s. Washington found the assigned sciencefair projects on her judging sheets andnoted the middle school students whowere making last minute inspections oftheir displays. The first student, Becky,

Did You

by Carolyn Reeves and Debby Chessin

Carolyn Reeves is an independent educational consultant andDebby Chessin is an assistant professor of elementary education atthe University of Mississippi.

teered that if someone else carefully repeated these same sixsteps they would probably get the same results she had gotten,because repeatability is one of the characteristics of science. Ms.Washington complimented Mona on her understanding of howexperimental scientific research is conducted. She then asked ifall scientists always followed the same six steps Mona had used.

“I guess so. These are the steps in my science book abouthow scientists do research.” Mona wasn’t sure if scientistscould use any other methods or not.

Ms. Washington also found that her students didn’t realizethat scientists were often ostracized by society because theirnew ideas did not fit the conventional thinking of the time.The students were surprised that many of the scientific ideasthat we take for granted today took a long time to be ac-cepted by other scientists and society.

Ms. Washington, like many other science teachers, recog-nizes that misconceptions about the nature of science aboundamong students. She also knows from personal experience thatthey are difficult to replace with realistic conceptions. This un-derscores the importance of finding effective strategies for teach-ing Content Standard G: The History and Nature of Sciencefrom the National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996).

Middle-school students should develop and refine their un-derstanding of the interrelationships among science, technol-ogy, and society while they are studying content. Several strate-

Really

Mspoke of her project with confidence, proudly concludingthat her research had proven her hypothesis. “What makesyou use the word ‘proven’?” Ms. Washington asked.

“Well, I measured everything twice and I repeated my ex-periment, so my hypothesis has to be true.”

Ms. Washington agreed that repeating her experimentmade her results more reliable. But further probing questionsfailed to lead Becky to see that conclusions to scientific re-search are tentative explanations rather than proven facts.

Further down the line, Ms. Washington came to Eric, whoseproject was a construction of a working electric motor. Ericdemonstrated his motor, which ran smoothly and efficiently.Ms. Washington asked Eric if he knew whether an electricmotor was an example of science or technology. He remem-bered that technology was defined as applied science, so heconcluded that an electric motor would fit into the sciencecategory. Ms. Washington suggested that this was technologybecause his focus was on making the motor work well ratherthan on providing an explanation of how magnetic forceswere used to produce motion. Eric smiled and agreed, but hestill considered his motor to be a science project.

Near the end of the line, Mona had a neat colorful display,carefully organized into six easy-to-follow steps. Mona volun-

Prove It?

T E A C H I N G S T R A T E G I E S○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2 3September 2 0 0 3 s c i e n c e s c o p e

2 4 September 2 0 0 3s c i e n c e s c o p e

T E A C H I N G S T R A T E G I E S○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Characteristics of the natureof science

FIGURE 1

• Scientists formulate and test their explanations ofnature using observation, experiments, and

theoretical and mathematical models.• Scientific ideas are tentative and subject to change

but, for most ideas in science, there is much

experimental and observational confirmation.• Scientists do and have changed their ideas about

nature when they encounter new experimental

evidence that does not match their existingexplanations.

• It is normal for scientists to differ in their interpretation

of the evidence or theory.• It is part of scientific inquiry to evaluate the results of

scientific investigations, experiments, observations,

theoretical models, and the explanations proposedby other scientists who agree that questioning,response to criticism, and open communication are

integral to the process of science.• Many individuals have contributed to the traditions

of science. Studying some of these individuals

provides further understanding of scientific inquiry,science as a human endeavor, the nature of science,and the relationships between science and society.

• Science has been practiced by individuals indifferent cultures.

• Tracing the history of science can show how difficult

it was for scientific innovators to break through theaccepted ideas of their times to reach theconclusions we take for granted. (NRC 1996)

gies to accomplish teaching the history and nature of sciencecan easily be integrated into the science class with a little planningand research. Incorporating the history of science is described asexperiences where students learn about the individuals fromdifferent cultures who have contributed to science and under-stand the difficulties they had for their ideas to be acceptedduring the time in which they lived. Through activities in sci-ence, students should also learn about the nature of science,meaning that scientists formulate and test hypotheses, and reviseideas based on new experimental evidence (NRC 1996).

