rese schawrts

8/3/2019 rese Schawrts

1/36

SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION

Deborah Trumbull, Section Editor

Developing Views of Nature ofScience in an Authentic Context:An Explicit Approach to Bridgingthe Gap Between Natureof Science and Scientific Inquiry

RENE E S. SCHWARTZ Department of Biological Sciences and The Mallinson Institute for Science Education,Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA

NORMAN G. LEDERMAN Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Illinois Institute of Technology,Chicago, IL 60616, USA

BARBARA A. CRAWFORD Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Received 22 May 2002; revised 6 May 2003; accepted 12 May 2003

DOI 10.1002/sce.10128Published online 12 May 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: Reform efforts emphasize teaching science to promote contemporary viewsof the nature of science (NOS) and scientic inquiry. Within the framework of situatedcognition, the assertion is that engagement in inquiry activities similar to those of sci-entists provides a learning context conducive to developing knowledge about the meth-ods and activities through which science progresses, and, in turn, to developing desiredviews of NOS. The inclusion of a scientic inquiry context to teach about NOS has in-tuitive appeal. Yet, whether the learners are students, teachers, or scientists, the empiricalresearch does not generally support the claim that engaging in scientic inquiry aloneenhances conceptions of NOS. We studied developments in NOS conceptions during a

Correspondence to: Rene e S. Schwartz; e-mail: [email protected]

C 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


2/36

DEVELOPING VIEWS OF NOS IN AN AUTHENTIC CONTEXT 611

science research internship course for preservice secondary science teachers. In additionto the research component, the course included seminars and journal assignments. In-terns NOS views were assessed in a pre/post format using the Views of Nature of Sciencequestionnaire, [VNOS-C] and interviews. Results indicate most interns showed substan-tial developments in NOS knowledge. Three factors were identi ed as important for NOSdevelopments during the internship: (1) re ection, (2) context, and (3) perspective. Re-ective journal writing and seminars had the greatest impact on NOS views. The scienceresearch component provided a context for re ection. The interns role perspective ap-peared to impact their abilities to effectively re ect. Interns who assumed a re ectivestance were more successful in deepening their NOS conceptions. Those who maintaineda scientist s identity were less successful in advancing their NOS views through re ec-tion. In light of these results, we discuss the signi cance and challenges to teachingabout NOS within inquiry contexts. C 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 88: 610 645,2004

INTRODUCTION

The current emphasis on scienti c literacy extends beyond calls for knowledge of sci-enti c concepts and methods of scienti c investigations. Understanding tenets of scienti cinquiry and nature of science (NOS) are at the core of scienti c literacy (American Associ-ation for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council [NRC],1996). NOS refers to the values and underlying assumptions that are intrinsic to sci-enti c knowledge, including the in uences and limitations that result from science as ahuman endeavor. Scienti c inquiry refers to characteristics of the scienti c enterpriseand processes through which scienti c knowledge is acquired, including the conventionsand ethics involved in the development, acceptance, and utility of scienti c knowledge. Ina basic form, the intercept of these domains of knowledge (NOS, scienti c inquiry, tradi-tional science subject matter), along with an understanding of the utility of that knowledgeto the individual and society, represents the conceptual basis for a scienti cally literateindividual.

Reform efforts around the world stress the importance of developing images of sciencethat are consistent with current scienti c practices and constructivist perspectives (AAAS,1993; Driver et al., 1996; Hodson, 1998; Matthews, 1994; Millar & Osborne, 1998; NRC,1996; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992). The National ScienceEducation Standards [NSES] (NRC,1996) states students should develop an understanding of what science is, what scienceis not, what science can and cannot do, and how science contributes to culture (NRC,1996, p. 21). Without understanding the values and assumptions of the knowledge and theprocesses by which the knowledge is created, the learner can do little more than constructan image of science consisting of isolated facts void of context that make the knowledgerelevant and applicable (Lederman, 1998; Schwab, 1962). As such, reform efforts continueto emphasize a philosophically valid science curriculum (Hodson, 1988) to develop learn-ers epistemological views of science. The importance is clear, but the means to achievethese ends are not.

Students and teachers generally lack adequate understanding of NOS (Lederman, 1992;Pomeroy, 1993; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992). Na ve NOS views have been attributed, atleast in part, to learners lack of experience conducting scienti c investigations (Gallagher,1991; Schwab, 1962; Welch et al., 1981). Recommendations to improve conceptions of NOS strongly emphasize the use of inquiry in science instruction (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996;Schwab, 1962). For teachers to gain the necessary knowledge and skills, inquiry experiencesshould be provided throughout science teacher education (AAAS, 1993; Gallagher, 1991;NRC, 1996; Schwab, 1962; Welch et al., 1981). Yet, the question remains, Do learners


3/36

612 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

necessarily develop NOS conceptions aligned with current perspectives advocated for K-16 learners by engaging in scienti c inquiry activities? The purpose of this study was toexamine this assertion in the context of a science research internship course for preservice

secondary science teachers.

NATURE OF SCIENCE

A concise description of NOS is often debated among scholars (Loving, 1997; Matthews,1994) and NOS representations are as dynamic as the knowledge and enterprise of scienceitself. In the present study, we are not claiming one single nature of science to repre-sent all scienti c knowledge and disciplines. In describing NOS from epistemological andassociated sociological perspectives, Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) include the meaning of science, assumptions, values, conceptual inventions, method, consensus making, and the

characteristics of the knowledge produced. General agreement within the current postmod-ern view acknowledges science as a human endeavor, directed by theory and culture, relianton empirical observation, and subject to change (see, for example, Casti, 1989; Chalmers,1982; Kuhn, 1970). These unproblematic, generalized aspects of NOS are relevant to K-16education (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; Matthews, 1994; Millar & Osborne, 1998;Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992; Smith & Scharmann, 1999), and targeted in this study (Table 1).These aspects should be viewed as interdependent.

