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017; Ma hews, 2012).
The au ho and his esea ch colleagues ha e o some ime been de eloping speci ic
educa ional p oposals o ain p ospec i e science eache s in he unde s anding o NOS by
using examples om he his o y o science (HOS). Use is made o sel -elabo a ed sho
na a i es (Ace edo-Díaz & Ga cía-Ca mona, 2017) which, a e being ead by he lea ne s,
mo i a e hei e lec ion and deba e abou some NOS issues ha a e con ex ualized in he
con en o each na a i e. The pu pose o his a icle is o p esen a quali a i e and in e p e a i e
s udy ocused on e alua ing he educa ional e ec i eness o an ac i i y implemen ed wi h PETs
o hem o lea n abou some aspec s o NOS in he con ex o he his o ical case o he disco e y
o he molecula s uc u e o DNA, and Rosalind F anklin's ole in i .
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The esea ch ques ions ha guided he s udy we e he ollowing:
1. Wha a e PETs' ideas abou ce ain aspec s o NOS ollowing a i s e lec i e eading
o he his o ical case o Rosalind F anklin and he elucida ion o he s uc u e o DNA?
2. Wha is he p og ession o hose ideas a e he eedback he PETs ecei ed in a c i ical
discussion o he case wi h hei classma es and he educa o ?
THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
Wha o each abou he na u e o science
NOS can be ega ded as me a-knowledge abou science ha a ises om in e disciplina y
e lec ions made om he pe spec i es o he philosophy, his o y, and sociology o science. Bu
3
wha o each abou NOS? The esponse o his ques ion is no simple when i comes o making
a didac ic ansposi ion o his me a-knowledge, which is so b oad and mul i ace ed, o i s
e ec i e in eg a ion in o he school science cu iculum. Indeed, on he one hand, he aspec s
o NOS ha may be mo e in e es ing, ep esen a i e, and/o iable o scien i ic li e acy a each
educa ional le el ha e o be selec ed, and, on he o he , he deg ee o app oxima ion o dep h
wi h which hese aspec s need o be add essed a each o hose le els mus be de e mined.
Consequen ly, one is aced wi h a complex and con o e sial issue ha is s ill he subjec o a
hea ed deba e wi hin he in e na ional science educa ion communi y (Ace edo & Ga cía-
Ca mona, 2016a; Clough, 2018; Daghe & E du an, 2016; Kampou akis, 2016; Wallace, 2017).
Du ing he las ew decades, some speci ic p oposals ha e been made abou which NOS
aspec s should be augh a non-uni e si y educa ion le els (e.g., Lede man, 2007; Osbo ne e
al., 2003; McComas, 2004). These p oposals ocus p edominan ly on he unde s anding o
epis emic aspec s o science, i.e., cogni i e and a ional aspec s ela ed o he cons uc ion and
es ablishmen o scien i ic knowledge (di e ences be ween scien i ic law and heo y,
di e ences be ween obse a ion and in e ence, ha obse a ions a e p e-cha ged wi h heo y,
ha scien i ic knowledge is en a i e bu du able, subjec i i y in science, my h o he one
scien i ic me hod, e c.). Wi h his, he con ex ual, social and psychological aspec s ela ed o
science and scien is s (i.e., non-epis emic aspec s o science) ecei e minimal o jus seconda y
a en ion in he commones NOS eaching p oposals. Fo example, Lede man (2007) only
dedica ed one o his se en NOS p inciples o e e ing, in a ai ly gene al way, o he social and
cul u al in luences a ec ing he cons uc ion o scien i ic knowledge. Simila ly, only one o
eigh co e NOS ideas p oposed by McComas (2004) is e e ed (and hen jus gene ically) o
he in luence o his o ical, social, and cul u al ac o s in science.
Howe e , he his o y, philosophy, and sociology o science show he palpable in luence o
mul iple non-epis emic aspec s in he de elopmen o science (Ma hews, 2012). Consequen ly,
unde s anding hese aspec s should ecei e simila a en ion in s a us and p opo ion o ha o
he epis emic aspec s in he basic and holis ic eaching o NOS (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017).
Along his same line, I zik and Nola (2014) p oposed ha he unde s anding o NOS should
include science's social and ins i u ional dimension, i.e., p o essional ac i i ies, ce i ica ion
and dissemina ion o scien i ic knowledge, scien i ic beha iou , social alues, e c. Daghe and
E du an (2016) sugges ed adding social o ganiza ions and in e ac ions, public powe s uc u es,
and science unding o his dimension. Ma ins (2015) p oposed ha eaching abou NOS
should con ain a his o ical and sociological axis ha in eg a es he ole o scien is s and he
scien i ic communi y, in e subjec i i y, scien i ic communica ion, he mo al, e hical, and
poli ical ques ions o science, as well as he social and his o ical in luences.
In line wi h he abo e, a holis ic eaching o NOS is p oposed, which is based on an
exhaus i e e iew o he li e a u e, and which co e s epis emic and non-epis emic aspec s o
science in a balanced way (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017). The p oposal is he ollowing:
• Epis emic aspec s o NOS: (i) he na u e o science p ocesses (in luence o scien is s'
belie s and skills on hei esea ch, models and modeling in science, obse a ion e sus
in e ence, he ole o ques ions and hypo heses in science, he ole o e o in science,
ela ionships be ween esea ch designs and expe imen al esul s, di e si y o scien i ic
4
me hods, scien is s' c ea i i y, e c.); and (ii) he na u e o scien i ic knowledge
(di e ences be ween scien i ic laws and heo ies, en a i eness o scien i ic heo ies,
e c.).
• Non-epis emic aspec s o NOS: (i) ac o s in e nal o he scien i ic communi y ( ole o
scien i ic communica ion, scien is s' pe sonali y, he ole o he scien i ic communi y in
he accep ance o scien i ic heo ies, scien is s' he o ical skills, scien i ic collabo a ion
and coope a ion, he in luence o gende in science, e c.); and (ii) ac o s ex e nal o he
scien i ic communi y (poli ical, economic and cul u al in luences in science – and ice
e sa, science and eligion, he media's ole in dissemina ing science, e c.).
The educa ional iabili y o his NOS con en p oposal has p o ed i sel success ul in
Seconda y Educa ion (wi h s uden s aged 14 o 18 yea s) and in he aining o p ospec i e
seconda y science eache s (e.g., A agón-Méndez e al., 2016, 2019; Ga cía-Ca mona &
Ace edo, 2017). Tha NOS con en p oposal has he e o e been aken as he e e ence
amewo k o he p esen s udy, selec ing om i some epis emic and non-epis emic aspec s o
be discussed in he con ex o he ac i i y analysed.
How o each abou he Na u e o Science: Using he His o y o Science
The e is conside able ag eemen ha he eaching o NOS should be add essed explici ly and
wi h a e lec i e app oach (Abd-El-Khalick, 2012; Ace edo & Ga cía-Ca mona, 2016a;
Clough, 2011, 2018; Lede man, 2007). This means ha NOS should be concei ed o as speci ic
cu icula con en , whose de elopmen in science class equi es: (i) a eaching plan wi h i s own
lea ning objec i es; (ii) he design o ac i i ies aimed a ge ing he s uden s o hink abou and
discuss e lec i ely he aspec s o NOS; and (iii) an app op ia e e alua ion p ocess o de e mine
he deg ee o comp ehension achie ed by he s uden s, de ec hei lea ning di icul ies, and
de e mine he necessa y eedback o help hem imp o e hei unde s anding o NOS.
