INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The objectives in teaching science are guided by social demands within specific contexts (^{Carvalho, 2013}). Thus, the fact that scientific and technological questions are more and more present in our society has pointed out the importance of students learning about the processes of construction, divulgation and legitimation underlying the production of scientific knowledge.

In the last decades, numerous researchers (for example, ^{Moura, Camel, & Guerra, 2020}; ^{Osborne & Dillon, 2010}) have emphasized the need for including discussions on the nature of science (NoS) ¹ in the science teaching area, that is, for introducing discussions on the forms of production of scientific knowledge, the way scientists work and the relationships between society and science. Students are thus expected to be able to learn about science in such a way that their capacity to think critically about social matters that run through science is mobilized and/or developed (^{Allchin, 2013}).

Considering this, we point out that the discussion about NoS in class is conditioned to the teachers’ knowledge about science, since teachers cannot teach something that they do not know (^{Shulman, 1986}). Researchers who have investigated views about science in teachers (for example, ^{Guerra-Ramos, 2012}; ^{Hanuscin, 2013}; ^{Lederman, 2007}) pointed out that many teachers have inadequate views.

^{Guerra-Ramos (2012}), for example, identifies teachers’ points of view and discusses the impact they have on the way they plan and conduct their teaching. The author highlights the fact that teachers conceive science as being linear, universal and detached from theoretical conceptions and interpretations, that, for them, science teaching is based on simple procedures and directions of construction of knowledge, independent of the objective of the investigation and the major area of study. As a result, the teachers end up contributing to the students’ non-theoretical and linear view of science (^{Gil Pérez, Montoro, Alis, Cachapuz, & Praia, 2001}).

We emphasize that in many cases the teachers’ inadequate views about science result in difficulty in teaching science in a more authentic way, that is, involving various scientific practices, opportunities to evaluate the colleagues’ ideas critically, etc. (^{Osborne & Dillon, 2010}). However, during initial teacher training, in general, there are few opportunities for pre-service teachers to participate in discussions on the NoS, to learn scientific concepts from their contexts of production, among other actions that make it possible to learn about science (^{Justi & Mendonça, 2016}; ^{Marques, 2015}). Thus, when these teachers graduate, they tend to reproduce the model of teaching science they experienced.

Considering the need to include discussion about science in teacher training courses, some authors have adopted a line of teaching based on the list of principles of the NoS (for example, ^{Hanuscin, Akerson, & Phillipson-Mower, 2016}), which has been largely divulged by ^{Lederman and collaborators (Lederman, 2007}; ^{Lederman, Abd-Al-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002}). Thus, such studies have focused only on the teachers’ ideas related to the principles made explicit in the list, namely: scientific knowledge is provisional, has an empirical character, is driven by theories, is a product of human inference, creativity and imagination, and is influenced by the cultural and social context, there are differences between observation and inference and between scientific theories and laws.

This view of teaching based on lists of principles has been criticized, for example, for not considering the existence and the particularities of various sciences (^{Irzik & Nola, 2011}; ^{Matthews, 2012}) and for contributing little to the understanding of issues present in society involving science (^{Allchin, 2011}, ²⁰¹³).

Betting on an alternative approach to lists of principles, researchers (for example, ^{Allchin, 2013}; ^{Erduran & Dagher, 2014}; ^{Justi & Erduran, 2015}; ^{Matthews, 2012}) have supported that teaching the NoS should not be declarative, but rather contextualized and integrated, respecting the complexity of scientific activities, or based on similar characteristics between (for example, ^{Erduran & Dagher, 2014}).

To this end, ^{Allchin, Anderson and Nielsen (2014}) recommend working with investigative activities and contemporary and/or historical case studies. In this study, we focus on historical cases because the study presented was conducted within the history of chemistry (HC) course. According to ^{Allchin (2013)}, historical cases are those that involve the students engaging in historical issues. These topics must be analyzed not from knowledge available today, but under the light of knowledge that was accepted in the historical context relevant to the issue analyzed in order to understand how ideas have evolved over time.

