Download - Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants

SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

Julie Bianchini and Mark Windschitl, Section Coeditors

Integrating Nature of ScienceInstruction into a PhysicalScience Content Course forPreservice Elementary Teachers:NOS Views of Teaching Assistants

DEBORAH L. HANUSCINDepartments of Physics & Astronomy/Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum, 303Townsend Hall, University of Missouri–Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

VALARIE L. AKERSON, TEDDIE PHILLIPSON-MOWERDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction, 201 North Rose Avenue, Suite 3002, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

Received 14 March 2005; revised 31 August 2005, 23 February 2006; accepted 28 February2006

DOI 10.1002/sce.20149Published online 27 April 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: Teacher education programs have met with limited success in improving

teachers’ understanding of the nature of science (NOS). Research suggests that such efforts

could be enhanced by addressing NOS in preservice teachers’ science courses. We planned

NOS instruction in a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers.

Our first concern was the NOS views of the instructors for the course, which included un-

dergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs). We examined the NOS views of nine UTAs, and

the impact of job-embedded professional development on their views. Although initially

UTAs held a number of views inconsistent with science education reforms, four modes of

explicit-and-reflective interventions, including analysis of NOS views of preservice teach-

ers, resulted in favorable changes in UTAs’ views. C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed90:912–935, 2006

Correspondence to: Deborah L. Hanuscin; e-mail: [email protected]

C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

NOS VIEWS OF TEACHING ASSISTANTS 913

INTRODUCTION

Reform documents including Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1990) and Benchmarksfor Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) emphasize understanding of the nature of science (NOS)as a critical component of scientific literacy. Teachers’ understandings of NOS then serveas a necessary (though arguably not sufficient) condition for helping students understandNOS. Research over the past several decades, however, has found teachers’ views of NOSto be largely inconsistent with contemporary characterizations of the scientific endeavor(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Lederman, 1992). As such, teachers’ views mayserve as a barrier to achieving the vision of the reforms (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, &Lederman, 1998).

The science education community has responded by integrating NOS instruction in sci-ence methods courses (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Bianchini & Colburn,2000; Gess-Newsome, 2002; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). However, many such effortsto improve teachers’ conceptions of NOS have met with only limited success in helpingteachers retain views of NOS that are consistent with current reforms (Akerson & Hanus-cin, 2003). This may be due, in part, to a lack of emphasis on NOS across the preserviceteachers’ program of study. Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000a) echoed sentimentsof earlier researchers by proposing NOS instruction occur not only in pedagogy coursesbut also in science content courses. Given the recent proliferation of specialized sciencecontent courses for teachers (Crowther, n.d.), there exists a unique opportunity to addressNOS views of prospective teachers. One of the most influential experiences that preserviceteachers have is being a learner in science courses themselves, just before moving intopreparation programs. This is a formative time in that they have an opportunity to learn notonly how science is done but also how one might teach science. However, this experiencedoes not always provide them with accurate views of the discipline, nor appropriate modelsfor science teaching. Attention to NOS within the curriculum is one means for addressingthis problem. The purpose of this study was to explore integration of NOS instruction in aphysical science content course for preservice elementary teachers. In this article, we focuson the NOS views of teaching assistants (TAs) involved in the course, and the impact ofjob-embedded professional development on their views.

The Nature of Science

The NOS refers to the epistemology of science, or the values and beliefs inherent tothe development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992). It should be noted that thecharacterizations of NOS in reforms (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996) represent a simplified andnoncontroversial account of what remains an area of much disagreement and debate amonghistorians, philosophers, and sociologists of science (Duschl, 1994). However, because K-12teachers are expected to help students develop understandings of NOS in line with thosedescribed in state and national reforms, we selected these for integration into the course,and as such, a framework for this study. Specifically, we targeted following seven aspectsof NOS: (a) scientific knowledge is both reliable (one can have confidence in scientificknowledge) and tentative (subject to change); (b) no single, universal scientific methodcaptures the complexity and diversity of scientific investigations; (c) creativity plays a rolein the development of scientific knowledge; (d) there is a relationship between theories andlaws; (e) there is a relationship between observations and inferences; (f) although sciencestrives for objectivity, there is always an element of subjectivity in the development ofscientific knowledge; and (g) social and cultural context also play a role in the developmentof scientific knowledge.

914 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Improving Teachers’ Views of NOS

Researchers categorize NOS instruction as being either implicit or explicit (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Implicit approaches presume understanding NOS results fromengaging in scientific inquiry. However, research indicates that this is insufficient to changelearners’ epistemological beliefs (Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). Explicit approachesdirect learners’ attention to NOS in the context of their coursework and science investi-gations through particular constructs and reflective opportunities. In explicit instructionalapproaches, NOS understandings are specifically assessed, rather than presumed to be aby-product of instruction.

Several researchers have found explicit approaches, especially those that include a reflec-tive component, are more effective than implicit approaches in improving teachers’ views ofNOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a). For example, Akerson et al. (2000) conducteda study of preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a science methods course that includedreflection on NOS, both orally and in writing, following a series of readings and activities.This approach resulted in students holding views more aligned with NOS as characterizedin reforms.

While the aforementioned studies were conducted in the context of teacher educationcourses, researchers have also examined science content courses as a context for enhancingNOS understanding. Studies conducted in the last decades have found college sciencestudents’ views of NOS to be inconsistent with contemporary views such as those advancedin the reforms (e.g., Bezzi, 1999; Fleming, 1998; Gilbert, 1991; Ryder, Leach, & Driver,1999). However, more recent research suggests that content courses may, indeed, providea fruitful venue for addressing learners’ views. Brickhouse, Dagher, Letts, and Shipman(2000) claimed that “studying students’ views about the nature of science is best donein a context where it is possible to talk about particular theories or particular pieces ofevidence” and that “knowledge of subject matter seems to influence students’ ability totalk meaningfully about theories and evidence” (p. 355). Their study of undergraduatesenrolled in an astronomy course for nonmajors demonstrates that even brief (one-semester)interventions, when carried out with appropriate sensitivity to students’ views, can impactunderstanding of NOS.

Further evidence of the potential of science content courses as a suitable context forenhancing learners’ views of NOS can be found in a study by Abd-El-Khalick (2001), whoinvestigated the development of NOS views in a physics course. Unlike the courses in thestudies described above, this course was designed specifically for preservice elementaryteachers. The intervention, which consisted of explicit-and-reflective instructional methodssimilar to those used in science methods courses (Akerson et al., 2000; Akerson & Hanuscin,2003), contributed to favorable shifts in preservice teachers’ views of NOS. However,because the course was offered by the Department of Education, the research does little toinform us of the potential of specialized science content courses, specifically those offeredby the respective science departments, as a venue for improving preservice teachers’ viewsof NOS. This point is particularly relevant, given researchers have found the NOS views ofscientists may be different from those of both philosophers and science educators (Pomeroy,1993). Just as with K-12 teachers, faculty understanding of NOS serves as a necessarycondition for teaching NOS effectively to college students. Thus, if we are to successfullyintegrate NOS instruction within science content courses, it will be important to understandthe NOS views of instructors of these courses, which may also include TAs.


Context of the Study and Purpose

“Physical Science for Elementary Teachers” is the second largest enrollment courseoffered by the Department of Physics at a large midwestern university. The course servesas a prerequisite for the elementary science methods course, and consists of two 50-minlectures each week, as well as a weekly 3-h laboratory session taught by undergraduateteaching assistants (UTAs). Developed originally as part of an NSF grant in the 1980s thatwas intended to improve the quality of undergraduate science education for elementaryteachers, the instructorship of the course and design of the curriculum has since passedthrough several hands. During the semester this study was conducted, the first author servedas the instructor of record, and was responsible for the preparation and training of the UTAstaff.