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

Scienti c inquiry refers to the methods and activities that lead to the development of scienti c knowledge. According to the NSES

[Inquiry] involves making observations; posing questions; examining books and othersources of information to see what is already known; planning investigations; reviewingwhat is already known in light of experimental evidence; using tools to gather, analyze, andinterpret data; proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and communicating theresults. Inquiry requires identi cation of assumptions, use of critical and logical thinking,and consideration of alternative explanations. (NRC, 1996, p. 23)

Within a classroom, scienti c inquiry involves student-centered projects, with studentsactively engaged in inquiry processes and meaning construction, with teacher guidance , toachieve meaningfulunderstandingof scienti cally accepted ideas targeted by thecurriculum(Krajcik et al., 1994; Minstrell & van Zee, 2000; NRC, 1996; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993).

Authentic scienti c inquiry is that which scientists conduct in everyday practice (Roth,1995). Descriptions of scienti c inquiry provided by contextually based laboratory studies(e.g., Knorr-Cetina, 1999; Latour & Woolgar, 1979) offer a glimpse into the complexitiesof authentic practice. The real world of science is not typically represented in the classroom(Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Driver et al., 1996; Roth, 1995; Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999).Although both contexts provide opportunities for social construction of understanding, theclassroom community rarely promotes complex reasoning and negotiation of meaning as itis expressed within the scienti c community (e.g., Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Nonetheless,scienti c inquiry is an important element of the classroom and of science literacy.

The meaning of inquiry in science education can vary as much as the methods of scienti cinquiry themselves. Bybee (2000) describes science as inquiry as comprising three mainelements: (1) skills of scienti c inquiry (what students should be able to do), (2) knowledgeabout scienti c inquiry (what students should understand about the nature of scienti c


4/36


TABLE 1NOS Aspects and Descriptions That Served as a Basis for Comparison

Aspect Description

Tentativeness Scientic knowledge is subject to change with new observationsand with the reinterpretations of existing observations. All otheraspects of NOS provide rationale for the tentativeness ofscientic knowledge.

Empirical basis Scientic knowledge is based on and/or derived fromobservations of the natural world.

Subjectivity Science is inuenced and driven by the presently acceptedscientic theories and laws. The development of questions,investigations, and interpretations of data are ltered throughthe lens of current theory. This is an unavoidable subjectivity

that allows science to progress and remain consistent, yet alsocontributes to change in science when previous evidence isexamined from the perspective of new knowledge. Personalsubjectivity is also unavoidable. Personal values, agendas, andprior experiences dictate what and how scientists conduct theirwork.

Creativity Scientic knowledge is created from human imaginations andlogical reasoning. This creation is based on observations andinferences of the natural world.

Socioculturalembeddedness

Science is a human endeavor and is inuenced by the society andculture in which it is practiced. The values of the culture

determine what and how science is conducted, interpreted,accepted, and utilized.Observation and

inferenceScience is based on both observation and inference. Observations

are gathered through human senses or extensions of thosesenses. Inferences are interpretations of those observations.Perspectives of current science and the scientist guide bothobservations and inferences. Multiple perspectives contribute tovalid multiple interpretations of observations.

Laws and theories Theories and laws are different kinds of scientic knowledge.Laws describe relationships, observed or perceived, ofphenomena in nature. Theories are inferred explanations for

natural phenomena and mechanisms for relationships amongnatural phenomena. Hypotheses in science may lead to eithertheories or laws with the accumulation of substantial supportingevidence and acceptance in the scientic community. Theoriesand laws do not progress into one and another, in thehierarchical sense, for they are distinctly and functionallydifferent types of knowledge.

Interdependence ofthese aspects

None of these aspects can be considered apart from the others.For example, tentativeness of scientic knowledge stems fromthe creation of that knowledge through empirical observationand inference. Each of these acts is inuenced by the culture

and society in which the science is practiced as well as by thetheoretical framework and personal subjectivity of the scientist.As new data are considered and existing data reconsidered,inferences (again made within a particular context) may lead tochanges in existing scientic knowledge.


5/36

614 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

inquiry), and (3)a pedagogical approach for teaching science content. The rst twoelementsare clearly articulated in the addendum to the NSES on inquiry (NRC, 2000). The currentstudy focuses on the third element, where the science content is NOS, and the pedagogical

approach to teaching this content is scienti c inquiry.

INQUIRY AS A CONTEXT FOR LEARNING NOS

From a situated cognition perspective, knowledge is linked to activity and the situationunder which the knowledge is acquired (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave &Wenger, 1991). Thus, scienti c inquiry may provide a viable context for discussion andreection within which learners can develop NOS conceptions (Carey & Smith, 1993;NRC, 1996; Roth & Lucas, 1997; Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999). Different approaches tocontextualizing NOS within inquiry have varied in effectiveness.

Review of the Literature on the Use of Inquiry to Teach NOS

Implicit and Explicit Pedagogical Approaches. Some reformed-based curricula as-sume that through inquiry-based activities alone students develop NOS conceptions alignedwith accepted contemporary views. This approach relies on implicit messages within actsof inquiry. An implicit inquiry-based pedagogical approach refers to the absence of speci cattention to NOS. Certainly, within any science instruction, implicit messages about NOSare communicated. However, the implicit approach assumes that receipt and constructedunderstanding of NOS is a natural consequence of engaging in inquiries. In contrast, anexplicit inquiry-based pedagogical approach to teaching NOS provides inquiry-based learn-ing opportunities with the added instructional component of speci c attention to NOS as-pects. The explicit approach advances that improving views of NOS should be planned forthrough objectives, instructional attention, and assessments. This approach intentionallydraws learners attention to aspects of NOS through discussion, guided re ection, and spe-cic questioning in the context of activities, investigations, and historical examples. Theteacher provides learning opportunities, modelsperformance, provides opportunity forprac-tice, assesses student understanding, and provides feedback with reteaching as necessary.