The eaching o NOS can be planned in an in eg a ed way oge he wi h o he school science
con en (e.g., Michel & Neumann, 2016), as independen con en de-con ex ualized om ha
o he con en (e.g., Lede man & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998), o as a combina ion o he wo
s a egies (e.g., Ake son & Donnelly, 2010). Some s udies indica e ha s uden s end o
imp o e hei unde s anding o NOS independen ly o he s a egy used (Khish e & Lede man,
2007). E en so, he in eg a ion o NOS wi h o he con en o he cu iculum could se e as a
s imulus o he science eaching s a o decide o deal wi h i in hei classes wi hou ha ing
o g ea ly al e he a en ion hey pay o he o he science con en (Bell e al., 2012).
In addi ion o he abo e, i is ecommendable o selec speci ic con ex ha helps he s uden s
o ecognize, e lec on, and discuss ce ain aspec s o NOS so as o imp o e hei unde s anding
o hose aspec s. In his sense, he e lec i e and c i ical analysis o con o e sial episodes in
HOS is a con ex o especial in e es (Allchin, 2011; Clough, 2011).
Teaching he Na u e o Science h ough he His o y o Science. The use o HOS o each
NOS is ideal in o de o con ex ualize and e lec c i ically on how scien is s om di e en e as
aced he challenges o hei esea ch, wha ole he scien i ic communi y played in he
cons uc ion o scien i ic ideas, wha in luence he social, poli ical, economic, and cul u al
5
con ex s had, e c. (Ace edo-Díaz & Ga cía-Ca mona, 2017; Clough, 2011; I win, 2000;
Ma hews, 2015; Rudge & Howe, 2009). The e o e, he use o HOS allows an imb ica e
app oach o add essing epis emological, on ological, and sociological ques ions in science, hus
a ou ing unde s anding o he epis emic and non-epis emic ac o s o NOS (Ace edo-Díaz e
al., 2017; Jus i & Mendonça, 2016).
The medi a ed eading o HOS case na a i es oge he wi h e lec ion on and c i ical
discussion abou he NOS issues con ex ualized in hem is a use ul esou ce wi h which o
in oduce NOS in o science educa ion (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017; I win, 2000; McComas,
2008). The e ha e been ce ain ecommenda ions pu o wa d o using HOS o lea n abou
NOS: (i) make a didac ic adap a ion o he na a i e, selec ing and simpli ying agmen s and
his o ical ac s, bu aking ca e no o end up wi h a pseudohis o y (Allchin, 2004); (ii) a oid
an idealized o my hical ision o science and scien is s (Allchin, 2003); (iii) no omi scien is s'
mis akes and ailu es (Allchin 2003); (i ) inco po a e scien is s' own wo ds so as o highligh
he human side o science and hus add au hen ici y o he aspec s o NOS hey illus a e
(Clough, 2011); and ( ) no o make an anach onis ic in e p e a ion o he pas which ansmi s
a alse cumula i e and linea ision o science as being in con inuous p og ession, bu o show
i in he eali y o he his o ical-social con ex o he momen (Monk & Osbo ne, 1997).
Se e al s udies ha e analysed he e ec i eness o using HOS o lea n abou NOS in he
ini ial aining o science eache s. Fo example, Vall e dú and Izquie do (2010) used he
con o e sy be ween Pas eu and Pouche abou spon aneous gene a ion o e lec wi h
p ospec i e seconda y science eache s on e o s in scien i ic esea ch, con lic s o in e es ,
ci izen pa icipa ion, e c. The esul s showed ha he pa icipan s we e able o pa ially
app ecia e he impo ance o deba e and a gumen a ion in he cons uc ion o scien i ic
knowledge, as well as he in luence o ex a-scien i ic (non-epis emic) ac o s.
Ga cía-Ca mona and Ace edo (2017) used a HOS na a i e o he con o e sy be ween
Pas eu and Liebig abou e men a ion o in oduce p ospec i e seconda y science eache s o
aspec s o NOS ha we e bo h epis emic (e.g., he concep o scien i ic heo y, di e ences in
scien i ic in e p e a ions o he same phenomenon, he ole o e o in science, e c.) and non-
epis emic (e.g., in luence o con ex ual ac o s in he de elopmen o science, he ole o
con o e sies among scien is s, e c.). The pa icipan s imp o ed hei unde s anding o mos o
he aspec s add essed. Sa is ac o y esul s we e also ob ained wi h a na a i e abou he case
o Semmelweis and pue pe al e e applied in a cou se o p ospec i e seconda y science
eache s (A agón-Méndez, 2019), in which nume ous aspec s, again bo h epis emic (e.g.,
di e ences be ween hypo hesis and heo y, in luence o he p ocedu es ollowed on he indings
o scien i ic esea ch, e c.) and non-epis emic (e.g., in luence o he scien is s' pe sonali ies,
in luence o poli ics on he cons uc ion o science, he ole o scien i ic communica ion, e c.),
we e add essed.
Adú iz-B a o and Izquie do (2009) used a ilm abou he disco e y o adium by he Cu ies
in o de o in oduce hei p ospec i e science eache s o he di e ence be ween disco e y and
in en ion, he ole o scien i ic modeling, and he in luence o gende in science. In gene al,
he pa icipan s imp o ed hei iews on hese aspec s.

6
Rudge e al. (2014) used a his o ical na a i e abou indus ial melanism in hei ini ial
aining o p ima y eache s o deal wi h epis emic aspec s o NOS. The pa icipan s analysed
a mys e ious phenomenon p esen ed as a puzzle, whose solu ion in ol ed making use o ce ain
pieces o knowledge abou NOS. The pa icipan s mainly imp o ed hei unde s anding o he
empi ical na u e o science. In he same ein, Williams and Rudge (2016) implemen ed a uni
based on he his o y o gene ics, aking an explici and e lec i e app oach, o he PETs o lea n
abou NOS. The pa icipan s imp o ed hei unde s anding o he ole o obse a ion, in e ence,
and cul u e in he cons uc ion o science.
Finally, Jus i and Mendonça (2016) expe imen ed wi h p ospec i e chemis y eache s a
d ama iza ion ac i i y abou he con o e sial awa d o he Nobel P ize in Chemis y o F i z
Habe in 1918. The objec i e was essen ially o imp o e hei unde s anding o non-epis emic
aspec s o science and o skills in a gumen a ion. In gene al, he esul s we e posi i e, and,
al hough he pa icipan s ound i ha d o elabo a e quali y a gumen s, hei unde s anding
imp o ed hanks o he collabo a i e wo k hey did du ing he ac i i y.
METHODS
Con ex and pa icipan s
The pa icipan s in he s udy we e 42 PETs (85.7% women and 14.3% men) o ages om 20 o
32 yea s (a e age: 20.8 yea s). They we e being augh by he au ho o his s udy as a subg oup
in he subjec o Science Teaching (90 eaching hou s). The subjec is pa o he second yea
o he Deg ee in P ima y Educa ion a a Spanish Uni e si y. The pa icipan s he e o e
cons i u ed a con enience sample.
The gene al objec i es o he subjec a e o he PETs o: (i) e lec on and unde s and he
pu pose o basic science educa ion; (ii) become amilia wi h he school science cu iculum o
P ima y Educa ion; (iii) know he s uden s’ concep ions and di icul ies ha a e usual when
hey lea n science; (i ) know he esou ces and s a egies o eaching and e alua ing science;
and ( ) lea n o design science eaching uni s.