As the instructor aligned the existing curriculum of the course with reforms by includinginstruction in NOS, she acknowledged preservice teachers’ opportunity to learn about NOSwithin the laboratory sessions would be influenced by UTAs’ own understandings of NOS.Consequentially, she planned explicit-and-reflective interventions targeting UTAs’ concep-tions of the NOS. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this professionaldevelopment on UTAs’ conceptions of the NOS. The specific research questions were:

• What are UTA’s initial views of the NOS? How do these compare to NOS viewsespoused in science education reforms?

• How, if at all, do these views change over the course of the semester?• What factors contribute to these changes?

METHOD

The design of this study is interpretive in nature (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998), utilizing ob-servation, interview, and document analysis to illuminate the meaning participants ascribedto various aspects of NOS, and to identify how this meaning changed over time. Given thefirst author’s role as course instructor, the data could be considered partially evaluative ofher training of the laboratory assistants. Therefore, the second and third authors assistedin data collection and analysis, acting as peer debriefers to ensure appropriate and validinterpretations of the data.

Participants

In the semester the study was conducted, each of the 11 laboratory sessions was taughtby a different UTA, 9 of whom agreed to participate in this study. Consistent with historicalprecedence within the department, the UTA staff included both education majors and physicsmajors. Three education majors were selected by the course instructor from volunteers whohad previously earned an A in the course, and were recommended highly by their own UTAand an instructor from the School of Education. Savannah,1 Amanda, and Gretchen werejuniors, and this was the first time each taught a physics laboratory. Savannah, unlike theother two women, had previously received explicit-and-reflective NOS instruction withinher science methods course, taught by the third author. The physics majors were selected bythe physics department chairperson. Three (Lauri, Brad, and Doug) had previously taughtlaboratory sessions for this as well as other courses. The remaining (Alex, Richard, and Ben)were teaching this laboratory for the first time, and this was their first teaching experience at

1 Pseudonyms have been used to protect confidentiality of participants in this research.

916 HANUSCIN ET AL.

the university. Lauri, Brad, Richard, and Ben were seniors in their last semester of college,while Doug and Alex were both juniors. None of the UTAs had any previous courseworkin history or philosophy of science. Two additional physics majors who acted as UTAs forthe course declined participation in the study.

Interventions Targeting UTAs’ Views of NOS

As part of their responsibilities, the UTA staff met with the course instructor each weekfor between 1 and 2 h. These meetings had two distinct foci: (1) to reflect students’ under-standing of the previous week’s activities, with the goal of improving both the curriculumand the instruction of the laboratory sessions; and (2) to examine and prepare for the up-coming week’s laboratory sessions. As part of that preparation, UTAs participated in thelaboratory activities as learners, discussing strategies to facilitate students’ understandingof the concepts. Because understanding NOS was a focus of the curriculum, the course in-structor implemented explicit-and-reflective interventions to address UTAs’ views of NOS.This job-embedded professional development was therefore an integrated part of UTAs’weekly responsibilities, rather than an add-on. The interventions undertaken to enhanceUTAs’ conceptions of NOS took on four distinct forms, each of which is described below.

Introduction to NOS as a Goal of Science Education. Because UTAs lacked prior ex-perience of learning and teaching NOS, it was important to orient them to NOS as aninstructional objective. The course instructor provided handouts excerpted from reformdocuments (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996; NSTA, 2000) to demonstrate the importance ofNOS as an aspect of science that their students (the preservice teachers) would be requiredto emphasize in their science teaching. Discussion of each of these reforms was intended toillustrate the emphasis on NOS within the field of science education, rather than specific tothe course instructor’s personal agenda for the course. In addition, it was intended to helpboth physics and education majors develop a better sense of the goals and expectations forelementary science teaching, given the nature of the course.

Content-generic Laboratory Activities. During weekly meetings, UTAs reflected ontheir views of NOS through participation, as learners, in content-generic activities. Thesehave been described in detail elsewhere (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) and includedTricky Tracks, The Tube and an additional activity, Do you see the cow?, based on Young?Old? As the instructor modeled each of these activities, UTAs identified the NOS aspectshighlighted in the activities (the three, combined, address all seven target NOS aspects)and discussed questions to ask of students to promote discussions of NOS. Participation inthese activities was intended to sensitize UTAs to NOS in the same manner intended forpreservice teachers, and these shared experiences provided a reference point and contextfor discussions of NOS.

Content-embedded NOS Discussions. During weekly meetings, UTAs engaged in dis-cussion of aspects of NOS reflected in the laboratory investigations. Initially, the instructordrew their attention to specific activities designed to illustrate the target NOS aspects. Asthe semester progressed, the instructor asked UTAs to identify specific activities they coulduse to highlight various aspects of NOS. For example, the role of evidence in explana-tion and the relationship between observation and inference were two key aspects of NOSthat UTAs identified in relation to a laboratory activity on simple circuits. Undergraduate


teaching assistants indicated that while students would not be able to directly observe thecurrent, the brightness of the bulb in each series circuit could be used as evidence forstudents’ inferences about the relative flow of current in each.

Examining Students’ Views of NOS. During weekly meetings, the course instructorshared representative (anonymous) NOS responses written by preservice teachers. Thishelped UTAs become aware of NOS views of students and how these might differ from thereforms. The instructor was aware that in several cases the UTAs held views similar to thoseexpressed by the preservice teachers. Thus, this was an additional opportunity for UTAsto reflect on their own understanding. The course instructor posed questions to the UTAs,such as “How do you interpret this person’s understanding?” “How does this compare tothe ideas presented in the reform documents?” and “What laboratory activity might provideevidence that conflicts with this view of NOS?”

Sources of Data

We used qualitative data sources to develop a rich picture of the NOS views of eachof the participants, as well as the changes in their views over the course of the semester.These data sources included questionnaires, interviews, transcripts of meetings, and courseartifacts.

Questionnaire. The 10-item Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C), de-veloped by Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz (2002), was administered tothe nine UTAs in pencil-and-paper format prior to, and upon completion of, the semester.This 10-item open-ended instrument was selected for the purpose of elucidating, describ-ing, and characterizing participants’ views of NOS. Construct validity of the VNOS-Chas been established through comparison of expert and novice groups (Bell, 1999) and ithas been used extensively with inservice and preservice teachers (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001;Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, & Bell, 2001;Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2000).

Interviews. Following the recommendations of Lederman and O’Malley (1990), inter-views were used to enhance validity of the researchers’ interpretations. During hourlonginterviews conducted following completion of pre-VNOS-C and post-VNOS-C, each UTAwas asked to elaborate on his or her responses. Thus, interviews served as one form of“member check” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), in that they allowed researchers to compareinitial interpretations of VNOS-C data with participants’ verbal responses.

Audio Taping of Weekly Meetings. We audio taped weekly UTA meetings to documentthe professional development. The VNOS-C is particularly sensitive to subtle differencesin respondents’ views and can be used to assess changes in learners’ views as a resultof instructional interventions as well as “the interaction between learners’ views and thespecifics of the instructional activities undertaken in these interventions from diagnosticand cognitive perspectives” (Lederman et al., 2002). Transcripts, along with the instructors’reflective field notes, copies of course materials, and handouts from meetings provided abasis for evaluating the effectiveness of the interventions.