Inquiry-Based Curricula: An Historical Overview. Emphasis on inquiry as pedagogy

is not new. According to Yager (1997), early efforts stressing the process skills of scientistswere seen in the 1930s. In the wake of the Sputnik success of 1957, the push for improvedscience achievement and advancement in the United States sparked the development of numerous science curricula focusing on inquiry. Included in the laboratory objectives of the 1960s secondary science curricula, such as BSCS biology and PSSC physics, was theobjective of enhancing students understanding of NOS. Students were to understand thescienti c enterprise, the scientists and how they work, the existence of multiplicity of scien-tic methods, the interrelationship between science and technology and among the variousdisciplines of science (Shulman & Tamir, 1973, p. 1119). Despite ample resources andreputable goals for curriculum development and implementation, these curricula were gen-

erally unsuccessful in achieving their NOS learning objectives (Lederman, 1992; Ramsey& Howe, 1969). Their implicit NOS pedagogical approaches were ineffective.

Teachers Experiences with Scientific Inquiry. Failures of inquiry-based programswere attributed to lack of consistent and contemporary philosophy within the curricula(Hodson, 1988) and limitations of teacher knowledge and experiences. . . . Modern science


6/36


courses have failed to achieve their goals because of inadequacies in the philosophical stanceunderpinning course design and in the implicit philosophies of science teachers (Hodson,1988, p. 35). In addition to knowledge of NOS, a teacher must understand the processes

by which scienti c knowledge is created to effectively incorporate inquiry-based activitiesto teach NOS (Gallagher, 1991; Robinson, 1969; Rutherford, 1964). Prospective teachershave limited knowledge of, and experience with, the processes by which scienti c knowl-edge is generated. This puts serious limitationson their ability to plan and implement lessonsthat will help the students develop an image of science that goes beyond the familiar bodyof knowledge (Gallagher, 1991).

In response, teacher education programs have incorporated inquiry experiences toenhance knowledge of NOS. Teacher education programs that involved explicit instruc-tional attention to NOS in conjunction with the inquiry-based activities were more suc-cessful in improving NOS views than programs that provided inquiry experiences alone(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). In support of these ndings, Bianchini and Colburn(2000) reported successful outcomes of an inquiry-based science course for liberal arts ma- jors. NOS instruction and guided re ections during several inquiry investigations resultedin more informed views of NOS. The authors suggested that the teacher plays a pivotal rolein bringing relevant NOS aspects to students attention through discussion and questioning.Through explicit/re ective instruction, NOSis viewedas a cognitive learning outcome. Sim-ilar outcomes have been reported within other contexts such as history of science courses(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Matthews, 1994); secondary physics courses utiliz-ing inquiry, history of science, and re ective discourse (Roth & Lucas, 1997); elementaryscience methods (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000); and constructivist-basedclassrooms (Carey et al., 1989; Carey & Smith, 1993; Smith et al., 2000).

Scientific Inquiry in an Authentic Context. Examination of the popular inquiry cur-ricula, such as the early BSCS and PSSC, revealed limitations of the activities as high-levelscienti c inquiry (Herron, 1971; Shulman & Tamir, 1973). The level of inquiry was morealigned with veri cation and demonstration activities, with minimal resemblance to authen-tic activity. More recently, Chinn and Malhotra (2002) described disparate complexities andepistemological representations among school-based and authentic scienti c inquiry activ-ities. Given the situational and contextual variances between inquiry as expressed in theschool community versus the scienti c community, we raise the question, What does onelearn about NOS within an authentic context of scienti c inquiry?

Efforts addressing limitations of school-based inquiry involve students and teachers inscience apprenticeships. Lave and Wenger (1991) referred to the role of legitimate periph-eral participation and movement toward the core in one s learning about the scienti ccommunity and practice through apprenticeship. Surprisingly few investigations have ex-amined speci c NOS learning outcomes from apprenticeship experiences (Barab & Hay,2001; Bell et al., 2003; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996). Barab and Hay(2001) and Ritchie and Rigano (1996) studied middle and high school students, respectively,in research experiences with mentor scientists. Although they suggested these students cameto understand aspects of NOS, neither conducted formal NOS assessments. Those studiesthat have begun to gather empirical data on the impact of authentic inquiry experiences ondevelopments in NOS conceptions offer a glimpse into the effectiveness of this approach.Bell et al. (2003) investigated the impact of an 8-week science apprenticeship program onunderstandings of NOS and scienti c inquiry. High-ability secondary students were ex-posed to a range of scienti c investigations, including development of research methods,data collection, and interpretation. Overall, Bell et al. detected few changes in students conceptions of NOS and inquiry as revealed by pre- to postapprenticeship assessments. In


7/36

616 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

general, the students maintained na ve views. No NOS instruction or re ection promptswere provided during this program. In a similar summer science program, Richmond andKurth (1999) investigated the in uence of a research apprenticeship on high school students

understandings of the nature of scientists work and the students roles in different com-munities. Students re ected in journals, during interviews, and group discussions on theirviews of science. Richmond and Kurth reported gains in students conceptions of scienti cprocesses, the role of evidence, and the tentative NOS. As part of the apprenticeship model,the authors discuss the importance of students moving from the periphery of the communityof science to becoming a part of the community. In doing so, the students reported gaininga sense of themselves as scientists.

Although some authors report gains in NOS learning (Barab & Hay 2001; Richmond &Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996), relating outcomes solely to inquiry experiences maybe misleading, especially given the contrasting ndings of Bell et al. and Richmond andKurth. Richmond and Kurth provided few details of the journal or discussion activities thataccompanied the research component of their program. This leaves open the question of therelative impacts on student learning through the authentic science experiences versus theconcurrent explicit instruction. Research on scientists views of NOS offers further insights.Scientists, those who engage in scienti c inquiry in its most authentic form, do not necessar-ilyhold contemporary views of NOS(Bell, 2000; Glasson & Bentley, 2000; Pomeroy, 1993).