The introduction of elements related to the history of science in the teaching of science has been reported in various studies in the literature (for example, ^{Allchin et al., 2014}; ^{Justi & Mendonça, 2016}; ^{Martins, 2006}; ^{Oki & Moradillo, 2008}). In general, the authors indicate that the introduction of the history of science may: (i) contribute to understanding how ideas develop over time, (ii) enable discussing on how data are understood and theories are formulated, (iii) contribute to understanding how scientific controversies are solved, (iv) favor discussions on the influences of social contexts in the scientific environment, and (v) allow discussions on the role of women in the development of science. Thus, these discussions my contribute to students building a broader view about science, learning not only about its products, scientific knowledge, but also about its process of construction, divulgation and legitimization (^{Matthews, 2012}).

In order to contribute to discussions about NoS in teacher training courses and to promote discussions on advancing teachers’ knowledge of NoS in initial teacher training, the contributions of the history of chemistry teaching-learning context and about how to analyze ideas about science expressed in the teaching context, we seek to answer: What aspects related to the nature of science are expressed by a pre-service chemistry teacher during a course on the history of chemistry? How are aspects related to the Nature of Science expressed by a pre-service chemistry teacher based on the history of chemistry teaching-learning context?

METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

This study adopts the principles of qualitative research (^{Merriam, 1988}) because we are concerned with understanding aspects expressed by means of reflection, questioning, critical assessment and others. Furthermore, our results are expressed through descriptions and citations of data collected in the research environment: a class made up of 27² pre-service chemistry teachers (PSCT) enrolled in the history of chemistry course.

Specifically, we conducted a case study (^{Yin, 2001}) since we investigated the portfolio of Ana³, one of the PSCT in that class. Therefore, this study is limited for the time being and allowed the identification of what aspects of the NoS stand out and are characteristic in Ana’s portfolio and how she expresses these aspects. We have chosen to analyze Ana’s portfolio because she demonstrated commitment to the quality of her work and participated actively in class discussions. Additionally, in other moments of her initial training, she took courses that discussed the teaching of chemistry, such as chemistry teaching practice, chemistry didactics and fundamentals of the teaching of chemistry.

DATA COLLECTION CONTEXT

This study is part of a broader research project with the goal of analyzing views about science of pre-service teachers in the HC teaching-learning context.

Data were collected in the first semester of 2019 in 100-min classes held once a week in the history of chemistry course at a public federal university. In general, the course dealt with discussions of elements related to the HC, making explicit aspects such as experimental procedures; trial and error processes related to the production of scientific knowledge; the role of women in science; reflections on scientific-technological contributions; the recognition of the role of the researchers involved and the relationship of science with society, culture, economy and politics. In this way, the PSCT had opportunities to reflect on how scientific knowledge developed in specific historical moments and the influences of other contexts (for example, culture, economy and politics) on scientific production. Additionally, discussions were conducted on how to work with the HC in elementary education.

On that occasion, the principal author of this paper worked as a course monitor and participated in all face-to-face meetings and made field observation notes. We also collected Ana’s portfolio. Specifically, the portfolio was built up by participating in eight activities relative to elements related to the HC discussed in class and the reading material made available by the teacher trainer. In general, in each activity, the PSCT should present and justify which elements of the previous class and of the texts they considered important and present their reflections, questions and criticisms relative to their understanding of science. Figure 1 presents the elements related to the HC, core materials, which should be consulted by pre-service teachers and complementary materials - texts or videos provided by the teacher that would be consulted depending on the students’ interest.

Figura 1. Elements related to the history of chemistry discussed in class and materials used during the history of chemistry course. 

Theoretical and Methodological References

The data analysis tool used was the second version of the MoSSE v.2 (Model of Science for Science Education proposed by ^{Santos, Maia and Justi (2020}). In general lines, MoSSE v.2 allows a holistic view of science and makes it easy to articulate aspects of the NoS, given that it considers science as being broad, made up of complex activities and may be analyzed from various areas of knowledge.

MoSSE v.2 covers different areas of knowledge, such as: (i) Philosophy of Science (PhS), which investigates what science is and its importance; (ii) Psychology of Science (PS), which seeks to understand the scientist’s behavior and mental processes; (iii) Anthropology of Science (AS), which deals with the study of the relationship of human beings with scientific knowledge; (iv) Sociology of Science (SS), which studies Science as a social practice; (v) Economics of Science (ES), which investigates the transformation of scientific knowledge as a commercial product; and (vi) History of Science (HS), which studies the transformations of scientific ideas and their production over time. The NoS aspects related to each of the areas mentioned, as well as a description of each one is given in Figure 2.