918 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Analysis

We undertook analysis at the conclusion of data collection, and conducted it in severalphases, using the seven targeted NOS aspects as a general analytical framework. Threeforms of triangulation involving multiple investigators, multiple data sources, and multiplemethods of collecting data (e.g., questionnaire, interview, field notes) were used to validatethe findings and identify convergent themes. Initially, we analyzed UTAs’ responses to theVNOS-C using several rounds of open, axial, and selective coding (Creswell, 1998). Thishelped us develop profiles of UTAs’ views prior to, and upon completion of, the semester.Separate analyses by the first and second authors allowed for peer checking of the codingschema. The third author served as a peer debriefer during this process. We analyzed inter-views in the same manner, and then checked profiles generated from questionnaires againstprofiles generated from interview data. The high degree of correspondence between theresearchers’ interpretation of questionnaire responses and participants’ further elaborationof responses in interviews was used to establish validity of the analysis (Lederman et al.,2002). We also enhanced validity of the analysis through a second round of member check-ing. We provided each of the UTAs their summary NOS profiles, and requested they identifyany discrepancies between their views and the researchers’ interpretation. In no cases werethere disagreements with our interpretation; however, three of the UTAs provided addi-tional elaboration. We modified profiles on the basis of these responses. Comparison ofpre-NOS and post-NOS profiles allowed for identification of shifts in NOS views. Multipledata sources (meeting and interview transcripts, VNOS-C data, and field notes) providedevidence as to how the interventions contributed to the observed shifts in NOS views.

FINDINGS

The sections that follow outline the findings in terms of the research questions. We usedindividual responses and segments of transcripts to support the claims. Each data excerpt isfollowed by a code that indicates the participant and the data source referenced. IndividualUTAs’ views of NOS are summarized in Table 1.

Participants’ Views of NOS Prior to the Intervention

Our first research question was concerned with UTAs’ views of NOS prior to the pro-fessional development. While UTAs’ initial views were consistent with the reforms aboutthe empirical and tentative NOS, only Savannah’s views were consistent about all sevenaspects of NOS addressed by the reforms. The degree to which UTAs internalized their un-derstandings of the NOS within a consistent, overarching framework varied greatly. Whenconnections between aspects of NOS were made, these links were often made between oneview that was consistent with the reforms and the one that was not. Below, participants’initial views of the targeted aspects of NOS are described.

Tentative NOS. While all UTAs acknowledged scientific knowledge as subject to change,both Gretchen and Brad emphasized that science as both reliable and tentative in that currentscientific knowledge can be held reasonable until evidence to the contrary is found. Lauriassociated tentativeness with her (mis)understanding of theory and law:

I don’t believe in scientific law. Science is theory—it may work every time, but there could

always be an unforeseeable event that changes how we view our surroundings. (VNOS-C:

Pre, Item 5)


TA

BL

E1

Ali

gn

me

nt

of

La

bo

rato

ryIn

str

uc

tors

’V

iew

so

fN

OS

wit

hC

urr

en

tR

efo

rms

a

Infe

ren

tia

l/M

eth

od

sS

ub

jective

/C

rea

tive

/T

he

ori

es

So

cio

cu

ltu

rally

Te

nta

tive

Em

pir

ica

lT

he

ore

tica

lo

fS

cie

nce

Th

eo

ry-la

de

nIm

ag

ina

tive

an

dL

aw

sE

mb

ed

de

d

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Pre

Po

st

Physic

sm

ajo

rs

Ric

ha

rd√

√ +√

√−

−−

−√

√−

√−

√√

√D

ou

g√

√ +√

√−

−−

−√

√−

√−

√−

√L

au

ri√

√√

√−

√−

−√

√√

√−

√√

√A

lex

√√ +

√√

−√

√√

√√

√√

−√

√√

Be

n√

√√

√−

−√

√−

−√

√−

√√

√B

rad

√√

√√

√√

−√

−√

√√

−√

√√ +

Ed

uca

tio

nm

ajo

rs

Gre

tch

en

√√ +

√√

−√

−−

√√ +

√√

−√

−√

Am

an

da

√√ +

√√

√√

−−

√√

√√

−−

√√

Sava

nn

ah

√√

√√

−√

√√

√√

√√

√√

√√

To

talc

on

sis

ten

t9

99

92

63

57

87

91

87

9

wit

hre

form

s

aN

OS

de

no

tes

na

ture

ofscie

nce

;(−

)a

vie

wco

ntr

ad

icto

ryto

refo

rmch

ara

cte

riza

tio

ns

ofN

OS

;(√ ),

avie

wa

lign

ed

with

refo

rmch

ara

cte

riza

tio

ns

ofN

OS

;

an

d(+

),a

ne

nri

ch

ed

vie

w,

bu

tn

ot

afu

nd

am

en

talsh

ift

ine

pis

tem

olo

gy.

920 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Other UTAs also held a hierarchical view of theory and law, as will be discussed furtherbelow.

Empirical NOS. All nine UTAs identified the reliance on empirical data as a definingcharacteristic of science, consistent with NOS espoused in science education reforms. AsBen stated, “That which differentiates science from other disciplines is its. . . empiricalacquisition and analysis of data” (VNOS-C: Pre, Item 1). Yet, Alex and Ben emphasizedthat for some ideas in science, there may still be no such evidence. Both gave historicalexamples to support their ideas:

. . . there have been many instances where theory and hypothesis have had no experimen-

tal backup. Einstein used “thought experiments” to explain special relativity. DeBroglie,

through a sense of symmetry, hypothesized that matter had a wave behavior like radiation,

but it was a number of years before this assertion was supported by experiment. (Alex,

VNOS-C: Pre, Item 3)

Their comments support the criteria of testability for scientific ideas.

Methods of Science. While reforms emphasize the diverse ways in which scientists goabout their work, UTA responses to the VNOS-C focused almost exclusively on experimen-tal methods. Richard indicated a common, universal “scientific method” of experimentationis what separates science from other modes of inquiry. Five of the nine UTAs (Richard,Lauri, Gretchen, Amanda, and Brad) indicated experiments are required in order for sci-entific knowledge to advance. However, Brad, Gretchen, and Amanda each used the term“experiment” to refer to any investigation in which data were collected. Although theydiffered in whether they felt experiments were required, both Doug and Lauri viewedobservationally based knowledge as less certain and less trustworthy than that generatedthrough experimentation.

During the initial staff meeting, the instructor broached the topic of investigative methods.One of the purposes of the first laboratory session was to help preservice teachers enrolled inthe course understand how to design an experiment, and thus this meeting was of importance,given UTAs’ conceptions of “experiments.” When asked whether experimental studies inwhich variables are controlled and manipulated were possible in fields such as astronomy,Brad, a double major in physics and astronomy, indicated that he felt the investigations heconducted were such experiments:

Brad: We do experiments in astronomy.

Instructor: Describe one to me.

Brad: Well, we look at the specific data for the light curve of a binary star. . . and process the

data . . . controlling other variables . . . knowing things about the star already—its bright-

ness, luminosity—everything else except the light curve. And so, from the light curve, we

determine things about it.

Instructor: What was the variable you manipulated?

Brad: The light curve varies.

Instructor: But what did you manipulate (in the experiment)?

Brad: The telescope.

Savannah: So what did you change? What [variables] did you hold constant and what did

you change?

Brad: You change when you observe.