Mos o he pa icipa ing PETs had eached he uni e si y deg ee cou se om an academic
pa h ha was un ela ed o science. Also, hei p e e ence o eaching science in school was
gene ally low, as is common among PETs in Spain (Bonil & Má quez, 2011; Ga cía-Ca mona
& C uz-Guzmán, 2016), and indeed in o he PET con ex s (Apple on, 2008). Spanish PETs
usually begin hei science educa ion aining wi h insu icien scien i ic knowledge (Ga cía-
Ca mona e al., 2014; Oli a & Ace edo, 2005; Ve dugo, Solaz-Po olés & Sanjosé, 2016), and
li le unde s anding o NOS (Ga cía-Ca mona & Ace edo, 2016; Guisasola & Mo en in, 2007).
The e o e, as is also he case elsewhe e (Apple on, 2008; Capps & C aw o d, 2013; Newman
e al., 2004), in Spain aining PETs o each science aces he challenge o imp o ing bo h hei
pedagogical con en knowledge and hei knowledge o he scien i ic con en (Ga cía-Ca mona
C uz-Guzmán, 2016; Ma ín del Pozo e al., 2013).
Du ing he i s yea o hei cou se, he PETs ecei e ins uc ion on he basics o science
(150 eaching hou s in o al). This does no , howe e , include NOS con en . Consequen ly, he
PETs pa icipa ing in he s udy began hei aining o each science wi hou ha ing p e iously
7
ecei ed explici eaching abou NOS. Because o his, he p og am o he subjec Science
Teaching includes a uni called 'Wha is science? Na u e o Science in science educa ion'
co e ing app oxima ely 15 eaching hou s. The uni aims o diagnose he ideas he PETs ha e
abou NOS, imp o e hei basic unde s anding o i , and p o ide hem wi h some s a egies and
educa ional esou ces o be able o each NOS in P ima y Educa ion. The ac i i y o be analysed
he e o ms pa o ha uni , and is aimed a imp o ing he PETs' ideas abou se e al epis emic
and non-epis emic aspec s o NOS.
Desc ip ion o he ac i i y
The ac i i y consis ed in eading a na a i e elabo a ed by Ace edo and Ga cía-Ca mona
(2016b) abou Rosalind F anklin and he elucida ion o he s uc u e o DNA, ollowed by a
c i ical and e lexi e discussion abou a ious NOS issues (see Table 1) iden i iable in he
na a i e. The na a i e had al eady been implemen ed and alida ed wi h s uden s o 17-18
yea s in age and wi h p ospec i e seconda y science eache s (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017). The
ollowing pa ag aph gi es a b ie summa y o i .
Table 1
Ques ions p oposed o e lec ion on aspec s o NOS ha a ise in he na a i e
Aspec s o NOS
Ques ions o e lec i e discussion
Plu ali y o me hods in
scien i ic esea ch
Q1. I is common o ead he exp ession " he scien i ic me hod" as a uni e sal, s age-
by-s age p ocess o he cons uc ion o scien i ic knowledge. Acco ding o wha
you ha e ead, do you hink his is adequa e? Reason.
Objec i es o scien i ic
esea ch
Q2. Do you hink he objec i es abou DNA we e he same o all he scien is s
in ol ed? Do you conside ha he objec i es in luenced he de elopmen o he
esea ch? Explain.
S eng hs o he DNA model
Q3. Wha do you hink a e he main s eng hs o Wa son and C ick's DNA model?
Jus i y.
Epis emic and non-
epis emic obs acles in
scien i ic esea ch
Q4. Wha epis emic ac o s (i.e., cogni i e and a ional aspec s ela ed o he
cons uc ion and es ablishmen o scien i ic knowledge) and non-epis emic ac o s
(i.e., con ex ual, social, and psychological aspec s ela ed o science and scien is s)
do you hink could ha e in luenced Rosalind F anklin no being he i s o elucida e
he s uc u e o DNA?
The elucida ion o he molecula s uc u e o DNA by James Wa son and F ancis C ick in
1953 was one o he g ea scien i ic disco e ies o he 20 h cen u y. Toge he wi h Mau ice
Wilkins, hey ecei ed he 1962 Nobel P ize in Physiology o Medicine o his. The men ion
said: " o hei disco e ies conce ning he molecula s uc u e o nucleic acids and i s
signi icance o in o ma ion ans e in li ing ma e ial". In hei accep ance speeches, he h ee
lau ea es ci ed a o al o 96 e e ences, bu none o hese was o Rosalind F anklin, who had
died in 1958, aged 38. Wi hou o ge ing he wo k o he Nobel lau ea es, he na a i e deals
wi h F anklin's impo an con ibu ions o he elucida ion o he s uc u e o DNA h ough
ca e ul echniques o X- ay di ac ion. The di e en goals o c ys allog aphe s and gene icis s
ega ding he elucida ion o he s uc u e o DNA a e se ou , as well as he di e en me hods
hey used – F anklin's being empi ically based, and Wa son and C ick's mo e heo e ical h ough
8
cons uc ing hypo he ical models. Likewise, o he non-epis emic issues ela ed o eal scien i ic
p ac ice a e b ough ou . One example is he ension and lack o collabo a ion be ween F anklin
and Wilkins in con as wi h he s ong spi i o collabo a ion be ween Wa son and C ick which
ga e ise o mo e ui ul scien i ic esul s. O he s a e he lack o e hics o Wa son and C ick
in using F anklin's da a wi hou he knowledge and wi hou gi ing he due ecogni ion, and he
possible di icul ies ha F anklin had om being a woman in science a ha ime.
To implemen he ac i i y, he PETs we e o ganized in o small wo king g oups o 3 o 4
membe s, o a o al o 12 g oups (G1 o G12). The e we e wo easons o his decision. The
i s was ha he in e ac ion be ween se e al indi iduals in a g oup usually leads o he
elabo a ion o mo e comple e esponses because hey ha e o ag ee on a common opinion ha
combines hei di e en poin s o iew (Salme ón, 2013). The second was ha he PETs we e
al eady used o wo king in small g oups in he Science Teaching subjec , so ha he e would
be no b each wi h hei usual ou ine o o ganiza ion and wo k in class. E en so, g oup wo k
is no always easy. The e o e, as in he s udy o Soh e al. (2018) conce ning g oup wo k,
du ing he ac i i y he educa o (i.e., he au ho o his s udy) laid especial emphasis on helping
he membe s o each g oup being able o p ope ly manage he ag eemen s and disag eemen s
ha a ose du ing discussion.
The ac i i y was implemen ed in h ee phases:
i) Ini ial phase: eading he na a i e o he his o ical con o e sy and gi ing esponses
o he ques ions. Wi hou p io ins uc ion, he PETs ead he na a i e and hen
esponded as a g oup o he ques ions in Table 1. The educa o encou aged each g oup
o make hei esponses he esul o an ini ial discussion and a consequen consensus
among all he g oup's membe s. None heless, he PETs we e old ha i opposing
opinions eme ged making consensus impossible, he di e en posi ions could be
exp essed in he esponse. The g oups had o eco d hese ini ial esponses in a epo .