Understanding the nature of scienceAs Ms. Washington reflected on her experience as a science fairjudge, she tried to recall successful methods she and other teach-ers had used to teach Content Standard G. She already knewthat combining concepts with the nature of science enhancesstudents’ understanding of both historical and scientific prin-ciples; so she devised a plan to help students better understandthese notions. Ms. Washington chose several age-appropriatecharacteristics of the nature of science to incorporate into herteaching (Figure 1). To teach these principles, Ms. Washingtondecided to implement four strategies into her lessons to helpstudents better understand the nature of science:

1. Reading and discussing historical stories that illustrate thecharacteristics of the nature of science,

2. Frequently reviewing concepts using a Question of the Day,3. Critically analyzing and distinguishing between the meth-

ods used in scientific and technological studies, as reportedin news articles, and

4. Ensuring that pre-lab activities include explicit instructionabout why certain procedures are used, and post-lab reportsare analyzed by a checklist to identify misconceptions.

In addition to Content Standard G, incorporating thesestrategies supports the National Science Education Standards,Teaching Standard B, which states “teachers of science guideand facilitate learning…(and) encourage and model theskills of scientific inquiry, as well as the curiosity, openness tonew ideas and data, and skepticism that characterize science”(NRC 1996).

The activities included here should be incorporated intothe existing curriculum, so they should not take an entireclass period. Rather, they can be implemented as mini les-sons, preferably worked in at the beginning or the end of alesson to enhance and extend student thinking.

Historical storiesThe first strategy involves using historical stories to teach andillustrate the six, targeted characteristics of the nature of science.Historical stories provide a meaningful structure and concrete

illustrations for the abstract ideas of what science is and how itworks. Students find the biographies exciting ways to learn thatscience is done by a diverse group of persistent problem solvers!According to the National Science Education Standards, “Theintroduction of historical examples will help students see thescientific enterprise as more philosophical, social, and human”(NRC 1996).

Brief historical narratives of Marie Curie are published onthe Internet (see Internet resources and online example atwww.nsta.org/journals) and serve as a framework to study thecharacteristics of the nature of science. After reading the stories,the class discusses several questions that focus on the selectedcharacteristics.

Students discuss concepts in relation to the story in smallgroups, share with the whole class, and record their ideas in theirscience notebooks or journals. Because this process usually takesno longer than 10–15 minutes, the class continues with the day’s

2 5September 2 0 0 3 s c i e n c e s c o p e

T E A C H I N G S T R A T E G I E S○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

lesson. Questions from these discussions should be included ontests to check for understanding. Other historical stories can beread throughout the year to reinforce realistic concepts aboutthe nature of science. Examples include the biographies of Nicho-las Copernicus, Galileo, Johann Kepler, Alexander Fleming,Charles Darwin, Edward Jenner, Lise Meitner, George Washing-ton Carver, and Rachel Carson, among many others.

Question of the dayMs. Washington’s class begins with a Question of the Day, whichis written on the board before students come into the room.Knowing that persistence is the key to correcting misconcep-tions, she continues to present realistic ideas about the natureof science throughout the year. Questions of the Day are oftenselected as misconceptions and are identified by means of labreports, discussions, written papers, or projects (Figure 2). Thestudents write the question in their notebooks while roll isbeing taken. Ms. Washington allows up to 10 minutes foranswering and, after a brief discussion, shares the correct an-swer to the question before beginning the day’s regular lesson.She makes the connection between the question and changinga misconception by pointing out examples from history, relat-ing to different discoveries, and then applying it to studentwork in the classroom.

Reading and analyzing news articlesA third strategy involves reading and analyzing news articlesabout various science or technology issues. Students are givenone or more questions to answer about the article they read.These questions ask the students to critically analyze the ar-ticles. The analyses could include such things as predictingoutcomes, analyzing research methods, challenging conclu-sions, or distinguishing between science and technology (Fig-ure 3 is a sample). The questions are based on ideas about thehistory and nature of science which students have previouslybeen taught. (See the March 2002 special issue of ScienceScope for ideas on using media in the science classroom.)

• Is the designing and building of rockets a part ofscience or a part of technology?

• Does a carefully conducted scientific experimentprove a hypothesis?

• What can a researcher do to make an experiment

more reliable?• Which is more correct: Science is a collection of

proven facts or science is a collection of theories?

• Are theories based on evidence?• Do scientific theories sometimes change?• Are scientists considered mean and unfair when

they criticize research done by another scientist?

In 1989, Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, professors ofchemistry at the University of Utah and the University ofSouthampton respectively, made the incredible claim that

they had created nuclear fusion in a beaker at roomtemperature. This was so important to society because, ifit were true, cold fusion would be a clean new source of

unlimited energy with no greenhouse gases. At the time,other scientists who studied hot fusion were unable toreplicate the results, so the claims of Pons and

Fleischmann were ridiculed and dismissed. Nevertheless,research continues, and a small but very active minorityof scientists still believes in cold fusion.

Q: Were the other scientists wrong to be critical of theclaims made by the team?