Do Individuals Necessarily Develop Contemporary Conceptions of NOS by Engaging in Scientific Inquiry Activities? The literature reviewed here strongly sug-gests that doing science is not suf cient in and of itself for developing informed concep-

tions of NOS. There appears to be a missing, critical , factor. It is suggested, and supportedempirically, that to be effectively taught, NOS must be viewed as a cognitive learning out-come and addressed explicitly and re ectively within the learning environment (Carey &Smith, 1993; Driver et al., 1996; Lederman et al., 2001). Without explicit attention affordedto relevant aspects of NOS within the context of inquiry experiences, learners views of NOS likely remain unchanged (Bell et al., 2003; Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999).

The Purpose of the Investigation

This investigation examined NOSlearning developmentsandattributionsduringa scienceresearch internship course for preservice secondary science teachers (interns). The courseincorporated authentic scienti c inquiry experiences, explicit NOS instruction, and guidedreections. The investigation assessed the effects of the course on interns views of NOS,and identi es inuential aspects of the course on learning outcomes. Secondary researchquestions emerged during the investigation. These include, What are the interns perceivedlearning outcomes related to each course component? What personal and/or contextualfactors may lead to differential learning outcomes regarding NOS? What effect, if any,did the internship course have on views of scienti c inquiry? What effect, if any, did theinternship course have on views of teaching NOS?

METHODThe third author of this report designed and taught the internship course. The second

author served as a consultant in course design and implementation and with the researchanalysis and interpretation. The rst author served as the primary researcher, participantobserver (PO) in the course, and took primary responsibility for data collection, analysis,and interpretation.


8/36


Participants

Participants were 13 secondary preservice science teachers enrolled in a fth-year, Masterof Arts in Teaching (MAT) teacher preparation program in a mid-sized, Western univer-sity. All participants had earned a BS degree in a science area, with two also having MSdegrees and two with PhD degrees in a science area (Table 2). Biographical and backgroundinformation was collected during interviews and from enrollment forms. Information onprior science research experiences was elicited through a written assignmentand interviews.

TABLE 2Interns Biographical Data and Research Experiences

Internship ResearchArea: Level of Inquiry;

Interest in Research Setting;Name a Past Research Level of Interaction with

(Degree Level) Experience Others in Setting

Adam (BS) Undergraduate courses Archeology/anthropology: lowinquiry; high interest;moderate interaction

Darren (BS) Undergraduate research insame lab as internshipplacement

Botany: low inquiry; moderateinterest; high interaction

Jay (BS) Undergraduate courses Soil science: low inquiry; high

interest; high interactionKris (BS) Studied star sh eating habits Forestry: low inquiry; high

interest; high interactionLaura (BS) Project in bird behavior during

undergraduate studiesChemistry: moderate inquiry;

high interest; high interactionRich (MS) BS Ecology, MS Entomology;

thesis on moth diversityPlant pathology: low inquiry;

high interest; high interactionAlice (BS) BS Zoology; wildlife technician;

work with owlsZoology: low inquiry; moderate

interest; high interactionLisa (BS) Undergraduate project in

chemistryHorticulture: low level of inquiry;

moderate interest; high

interactionKim (PhD) PhD candidate plant ecology;

eld researchPlant pathology: moderate

inquiry; moderate interest;high interaction

Tim (BS) Undergraduate courses Plant chemistry: moderate levelof inquiry; moderate interest;high interaction

George (PhD) PhD Entomology; 16 years inentomology research

Plant pathology/ bacteriology:moderate inquiry; moderateinterest; moderate interaction

Brenda (BS) Undergraduate research 2 years

in organic chem lab

Organic chemistry: high inquiry;

moderate interest; lowinteraction

Hank (MS) BS Geology; MS Paleontology;10 years experience ingeology

Archeology/anthropology: lowinquiry; moderate interest;moderate interaction

a Pseudonym.


9/36

618 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

Brenda and Tim focused in teaching chemistry. All others primary teaching area was lifescience.

Context of the Study: The Science Research InternshipNOS was an underlying theme throughout much of the program. The term before the

internship course, the preservice teachers began the MAT program with a course thatintroduced them to NOS and scienti c inquiry through generic and content-speci c ac-tivities. In this initial course, students actively engaged in activities, demonstrations, anddebrie ng discussions designed to teach NOS aspects that have been identi ed as impor-tant for K-12 science education (Table 1) (for a description of some of the activities, seeLederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). In addition, numerous inquiry-oriented activities ad-dressed the common misconception that scienti c knowledge is the product of a single,algorithmic, and strictly objective scienti c method. Following this course, the researchinternship course provided additional NOS learning opportunities within an authentic sci-ence context. There were three main components of the research internship course: (1) theresearch setting, (2) journals, and (3) seminars.

The Research Setting

All interns were placed with a practicing scientist at the University. Attempts were madeto place interns with a scientist in an area of the intern s teaching interest and educationalbackground. For the 10 weeks of the term, the interns spent an average of 5 h a week in theresearch setting. The constraints of other program requirements did not allow for additionalresearch time. The scientists were informed that the interns were not to be con ned todishwashing or technician duties, but were to be exposed to a range of research practicesin as authentic a manner as possible. The scientists were asked to welcome the intern intohis/her research setting; discuss the purposes, background, techniques, and direction of theresearch agenda; and involve the intern in a project if possible. The interns were asked toobserve and interact with researchers in the setting and engage in a project if possible inorder to gain understanding about authentic research.