This i s phase was ca ied ou in a 2-hou class session, and allowed a diagnosis o be
made o he PETs' ini ial ideas abou he aspec s o NOS being deal wi h.
ii) In e media e phase: whole class discussion o he g oups' ini ial esponses o he
ques ions abou NOS. A e esponding o he NOS ques ions hey had been pu , he
g oups sha ed and discussed hei opinions in a class session o app oxima ely 1.5 hou s.
The educa o mode a ed he discussion be ween he g oups and in oduced
cla i ica ions, explana ions, addi ional ques ions, e c. o en ich ha discussion as much
as possible. When he PETs exp essed unin o med ideas abou NOS, he educa o ied
o c ea e a cogni i e con lic so ha hey would econside hei a gumen s. The pu pose
o his was o he g oups o each common conclusions abou he di e en aspec s o
NOS being add essed, al hough wi hou any indoc ina ion.
iii) Final phase: he g oups' conclusions a e he whole class session. A e he discussion
among he g oups, each g oup had o e ise, in a non-s ess ul manne , hei ini ial
esponses, in oducing he co ec ions, nuances, o ex ensions hey conside ed
necessa y o imp o e hei o iginal a gumen s. To his end, hey we e allowed a
deadline o somewha longe han a week. The inal esponses eme ging om his las
e ision we e also eco ded by he g oups in hei epo s, ollowing hei ini ial
9
esponses. In his way, i was possible o assess any p og ession in he PETs' ideas
abou he NOS issues ha had been discussed.
Da a acquisi ion and analysis
The e alua ion o he g oups' esponses o he NOS ques ions was done in e p e a i ely, using
he ub ic p esen ed in Table 2. This ub ic was elabo a ed by he au ho and wo esea ch
colleagues ollowing he usual phases o quali a i e con en analysis (May in, 2000). The
ub ic had been alida ed in wo p e ious s udies (A agón-Méndez e al., 2016; Ace edo-Díaz
e al., 2017). This de ails 5 le els o p og ession ( om 0 o 4) o each NOS issue deal wi h.
The highes le el (Le el 4) co esponds o he ulles esponse in acco dance wi h he le el
desi able o a basic unde s anding o he issue being alluded o in he na a i e. The le els
descend in e ms o comple eness down o he lowes le el (Le el 0) which co esponds o
esponses ha a e inadequa e o do no e e o any o he ea u es indica ed in Le el 4.
Table 2
Rub ic o e alua ing he aspec s o NOS in he con ex o he case o Rosalind F anklin and he s uc u e o
DNA
NOS con en
Le el 4 (maximum)
Le els 3 – 0
Q1. Plu ali y o
me hods in scien i ic
esea ch
They explain ha he e is no one scien i ic me hod, and
desc ibe he wo me hods iden i iable in he his o ical
na a i e:
1) F anklin's sys ema ic empi ical app oach, and
2) Wa son and C ick's elabo a ion o a unc ional model;
likewise
3) hey a gue wi h easons ha nei he me hod is pe se
be e han he o he , o ha he wo complemen each
o he .
Le el 3: They explain ha he e is no one
scien i ic me hod, bu (a) hey only
desc ibe one o he wo me hods [1) o
2)], and a gue ha nei he me hod is pe
se be e han he o he [3)] o ha he
wo me hods complemen each o he , o
(b) hey desc ibe he wo me hods bu
wi hou a guing ha nei he is pe se
be e han he o he .
Le el 2: They explain ha he e is no one
scien i ic me hod, and gi e some
jus i ica ion (e.g., dependence on he
esea che s' in e es s o he
cha ac e is ics o each esea ch s udy);
bu hey desc ibe nei he me hod [1) no
2)], and hey do no a gue ha nei he o
he wo me hods is pe se be e han he
o he o ha he wo me hods
complemen each o he [3)].
Le el 1: They conside ha se e al
scien i ic me hods a e possible, bu gi e
no adequa e jus i ica ion.
Le el 0: They conside ha he e is only
one alid scien i ic me hod.
Q2. Objec i es o
scien i ic esea ch
They explain ha he objec i es we e di e en , and in hei
explana ion indica e h ee o he ollowing easons:
1) F anklin's objec i e is explained.
2) Wa son and C ick's objec i e is explained.
3) The objec i es a e ela ed o he scien is s' aining.
4) The objec i es a e ela ed o he me hods used.
5) The objec i es a e ela ed o he p io i ies o he
espec i e esea ch cen es.
Le el 3: They explain ha he objec i es
we e di e en , and in he explana ion
hey indica e wo o he i e easons.
Le el 2: They explain ha he objec i es
we e di e en , and in he explana ion
hey indica e one o he i e easons.
Le el 1. They explain ha he objec i es
we e di e en , bu hey do no p o ide
any alid a gumen s.
Le el 0. They do no iden i y any
16
Iden i ica ion o he s eng hs o Wa son and C ick's model o he s uc u e o DNA
Ques ion 3 was ocused on he PETs iden i ying he s eng hs o Wa son and C ick's model o
he molecula s uc u e o DNA. These include ha he model: allows he da a hen a ailable
o be in e p e ed, and i s hese da a well; explains he ansmission o gene ic in o ma ion;
makes p edic ions abou he gene ic code allows e ile hypo heses o be posi ed o u u e
esea ch; and gi es an answe o mul idisciplina y p oblems. Figu e 3 shows he p og ession
in le el o he g oups' esponses o his ques ion.
Figu e 3. The g oups' p og ession on Q3: S eng h o he DNA model
In he i s phase o he ac i i y, h ee g oups ga e esponses ha did no make any allusion
o any o he s eng hs o Wa son and C ick's model (Le el 0). Fo example:
"Wa son and C ick wan ed o know he s uc u e o DNA o explain he gene ic code and gene ic
ansmission. Thei model consis ed o wo king in he labo a o y using collabo a i e me hods,
one ga e an idea and he o he deba ed i aking i se iously o y o each ag eemen and be
able o use ha in o ma ion. Because hey did no ha e he pu pose o deciphe ing he s uc u e
o DNA, like F anklin and Wilkins, hey had mo e e idence on which o base hemsel es and
om which o ge mo e in o ma ion, because F anklin wo ked wi h c ys allog aphic
echniques." (G7)
On he o he hand, hal o he g oups ga e ini ial esponses ha we e ca ego ized a he
highes le els (5 a Le el 3, and 1 a Le el 4), ou s anding being hei allusions o he
explana o y and p edic i e powe o he model in ela ion o he s uc u e o DNA and
he edi a y ans e . Two examples o esponses by hese g oups a e he ollowing:
"Wa son and C ick elabo a ed hei model wi h g ea c ea i i y based on hei own ideas, such
as he pai ing o ni ogenous bases, o g ea biological impo ance, and wi h DNA da a p o ided
by o he esea che s. The idea ha he s uc u e o DNA was a double helix was aken om
F anklin's s udies. Wa son and C ick's model no only explained he s uc u e o DNA, bu also
allowed o p edic ions o guide new esea ch." (G4, Le el 3)
"One o he s eng hs o Wa son and C ick's model is ha i explained he s uc u e o DNA,
which allows p edic ions o be made o channel u u e esea ch. I can also be no ed ha Wa son
and C ick de eloped hei DNA model om he esea ch ha o he scien is s had done. Ano he
o i s posi i e aspec s was he la ge amoun o addi ional in o ma ion i p o ides abou he
L0
L1
L2
L3
L4
G1
G2
G3
•
G4
•
“ • “ : le el o ini ial esponse
G5
•
“
®
”: le el o inal esponse
G6
•
* An insola e poin ep esen s no p og ession
G7
•
G8
G9
G10
•
G11
G12
•

17
[DNA] s uc u e. Likewise, i allows ce ain calcula ions o be done o de e mine he numbe
o chains pe molecule. Finally, and he mos impo an , [i explains] he he edi a y
ansmission o gene ic in o ma ion." (G12, Le el 4)
The es o he g oups (3 ou o 12) ga e esponses alluding o some o he s eng hs o
Wa son and C ick's model (Le el 2). Fo example, G11 e e ed o he ac ha he p oposed
model esponded sa is ac o ily o he di e en ques ions ha he esea che s had asked
hemsel es; and G8 ocused i s a gumen on he model's abili y o explain he DNA molecule's
s uc u e:
"The g ea es s eng h o Wa son and C ick's model is he in eg a ion o all he ideas and da a
ha had been ob ained o da e in o a single model, which also wo ked and made sense. […]."