Figura 2  Characterization of the NoS aspects related to the areas of knowledge adapted from ^{Santos, Maia and Justi (2020}, p. 595-601) ^4;5 (continued) 

Figura 2 Ccntinuation ^6;7  

Figura 2 Ccntinuation 

The aspects of the NoS related to each of these areas of knowledge can be used as well-defined categories in the analysis of the data collected in teaching contexts with the objective of investigating the view of science in individuals involved in such contexts. For this reason and considering their amplitude, we have chosen to use MoSSE v.2 as a data analysis tool.

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Using the characterizations of the aspects of the NoS defined in MoSSE v.2, we identified signs of expression of aspects of the NoS in Ana’s portfolio related to each of the areas of knowledge. When the same aspect was identified at different moments of an activity in the PSCT’s presentation, we considered it a repetition of the idea and classified it only once. We point out that we made triangulation of evaluators (^{Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011}), that is, analysis was performed independently by the authors and the results were compared and discussed later until an agreement was reached.

Based on this analysis, we indicated the aspects the PSCT expressed more frequently during the course or in the same activity, as well as the relationships between the context of the activity and the expression of certain aspects.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All the NoS aspects identified in Ana’s portfolio are indicated in Figure 3. The first two columns give the areas of knowledge and the NoS aspects related to each area, respectively. The other columns give the number of times each aspect related to the eight activities (A1 to A8) was expressed. The last column gives the summation (∑) of the number of times each aspect in the portfolio was expressed. Finally, we point out that the blanks indicate that the aspect was not expressed in the activities.

Considering the scope of this paper, only the results for the aspects expressed by Ana with a great frequency (in bold) are discussed, namely: (i) those identified in the records of four or more activities; and (ii) those identified more than once in the records of the same activity and which we considered to be more significant to her. In relation to the areas of Anthropology and Economics of Science, although these aspects were not expressed frequently, we discussed the most frequent one in the records to give the reader an idea of how aspects in these areas can be expressed.

Figura 3 Aspects related to the areas of knowledge identified in Ana’s portfolio records. 

Relative to the Philosophy of Science, Ana expressed the epistemology aspect in the records of the activities present in her portfolio (Figure 3) and, during the course, this aspect was the most frequently identified in the expression of her ideas. We observed a greater occurrence of this aspect in A7, based on Ana’s reflections on the construction of scientific knowledge as a whole and the importance of understanding this process as a teacher, as shown in the excerpt below:

I think it is very important for us future teachers to be able to understand how the process of evolution and construction of science takes place, because if we are not familiar with it, we will pass on an incorrect idea of science and we will not succeed in explaining the humanity of this science constructed by human beings who are often considered uncommon. (ANA, A7, our emphasis)

Besides reflecting on the nature of scientific knowledge, Ana also emphasizes its importance for teachers, pointing out that a lack of knowledge of the NoS may result in inadequate teaching of science. This note is echoed in the literature on the importance of training of teachers of Science closer to the reality (for example, ^{Justi & Mendonça, 2016}; ^{Martins, 2006}; ^{Oki & Moradillo, 2008}). Thus, she seems to value this knowledge in the teaching of science, contrary to the view that they are less important than the scientific concepts, a view shared by many teachers (^{Maurines & Beaufils, 2012}).

Based on the field notes, in one of the last classes of the course, when the historical case of scientist Marie Curie was discussed, we identified that Ana stated that: “Things from the first semester is making sense now because now I understand how science is made”. This note is evidence that at the end of the course Ana had a broader view about science and that, as a result, she made more records on reflections on the limitations and reach of scientific knowledge, which may explain the greater frequency of the epistemology aspect. Additionally, Ana seemed to acknowledge the deficiencies in her training in terms of the distancing of learning about scientific concepts and the context of production of these concepts, corroborating the limitations in teacher training found in the literature (for example, ^{Justi & Mendonça, 2016}; ^{Martins, 2006}; ^{Oki & Moradillo, 2008}).