We generated descriptions of the research experiences using interview transcripts, journalentries, and seminar transcripts. Interns activities varied with research settings (Table 2).Those designated as lowinquiry typically engaged in some aspects of the scienti c efforts,but their actions were determined by protocols and conventions of the research setting.They followed predetermined procedures, as in the case of Jay who helped measure theeffects of aggregate soil size on nitri cation. Jay performed some of the assay procedures,but they were all directed and supervised. Similarly, Adam participated in the analysis of ancient hair samples in an archeology research setting. We consider this experience lowinquiry because he did not make directional or procedural decisions, yet he interactedwith the laboratory personnel and prepared given hair samples for analysis according toset guidelines. Alice had more freedom, but was not knowledgeable enough in the area toconduct her own investigation. She found her time best spent shadowing the researchers,asking questions, and listening to their discussions. Interns in low inquiry internshipswere not responsible for critical decision making. Their context was authentic but quiteperipheral.

In contrast, a high inquiry experience included designing and conducting an investiga-tion or a part of an ongoing investigation. Such an experience allows for personal decisionmaking based upon the intern s knowledge and expectations. Only one intern had suchan experience. Brenda embarked on her own project in an organic chemistry laboratory.


10/36


Her project was based on what the scientist mentor requested, but she conducted a litera-ture review and relevant investigation. She was basically left alone to pursue her project,as she wanted. As such, the level of interaction with others in the setting was minimal.

Given the time constraints on the internship, and diverse content and research areas rep-resented by the scientist mentors, we did not expect any of the interns to have high in-quiry experiences. Brenda s experience is unique and offers an interesting contrast to theothers.

Journals

Journals consisted of a research section and a re ection section. The research sectioncontained details of experiences within the research setting including procedures, notes,plans, raw data, and interpretations. The intent was for interns to keep detailed records

much like a practicing scientist keeps on a daily basis. Interns responded to sets of focusquestions (Appendix A) in the re ection section. The purpose of the focus questions wasto facilitate the interns abilities to make connections between the research experiences andaspects of NOS. The instructor collected the journals periodically throughout the term toprovide feedback. Journal questions also served to drive seminar discussions. Given thatthe interns had already considered the questions in relation to their own settings, they wereprepared to discuss the topics and examine their knowledge of NOS as a function of theirsetting in comparison to other settings.

Seminars

Five 2-h seminars (Appendix B) provided opportunity for interns to discuss researchsettings and experiences, re ect on their experiences in relation to their views of NOS, anddevelop connections between their research experiences and science teaching. This wasoften the only time interns had to talk with each other about their research experiences. Peerinteractions consisted of interesting ndings from research, open talk of their experiencesand reactions, and sharing of journal responses. The instructor had minimal involvementin these discussions, only interjecting when needed to focus interns attentions and com-parisons. For example, in the rst seminar, interns described their settings and the types of questions that were being investigated. After everyone shared, interns divided into groups of three and compared group members research questions by considering: Are all the researchquestions of the same type? How are they similar/different? Will they require the same typeof investigative approach? Why or why not? Interns were told,

Begin thinking about what type of research is conducted and what you will be doing interms of the type of science. Recall we talked about before [in the NOS and inquiry course]experimental studies and descriptive studies as examples of different types of investigations.Is there a clear demarcation within your setting? Within any one project? Is there a blend?It is early yet, so you will have to revisit this idea during the term. For now, think about thequestions addressed in your setting and how they compare with your group members .

Seminars also involved sharing reactions to presentations and readings, relative to whatthe interns could draw upon to support their ideas about NOS. Interns again took mainresponsibility for the dynamics of the discussions with questions and comments directedtoward each other and the task. The instructor and PO guided with questions or comments.The following is an interaction wherein it became apparent that NOS aspects were beingforcibly separated, possibly as a consequence of the NOS assignment itself. A student s


11/36

620 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

detection of his struggles, and question toward his peer, served as a vehicle for explicitguidance. The excerpt is taken from Seminar Four, during the NOS presentations.

[Adam explains how he prepared ancient animal hair samples for identi cation and cat-aloguing. Hair samples were assumed to be 10,000 12,000 years old, based on the soilstrata. Identi cation was based primarily on physical similarity with known animal hairsand samples from similar time periods in other regions. His assignment for this presentationwas to explain how this research related to science as tentative. He focused on errors relatedto sterility of the procedures.]

Darren: I had trouble seeing when you addressed tentativeness.

Adam: These are conclusions for what type of animals they are. Like let s say this was abuffalo [holds up a photo of a prepped sample]. The only way to do that is to look at otherpeople s conclusions that theirs was a buffalo. So they are relying on the means available

now. If somebody else ten years from now has a better way of cataloguing or a better wayof getting smaller amounts of DNA . . .

Darren: I guess maybe I m confused about what tentativeness is then.

Instructor: Darren has a good question.

Darren: That sounds like inference or something. I thought tentativeness would be morelike changes over time like if someone found a better method of looking at the hairs, thenwhat they thought they were would be different.

PO:Tentativenesscanbe related back to theother aspects as reasons whyscience is tentative,

because it is based on inference; it is subjective; it is empirical. Lets say you have additionalinformation, more empirical data, or you are looking at the same in a different way, with adifferent perspective. Those changes in the empirical basis, in subjective basis, can lead tochanges in conclusions. These tie into why science is tentative. The identi cation of the hairsamples in this lab is based on inference. That inference is grounded in empirical data gath-ered from multiple sources, no doubt. That all ties into how this type of science is tentative.

Darren: I didn t see how these things could overlap like that. That makes sense now.

Instructor: Is source of error the same thing as tentativeness?

Adam: Error might have something to do with it, but is how they decided to do it. They

made assumptions.Darren: Like they found the pig hair and assumed it was a mistake.

Adam: Yeah, they assumed that the people of 10,000 years ago did not have pigs and sothey gured they made a mistake in the analysis and identi cation.