(G11)
"[…] Wa son and C ick elabo a ed hei model wi h g ea c ea i i y based on hei own ideas,
such as he pai ing o ni ogenous bases, o g ea biological impo ance, oge he wi h da a
p o ided by o he esea che s. Pauling's h ee-dimensional models we e hei main sou ce o
inspi a ion when deciding he sizes, shapes, and spa ial a angemen o he subuni s ha make
up DNA molecules. […]" (G8)
A e he in e media e phase o p esen a ion and discussion o hei ini ial esponses in he
whole class session, i e g oups (G1, G2, G8, G9, and G11) achie ed some p og ession in hei
inal esponses, al hough i is wo h emembe ing ha hal o he g oups had al eady eached
high le els (Le els 3 o 4) in hei ini ial esponses. Only G5 and G7 emained a a e y low
le el o unde s anding a e his whole class session.
Among he g oups ha p og essed, he e s ands ou G1 which wen om Le el 0 o Le el 2
in alluding in hei inal esponse o he ac ha Wa son and C ick's model was use ul as a
ounda ion o answe s o he esea ch ques ions ha gene icis s we e ackling abou DNA:
"Wa son and C ick o med a e y de ailed model, which helped hem o con ince o he s ha
e e y hing hey said was co ec . The mos impo an hing is ha he said model esponded o
he ques ions ha we e being asked and con ibu ed o new knowledge. […]" (G1)
O he o he g oups ha p og essed, i shall be quo ed as an example a agmen o he
esponse wi h which G2 wen om Le el 3 o Le el 4:
"Wa son and C ick's model no only explained he s uc u e o DNA, bu also allowed
p edic ions ha could guide u u e esea ch. Wa son and C ick had deciphe ed he s uc u e o
DNA. I is a e y de ailed model ha does no gi e ise o doub s and answe ed mos o he
ques ions ha we e being asked." (G2)
Epis emic and non-epis emic ac o s ha condi ioned Rosalind F anklin's esea ch
Ques ion 4 was in ended o he PETs o e lec on and discuss epis emic and non-epis emic
ac o s ha de e mined he ou come o esea ch on elucida ing he molecula s uc u e o DNA.
They we e especially expec ed o de ec he obs acles ha migh ha e p e en ed Rosalind
F anklin om success ully comple ing he esea ch. As epis emic ac o s, he ollowing s and
ou : he di e en objec i e o F anklin's esea ch ela i e o ha o Wa son and C ick; he
me hodological di e ences be ween he wo g oups o esea che s; he c ea i i y o Wa son and
18
C ick in ela ing e y di e se da a; and he di e en aining and a eas o specializa ion o he
esea che s in ol ed. The ollowing a e non-epis emic ac o s ha can be ound as con e ging
in his case: Wa son and C ick's lack o e hics when hey used F anklin's da a wi hou he
knowledge o subsequen ecogni ion; he ensions and lack o collabo a ion be ween F anklin
and Wilkins e sus he g ea spi i o collabo a ion shown by Wa son and C ick; Wa son and
C ick's compe i i e na u e; and he possible di icul ies ha F anklin aced a ha ime om
being a woman. The PETs' esponses we e conside ed o be a he highes le el o
unde s anding i hey alluded o a leas wo o he epis emic and wo o he non-epis emic
ac o s men ioned abo e.
Figu e 4. The g oups' p og ession on Q4: Epis emic and non-epis emic obs acles
The esul s on his ques ion a e shown in Figu e 4. As can be seen, he majo i y o he g oups
(7 ou o 12) ga e ini ial esponses ca ego ized a he lowes le els (Le els 0 and 1). In hese
esponses i was obse ed ha he g oups' iden i ica ion o he wo ypes o ac o (i.e.,
epis emic and non-epis emic) in he na a i e was ei he spa se o inadequa ely a gued. The
ollowing is an example o a esponse in which he wo ypes o ac o we e p esen ed wi h
unin o med a gumen s (G5, Le el 0):
"- Epis emic ac o s: F anklin hough ha he s uc u e o DNA had an A and B o m, which
ook he a long ime o esea ch. In con as , Wa son, om a pho og aph, clea ly obse ed he
B o m. Wa son and C ick also ecei ed mo e help and ook in o accoun he in o ma ion o he s
had ga he ed.
- Non-epis emic ac o s: The condi ion o being a woman, and he li le help she ecei ed, unlike
Wa son and C ick who used he esea ch no o complemen he s bu o hem o enjoy he
me i ." (G5)
Ano he example o an ini ial low-le el esponse was gi en by G9. I only adequa ely
jus i ied he non-epis emic ac o ela ed o F anklin's condi ion as a woman scien is (Le el 1):
"[…] F anklin's gende was a s igma in he li e as a scien is because a ha ime he e was a
eali y whe e he male gende p edomina ed in all he ields o knowledge. No woman was
aken in o accoun when making con ibu ions in hose ields." (G9)
L0
L1
L2
L3
L4
G1
G2
•
G3
•
G4
•
“ • “ : le el o ini ial esponse
G5
“
®
”: le el o inal esponse
G6
•
* An insola e poin ep esen s no p og ession
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
•
G12
•
19
G7 was he only g oup ini ially si ua ed a an in e media e le el (Le el 2) because hey
jus i ied wo non-epis emic ac o s (F anklin's di icul ies due o being a woman, and he bad
p o essional ela ionship wi h Wilkins):
"[…] Rosalind F anklin was a woman and he e o e no aken se iously. She did no ha e as
much help, wha she had done was no e en ecognized as being good and helping o each an
objec i e. She did no ge on wi h he pa ne [Wilkins], so hey did no wo k [well] as a eam.
[…]." (G7)
I should also be no ed ha he ini ial esponses o some g oups included inaccu a e o
e oneous in e p e a ions. Fo example, ha "[…] The me hods o he o he esea che s
[Wa son and C ick] we e mo e based on ial and e o " (G9), o ha "[…] Wa son and C ick
plagia ized F anklin's wo k" (G2). Also, he e we e o e ly d as ic s a emen s in he esponses
o some g oups ha in no way had been ansmi ed in he na a i e. Fo example: "[…] No
woman was aken in o accoun when making con ibu ions in hese ields [o scien i ic
esea ch]." (G9).
A he highes ini ial esponse le els, he e we e i e g oups a Le el 3, and one a Le el 4.