Regarding the NoS aspects related to the area of Psychology of Science, many of them, nine out of 13, were identified in nearly all activities, except for A3 and A8 (Figure 3). In the records from A6 and A7, we characterized the aspect of motivational influence when, for example, Ana acknowledged the motivations of scientist Marie Curie when she reported that Mrs. Marie Curie continued her work despite all difficulties. “Marie Curie was courageous and intelligent. She remained strong in the face of all difficulties and achieved her objectives” (A6). In A7 Ana looked back at Marie Curie’s intrinsic motivations and pointed out that the extrinsic motivations derived from the support given by Pierre Curie, her husband, and pointed out that his support was fundamental for her achievements, considering that he made a point of acknowledging his wife’s work. Thus, Ana recognized the personal motivation of scientists in the production of scientific knowledge and the continuity of their work. Additionally, she pointed out that the contribution of external motivation for scientists to remain on the path of research, giving signs that she does not see scientists as “geniuses” or “individuals who work in isolation”, a view about science that is recurrent among teachers and students (^{Bomfim, Reis, & Guerra, 2016}; ^{Gil Pérez et al., 2001}; ^{Guerra-Ramos, 2012}).

The limitation aspect appears twice in A6. First, Ana discussed the precarity of Marie Curie’s working conditions, acknowledging that it made the scientist’s production difficult, but did not prevent her from conducting her investigations:

The working conditions in which she conducted her experiments were precarious. Her laboratory was “adapted”. It was a room with glass-pane windows that the director of the School of Physics where Pierre worked allowed her to use. Some time later, they started working in a hangar lent to them. It had nothing to regulate the temperature; it was very hot in the summer and the temperature fell drastically in the winter, and it hardly provided shelter from the rain. Despite these conditions, she continued to work hard. (ANA, A6).

Later she reflected on the difficulties related to the fact of her being a woman in an environment dominated by men, pointing out that for the scientist to have her work acknowledged she needed to make an effort greater than other scientists of her time did. As shown in Figure 3, the personality aspect was expressed by Ana in four activities (A4 to A7). In A4 and A5, we observe the overlapping of the aspects intelligence and non-linearity of thought. Ana expressed the personality aspect when she discussed how the characteristics of Thomson and Marie Curie contributed for them to make choices that determined the process of production of knowledge. For example, in A4, she pointed out that the way Mr. Thomson related to knowledge was a determinant for him to develop his studies on the atomic theory:

During his investigation of atomic models, Thomson did not stop; he always read and included new theoretical trends of the time in his work and accepted new ideas pacifically. This greatly helps the evolution of science. (ANA, A4).

For Ana, the scientist’s personality traits such as being open to new ideas and eager for knowledge resulted in intelligent choices in the production of knowledge on the structure of matter. In this very excerpt, Ana also expressed the aspect of non-linearity of thought when she reflected on how Thomson’s personality contributed for him to include new ideas in his studies and think over his propositions.

Still in the area of Psychology of Science, we observe the expression of the subjectivity aspect in the records from the first activities (A1 and A2), when Ana assumed that the scientists’ theoretical conceptions influenced the production of scientific knowledge. This was identified when she commented on the work by Paracelsus, for example:

[...] Paracelsus managed to link religion to ‘science’ when he said that the creation of the universe could be seen as an alchemical process of separation and from this, the following processes should be understood in a ‘chemical” manner. [...] The relationship with belief still has strong links to the explanations of the studied phenomena, even if laboratory tests are carried out, it is not possible to understand natural phenomena “rationally” and independently as yet. (ANA, A2).

In this excerpt, Ana acknowledged that Paracelsus’ association with religion limited his way of constructing scientific knowledge and pointed out that this type of relationship is still present in conceptions of contemporary scientists. In this way, based on this episode of the HC, and the studies of iatrochemistry, she presented reflections on the contemporary process of production of scientific knowledge, pointing out that this process does not follow empirical-inductive logic (^{Gil Pérez et al., 2001}).

Considering the area of Anthropology of Science, the aspect cultural influence was observed at two moments, A1 and A4. In the core material and the class related to A1, various forms of thinking about matter in pre-history and in antiquity were discussed. From that, Ana pointed out that:

All theories are related to the historical context where each ‘philosopher’ lives and this shows that the construction of knowledge and the explanation of phenomena are directly connected to the culture and the society the thinker belongs to. (ANA, A1, our emphasis).

We can see that Ana realized that the way of thinking about matter is related to the culture of the time where this knowledge was constructed. This excerpt also brought to light aspects of sociopolitical influence (SS) and historical influence (HS).

Regarding the Sociology of Science, the aspects credibility, sociopolitical influence and interaction among scientists were the most frequent in Ana’s records.