Later in the same seminar, interns explored their contexts in relation to the empirical NOS.The interdependence of NOS aspects was again apparent and deserving of explicit attention:

Kris: In my lab, one of the operating theories is that increased species diversity and abun-

dance is showing a superior habitat. [She explains how in the study of six logging methods,the rodents who die in the trap and release cataloguing program are used to study effects of logging methods on chipmunk populations.] We species them out and measure everythingwe can possibly measure about these animals, just in case they ever want any of this data.We can tell you the average tail length of a chipmunk species in 1997. This is importantbecause there are all these habitat models. With ecology, models are the key to everything.Hopefully these models re ect some kind of cause and effect relationship. The problem


12/36


comes into these habitat studies is that scientists are the ones who select the variables. Soalready when we make these models . . . sorry I am bringing subjectivity in here . . . we arealready deciding what is important and predeciding what is kind of related in these models.There is a lot of inference in habitat studies. The data that I collect can be tied back intoseveral things, like the way the logs are cut. There is a lot of inference, a lot of subjectivity.The scientists work together, but rarely do they see the same things on the charts that aregenerated from the data in these habitat studies. They argue. It is really interesting.

Alice: Do they assume that all chipmunk species die in the traps equally?

Kris: Yeah. They do. There seem to be more males than females. I don t know if they aremore adventurous or more dumb or what. But they do assume that the species get trappedequally. That could be one of the errors.

PO: Just a general question. What do you think empirical basis means?

Kim: The evidence to support what they claim.

PO: OK, so we ve got evidence, and you ve explained for your setting what that means.I want to go back to what Darren raised earlier about the overlap of NOS aspects. Whatinuences that evidence?

Kris: In order to get the evidence, there has to be an investigation. That design is subjectiveand based on what has been done before. Like what Adam was saying if the guy before themmessed up then their work would be messed up because they base their work on previouslyaccepted conclusions.

PO: Ok, so now the knowledge that is created is based on this evidence that is collectedfrom a certain accepted basis from prior work, that too was based on assumptions. The newinvestigations cannot be separated from the theories they are based upon. The inferencesmade to make sense of the data are based on that knowledge also. The types of evidenceare important, the assumptions are important; it is hard to separate these aspects. Keep thatin mind when thinking about this. Don t force yourself to separate them.

Instructor: When you were talking about the models, any of your data is so dependent onthe other ecology studies. It all has to hang together. They are inseparable.

This course concentrated on experiences within the scienti c community. The journalsand seminars intended to facilitate re ection on these experiences and NOS. Questionsposed by the instructor and PO intended to generate discussion and bring forth possibleexamples and comparisons for interns to consider in efforts to make NOS explicit withinthe experience.

DATA COLLECTION

Data sources include questionnaires, interviews, journal entries, and participant observa-tions. NOS views were assessed in a pre/post format with the Views of Nature of ScienceQuestionnaire (VNOS-C) and follow-up interviews (Lederman et al., 2002). Journal entriesand seminar assignments were photocopied. Seminars were video-recorded and transcribed.

Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C)

The VNOS-C consists of 10 open-ended questions designed to probe views of speci cNOS aspects (Table 1). The questionnaire had previously been validated for use with theintended participants (Lederman et al., 2002). The open-endednature of theVNOS-Callows


13/36

622 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

respondents to use their own words and examples, without being forced into a choice and/orwords being chosen for them.

Semistructured Interviews

Semistructured interviews were conducted following both administrations of the VNOS-C. During the rst interview, the interns were provided their preinternship VNOS-C re-sponses. They were asked to read, explain, and elaborate their responses to each item. Inaddition, interns were asked if their views were different from what they had represented onthe questionnaire. Through such questioning, we aimed to identify any misinterpretationsof questionnaire items and clari ed ambiguous responses, thus facilitating the generationof faithful representations of interns understandings of NOS.

The purpose of the postinternship interview was to elicit details of interns (1) researchexperiences, (2) perceived learning outcomes and attributions for learning outcomes, and (3)changes, if any, and sources of change in views of NOS. The primary researcher conductedthis interview at the completion of the internship, after the postadministration of the VNOS-C, and after the analysis of the rst questionnaires, interview transcripts, journal entries,and seminar transcripts. Delaying the second interview allowed the primary researcher toanalyze the other data without the in uence of participants self-reports of changes andinuences of the internship on their NOS views.

The postinternship interview comprised three phases (Appendix C). First, interns de-scribed their research experiences. Second, interns described in what ways, if any, theyhad bene ted from the internship and provided speci c examples. The qualitative nature of questioning in these two phases allowed the interns to generate their own list of learningoutcomes based on their personal experiences. During the rst two phases of the interview,the intern, not the interviewer, rst indicated in uences of the internship on views of NOS.This was an effort to minimize bias from the researcher s previously generated conceptionsabout each intern s outcomes.

The purpose of the third phase was to assess nal NOS views, characterize changes inviews, and identify possible sources for changes. Interns examined their pre- and posttestVNOS-C questionnaires and, in a manner similar to the rst interview, were asked toelaborate speci c posttest responses. Interns described changes they felt had occurred intheir views. They were asked to provide examples and describe experiences to which theyattributed changes. For discrepancies between verbal and written responses, interns wereshown their written summaries and asked to clarify the discrepancy. Final interviews lasted30 60 min, were audiotaped and transcribed. The primary researcher was not an instructorin the program and, thus, was not likely perceived as an authority gure. As such, theresponses regarding course outcomes were considered valid.

Participant Observations

The role of the primary researcher during the seminars was to observe the instructionalepisodes, record interactions among interns and instructor, and facilitate discussions throughquestions and comments. Video recordings and observer notes served as data from these

seminar sessions.

Course Summary

The assignment given during the nal seminar elicited interns views on what they hadgained from the course in general, and what they had learned speci cally about NOS and


14/36


scienti c inquiry. To increase the validity of responses, the interns were informed that theassignment was a type of course evaluation and would not be read until after grades werereported.