Examples o he esponses o hese le els a e he ollowing:
"When analysing he epis emic ac o s he mos signi ican is he me hod used in he esea ch.
She [F anklin] was absolu ely analy ical, because he objec i e was he cla i ica ion o he
s uc u e o DNA. To do his she needed a me iculous and accu a e analysis o a la ge numbe
o empi ical da a, which would mean a la ge amoun o ime ha she could no de o e o o he
c ucial aspec s o be able o comple e he s udy. The non-epis emic ac o s […], he chau inism
o ha ime unde es ima ed women and de ined hem as indi iduals in e io o men. This ac
conside ably damaged Rosalind F anklin. Howe e , we belie e ha he mos signi ican ac o
was he enmi y be ween F anklin and Wilkins, which ma kedly s agna ed he esea ch and
delayed i s publica ion. In addi ion, when F anklin ook on, in olun a ily, he posi ion o
Wilkins' subo dina e, she could no wo k in a ee and au onomous manne ." (G12, Le el 3)
"Rega ding he epis emic ac o s, we would highligh he ollowing: 1) di e en objec i es in
F anklin's and in Wa son and C ick's esea ch; 2) hei me hods we e di e en ; F anklin used
an empi ical me hod, despi e i s d awbacks, which ga e he g ea e secu i y in he […]
in e ences abou he s uc u e o DNA; 3) he c ea i i y o Wa son and C ick ega ding he
ela ionship o hei own and o he people's da a. On he o he hand, he non-epis emic ac o s
ha we ind a e he ollowing: 1) [g ea e ] compe i i eness o Wa son and C ick; 2) he lack o
e hics o Wa son and C ick o using F anklin's da a wi hou p io consen ; and 3) di icul ies
ha con on ed F anklin [in he scien i ic esea ch] due o being a woman." (G4, Le el 4)
Once he in e media e phase o whole class sha ing and discussion had concluded, six g oups
showed some p og ession in hei inal esponses. The mos ou s anding p og essions we e
hose achie ed by G1 and G5 who wen om Le el 0 o Le el 3 in signi ican ly imp o ing
hei ini ial a gumen s. Fo example, G5 achie ed his wi h he ollowing esponse:
"- Epis emic ac o s: […] Wa son and C ick did no pu sue he same objec i e. Rosalind only
based he sel on " he pho o" [Pho og aph 51]; howe e , he o he s [Wa son and C ick]
in es iga ed o he aspec s om ha pho o. Rosalind was mo e c ea i e and imp o ed he own
c ys allog aphic analysis p ocesses. […]
20
- Non-epis emic ac o s: Gi en he condi ion o woman [F anklin], he esea ch was no gi en
he same impo ance, and she ecei ed li le help unlike Wa son and C ick who used he
esea ch no o complemen he s bu o hem o enjoy he me i , and he e was an absolu e lack
o e hics. Also, hey had a be e ela ionship [ han F anklin and Wilkins]." (G5)
G oups G9 and G10 also imp o ed hei unde s anding, going om a low le el (Le el 1) o
a high le el (Le el 3) by adding o hei espec i e esponses he ci a ion o an epis emic
obs acle o F anklin's esea ch. G10 explained i in he ollowing way:
"- Epis emic: F anklin ocused on ge ing he bes pic u e [o he supposed s uc u e o DNA],
bu i was Wa son and C ick who knew how o in e p e i and gi e i meaning. They we e
c ea i e and able o ake hei own s udies and join hem wi h da a om o he s udies o each
hei objec i e. […] C ea i i y is key in scien i ic s udies, ha ing ideas, es s o ca y i ou .
- Non-epis emic: F anklin's bad ela ionship wi h he pa ne Wilkins, as he conside ed he o
be an assis an who helped him in his esea ch and no as a wo k colleague, because she was a
woman, despi e he scien i ic ecogni ion. The e o e, he e was a lo o compe i ion be ween
hem and hey did no wo k well as a eam. Wa son and C ick we e able o a gue wi h each
o he cons uc i ely o expand hei knowledge, ideas, and be able o in eg a e hem all. Tha
F anklin was a woman also had an in luence, and a ha ime she was no so well ecognized.
The e was a g ea lack o e hics, and hen in he 1990s hey we e o ced o ecognize F anklin's
undamen al wo k." (G10)
Also, wo h no ing is he p og ession o G7 om an in e media e le el (Le el 2) o he
highes le el (Le el 4). As shown abo e, his g oup only alluded o wo non-epis emic obs acles
in hei ini ial esponse, bu a he end o he ac i i y hey inco po a ed in o hei a gumen s a
non-epis emic obs acle (Wa son and C ick's lack o e hics) and h ee epis emic obs acles
(di e en esea ch objec i es, and di e en me hods, and Wa son and C ick's g ea e c ea i i y
in ela ing da a):
"- Non-epis emic: (i) Tha Rosalind F anklin was a woman and he e o e she was no aken
se iously. She did no ha e so much help, so i was no ecognized ha much o wha she had
done was good and was helping o each an end. She did no ge on wi h he pa ne [Wilkins],
so hey did no wo k [well] as a eam. […] (ii) Wa son and C ick's lack o e hics, because she
was helping hem, while hey we e aking and using he in o ma ion wi hou he knowledge.
- Epis emic: (i) [F anklin] ocused oo much on ge ing o know he s uc u e o DNA ia only
one pa h and lea ing un ouched a lo o use ul in o ma ion. F anklin was oo de ailed and
ca e ul, so she paid a en ion o e e y de ail, e en i i was e y small, which made he ake
mo e ime […]. (ii) The wo eams did no ha e he same objec i es. (iii) […] Wa son and C ick
we e c ea i e because hey knew how o use in o ma ion om a ious people and places in
o de o achie e hei objec i es. So we can e i y ha wi hou c ea i i y no hing is achie ed."
(G7)
21
Figu e 5. Epis emic and non-epis emic ac o s ci ed in he g oups' esponses o Q4
An analysis was also made o he numbe o epis emic and non-epis emic ac o s ha we e
alluded o by he g oups in hei esponses, and he p og ession o hese allusions om he ini ial
o he inal phases o he ac i i y. The esul s a e de ailed in Figu e 5. As can be seen, he
epis emic ac o ela ed o he in luence o he scien is s' backg ound o specializa ion in he
de elopmen o hei esea ch was no men ioned in any o he g oups' esponses. Re e ences
o he di e en epis emic and non-epis emic ac o s, excep ha conce ning Wa son and C ick's
compe i i e na u e, inc eased h oughou he ac i i y. In his ega d, he allusions o non-
epis emic ac o s we e, om he beginning, a mo e nume ous han hose o epis emic ac o s
– speci ically, hey we e wice as equen : 14 e sus 7 in he ini ial esponses, and 26 e sus
13 in he inal esponses. The g ea es inc ease in hese e e ences co esponded o wo non-
epis emic ac o s: Wa son and C ick's lack o e hics, and he p o essional ensions be ween
F anklin and Wilkins. This las ac o , oge he wi h F anklin's di icul ies in he esea ch due
o being a woman, we e he wo mos ci ed ac o s in he g oups' esponses igh om he
beginning o he ac i i y.
Wi h espec o he epis emic ac o s, he mos ci ed om he beginning o he ac i i y we e
he in luence o di e en esea ch me hods, and Wa son and C ick's c ea i i y as being
de e minan s o hese las wo wo ke s o each he goal o he esea ch be o e F anklin.