We identified the expression of the aspect of credibility in the records from A4 to A6 (Figure 3). For instance, in records from A5 and A6, Ana presented discussions on the acknowledgement of Becquerel’s work related to the “discovery” of radioactivity. In both, she pointed out that Becquerel’s work was not sufficient to conclude that he had “discovered” radioactivity, because although he had been the first to observe the phenomenon, he failed to interpret it. She also pointed out that Marie Curie contributed more significantly to the understanding of this phenomenon but had greater difficulty to have her contributions acknowledged because of her being a female scientist at a time when women hardly had any, or no space in society. At the end of the records from A6, Ana attributed Becquerel’s ease to have his work accepted due to the fact that he belonged to a family influent in scientific circles.

The case of the discovery of radioactivity is close to that of the discovery of oxygen. Because Becquerel and Lavoisier were both very influent in the scientific community and in society itself for political reasons, they won major awards in science. The difference is that Lavoisier deserved the award for all the contributions that he had made. In contrast, Becquerel won an award, although he did not explain the phenomenon that he had observed and had simply “paraphrased” studies published earlier. It is evident that this happened because he belonged to a family of scientists and that his father and grandfather had been great scientists, for which reason he was rather influential in the scientific community. Even though Marie Curie’s contributions to radioactivity were much more decisive, she needed to justify herself and fight to deserve a [Nobel] prize. [...] The study of this historical event led me to reflect on all the fights Marie Curie had to put up for us [women] to have a greater space in the scientific community today. It is clear that even today science is still dominated by males. However, the space has become broader and more ‘egalitarian’.⁸ (ANA, A6).

In this case, Ana pointed out the difficulties Marie Curie had to face to develop her work and conquer her space in the academic world. We found her thoughts to fit the credibility aspect because she discusses the impact of the lack of status of the scientist in the academic community of the time more emphatically, even though she related it to the cultural and social context of the time. She also discussed the impact that Becquerel’s family status had in academic circles. Thus, in this excerpt, the aspects of limitation (PS) and sociopolitical influence overlap. Furthermore, Ana drew a parallel with the contemporary world, acknowledging the influences of a chauvinist and patriarchal society even today. However, she also acknowledges the progress made in this respect and points out the importance of scientist Marie Curie for the recognition and expansion of the possibilities of participation of women in science.

Now, the sociopolitical influence aspect was identified 13 times in almost all activities in the portfolios, with the exception of A3 (Figure 3). For instance, in A6 Ana discussed the social interferences in the context of the discovery of radioactivity by those responsible for the use of this knowledge to make weapons due to the war context of the time:

[Science] is not neutral, apolitical. It suffers social interferences and its evolution follows the context of the time. For example, at the time of the studies on radioactivity, political issues became gradually tenser and resulted in two World Wars. That period saw a need to hide radioactive elements because their potential for chemical weapons was already known and, unfortunately, shortly later, scientific knowledge was used to make an atomic bomb. (ANA, A6, our emphasis).

In this and other records from A6, we can observe that Ana reflected on the influence of society on the production of knowledge, both from the perspective of the access of scientists to means of divulgation of scientific knowledge and the scientific community and of the influence of the production of knowledge on society, considering that she pointed out how knowledge on subatomic particles influenced and changed the context of war in the world. Thus, Ana pointed out the relationships between science and society, demonstrating that she did not conceive science in a neutral and isolated way, that she did not have a salvationist view of science.

The last aspect related to the area of Sociology of Science, interaction among scientists, was observed in records of more than half the activities, with one occurrence per activity. For instance, Ana showed she understands this aspect when she discussed the discovery of the chemical element oxygen and acknowledged Lavoisier’s contributions, but she pointed out that: “Lavoisier was always surrounded by scientists who helped him and participated together in the construction of Chemistry (A3). This note led her to point out that it was inappropriate to attribute the title of “father of chemistry” to Lavoisier, considering that his work was related to other studies at that time and whose authors should also be acknowledged. Once more, Ana seemed to reflect on the fact that scientists do not work alone and even when the knowledge produced is novel, it is related to other studies conducted and discussed at the time.

