nature of science, 1969 and 1984: perspectives of preservice secondary science teachers

43

Nature of Science^ 1969 and1984: Perspectives of PreserviceSecondary Science Teachers

Hans 0. AndersenHarold HartyK. V. Samuel

"One of the most commonly stated ob-jectives for science education is the at-tainment of an understanding of thenature of science" (Kimball, 1967).Teachers of science, in particular, needto understand the nature of science be-cause it is their responsibility to convey

this understanding to their students. Thus, it becomes important for teacher edu-cators to determine, at least occasionally, the conceptualization students possessfor the nature of science who graduate from their programs and gain certifica-tion as qualified science teachers. This is most important after certification re-quirements change, and particularly so, when the changes include a reduction inthe number of required science hours as was the case in this situation.

Kimball (1967), Rubba, and Andersen (1978) and Rubba, Horner, and Smith(1981) have stressed the importance of making an understanding of the nature ofscience a major goal of science education. Furthermore, because one can not as-sume that completing a science major confirms an understanding of the natureof science upon the student directly, teaching this topic is probably necessary.This statement is consistent with Schmidt (1984) and Carey and Stauss (1970)who concluded that science teachers often inappropriately assume that thisunderstanding is gained from any science experience.

Kimball (1967) developed and validated a scale to measure understanding ofthe nature of science referred to as the "Nature of Science Scale" (NOSS). Thescale is based on a theoretical model constructed from a review of the literature(the likes ofBridgman, Bronowski, Conant, Holton, Nagel, Schwab, and White-

School Science and MathematicsVolume 86 (1) January 1986

44Natureof Science

0. o 00 0

o o0 0

;5^^

^^frl’ct(s^^~--r<-lr<~l^^�0^^^^f<~�0�^t�’^t’;^�0^<^^^^�-Ol^-’Ô^^Tt^«->’�t^ri

^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 ^ oSOc^

Mr^(^coi^(^cco\o^^(^côô^co(xic^<îôoo^^c’\o»’’^-Mo^ôc’’c^

(^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0"

î£^Si "o

0^

1"&> \o.a^

8it-, U

r^ fc �3

3^2?.§2

^ 5t*"CT ZlH0 *-

s^^ 5;�si

- S

^û :^

�t’ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

’� (N <^l � ’� r^’ �’ ^-’ " �’ rî ~ fN � fM’ r4 � " ’� � �’ rî � �" �’ ’�

Q.

0y-Q 5-°! Q

.jii^jiii^ jos.i §§^0§llrilllitt -îîj?^ p^ls^-irîiltiloolsiiljjÛ^lî^^^S^-^^S^sSi-l^y0]^’^^^|^ll:l|||S|pj|-i!5|I?|l|^llÎliiljaî^lli^p^ll^l-lllJSG^’Sx^^^^^^^^^^-glJ-^^^CL.gS^.Si-^^^.y^^^^^Si^^g^.y^S^ô^S-^.y^S^ î^^ ^?j-5§:j a l.li S^ ^.^gîy y. ^.^§§gss^sggs-g.i^sii-issig.^-jss is^S^QO^^^^QDQ^^^^f^^FS^^^ÛJ^^QS’- rJ r^ Ti-’ v^ \D (-’" oc o^ o � r’i r^ �^t" u^ ^ r^’ oc o^ o ’- r^ r^ Tf m vo r~ oo a^


Nature of Science 45

head) on the nature and philosophy of science. Reflected in the literature aredeclarations on which the NOSS is based:

1. The fundamental driving force in science is curiosity concerning the physical uni-verse. It has no connection with outcomes, applications, or uses aside from the gen-eration of new knowledge.

2. In the search for knowledge, science is process-oriented; it is a dynamic, on-goingactivity rather than a static accumulation of information.

3. In dealing with knowledge as it is developed and manipulated, science aims at ever-increasing comprehensiveness and simplification, emphasizing mathematical lan-guage as the most precise and simplest means of stating relationships.

4. There is no one "scientific method" as often described in school science textbooks.Rather, there are as many methods of science as there are practitioners.

5. The methods of science are characterized by a few attributes which are more in therealm of values than techniques. Among these traits of science are dependence uponsense experience, insistence on operational definitions, recognition of the arbitrari-ness of definitions and schemes of classification or organization, and the evaluationof scientific work in terms of reproducibility and of usefulness in furthering scien-tific inquiry.

6. A basic characteristic of science is a faith in the susceptibility of the physical uni-verse to human ordering and understanding.

7. Science has a unique attribute of openness, both openness of mind, allowing forwillingness to change opinion in the face of evidence, and the openness of the realmof investigation, unlimited by such factors as religion, politics, or geography.

8. Tentativeness and uncertainty mark all of science. Nothing is ever completelyproven in science, and recognition of this fact is a guiding consideration of the dis-cipline.