DISCUSSION
Acco ding o he esul s, and om an o e all pe spec i e, i can be said ha a c i ical and
e lec i e eading o he his o ical case on he elucida ion o he molecula s uc u e o DNA
signi ican ly helped he PETs o exp ess and imp o e hei concep ions abou he aspec s o
NOS discussed in he ac i i y. This is consis en wi h he indings o o he s udies ha also
used HOS o lea n and each abou NOS (e.g., Adú iz-B a o & Izquie do, 2009; Ga cía-
Ca mona & Ace edo, 2017; Rudge & Howe, 2009).

22
Rega ding he i s esea ch ques ion, he ini ial phase o he ac i i y allowed us o de e mine
he PETs' ini ial ideas abou he aspec s o NOS ha we e deal wi h, and he quali y o hei
a gumen s in de ence o such ideas. Thus, a he beginning i was ound ha a ound a qua e
o he PETs conside ed ha he e is a s anda d o uni e sal esea ch me hod which all scien is s
use o hei esea ch. This he e o e was an example o an inadequa e concep ion coming o
ligh , one deeply oo ed in bo h science eache s and hei s uden s (Lede man, 2007). Bu also
no able in his i s phase was he di icul y ha a conside able p opo ion o he PETs had in
a guing ha scien is s usually apply a a ie y o me hods du ing hei esea ch. In acco dance
wi h he indings o Jus i & Mendonça (2016), his migh be due o he ac ha , a e he i s
eading, he PETs did no unde s and he con en o he con o e sy wi h espec o ha aspec .
This would no be su p ising conside ing he PETs' spa se scien i ic backg ound, as was
desc ibed abo e.
Wi h i s i s eading, he na a i e o his his o ical case was e ec i e o he g ea majo i y
o he PETs o become awa e ha di e en esea ch objec i es o en lead o di e en me hods
o app oaches o ha esea ch. This e ec i eness o a his o ical na a i e in imp o ing
unde s anding o his non-epis emic aspec o NOS has also been con i med in s udies wi h bo h
s uden s and p ospec i e science eache s o Seconda y Educa ion (Ace edo-Díaz e al., 2017).
I should be men ioned ha his is an aspec o NOS ha has sca cely a all been analysed in he
li e a u e. The au ho o his s udy conside s, howe e , a en ion o i in eaching NOS is
impo an no only because i is a basic aspec o NOS, bu also because i s e lec i e analysis,
oge he wi h he app op ia e eedback and sca olding, can help p og ess owa ds he
abandonmen o he idea ha he e is a unique and uni e sal scien i ic me hod.
Rega ding he unde s anding ha PETs ha e abou he na u e o scien i ic models, he
analysis ca ied ou is also ela i ely no el. S uden s' and eache s' concep ions abou he
meaning and ole o models in science ha e usually been diagnosed h ough es s consis ing o
gene ic and de-con ex ualized ques ions (e.g., Lin, 2014; T eagus e al., 2002). Ins ead, he
ocus in he p esen s udy was on e lec ion abou a speci ic scien i ic model – ha de eloped
by Wa son and C ick o DNA. The in en ion was o he PETs o be able o comp ehensi ely
iden i y in he his o ical accoun he cha ac e is ics o his model ha we e mos ele an o i s
accep ance by he scien i ic communi y. In he ini ial esponses, mos o he PETs indeed
e e ed o some cha ac e is ic ea u e o Wa son and C ick's model, bu ew e e ed o a ious
o hese ea u es in he same esponse (e.g., he explana o y and p edic i e powe o he model,
i s i o he a ailable empi ical da a, e c.). The e o e, he ini ial discussion o he ques ion
ela ed o scien i ic models ound ha , a he han inapp op ia e concep ions, he PETs had
incomple e o poo ly a gued concep ions abou he cha ac e is ics ha a model mus ha e o be
accep ed by he scien i ic communi y.
In ela ion o he iden i ica ion o epis emic and non-epis emic obs acles ha could ha e
in e e ed in F anklin's esea ch, a he beginning, hal o he PET g oups ei he e e ed o jus
a small numbe o obs acles o hese obs acles we e p esen ed wi h poo o inapp op ia e
a gumen s. A simila di icul y had been ound by A agón-Méndez e al. (2019) in p oposing
o p ospec i e seconda y school science eache s ha , in a na a i e o he his o ical case o
Semmelweis and pue pe al e e , hey migh iden i y he epis emic and non-epis emic obs acles
ha his scien is aced o his hypo hesis o be accep ed. Pe haps his is a consequence o he
23
p ospec i e eache s no being used o analysing aspec s o NOS, and e en less o discussing
hem, e en i hey ha e a su icien scien i ic backg ound (Jus i & Mendonça, 2016).
Also, in he g oups' ini ial esponses, e e ences o non-epis emic ac o s exceeded hose o
epis emic ac o s. The non-epis emic aspec mos ci ed was ha e e ing o he di icul ies ha
F anklin had because o being a woman a a ime when women had li le isibili y in science
compa ed o men. Howe e , in some cases his was done wi h a gumen s ha we e oo d as ic
(e.g., "a ha ime, no scien i ic woman was aken in o accoun in esea ch s udies"). Possibly
his was because he PETs we e in e p e ing a pas e en wi h he c i e ia o oday; i.e., a whig
iew o HOS (Allchin, 2004).
Rega ding he epis emic obs acles, he one mos ci ed in he ini ial esponses was ha he
use o a di e en me hod by each esea ch eam was decisi e o one o hem (Wa son and
C ick) o be able o deciphe he s uc u e o DNA be o e he o he (F anklin and Wilkins).
Howe e , e en his was alluded o in only a small po ion o he esponses. This is
unde s andable om he esul s o he i s ques ion which showed he ini ial di icul ies he
PETs had in accep ing and/o a guing well o he plu ali y o me hods in scien i ic esea ch.
One g oup iden i ied he modeling and es ing p ocess ha Wa son and C ick ollowed wi h a
p ocedu e based on ial and e o . This ype o nai e concep ion was also obse ed in ano he
s udy on he unde s anding o aspec s o NOS using HOS (Ga cía-Ca mona & Ace edo, 2017).
Wi h espec o he second esea ch ques ion, i s ands ou ha , a e he whole class session
o sha ing and discussion, he concep ions and a gumen s abou he aspec s o NOS deal wi h
imp o ed o some deg ee in mos g oups. The cla i ica ions in oduced, he discussions among
he g oups o achie e ag eemen s ega ding he NOS issues analysed as well as he auxilia y
ques ions, which a e asked by he educa o o gene a e cogni i e con lic when PETs exp essed
incomple e o limi ed ideas, we e c ucial in his imp o emen . As in o he simila s udies (e.g.,
Ga cía-Ca mona & Ace edo, 2017; A agón-Méndez e al., 2019; Williams & Rudge, 2016),
his he e o e e eals he impo ance o he eedback ecei ed om he o he g oups and he
educa o in en iching each g oup's own a gumen s. A he end o he ac i i y, abou h ee-
qua e s o he g oups esponded o all he ques ions wi h s a emen s ha we e ca ego ized a
he highes le els in acco dance wi h he e alua ion ub ic used. In his las phase, no g oup
exp essed he idea ha he e is a unique and uni e sal scien i ic me hod, and mos o hem
s a ed wi h app op ia e a gumen s ha he same esea ch p oblem could be app oached using
di e en me hods. Also, one o he mos equen ly ci ed epis emic aspec s was how he ac
ha F anklin used a di e en esea ch me hod om ha o Wa son and C ick could ha e
condi ioned he no elucida ing he s uc u e o DNA be o e hem.