DATA ANALYSIS

The primary researcher performed all data analysis and interpretation. The second au-thor reviewed analyses and interpretations, and results were discussed until consensus wasreached. Data from each intern were analyzed separately to generate individual pro les.Comparisons were made among interns to describe generalities across the internship. Theinterns comprise the population for this study. No generalizations are attempted beyondthese participants.

Views of NOSData related to interns NOS views include VNOS-C questionnaires and semistructured

interviews, journal entries, and seminar transcripts. We generated comparisons between theinterns views and the NOS aspects as described in Table 1. For each intern, the preinternshipVNOS-C responses and corresponding interview transcript were reviewed, and a summarypro le generated to represent that intern s initial conceptions. Each aspect was scored witha + to indicate the intern s agreement that the particular aspect is representative of NOS, a++ to indicate the intern s abilities to articulate the meaning of the aspect in his/her ownwords, or a +++ to indicate the intern s abilities to articulate the meaning of the aspectin his/her own words and provide examples in addition to those discussed in prior classsessions. Additionally, data were examined for reference to connections among aspects.For example, statements referring to the tentative NOS resulting from the reliance onsubjective methods and inferences would be considered evidence for a connection betweententativeness, subjectivity, and inference. Postinternship NOS pro les were generated viathe same process, utilizing the posttest VNOS-C questionnaires and follow-up interviews.Journal entries, seminar transcripts,andcoursesummarieswere analyzed in a similar mannerand used forpurposes of triangulation with thepost-VNOS-C pro les and to help temporallyand contextually situate changes.

Changes in Views of NOSWe used ve phases of analysis to characterize changes in NOS views. The use of

multiple methods enhances the validity of the overall pro les generated from subsequenttriangulation (Krathwohl, 1998). Because the journals and seminar discussions were partof the explicit/re ective instructional treatment, these data were rich discursive resourcesfor identifying contexts for change.

Changes across time . The preinternship NOS pro le, journal, and seminar transcriptswere used to initially identify changes in views of one or more NOS aspects. This analysiswascompletedbefore theadministration of thesecond interview. Journal entries andseminartranscripts were analyzed in the order in which theywere written or recorded during the term.Changes were sought by comparing each of these data to the interns preinternship NOSpro les, previous journal entries, and previous seminar transcripts. Evidence of changes,drastic and subtle, was sought and categorized. The data were compared and contrastedseveral times for category generation and re nement.

Changes pre to post . After completion of the journal and seminar analyses, the secondinterview wasconducted.Thedelay in conductingandanalyzingthesecond interview wasan


15/36

624 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

attempt to minimize researcher bias in the analysis of the journal and seminardata. Knowingthe perceived changes in NOS understanding as stated by the interns could in uence theinterpretation of other data sources. The postinternship VNOS-C and interview transcript

were analyzed in the aforementioned manner to generate pro les of each intern s viewsof NOS at the completion of the internship. Changes in views were sought through directcomparison between the initial and nal VNOS-C pro les. Changes were characterizedaccording to the aforementioned methods.

Perceived changes and attributions . The transcripts from the second semistructured in-terview and nal summary were reviewed for references to perceived changes in NOSviews and attributions for those changes. Changes were characterized as in the previoustwo analyses.

Triangulation . The three independent analyses were triangulated to develop a single,in-depth pro le of changes and change attributions for each intern. In the event that theintern s perceived changes (the third analysis) were contrary to those identi ed through therst two analyses, all data were reviewed again for con rmatory and contradictory evidence.If discrepancies could not be satisfactorily resolved, the statement of perceived change andattributions made by the intern in the nal interview may be considered the more validrepresentation of the intern s nal status.

Generation of summaries . Postinternship NOS pro les and the change pro les were usedto generate summaries for theentire sample. Similarities and differences among interns weresought and summarized to describe the overall effects of the research internship.

RESULTS

The results are presented in three sections. First, we present NOS views for each internand the changes in NOS views identi ed as a result of the internship. Second, we report thenon-NOS change outcomes that resulted from the internship. Third, we describe the factorsfor change, including the identi ed contributions of each component of the internship.

Views of NOS

Preinternship NOS Views. Prior to the internship, all interns had been introduced to theaspects of NOS emphasized in the program. In their preinternship VNOS-C responses andinterviews, all articulated, to some degree, the meaning of most of the aspects. The depth of their initial understandings varied considerably from mimicry of de nitions to elaboratedescriptions. Only four interns initially held misconceptions about theories and laws. Oneof these interns, Adam, held na ve views about tentativeness and creativity as well. Histhoughts regarding proof in science indicated a seeing is knowing view. Adam stated,Some things in science can be proven true if we can see it. Such a view disregards therole of inference or creativity in understanding phenomena. The four interns who expressedmisconceptions about theories and laws acknowledged a difference between the two, butthe difference was in the level of absolute proof. Evidence of this na ve view was seen inKris s statement, Laws occur over and over. Theories aren t proven. Responses of threeinterns indicated rather realist views of science. They consistently indicated that change inscience was leading toward a nal and absolute description of reality. For example, Hank considered change in science to result from new technology that enabled new data and thecorrection of previous mistakes. This type of statement alone is not necessarily problematic,but when probed further, Hank explained that mistakes would keep being xed through newobservations until they nally got it right. The existence, or not, of an accessible objectivereality was not a strong focus during the program, but it was interesting that 3 of the 13


16/36


participants voiced this view at the start of their internship. None of the interns explicatedconnections among NOS aspects at this time.