Regarding the Economics of Science, we identified only two aspects in the records of the last activities (A6 and A8). For instance, in the latter, when Ana reported on a teaching proposal for the insertion of the HC and other aspects of the NoS in elementary education, she expressed ideas on the aspect of access to knowledge when discussing the relationship between development of research on radiation and the context of war:

Another important factor was the decisive issue of use of this knowledge acquired in wartime. Whoever had knowledge was one step ahead in the war; the discoveries were gradually more present and the progress was greater and greater. (ANA, A8, our emphasis).

This excerpt was so classified because, based on the elements related to the history of science on the existence of subatomic particles and radioactive elements, Ana reflected on the value that scientific knowledge may acquire, so that the power of subjects and nations may be related to who can pay for knowledge or have access to it.

Finally, in terms of History of Science, all the aspects were identified in Ana’s records. This can be justified by the fact that our data were collected in a teaching-learning context of the HC. Additionally, we point out that the aspect of historical influence was identified in a large part of the records of the activities, very often together with the aspect of sociopolitical influence (SC).

In general, we identified historical influence when Ana presented reflections on the influences of the context of the time on the production of scientific knowledge, recognizing that they are closely linked to their historical contexts of production. For example, in records on A2, Ana discussed the impact of religion on the explanations given at the time for natural phenomena; in records on A5 and A6, she attributed part of the challenges faced by Marie Curie to patriarchy; in records on A8, when reporting the objectives of her teaching proposal for elementary education, she pointed out the interference of the context of war on the production of scientific knowledge, highlighting the great scientific productions of the time.

Finally, based on the detailed discussion of the results, we expect that the reader has been able to perceive how the characterization of the aspects of the NoS related to the areas of knowledge (Figure 2) can be used as well-defined categories in the analysis of the data collected in a teaching-learning context of the HC, favoring the visualization of the interpretation of these aspects in the data analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Based on the analysis of mainly the records from the portfolio of one of the PSCT drafted during a HC course, we identified the occurrence of 23 out of 37 aspects of the NoS related to all the areas of knowledge represented in MoSSE v.2, that is, over 60% of the aspects proposed and characterized in the model. This variety of aspects of the NoS indicates that Ana expressed a broad view about science.

Upon analyzing how the aspects of the NoS were expressed in the records of the activities carried out during the HC course, we noticed that the use of different elements related to the HC, the explicit discussions on the characteristics of science made evident by each of them, and the invitations for reflections on learning about science observed in all the eight activities contributed mainly for Ana to:reflect on conceiving science as a social practice, pointing out that scientists form groups with their own rules, behaviors an habits and that during the production of scientific knowledge, there occur disputes and collaborations between group members: perceive the influences of historical contexts on the production of scientific knowledge; andunderstand the meaning of science today and how it has developed/develops.

Relative to how Ana expressed the aspects of NoS related to the area of Psychology of Science, we point out that their occurrence was favored by discussion of elements related to the HC involving emphasis laid on a scientist, such as occurred, for instance, in the discussions on the works of Thomson, Becquerel and Marie Curie. In this regard, we highlight the need for the teacher trainer to be careful not to depict any scientist as a “genius” or focus on discussions on a single piece of work of such a scientist because this may drive students away from scientific careers and lessen their interest in science (^{Allchin, 2013}; ^{Gil Pérez et al., 2001}) because they do not identify any of the characteristics or elements of their personalities with those of the scientists presented (^{Bomfim et al., 2016}). Thus, for a more appropriate discussion of aspects of the NoS present in this area, we need to go outside the traditional boxes with information on scientists presented in didactic books (^{Porto, 2019}). We understand that it is fundamental that characteristics emerge from a context where the production of scientific knowledge is shown with all its challenges, partnerships, etc. (^{Allchin et al., 2014}).

The fact that the aspects of the NoS related to the areas of Economics and Anthropology of Science have been identified few times may indicate that working with historical cases alone is insufficient to generate a broad context of teaching-learning about science. We thus endorse the remarks made by ^{Allchin et al.(2014}) on the need for the teaching about science to also involve discussion based on contemporary research activities and cases. In other words, we consider it important to use complementary approaches for teaching to encompass a greater variety of aspects of the NoS and consequently of areas of knowledge. For instance, we consider that discussions on the commercialization of scientific knowledge (related to the area of Economics of Science) can be more evident in discussions of contemporary cases than of historical cases, in which commercialization of scientific knowledge tends not to be emphasized (maybe because it is more evident in more recent times).