A he end o he ac i i y, mos o he g oups o PETs had also imp o ed hei unde s anding
o Wa son and C ick's model as exp essed in hei iche a gumen s conce ning he ele an
cha ac e is ics o he model. A ecen s udy by Gogolin and K üge (2018) showed ha
s uden s' unde s anding o he na u e o scien i ic models depends on he speci ic con ex s in
which hey a e in oduced in class. An essen ial ask o science eache s should he e o e be
o ocus on choosing he mos app op ia e con ex s o hei s uden s o imp o e hei
unde s anding o he na u e o models. In his sense, one can say ha he ac i i y analysed in
24
he p esen s udy used a con ex ( he elucida ion o he molecula s uc u e o DNA) ha is
e ec i e o lea ning abou he na u e o scien i ic models.
Simila ly, i is wo h no ing ha he PETs ended up becoming awa e o a g ea e numbe o
epis emic and non-epis emic ac o s ha could ha e hinde ed F anklin's esea ch om
achie ing he objec i e o elucida ing he s uc u e o DNA. None heless, he iden i ica ion o
non-epis emic ac o s con inued o be mani es ly mo e equen han ha o epis emic ac o s.
The wo non-epis emic aspec s mos ci ed a he end, and wi h some di e ence om he o he s,
con inued o be F anklin's di icul y due o he being a woman, and he ensions be ween
F anklin and Wilkins in wo king oge he . The e o e, i can be said ha he eading and
discussion o he his o ical na a i e was e ec i e o e lec ion on he gende bias ha usually
exis s when ecoun ing how science has been cons uc ed h oughou his o y (Adú iz-B a o &
Izquie do, 2009).
In gene al, in hei e lec ions he PETs ga e g ea impo ance o he in luence o non-
epis emic ac o s in he scien i ic esea ch ha was being analysed. This should make educa o s
who unde alue he inclusion o non-epis emic as agains epis emic aspec s in hei eaching o
NOS e lec se iously on he ela i e alue hey gi e o he wo.
Limi a ions o he s udy and pe spec i es
As jus no ed abo e, he esul s o he s udy we e in gene al qui e sa is ac o y. Howe e , he
ac ha hey we e ob ained h ough a sho - e m in e en ion sugges s ques ioning he ex en
o which he le els o unde s anding achie ed by he PETs e lec s a meaning ul assimila ion
o he aspec s o NOS ha we e deal wi h. In his sense, i would ha e been in e es ing i , a e
some ime, he PETs e u ned o e lec ing abou hese aspec s o NOS, e.g., in he con ex o
ano he case o HOS o o con empo a y science. Howe e , he ac i i y was implemen ed
wi hin he eal possibili ies and ci cums ances ha exis ed o eaching ime and p og amming.
E en so, i should be no ed ha longe eaching in e en ions aimed a lea ning abou NOS
using HOS (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lede man, 2000) ha e no been shown o be much mo e
e ec i e han he p esen one. This is pe haps because "e alua ing cou se leng h in e en ions
may in oduce noise ha masks he e ec s o his o ical ins uc ional app oaches" (Williams &
Rudge, 2014, p. 442). Consequen ly, he au ho o his s udy ag ees wi h Rudge e al. (2014)
ha a sho eaching in e en ion, such as he one analysed he e, which akes place unde no mal
class condi ions can be qui e e ec i e in ge ing some imp o emen in he s uden s'
unde s anding o NOS.
Ano he possible limi a ion o he s udy is ela ed o he ac ha he esponses o he NOS
ques ions we e elabo a ed as a g oup. In his ega d, one migh ask, o example, whe he he
esponses o each g oup eally ep esen ed he opinion o each and e e y membe o he g oup,
o a he p e alen ly hose o he membe o he g oup wi h he g ea es capaci y o dialec ics
o con ic ion. Be ha as i may, he b oad expe ience o he educa o in p omo ing e lexi e
discussions in small g oups o he en i e class o lea n abou and diagnose ideas abou NOS
(e.g., Ga cía-Ca mona & Ace edo, 2016, 2017) was essen ial in o de o minimize his possible
limi a ion. As was ad anced abo e, and in line wi h he app oach o Soh e al. (2018), he
educa o p o ided encou agemen o all he g oups, insis en ly and wi h he app op ia e
25
sca olding, so ha hei esponses should eme ge om discussion and consensus among all he
membe s. They we e also assu ed ha , when consensus was impossible, hei di e en opinions
we e o be exp essed in he g oup's esponse (al hough his did no ac ually occu in any case
in he p esen ac i i y).
Rega ding he in e media e phase o he ac i i y (i.e., whole class discussion o he g oups'
ini ial esponses), al hough his was key o imp o e he PETs’ ideas abou he NOS aspec s deal
wi h, i was indi ec ly analysed in his s udy. The e o e, in o de o deepen on how his phase
speci ically con ibu es in such imp o emen , he discussions among he PETs du ing he whole
class session should also be analysed in nex implemen a ions o he ac i i y.
In addi ion, as was men ioned in Me hods, he ac ha he s udy was ca ied ou wi h a
con enience sample p e en s he p esen esul s and conclusions being conside ed as
ans e able o he en i e popula ion o Spanish o any o he PETs. None heless, in ag eemen
wi h Ellio (2000), hese esul s and conclusions can be conside ed as cons i u ing an impo an
sou ce o e lec ion and guidance o o he s udies ha may be planned in simila con ex s and
ci cums ances.
Ha ing said all his, as a summa y i can be said he ac i i y p esen ed cons i u es a sui able
and e ec i e esou ce o lea n abou some basic aspec s o NOS in ini ial elemen a y eache
educa ion. In ac , he ac i i y is easily adap able o usual class condi ions (2-3 class sessions
a e only necessa y o i s implemen a ion), and i allows he educa o (a) o diagnose he PETs’
NOS ideas in he con ex o a speci ic HOS case, (b) o p omo e among he PETs a c i ical and
e lec i e discussion on NOS aspec s, and (c) o assess lea ning p og essions on he PETs’
unde s anding o NOS om an in e p e a i e app oach h ough an assessmen ub ic designed
speci ically o his.
Finally, i is impo an o no e ha his s udy only ocused on in es iga ing how he c i ical
and e lec i e analysis o a HOS case can help imp o e he PETs’ unde s anding abou some
aspec s o NOS. In his way, he PETs we e simply conside ed as s uden s ha we e lea ning
abou NOS in he con ex o a pa icula case o HOS. Howe e , educa ional expe iences such
as his migh also encou age PETs o ake an in e es in NOS, and he e o e o awa d i a
compa able s a us o mo e con en ional con en o he school science cu iculum. In addi ion,
i can be use ul o PETs o ge o know an educa ional esou ce wi h which o add ess NOS
aspec s in hei own science classes. Ne e heless, all hese issues should be analysed in dep h
in nex s udies.
Acknowledgmen s
The au ho would like o hank his colleague and iend José An onio Ace edo-Díaz o his
collabo a ion in he analysis o he da a in his s udy.
Funding In o ma ion
This s udy was suppo ed by he Minis y o Economy, Indus y and Compe i i eness
(Go e nmen o Spain) unde g an EDU2017-82505-P.