Naïve and informed views on the nature of scientific inquiry in large-scale assessments: Two sides of the same coin or different currencies?

Many models in the field of epistemic cognition conceptualize students' views as being on a continuum between the poles of naïve and informed views. Against this background, the aim of the present study was to find out whether views on the nature of scientific inquiry (NOSI views) should be conceptualized and quantitatively assessed in a more multiplistic manner, considering naïve and informed views in their own, separate dimensions. Based on a competence model defining three inquiry methods, we developed a Likert-scaled questionnaire containing 10 scales, each assessing one NOSI view. We administered the questionnaire to a sample of 802 students in the lower and upper levels of secondary school. Based on structural equation modeling, the analyses confirmed a 10-dimensional model, distinguishing between each naïve and informed views as the only adequate representation of the data. Latent class analysis and interview data revealed four profiles of NOSI views in the data, which differed with regard to their agreement or disagreement with different naïve and informed views. We interpret these findings as evidence that supports more multiplistic models, with relevance to conceptualizing, measuring, and fostering NOSI views. We derive future directions of nature of science and NOSI research linking basic and applied research using experimental studies.