A: No. Critical peer review is a foundational part ofscience. Scientists usually publish their research, andthis is an invitation for other scientists to contribute

their own expertise to the research. They may haveevidence that supports a published theory, whichmakes the theory stronger. They may have evidence

that disagrees with the published theory or they maysee a problem with how the research was done. Thiswould make the theory weaker. Critical peer review

is one of the main things that makes science work.

Q: Are the scientists who still believe in cold fusionwasting their time?

A: No. Understanding in science is constantly changing

and new techniques, instruments, and perseverancemay eventually uncover natural laws.

Question of the Day suggestionsFIGURE 2

Sample analysis of sciencein the news

FIGURE 3

Effective laboratory activitiesLab activities continue to be a big part of middle-level classesand are used as a means for teaching nature of science concepts.Lab activities enable students to experience some of the meth-ods used by professional scientists and to think critically forthemselves. Experience taught Ms. Washington that studentsoften construct their own misconceptions about how scienceworks when teacher guidance is lacking. A checklist for finallab write-ups is used to help evaluate students’ conceptions aboutthe nature of science (Figure 4). Emphasis should be placed onthe fact that the class is acting like a real scientific communityby evaluating conclusions, identifying faulty reasoning, point-ing out statements that go beyond the evidence, and suggestingalternative explanations for the evidence (NRC 1996). Ad-dress students’ misconceptions by writing selected ones on theboard and inviting the class to comment on whether the state-ment makes sense based on the data they collect in lab activities(evidence). Acting as a guide, the teacher helps to developmore realistic conceptions on closer examination of the dataand invites students to rewrite the misconception to more closelyreflect their data. To enhance students’ understanding about thehistory of science, connect lab investigations with early scien-tists who did experiments in that area. This leads into a discus-sion about the connection between science and society throughhistory and the interrelationships between science, technology,and society.

Don’t worry!Teachers may be hesitant to incorporate Content Standard Ginto their lessons because they think it means adding a newunit to an already crowded curriculum. For the most part, thestrategies outlined in this article are incorporated into exist-ing units with little change in the length of the units. By usinghistorical stories, lab activities, news accounts, and daily mini-reviews, the nature of science can be presented in an effec-tive manner that students can understand and retain. Throughthese experiences, teachers help their students gain rich per-spectives about the interrelationships among science, tech-nology, and society both in the present and the past. Studentsgain an appreciation of the advances, as well as the limita-tions, in science and technology.

At the end of the school year, Ms. Washington wanted toknow if her strategies changed some of her students’ earliermisconceptions about the nature and history of science. Asher students were working on a new laboratory investigation,she circulated with pencil, paper, and clipboard and wrotedown what she heard the students saying: “When I look at thedata, my conclusion is that I did support my hypothesis!”“How did I get that answer—did I average the right num-bers?”; and “All of the other groups are getting different re-sults from ours. Maybe we should repeat our experiment a

Lab report checklistFIGURE 4

___ 1. Did the student conclude that the resultsproved his/her hypothesis?

___ 2. Sometimes students are asked to identify

sources of error. Did the student indicate thatthe experiment would have been proven ifthere had been no errors?

___ 3. Did the student indicate that more evidencewould prove his/her hypothesis?

___ 4. Was the term “theory” incorrectly used to

mean “hypothesis?”___ 5. Did the student indicate that there was no

other possible explanation except the one

he/she proposed?___ 6. Did the student suggest ways to make his/

her experiment more valid and reliable?

“Yes” answers to questions 1–3 indicate misconceptionsabout the tentative or developmental nature of science.

“Yes” answers to questions 4–5 indicate misconceptions

about the correct use of the terms “hypothesis” and“theory” and the theory-building nature of science.

A “yes” answer to question 6 indicates a maturingapproach to doing research.

few more times.” She was very gratified to hear commentsthat reflected their new understanding of the nature and his-tory of science. n

ResourcesWorld of Biography, Marie Curie—scienceworld.wolfram.com/biog-raphy/CurieMarie.htmlNobel e-Museum, Marie Curie—www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html“Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure onstudents’ naïve views concerning the nature of science” by M.P.Clough, from Interchange, 28, 1997.“Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Areview of the research” by N.B. Lederman from the Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 1999.“A study of two misconceptions about the nature of science amongjunior high school students” by P.A. Rubba, J.K. Horner, and J.M.Smith, from School Science and Mathematics, 81 (3), 1981.“Star in a jar? Hints of nuclear fusion found—maybe” by PeterWeiss from Science News 161(10), 2002.

ReferencesHolliday, W. G. 2001. Inquiry: critically considering inquiryteaching. Science Scope 24(7), 54–57.National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National Science Educa-tion Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

T E A C H I N G S T R A T E G I E S○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2 6 September 2 0 0 3s c i e n c e s c o p e