(Transcript: Lab 1 Meeting)


The tenacity with which Brad held these views was evident when he was pushed furtherby several other UTAs, who did not consider his example to be an “experiment.” He drewfrom his view of subjectivity to defend his position:

Brad: That’s completely subjective—what you term or define as an “experiment” or what

you define as “science.” You could argue that taking observations and data—that’s not an

experiment; I would argue that is experimentation. But, it’s completely subjective to your

personal opinion, just like science is. (Transcript: Lab 1 Meeting)

His reference to subjectivity in this case contradicted his view that science strives forobjectivity:

Science should be a pursuit for the causal mechanisms of some observation that is bereft

of personal-biased qualitative reasoning inherence in philosophy or the sacrosanct mystic-

reverence inherent in religion. (Brad, VNOS-C: Pre, Item 1)

Throughout his responses to the VNOS-C, Brad exhibited such scientism, indicating sci-entific ways of knowing to be superior to other ways of knowing, such as philosophy orreligion.

Subjective/Theory-laden NOS. While seven of the UTAs explicitly acknowledged thatmultiple conclusions might exist for the same set of data or observations, three of those indi-cated that these different conclusions were the result of “errors” or scarce data. The remain-ing four identified differences in prior knowledge, background, and individual perspectivesas a source of different interpretations. Both Alex and Savannah indicated researchers’ biasmight influence interpretation of data. In contrast to the subjective NOS emphasized in thereforms, both Brad and Ben defined science as being the “objective” pursuit of knowledge.

Less evident in preintervention responses were references to the theory-laden aspect ofscience. While three UTAs described scientific knowledge as building on previous knowl-edge and theories, only one articulated theory as a framework, stating: “Different theories(can be used to) interpret data differently” (Richard, VNOS-C: Pre, Item 8).

Creative/Imaginative NOS. All UTAs agreed creativity and imagination were used inscientific investigations. Most often, creativity was defined in a narrow sense as “ingenu-ity,” “cleverness,” or “vision” in the context of problem solving. However, in addition tocreating tangible items (apparatus for experiments etc.), “meaning making” was consid-ered creative; all nine UTAs described data interpretation as a creative process. Richardand Doug, however, specifically indicated that creativity should not be used during datacollection, suggesting creativity to be dishonest. That is, the two interpreted this to mean“creating data” (making it up), rather than collecting data (reporting the facts). While thispoint is arguably valid regarding ethical conduct, their position neglects the use of creativityand imagination in deciding what counts as data, what form data will take, and how the datawill be collected.

Inferential and Theoretical Entities. Two questions on the VNOS-C targeted partici-pants’ understanding of inferential and theoretical entities (atomic structure and biologicalspecies concept). While none of the UTAs claimed it was possible to “see” atoms, fewdescribed the structure of atoms as inferred or based on indirect evidence. About a question

922 HANUSCIN ET AL.

regarding species classifications, participants were less likely to view this as a theoreticalconstruct than as an experimentally confirmed designation. Four of the nine indicated scien-tists were “quite certain” about species. As Ben explained, “As DNA testing is very accurateand expressive, species divisions are relatively easy to define, as is a subjects’ membership”(Pre-VNOS-C: Item 6). Only Alex expressed the idea that this schema might have to berevised to incorporate new species or anomalous data, linking his view to his understandingof the tentative NOS.

Function and Relationship of Theory and Law. Eight of the nine UTAs held hierarchicalviews of the function and relationship of theory and law. Referring to “support” in terms ofevidence or proof, Alex believed theory and law to be synonymous:

Other than the fact that a law usually has a greater amount of support than a theory, I don’t

know that there really is a difference. (VNOS-C: Pre, Item 5)

Amanda also emphasized laws as having greater support than theories, but used “support”to refer to consensus among the scientific community:

Scientific theory is a belief of a scientist. There are other scientists who have their own

theories. A scientific law is widely accepted by all scientists. (VNOS-C: Pre, Item 5)

When asked whether theories change, she indicated similarly that theories are uncertain,stating: “It is a theory. They are not positive” (VNOS-C: Pre, Item 6). Only Savannah, whohad had previous instruction in NOS, held a view consistent with the reforms. However,though several scientific laws and theories were addressed in the curriculum of this course—in which she had previously been enrolled as a student—she was unable to provide thoseas examples:

A law describes a phenomena (sic) that happens and is observed. A theory is our best

explanation of what we are observing based on evidence and inferences. I can’t think of

any examples of laws. (Savannah, VNOS-C: Pre, Item 6)

Her response reflects a simple recall of the definitions of the two terms, rather than a robustunderstanding of forms of scientific knowledge.

Social and Cultural Embeddedness of Science. Consistent with the reforms, eight ofthe nine UTAs agreed that science reflects social, cultural, and political values. Only Dougalso expressed a view that science was universal, citing math as the “universal languageof science” (VNOS-C: Pre, Item 9). However, even those UTAs who believed sciencereflected sociocultural values did not fully internalize this view. For example, Gretchenstated “science is universal when we are talking about scientific laws” (VNOS-C: Pre, Item9).

Undergraduate teaching assistant responses to the VNOS-C often illustrated scienceat odds with social, political, or religious forces; both Gretchen and Richard referencedthe current evolution controversy in schools while Lauri and Ben discussed the historicalexample of Galileo and Copernicus:

Historically (science) has reflected our political, religious, and personal conflicts. Galileo,

the astronomer, helped develop the telescope for the military purposes of the Vatican, but


was then punished for using it to discover Jupiter’s largest moon, going against the “holy”

doctrine of Aristotle. (Lauri, VNOS-C: Pre, Item 9)

Similarly, Alex viewed science as a “human endeavor”:

Whether we like it or not, the same brain that produces social and political values, norms of

culture, etc. is the one that a scientist relies on for his work. Who knows—maybe science

needs all the garbage that goes with being human in order to sustain the creativity and

imagination required to understand the universe. (VNOS-C: Pre, Item 9)

Such internal consistency across views of multiple NOS aspects was not typical, however.

Participants’ Views of NOS Following the Intervention

As illustrated in Table 1, all nine UTAs changed their views about at least one NOSaspect, with three of the UTAs demonstrating a shift in views of four NOS aspects. Mostnotable is the change in view of the function and relation of theory and law, which was theleast understood aspect initially. In some cases, there were subtle shifts in views, which havebeen described by others as “enriched” views (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001); while these do notrepresent a fundamental shift in alignment with the reforms, they nonetheless are indicativeof development of UTAs’ views, and are thus represented in the tabular summary.

In general, changes in views were found to fit one of three patterns. Undergraduateteaching assistants’ shift in epistemological position with regard to NOS was facilitatedwhen interventions provided the opportunity to (1) test the legitimacy of the NOS frameworkagainst knowledge and experience, (2) clarify the vernacular and scientific meaning of terms,or (3) connect their understanding of one aspect to another to construct a coherent frameworkof NOS.

Testing the Legitimacy of NOS against Knowledge and Experience. Each of thephysics majors used historical examples to support his or her responses to the VNOS-C. For Doug, assessing NOS against his knowledge of the history of science proved fruitfulin changing his initial view of science as being universal. In his interview, he discussed theinfluence of the religion and culture on the pursuit of science:

Interviewer: You wrote, There have been times when science was heavily influenced by thechurch, so it was certainly reflecting cultural values at that time. Europeans and Mayansreached different conclusions about the nature of the stars. Can you tell me more about

that?