Initially a pool of 200 items was developed; but after considerable review test-ing, a 29 item scale was produced. The 29 item scale was reported to have aSpearman-Brown split-half reliability of 0.72. The shortened descriptors ofitems included in the instrument are displayed in Table 1. Table 1 also containsan indication (in parentheses) of the model (D = disagree with model; A = agreewith model) responses. Kimball (1967) administered the NOSS to 712 sciencemajors, science teachers, and philosophy majors. As a result of this study, Kim-ball reported that the philosophy majors responses were significantly more likethe literature-generated model responses than were those of either the scientistsor teachers.

In an initial study conducted during 1969, the "Nature of Science Scale"(Kimball, 1967) was administered to 24 students enrolled in a course entitled"Methods of Teaching High School Science." Their scores were then comparedto data reported by Kimball (1967) who compared how practicing scientists,practicing science teachers and philosophy majors rated the items on the"Nature of Science Scale." In that study (1969), the preservice secondary science


46 Nature of Science

teachers were slightly more in agreement with the model responses of the Kirn-ball study than were KimbalPs sample of practicing teachers. In 1969, this wasaccepted as evidence that these preservice secondary science teachers were de-veloping an acceptable understanding of the nature of science. However, subse-quent to that time an additional two-hour discussion of the nature of science wasadded to the course; and whenever possible, throughout the course, studentswere asked if particular lessons, demonstrations, laboratories etc. allowed stu-dents to gain an appropriate understanding of the nature of science. An attemptwas made to make "understanding the nature of science" a thread woventhroughout the course.

<(. . . philosophy majors responses were significantly morelike the literature-generated model responses than were thoseof either the scientists or teachers/9

Since that study, science teaching certification requirements were changed. In1969, most students completed a 40 semester hour science major and a 24 semes-ter hour science minor for a total of 64 semester hours of science (minimum).Today *s graduates are required to complete only 51 semester hours of sciencedistributed across three categories including a 24 semester hour primary area, a15 semester hour supporting area and 12 semester hours of science courses fromscience areas other than primary and supporting areas. Primary and supportingareas include biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, general science, andphysical science. Science majors may also select mathematics as a supportingarea. Students selecting mathematics as a supporting area would thus be requiredto complete only 36 semester hours of science.

Methodology

In the present study, the NOSS was again administered (on the first day of class)to students enrolled in the "Methods of Teaching High School Science’* course.The primary question was, how do the 1969 and 1984 preservice teachers com-pare with respect to their understanding of the nature of science? A secondaryquestion was, to what extent did the 1984 group of preservice teachers agree withthe Kimball (1967) "Model Response"?

Subjects:

Students in the 1969 (N + 24) and the 1984 (N = 21) groups were enrolled inthe "Methods of Teaching High School Science" course during the spring semes-ter of 1969 and 1984 respectively (Table 2). Generally, this is the last course thestudent takes prior to student teaching and graduation. There was a difference in



TABLE 2Background Comparisons of 1969 and 1984 Groups

Demographic Dimensions

MalesFemalesMajor

BiologyChemistryPhysicsEarth ScienceGeneral Science

1969

159

125115

1984

813

103116

the proportion of males and females in the two groups. The average age of the1984 group was 2 years higher, and better than half of the students had alreadyearned a bachelor’s degree. Only 4 of the 1969 sample had degrees. In bothcases, approximately half of the students were biology majors. The G.P.A/s ofthe two groups were not compared. It was assumed that both groups were ap-proximately equal academically. The 1984 group, which contained a larger pro-portion of graduate students, was assumed to be more committed to pursuingscience teaching as a career. Since the unit being studied is teachers, it was as-sumed that the two groups were roughly equivalent because of the near equal dis-tribution across majors and because one investigator had first hand experiencewith both groups.

Instrumentation:

The preservice teachers’ (both in 1969 and 1984) understanding of the nature ofscience was measured by the "Nature of Science Scale" (Kimball, 1967) whichconsists of 29 Likert-type items rated on 1 (low) to 3 (high) scales. The format ofthe rating process was slightly altered to facilitate the summation process.Twenty-three negatively stated item scores are reversed in the summation processwhere a total score can range from a low of 29 (little understanding) to a high of87 (great understanding). Kimball (1967) reported split-half internal consistencyreliability to be 0.72 on a sample of 95 undergraduates. On the 1984 sample of 24preservice teachers, an alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.74was calculated. Face, content and construct validities were established bothqualitatively and quantitatively by way of extensive field testing and later pub-lished studies (Rubba & Andersen, 1978; Rubba, Horner & Smith, 1981).



Findings

The data collected from the two groups are displayed in Table 1. The averagetotal score attained by the 1984 group was significantly (t-test = 3.2; p < 0.008)more like the Kimball Model Response Scores than was the average score of the1969 group. The 1984 student group expressed more agreement with the Kimball(1967) Model Response on 24 of the 29 items of the "Nature of Science Scale."On five items, (1, 3, 13, 22, & 27) the 1984 group was significantly (Mann-Whitney U-test) more in agreement with the response model than was the 1969group (Table 1). On item nine which asked about creating life in the laboratory,the 1984 group was significantly less in agreement with the response model thanwas the 1969 group; however, the average score of the 1984 group (2.5) permitsone to infer that the average preservice secondary science teacher is in agreementwith the model response and the "scientist response."