On the aspects related to the area of Anthropology of Science, we point out that maybe their expression is not directly connected to the teaching approach used, but rather to the theme set selected. Thus, for example, in discussions of other types of knowledge besides scientific knowledge, such as traditional knowledge, they may appear.

We highlight that the work with elements related to the HC can contribute to the teaching of science, as also pointed out in other studies in the area (^{Martins, 2006}; ^{Oki & Moradillo, 2008}). However, we emphasize that the teaching of the NoS and the Hh in higher education should not occur only in a single course and with a single approach of teaching. It is important that pre-service teachers participate in these discussions during their whole training, both in courses of a pedagogical nature and those focused on chemistry contents, since studies on how these kinds of knowledge were developed are part of these contents and may contribute toward furthering their learning (^{Matthews, 2012}).

^{Maurines and Beaufils (2012}) pointed out that many working teachers consider the teaching of scientific concepts more important than teaching about science, and even teachers that consider the teaching of the HC important, face difficulties doing so in the class room. For this reason, we reiterate that the involvement of pre-service teachers in discussions about science and the HC in courses such as Organic and Analytical Chemistry, among others, is fundamental for them to be able to learn together about the concepts, their contexts of production, the individuals involved, etc.

Furthermore, ^{Carlson and Daehler (2019}) point out that the pedagogical knowledge of the personal content of the teacher reflects the teacher’s experiences in teaching, which makes the need evident for pre-service teachers to experience a teaching that is more coherent with what they are expected to do in class. In other words, generally, during the initial training, teachers experience teaching focused on contents outside their contexts of production (^{Schnetzler, 2019}), which can contribute to the results indicated by ^{Maurines and Beaufils (2012}). However, we recognize that this implies the fact that teacher trainers must have developed their knowledge about science and have knowledge related to how to teach about science, which poses another challenge to be overcome in the training of teachers (^{Schnetzler, 2019}).

Still regarding teacher training, we point out that a limitation of this study is that it has not dealt with aspects related to science expressed by the PSCT when it conducted teaching situations involving elements related to the HC and aspects of the NoS. Although one of the activities of the course was related to the preparation of a teaching proposal for the insertion of the HC and aspects of the NoS in elementary education, just discussions of this nature may not be sufficient for the teacher to be able to work within this approach.

Being so, we endorse discussions present in the literature on the importance of practice courses as curriculum components (^{Diniz-Pereira, 2016}; Pereira & Mohr, 2017), which must aim at familiarizing the future teachers with the reality of teaching classes. We acknowledge the need to offer not only opportunities for future teachers to plan teaching proposals in teacher training courses, but also give them opportunities to perform them. This will enable them to develop and mobilize pedagogical knowledge of collective content (^{Carlson & Daehler, 2019}) - related both to knowledge of the HC and how to teach Chemistry involving the HC - since they will have teaching experiences guided by supervising teachers.

In these contexts, could other research objects be investigated, such as the aspects of the NoS that pre-service chemistry teachers consider when planning and conducting teaching situations involving the history of chemistry? Investigations of this nature could lead to the proposal of science teacher training course guidelines in the approach discussed here.

Considering our experience using the MoSSE v.2 as an analysis tool, we acknowledge its adequacy and indicate that it may be used in future studies that seek to investigate views about science in teachers, without the intention of fitting them into pre-defined models, which tends to occur when the analysis is based on questionnaires (^{Guerra-Ramos, 2012}; ^{Moura et al., 2020}). On the contrary, we point out that MoSSE v.2 is an adequate tool to characterize the ideas about science in individuals when the investigation is conducted in teaching contexts.

On the other hand, the extension of the analysis tool and the consequent need to understand the meaning of the various aspects of the NoS may make its use by less experienced researchers difficult. Being so, we agree with ^{Santos et al. (2020}) concerning the use of the tool requiring the researcher to understand the limits and reach of each area of knowledge, as well as the meaning of the aspects of the NoS related to each one.

Finally, we point out that the results presented and discussed here, as well as the reflections on the use of MoSSE v.2 may contribute to the development of other studies in the area by indicating the potentialities and limitations of the analysis tool used. Additionally, based on these results and reflections, it has been possible to shed light on the importance of teacher training focused on the teaching of and about science that is more authentic, thus broadening the perspectives of research in relation to the introduction of the NoS in higher education, and also furthering the dialogue in the area of science education on the respective theme.