Doug: I don’t know many details about it, but I know it was about the same time that the

Europeans were studying the constellations and I think the Chinese and probably other

people were all really getting into astronomy. But it was pretty much all funneled through

the church and whichever religion they were worshipping in. So it really all just boiled

down to astrology and how they thought the stars could support their church basically.

(Transcript: VNOS-C Post Interview)

Although participants typically emphasized ways in which sociocultural norms conflictwith or even stifle the progress of science, Brad described moral values as a positive checkon science:

924 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Pure research—for the sake of research—without regard can be dangerous. Human rights

atrocities on monumental scales occurred during WWII in the name of research. To do

research, you must have funding. Funding generally comes from the society in which that

research is taking place. Therefore, there must be some form of arbitration between science

and societal values. (Member check, VNOS-C Profile: Post)

Although Brad initially held that science should be “bereft of bias,” at the end of the semesterhe provided examples from his own experience to illustrate the role bias played in science,suggesting he viewed “objectivity” as more of an ideal than the reality. For Brad, thisrepresented a shift away from the scientism he exhibited in his presemester responses.

In a similar manner, Richard and Doug’s views of the role of creativity and imaginationin science became more aligned with the reforms when they were able to identify examplesfrom their own research to support this notion. Both had initially stated that data collectionshould not involve creativity, as one should collect the facts, rather than “create” (makeup) data. In their postsemester responses, however, they acknowledged the use of creativityand imagination in all stages of scientific inquiry. Richard considered deciding what datato collect and ways to collect data to be a creative process:

Okay—so let’s take the example of what I’m doing downstairs (in the lab) right now. I

had to set up the computerized acquisitions so . . . I mean, once you create it, you just let

the computer take the data. You know it’s taking it at exactly ten minute increments. . . .


This exemplifies the way in which UTAs who were physics majors tested the legitimacyof the NOS ideas presented to them against their own experience doing science, and how aterm such as “creativity” might be operationally defined in this context.

In contrast to responses given by the physics majors, the three education majors (Amanda,Gretchen, and Savannah) relied on examples from the laboratory activities of the course,their experiences (K-12) learning science, or everyday (nonscience) experience:

Science reflects social and cultural values because these factors influence how we interpret

observations and data. My favorite example is in the Little Mermaid. The seagull thinks he

knows what humans do with certain objects. Thus, we find Ariel brushing her hair with her

fork. (Savannah, VNOS-C: Pre, Item 9)

The use of historical examples and examples from research experiences was confined tothose UTAs who were physics majors. Education majors were not equally able to situatetheir understanding of the targeted NOS aspects within an authentic or historical sciencecontext.

Clarifying Vernacular and Scientific Meanings of Terms. The most notable change oc-curred in UTAs’ views of the function and relationship of theory and law. Prior to thesemester, eight of the nine believed theories would become laws. In contrast, at the endof the semester, seven of these expressed views more consistent with science educationreforms. In each of these cases, UTAs had to reconcile vernacular uses of these terms withtheir scientific usages. As Gretchen explained, “Before this class I thought a theory wasmore like an idea and a law was a fact” (VNOS-C: Post Interview). Postsemester, theseUTAs differentiated theories and laws as two different forms of knowledge. Ben’s responseis typical:


A law is an observation, and a theory is a description of the processes in the observation.

Law of gravitation roughly states two objects will be gravitationally attracted; whereas,

general theory of relativity attempts to explain the physics of the situation. (VNOS-C: Post,

Item 5)

Amanda, however, maintained a hierarchical view of theory and law. Indeed, she madeno differentiation between the two terms. As she stated, “I have come to believe that thedifference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is just the name” (VNOS-C: Post,Item 5).

An additional source of misconceptions about NOS was confusion over the meaning of“experiment.” At the beginning of the semester, most UTAs used the term “experiment”in the vernacular sense of “trying something out.” In postsemester interviews, each UTArecognized that “experiment” could also be used to refer to one specific kind of scientificinvestigation involving manipulation of an independent variable to examine a dependentvariable. This clarification prompted a reversal in Brad’s initial position that experimentswere required in order for scientific knowledge to advance. Although he originally used thisterm to describe any “controlled process” (VNOS-C: Post, Item 2) including the investiga-tions he conducted at the campus observatory, he acknowledged its more specific referenceto investigations with a manipulated variable:

Once again, the definition of experiments comes into play. I will, however, say no. Some parts

of Astronomy are observation-based and do not fit the classical definition of experiment.

(VNOS-C: Post, Item 3)

Through this clarification, Brad was able to maintain his position that the astronomy inves-tigations he conducted were still scientific (e.g., valid) though not “experiments.”

Such clarification did not always lead to changes in views, however. Richard, Doug,Lauri, Gretchen, and Amanda maintained their belief that experiments were the sole meansthrough which scientific knowledge could be generated, and that science could not advancethrough observation alone. This reflected the elevated status they gave data collected throughexperimental means, rather than their conflation of the term “experiment”. Thus, clarifyingthe meaning of these terms did not impact their epistemological stance.

A third source of confusion arose over the meaning of the terms used by the reforms tocharacterize NOS. Whereas initially Doug had indicated the structure of the atom was amodel, in his postsemester responses he exhibited a changed view that was counter to theNOS ideas explicitly addressed in the course and staff meetings:

(Scientists) are very certain about the structure of the atom. Nuclear physics would not work

if they were wrong. It is also possible to directly observe atoms now. (VNOS-C: Post, Item

5)

This statement of the certainty of scientific knowledge may have been in response to whatDoug perceived as an overemphasis on the tentative NOS in the course. In evaluating thelegitimacy of “tentativeness,” Doug found the implication of this word choice problematic:

I didn’t really like the way you teach the “tentativeness” of science, because I know that’s

truth. I mean, the scientific theory has changed over a long period of time—But. . . . It

seems like I don’t have a better alternative. . . (pauses to gather thoughts) When you say it’s

tentative, it gives people the idea that (scientists) don’t really know what they’re talking

about . . . it’s like (they’re) just making stuff up. It’s all going to change next year! (Transcript:

Post Interview)

926 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Interestingly, Doug did not experience this same tension when asked about the concept ofspecies, which he described as “completely arbitrary.” As he wrote, “That is a definitiongiven by biologists, so unless they change their minds, it will stay the same” (VNOS-C:Post, Item 6). Such differences in responses to items related to physics and biology contentsuggest that the participants’ views of NOS may be dependent, in part, on their familiaritywith the content to which the item refers. For example, while Savannah and Alex alsoreferred to species as a “construct” in their postsemester responses, none of the other UTAsmade such a distinction; most referred to the certainty of classifying species according toDNA information. Furthermore, this highlights the differing degrees to which UTAs’ viewsof NOS were integrated into a coherent framework.

Constructing a Coherent Framework of NOS Views

A third type of change in UTAs’ views occurred when they used their understandingof one aspect of NOS to reassess their view of another aspect. For example, though allUTAs initially indicated scientific knowledge might change in light of new or contradictoryevidence, four (Richard, Doug, Gretchen, and Alex) exhibited enriched views postsemester,emphasizing scientific ideas could change with reinterpretation of existing evidence. Theydid so by applying their understanding of individual subjectivity to the collective knowledge-building practices. As Gretchen explained, old data might be looked at in new ways—“It’skind of like how people can have different theories about the same set of data” (Transcript:VNOS-C Post Interview). She also used her understanding of subjectivity to invalidate herclaim that science is universal:

I’d like [sic] to believe science is universal because ideas in science are based on experimen-

tation, observation, etc. to find the best explanations for the questions we have. However,

because [individuals’] inferences in science can be different—they can reflect social and

political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of a specific culture.