TABLE 3Preservice Teacher (1984) Responses To The Kimball Model Declarations

Model Declarations Mean S.D.

1.Science is characterized by its openness.2.550.72.Scientific work must bereproducible.2.400.83.The findings of science are tentative.2.300.74.Science is an ongoingprocess.2.200.95.Scientists believe that the universe can be ordered.2.130.96.Curiosity is the fundamental driving force of science. 2.000.87.Science strives for parsimony ofexplanation.1.800.78.There is no single scientificmethod.1.600.7

The average scores and the average standard deviation’s of the 1984 group ofpreservice teachers on the items representing the assertions w^ich underlie thenature of Science Model are displayed in Table 3. An average score of threewould indicate that each member of the group agreed with the Kimball ScientistModel Response. An average score of one would indicate absolutely no agree-ment with the scientists. An examination of the data indicate very little agree-ment between scientists and preservice teachers on declarations eight and nine.Little agreement on declarations five and six, a fair amount of agreement ondeclarations three and four, and quite a bit of agreement on declarations one andtwo. Of particular concern is the low items’ scores students attained on itemsbased on declarations four through eight (Table 3). These declarations essen-tially reflect: (1) scientists believe the universe can be ordered; (2) curiosity is thedriving force of science; (3) science strives for parsimony; and (4) there is nosingle scientific method.



"The students’ average score ... is lower than one mightdesire . . /’

Discussion:

The 1984 student group was significantly more in agreement with KimbalPsModel Response than was their 1969 counterpart. These data probably allow oneto infer:

Secondary preservice programs might be attracting students with a significantlybetter understanding of the nature of science. The slightly older student with anestimated greater commitment to a science teaching career simply may have the de-sired better understanding of the nature of science.

Science instructors may be providing students with instruction that is providing thestudent a better understanding of the nature of science.

The fact that the 1984 group was significantly higher than the 1969 group wasa pleasant surprise. The items of the NOSS are based on declarations that weredrawn from literature which continues to be respected and widely used. Hence,the instrument and its undergirding declarations may be as valid today as theywere when it was developed. The students average score, however, is lower thanone might desire because these undergraduate students will soon be our practic-ing science teachers. Science teachers who do not understand the nature ofscience will probably not represent science very well to their students. The NOSSwas always administered on the first day of the science teaching methods class.Since the methods class purports to help preservice teachers select and developscience lessons that are consistent with good science, and would lead students toa better understanding of the nature of science, there hopefully should be ameasurable change in science understanding across the class.

Since understanding the nature of science as practiced by scientists is probablyprerequisite to teaching about science to develop this understanding, somethingother than science courses are needed in the preparation of preservice teachers.Kimball (1967) suggested adding the study of the philosophy of science. Certain-ly, something should be done, and because the philosophy students in KimbalPsstudy did have NOSS scores indicating that they were considerably more inagreement with the scientists, full consideration should be given adding a philos-ophy of science dimension to the preservice preparation of secondary scienceteachers.



References

Carey, R. L., and N. G. Stauss. An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understandingof the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics^ 1970, 70, 366-368.

Kimball, M. E. Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists andscience teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1967, 5, 110-120.

Rubba, P. A., and H. 0. Andersen. Development of an instrument to assess secondaryschool students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education,1978, 62, 449-458.

Rubba, P. A., J. K. Horner and J. M. Smith. A study of two misconceptions about thenature of science among junior high school students. School Science and Mathematics,1981,S7.221-226.

Schmidt, D. Test on understanding science: A comparison among several groups. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 1964, 2, 80-84.

Hans 0. Andersen Harold HartyK. V. Samuel

Indiana UniversityBloomington, Indiana 47405

BIG FURROWS A MYSTERY

Huge furrows, two to three feet deep, 15 to 20 feet across and miles long arefound in Lake Superior (as in ocean sediments) but little is known about them. Ajoke has it that they are parallel tracks of "submarine tires." Theory, however,suggests that bottom-sweeping currents shaped these furrows just as wind andwater shaped land forms.

Ethics and Excellence in Computer Education:Choice or Mandate

The sixth annual national Microcomputers in Education Conference, "Ethicsand Excellence in Computer Education: Choice or Mandate," will be held atArizona State University, Tempo, Arizona, March 12-14, 1986.

For conference information and registration forms contact:

Janie Hydrick or Nancy MartinCollege of EducationPayne 216, Arizona State UniversityTempe, Arizona 85287(602) 965-7363


nature of science, 1969 and 1984: perspectives of preservice secondary science teachers

Documents