(VNOS-C: Post, Item 9)

These connections, made throughout each UTA’s postsemester responses to varying degrees,were evidence of their attempts at internal consistency in their views of NOS.

Factors Influencing the Development of UTAs’ Views of NOS

Transcripts of meetings and the researcher’s field notes provided a chronological recordagainst which UTAs’ views of NOS could be compared to identify points of shift in views.This second phase of analysis allowed for identification of factors that influenced UTAs’views of NOS. The impact of each component of the professional development is discussedbelow.

Introduction to NOS as a Goal of Science Education. The course instructor was con-scious of the potential for UTAs, who had not been previously exposed to NOS, to interpretNOS as her personal agenda for the course, rather than a central goal of science education.We argue that the initial introduction to NOS was an important step in the professionaldevelopment, as it established a purpose for learning about NOS. Internalization of the im-portance of NOS as an instructional goal was evident in several cases and at varied levels.For example, though he stated that he felt learning about NOS was an important goal, Bradwas unable to provide an explanation as to why students should understand NOS. Richardsimply considered NOS to be part of the “basics” of science:


Richard: In any science course, learning the basics of science is absolutely imperative. I

mean, you have to know the basics of science most of the time whenever you’re talking

in scientific form or when you’re in a science class. I think it’s imperative. Now in upper

level courses, I didn’t know the accepted definition of what a law is versus what a theory

is—I’m going to admit that right away. Because I’ve learned laws and theories—I had sort

of an abstract impression. I never had a concrete definition.


In contrast to Richard and Brad, both Lauri and Alex provided reasons NOS was importantto address in a course. Lauri viewed NOS as a “hook” to get students interested in learningscience:

I think [discussing NOS] gets them excited about science—meaning it’s not just a vicarious

thing. It seems like science has had a bad name sometimes. And if you make it more of a

social aspect—which it is—and use historical things. . . present it in that form, I think some

of the students might accept it better. And you get not only the people who are interested

in science, but also the people who are interested in the humanities and social sciences.


Alex indicated the same, relating NOS to his own interest in the history of science:

I’ve been fortunate in most of my courses, physics especially—physics books love to put

in little historical data. I sometimes wish they were more thorough about what they were

teaching about history. . . . (VNOS-C: Post Interview)

Indeed, the pedagogical argument highlighted by both Lauri and Alex has been advanced byresearchers to support the significance of teaching and learning about NOS as a motivationaltool that facilitates students’ understanding of content (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1994).

Content-generic Laboratory Activities. Participation, as learners, in content-generic ac-tivities allowed UTAs to develop and clarify their understanding of each of the seven NOSaspects emphasized in the reforms. For example, the following discussion took place fol-lowing the Tricky Tracks activity, in which each of the UTAs had come up with a differentexplanation for his or her observations of the tracks:

Instructor: How is this like what scientists do?

Lauri: You don’t have the whole story, you just have evidence.

Instructor: So what does that tell you about the nature of scientific knowledge?

Amanda: We don’t necessarily KNOW—we put it together in a creative way. . . . We can

get a good idea from fossils—kind of, we don’t know for sure—we take for granted what

they look like, but it’s similar.

Doug: Inferences aren’t true—they’re our best thinking so far.

(Transcript: Lab Meeting #3)

In this manner, UTAs began to associate terms from the reforms, such as “creative,” withtheir own scientific processes employed in the activities, and to integrate their views into aconsistent, overarching framework.

Furthermore, the activities provided a context through which UTAs could connect totheir own experiences, and test the legitimacy of the NOS framework against their priorknowledge. For example, The Cow activity involved presenting the group with an image,and asking them to identify it. Responses initially included “a map,” “a satellite image,” or

928 HANUSCIN ET AL.

“leaves”; however, when the instructor suggested it was a photograph of a cow, each of theUTAs “saw” the cow.

Instructor: So, what do you think is the point I’m trying to make about . . . looking at data?

Savannah: We put our own—subjectively put our own implications on it.

Brad: People can see what they want to in the data. That’s a really big problem with what

I’m working on like, in the way I’m getting data. I could get things to work out and say,

“Hey, that’s exactly what I’m looking for”—IF, I fit things the way I think they should fit,

not the way they actually work.

Instructor: OK, so because I said “cow,” you wanted to see a cow, and so . . . it made sense

to you?

Brad: Yes. Exactly. A lot of times people will find, in what they’re doing—it’s honestly a

very big problem. I’ve talked to my professors about it—in the field of research. They say

that their data fits what they’re saying, but their data really doesn’t.

Amanda: It’s almost like horoscopes—people will read into them and say, “That’s why that

happened!”


What is interesting to note in the above example is that Brad, a physics major, related theactivity to his experience working with faculty on research, while Amanda, an educationmajor, related the activity to an example from everyday life, rather than science. While thecontent-generic activities promoted understanding of the meaning of the various NOS as-pects, one recognizable limitation is that they did not necessarily provide a link to a scientificapplication of that aspect for education majors, who lacked such inquiry experiences.

Content-embedded NOS Discussions. Having developed their understandings of thevarious NOS aspects through the content-generic activities, UTAs were prepared to criticallyanalyze laboratory investigations of the course about NOS. The contrast between “schoolscience” and “professional science” made aspects of NOS more salient, as illustrated below:

Doug: [In real science] you’re not verifying—I mean, there’s a point in doing verification

labs, to master certain concepts—like, the Law of Reflection, to demonstrate that the angles

are the same. . . . But in the actual laboratory—you might have an idea, but you’re not trying

to verify anything.

Instructor: So, you’re not trying to verify the data, you’re trying to interpret it?

Doug: Yeah, you’re not trying to simply reinforce an old concept—something that’s already

known.

Instructor: In the science classes or labs you’ve had so far, what do you think are the

differences between science—in school—and science as carried out by scientists, or research

you might be involved in right now? What are ways that “school science” differs from “real

science”?

Gretchen: There’s the whole process of following directions. . . .

Lauri: Courses like this—it’s so easy to just go and know what you want to write, get the

answers—never really think about what science truly is or how to be a scientist.

Instructor: So, in schools, you’re typically following directions versus coming up with a

procedure. . . a lot of the things you’ve seen are “follow the directions, write your answer”?

Lauri: Right. You can do it without thinking. These checkpoints and interventions really

help to get the group to talk about it and understand WHY they’re doing the activities.


These discussions helped UTAs develop a better understanding of the rationale behindthe guided inquiry approach used in the laboratory—that is, to make the process in which


students engaged more consistent with the practices in which scientists engage, and reflectiveof NOS.

As the semester progressed, and their understandings of the various NOS aspects devel-oped, UTAs became adept at identifying more subtle ways in which the laboratory activitiesreflected NOS. Capitalizing on these opportunities, the instructor utilized examples of stu-dent responses and comments to elicit these connections:

Instructor: One of the [ideas expressed] on the student survey was about observations—a

lot of students think “your observations are true, they can’t be wrong.” How would you

respond to a student in your class who said this?

Alex: In this last color lab made an excellent point of that—especially using filters. And,

having students—just through a blue filter—several saw what they thought looked violet.

And that’s just the way their brains are wired. Something that looks blue to me looks kind

of purple to them—and so, some of it is just based on how your brain is wired.


Recognizing students’ failure to understand how an individual’s subjectivity might influ-ence their knowledge construction, Alex provided the above example from the laboratoryexperiences that would challenge this view. As elaborated upon below, the presentation ofstudents’ responses for analysis by UTAs became a powerful tool for promoting changesin views.

Engaging in Analysis of Students’ Views of NOS. As discussed previously, changes inUTAs’ ability to explicate the function and relation of theory and law were facilitated byclarification of the meaning of these terms. As Gretchen explained, “Before this class Ithought a theory was more like an idea and a law was a fact” (VNOS-C: Post Interview).This clarification was prompted by discussion of NOS views of preservice teachers. Forexample, at one of the weekly meetings prior to a laboratory session focused on theory andlaw, UTAs were presented with representative samples of preservice teachers’ responsesto the VNOS-C. Through reflective discussions, UTAs reconciled their own ideas with theNOS framework they were provided. The following segment illustrates this:

Instructor: What stands out to you from their (the preservice teachers’) responses?

Savannah: “The law of gravity is constant, but theory is varied.”

Instructor: So, is it that laws don’t vary, yet theories do? Does that sound valid?

Alex: No.

Instructor: Why not?

Alex: Well, we might eventually find evidence one day to disprove a law—or there might

even be cases in which the law does not hold true. I’m thinking of Newton’s Laws and

Einstein’s Relativity.

Instructor: OK, so we could say then, [theories and laws] are both tentative.

Alex: Yeah.

Instructor: So, then—the idea that a law is more certain than a theory would not be valid.

Brad: Laws can definitely be more certain than a theory—like, Einstein’s special relativity

. . . I can come up with a theory. There can be a lot more certainty with Einstein’s theory

than mine . . . in terms of certainty, theory can definitely differ.

Instructor: So what do you mean when you say “theory”? When someone says, “Everybody

has a theory. . . ” or “I have a theory about this. . . ?”

Savannah: Opinion?

Instructor: Right; sometimes the word theory is used in a way that reduces it to mean

“opinion.” So would you say Einstein’s [theory] is simply his opinion?

930 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Brad: Not quite!

Instructor: He might certainly believe it! (laughter among group) and his opinion might be

that it’s a great theory, but is the theory itself an opinion? If I say, “Hey, Amanda—great

shirt!” is that the same thing as coming up with a scientific theory?

Richard: I’d say a theory is a purposeful statement of opinion—people might say theories

are the kinds of opinions used to explain phenomena.

Instructor: So what else might differ between Einstein’s Theory, the Theory of Evolution,

or any other scientific theory and someone’s “opinion”?

Doug: Well, it’s based on a logical process and argument. . .

Instructor: OK . . . and there’s evidence to back it up—getting back to that empirical nature

of science we talked about.


The instructor intentionally selected preservice teachers’ responses that were similar toUTAs’ own views, which enabled her to target their misconceptions about NOS. Beingpresented with others’ views of NOS enabled UTAs to question their own ideas in a non-threatening manner by placing the focus of the discussion on the validity of the idea, ratherthan the intellectual prowess of the person holding the idea. In this way, inconsistenciesbetween the framework of NOS ideas presented to them and their own views could beresolved.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore UTAs’ conceptions of the NOS and the impactof professional development on their views. Given the large body of research over thepast decades that examined teachers’ and students’ views of NOS, it was expected thatthe UTAs in this study would hold a number of misconceptions, which have been referredto elsewhere as “naı̈ve” or “inadequate” views (Lederman, 1992). Indeed, eight of thenine exhibited views consistent with previous findings such as a hierarchical view of therelationship between theory and law (e.g., Horner & Rubba, 1979). Both physics majors andeducation majors held such views. Greater background and knowledge of science contentdid not necessarily provide the physics majors in this study with more accurate views of NOSin comparison to the education majors, consistent with previous findings (e.g., Scharmann,1988). Given that instruction in NOS was not an explicit part of UTAs’ coursework, thedata provide further evidence of the ineffectiveness of implicit approaches in promotingaccurate views of NOS.

In contrast, the explicit-and-reflective approach employed in this setting resulted in fa-vorable changes in the UTAs’ understandings of the target NOS aspects. Specifically, weargue that the explicit-and-reflective interventions employed in this context contributedto these changes by providing opportunities for UTAs to (1) clarify the vernacular andscientific meaning of terms, (2) test the legitimacy of NOS against personal experience,and (3) construct a coherent framework of NOS by relating the various aspects to eachother. By providing these opportunities, the interventions addressed different types of NOSmisconceptions.

One type of misconception about NOS arises from the use of language. Conceptualchange can be inhibited when students confuse the meanings of scientific terms with theireveryday usages (Cobern, 1996). For example, Amanda’s equation of theory with opinionwas a barrier to understanding the function and relation of theory and law. Similar findingshave been reported by both Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) and Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman(2000b) in which learners who failed to develop more accurate views of NOS conflated the


vernacular meaning of terms such as “proof,” “creativity,” and “theory” with their meaningin a scientific context. In contrast, both Richard and Doug changed their views of NOSwhen they were able to conceive of a definition for creativity in a scientific context, insteadof relying on their more everyday use of the word to indicate something imaginary or madeup. These findings highlight the importance of being attuned to the meaning learners ascribeto what may appear (to those familiar with NOS) to be fairly straightforward language inthe reforms. Indeed, Doug’s fear that the use of “tentativeness” implied a complete lack ofcertainty is such an example. While his own belief that scientific knowledge was subjectto change could be considered consistent with the reforms, his misunderstanding of theintended meaning and use of “tentativeness” in the reform documents led to his objectionagainst them. We argue that such semantic issues are not trivial, and should be addressedexplicitly when teaching about NOS.

Other misconceptions of NOS may arise when students are left to make sense of theirexperiences with science on their own, that is, when NOS is an implicit part of the curriculum.Explicit discussion of NOS can guide students in reflecting on the epistemological criteriathat underlie their work. For example, testing the legitimacy of the various NOS aspectsagainst their personal experience and prior knowledge was necessary in order for UTAsto decide whether these were indeed plausible and fruitful ideas (Posner, Strike, Hewson,& Hertzog, 1982). When he was able to identify ways he used creativity in his own datacollection, Richard altered his views of NOS. Similarly, Brad was able to recognize thesubjective NOS, something he initially rejected, through reflection on his own research.The education majors, who did not have experience conducting scientific research, insteadselected relevant examples from their everyday lives. While these examples were consistentwith the NOS aspects indicated, these were not linked in meaningful ways to the content orthe scientific endeavor.

The ability of UTAs to generate novel examples of more general NOS ideas (such asthose advanced by the reforms) suggests a much more sophisticated understanding thanthose who cannot do so. However, it is important to consider the nature of those examples.In particular, the education majors’ reference to their school and everyday experiences issignificant. This may, perhaps, reflect what Hogan (2000) refers to as “proximal” versus“distal” understanding of NOS:

Distal knowledge of the nature of science refers to students’ knowledge about the protocols,

practices, and products of the professional scientific community. Proximal knowledge of

the nature of science refers to students’ understanding of and perspectives on the nature of

their own science knowledge-building practices and the scientific knowledge they form and

encounter. Proximal knowledge of the nature of science is tied to students’ school contexts

of knowledge production. (p. 52)

The content-generic activities and laboratory activities that provided a context for intro-ducing and developing an understanding of NOS in this study arguably impacted educationmajors’ proximal, rather than distal understandings of NOS. While these activities helpedthem better understand the meaning of subjectivity, for example, they did not assist the edu-cation majors in connecting this to the practice, protocols, and products of the professionalscience community. Because, unlike the physics majors, they lacked experience conduct-ing authentic scientific research, they were limited in testing the legitimacy of the reformcharacterizations of NOS against their proximal knowledge of NOS.

Although we focused on seven different aspects of NOS in this study, the goal of explicit-and-reflective interventions is to encourage learners to “assess the consistency of their ideas. . . with the hope of helping them reconcile these meanings into a coherent framework ofideas about NOS” (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004). While UTAs’ initial views lacked

932 HANUSCIN ET AL.

a consistent, overarching framework, there is evidence that the interventions helped themidentify inconsistencies in their views and form logical links between aspects of NOS.In discussions of content-generic activities, such as that following Tricky Tracks, multipleaspects of NOS were identified about the same phenomena. Making such connections ledto changes in NOS views. For example, Gretchen used her understanding of individualsubjectivity as a rationale for the sociocultural embeddedness of science; she reasoned thatbecause individuals may have different ideas, and their ideas are influenced by their culture,science as a whole may reflect cultural norms and values. In addition, the enriched viewsof Alex, Brad, and Amanda reflected attempts to integrate their ideas into a consistentframework. Such attempts are more significant than a change in view of any single aspectof NOS, in that they demonstrate a more robust understanding of NOS.

Given these changes in UTAs’ views of NOS, our findings lend further support to theeffectiveness of explicit and reflective interventions in improving learners’ views of theNOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Akerson et al., 2000). Furthermore, they areconsistent with research that suggests that an individual’s views of the NOS may be contextdependent (Hammer, 1994; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003).For example, Doug’s belief that biologists’ definition of species was “completely arbitrary”and subject to change as soon as biologists “change their minds” stands in stark contrastto his insistence that scientists are certain of the structure of the atom and that “nuclearphysics wouldn’t work if they were wrong.” Similarly, with the exception of Savannah andAlex, other UTAs believed that species characterizations were “fairly certain” and easilydetermined through DNA testing. Many of these same UTAs recognized the structure of theatom as a model. Such responses suggest discipline-specific beliefs about NOS; however,because the VNOS-C contains only three content-embedded items, each focusing on adifferent content, there is not sufficient data to determine whether the specific contentreferenced in the items or the discipline as a whole evokes such contradictory views.

Limitations of the Study

Finally, it should be noted that the findings of this study may, to some degree, be limited tothe unique nature of the context—that professional development was provided to UTAs whowere learning about NOS while they were concurrently teaching NOS in their laboratorysessions. Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2004) indicated motivational factors related topreservice teachers’ perceptions of the importance and utility of learning and teaching NOSfacilitated the development of participants’ views. Such motivational factors may have alsoplayed a role in the present study, given UTAs were expected to teach these same NOSconcepts to their students in the laboratory as part of the course curriculum. Discussion ofpreservice teachers’ VNOS-C responses may have promoted concern about the accuracy oftheir students’ views of NOS. However, UTAs ability to teach NOS and the impact of theirinstruction on preservice teachers’ views is beyond the scope of this study.

Because UTAs had advanced through their both K-12 and college education withoutexplicitly examining NOS, this lack of experience may serve as a barrier to viewing NOSas a relevant or necessary understanding to possess. The findings of this study suggest thatdeveloping a rationale for inclusion of NOS in the curriculum—beyond simply identifyingNOS as a goal of science education reform—may be linked to intention to teach NOS (seealso Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). However, the firmness of commitment to teaching NOS,when it has not been an explicit part of one’s own education, is questionable. Exploration ofperceived importance of NOS, not only as an instructional objective but as a vital componentof science literacy, may provide further insight into effective means for achieving the visionof the reforms.


Implications

Given the role that UTAs or other TAs play in the implementation of the curriculum ofmany science courses, it is vital that course instructors give consideration to TAs’ conceptualunderstanding of the course content. Similarly, when NOS instruction is integrated in acourse, TAs’ views of the NOS should be taken into account in planning instruction. Just asDickinson and Flick (1998) recommended appropriate forms of support be provided to TAsto ensure effective instruction of the content, we argue the same support is needed aboutNOS. The results of our study suggest that this can be accomplished through job-embeddedprofessional development that provides TAs with the opportunity to examine the validityof presented NOS ideas against their own NOS framework and experience, as well as toclarify the meaning of scientific terms that have alternative vernacular use. Further researchshould explore the relative effectiveness of such job-embedded professional developmentto NOS instruction that occurs prior to, and separate from, the teaching of NOS.

An understanding of NOS has been deemed a necessary, though not sufficient, criterion forbeing able to teach NOS effectively (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a). Addressing NOSwithin the preparation of TAs can help meet this criterion. Such professional developmentrelated to NOS may be especially beneficial to enhancing the efforts of teacher educationprograms to improve NOS views of teachers, both immediately and in the long term.Particularly, such early experiences may factor prominently in the likelihood TAs whoaspire to faculty positions will address NOS in their courses. If we, as science educators,feel strongly that NOS should be part of both K-12 and college science education, then ourefforts to prepare TAs should mirror our efforts to prepare K-12 teachers.

The authors thank Meredith Beilfuss for assistance with data collection, as well as Sandra Abell and

three anonymous reviewers for feedback that greatly improved this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses:

Abandoning scientism, but. . . . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development

of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science as instructional practice: Making

the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–437.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science:

A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views

of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based

approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

37(4), 295–317.

Akerson, V., & Hanuscin, D. (2003, March). Primary teachers’ abilities to teach via scientific inquiry while making

elements of nature of science explicit. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford

University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061

report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bell, R. L. (1999). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based

issues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Oregon.

Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory

grid and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83, 675–700.

934 HANUSCIN ET AL.

Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary

teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 379(2), 177–209.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods

(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Letts, W. J., & Shipman, H. L. (2000). Diversity of students’ views about

evidence, theory, and the interface between science and religion in an astronomy course. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 37(4), 340–362.

Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80(5),

579–610.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crowther, D. (no date). Resources and programs in higher education: Science content courses for elementary

education majors. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/resources

Dickinson, V. L., & Flick, L. B. (1998). Beating the system: Course structure and student strategies in a traditional

undergraduate physics course for nonmajors. School Science & Mathematics, 98, 5.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1994). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University

Press.

Duschl, R. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research

on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association (pp. 443–465).

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Fleming, R. (1998). Undergraduate students’ views on the relationship between science, technology, and society.

International Journal of Science Education, 10, 449–463.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science

inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education, 11(1), 55–67.

Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1),

73–80.

Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151–183.

Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education,

84, 51–70.

Horner, J., & Rubba, P. (1979). The laws-are-mature-theories fable. The Science Teacher, 46(2), 31.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–360.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understand-

ings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education (pp. 83–126).

The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science ques-

tionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use,

and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.

Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ understanding

and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and

Technology Education, 1, 135–160.

Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Khishfe, R., Lederman, J. S., Matthews, L., & Liu, S. (2002, January). Project

ICAN: A professional development program for teachers’ knowledge and pedagogy of nature of science and

scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of

Science, Charlotte, NC.

Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our

assessments? Science & Education, 7, 595–615.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2000, July). NSTA position statement on the nature of science. Retrieved

January 12, 2003, from http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=22

Pomeroy, D. H. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of

scientists, secondary teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Hertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:

Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 5–30.


Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219.

Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a

biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.

Scharmann, L. C. (1988). The influence of sequenced instructional strategy and locus of control on preservice

elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25,

589–604.

Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions

on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2000, January). Making connections between the nature of

science and scientific inquiry: A science research internship for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH.

Download - Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants

Top Related