Changes in NOS Views. At the completion of the internship, all participants demon-strated abilities to articulate fairly detailed descriptions of all targeted aspects of NOS.Although, the level of detail still ranged from simple af rmation that the aspect appliesto science to very elaborate descriptions indicative of deeper understandings. The threeanalyses that looked for evidence of change resulted in two main change categories thatdiffer in degree of change, and several subcategories that describe the types of changes.A change was considered (1) major if there was evidence of an overt switch from amisconception/na ve view initially to a view that is in more agreement with that promotedin the course, or (2) enhancement if an intern demonstrated improved understandings overhis/her initial pro le, thus indicating a shift in the desired direction. Where interns held ( + )

or greater initial views, an enhancement was identi ed through (1) more elaborate de-scriptions of aspects such as the articulation in the individual s own words as opposed torecalling formal de nitions, (2) the ability to make connections between scienti c inquiryand aspects of NOS through supporting examples from present or past research settings,or examples different from those presented in course work, (3) a demonstrated shift fromviewing aspects of NOS as separate components to realizing the interrelationships of theaspects, and (4) a demonstrated shift from viewing NOS as separate from science contentto realizing that NOS is a part of science. Table 3 summarizes changes. Note that the orderof interns is by relative extent of change in NOS views, from most change to least.

Eleven of the 13 participants (85%) demonstrated major or enhanced views of NOS upon

completion of the course. Of these 11, four (Adam, Darren, Jay, Kris) demonstrated major improvements in one or more aspect, including their conceptions of scienti c theories andlaws. Adam demonstrated the most dramatic change with major shifts in his conceptions of tentativeness, creativity, and the distinction between theories and laws. He also elaboratedon all aspects beyond simple de nitions and provided representative examples from hisresearch setting to support his views. With regard to tentativeness, subjectivity, and theempirical basis of science, Adam used the example of two competing theories in his setting.The theories offer two explanations for how the Americas were initially populated. Adamexplained that researchers in his setting gathered evidence that supported one theory overthe other. Eventually, he claimed, the more supported theory could become the dominant

theory with the accumulation of substantial evidence.

Connecting NOS to Research Experiences. All 11 who demonstrated a positivechange had enhanced views of one or more NOS aspects (Note the E in Table 3). Mostarticulated meanings in their own words and/or were able to include supporting examplesfrom inquiry experiences. The following quotes are representative of this type of connection:

We plot points on a graph to get a linear regression for nitri cation ratio. A couple of timesthere have been some outlier points that skewed the regression line equation. We know thatour points lie between a certain spot in the standard curve. We decided this outlier was a

mistake and threw it out to x the regression . . . . This also strongly illustrates subjectivityin analyzing data and results. [Jay, journal]

In this placement there are a variety of theories we operate with in designing investigationsand inferring results. These theories in uence decisions made in the research . . . Habitatstudies take for granted theories centered around the idea that animal abundance is a goodmeasure of habitat quality, reproductive success is a good measure of habitat quality, animal


17/36

626 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

T A B L E 3

C h a n g e i n V i e w s o f N O S A s p e c t s

, S c i e n t i f i c I n q u i r y , a n d T e a c h i n g

o f N O S

N a m e a T e n t a t i v e

C r e a t i v e

S u b j e c t i v e E m

p i r i c a l S o c i a l / C u l t u r a l T h e o r i e s / L a w s

O b s / I n f

S c i e n t i c I n q u i r y b

T e a c h i n g N

O S

A d a m

M ( + + )

M ( + + )

E , S

E , S , E

x

E , S

M ( + + ) , E x

E ( + + )

M u l t i p l e m e t h o d s

I n s i d e r s v i e w t o p r e s e n t

t o s t u d e n t s

D a r r e n E

, C , E x

E x

E , E

x

E

, E x

M ( + )

M ( + + )

E , E

x

S c i e n c e i s a h u m

a n

e n d e a v o r a n d s h o u l d b e

t a u g h t t h a t w a y

J a y

E , S , C

E , C , E

x , S

E , C , S

E , E

x , S

E , E

x , S

, C

M

( + )

E , E

x , S

, C

M o r e p r o c e s s e s

i n v o l v e d

E r r o r s c a n b e v a l u a b l e f o r

l e a r n i n g

K r i s

E , E

x , S

E , S , E

x

E , E

x , S

E , S , E

x

E , S , E

x

M , E x , S

E , E

x , C

, S

G r e a t e r

c o m p l e x i t y o f

d e s i g n

E x p l o r e a n d d e s i g n o w n

s t u d y i s i m p o r t f o r

c o n t e x t

L a u r a

E , E

x

E , E

x , C

E , S

E

E , E

x , S

E , E

x

E , E

x , S


T e a c h e r s a r e l i n k b e t w e e n

s t u d e n t s a n d s c i e n t i c

c o m m u n i t y ; t e a c h N O S

a n d r e a l - w o r l d

e x a m p l e s

R i c h

N C ( + + ) E

, E x , C

, S E

, E x , S

, C E

, E x

E , E

x

E , E x , C

E x , S

, C


T e a c h i n g m u l t i p l e

m e t h o d s i s i m p o r t a n t ;

e x p l i c i t t e a c h i n g o f N O S

i s i m p o r t a n t ; i n q u i r y

A l i c e

E , E

x , C

E , E

x , S

E

E , E x , C

E

, S

E , S


T h o u g h t a b o u t N O S m o r e ;

m o d e l f o r s c h o o l i n q u i r y

a n d N O S

C o n t i n u e d


18/36


T A B L E 3

C h a n g e i n V i e w s o f N O S A s p e c t s

, S c i e n t i f i c I n q u i r y , a n d T e a c h i n g

o f N O S ( C o n t i n u e d )

N a m e a

T e n t a t i v e

C r e a t i v e

S u b j e c t i v e E m

p i r i c a l S o c i a l / C u l t u r a l T h e o r i e s / L a w s

O b s / I n f

S c i e n t i c I n q u i r y b

T e a c h i n g N

O S

L i s a

E , E

x

E

E , E

x

E , E

x

E , E

N C ( + )

E , E

x , S


I n t e r e s t i n t e a c h i n g N O S

i n c r e a s e d

K i m

E , C , E

x , S

E

E , C , E

x , S N C ( + + )

E , S , E

x

N C

( +

)

E , E

x , C

, S


I n t e r e s t i n t e a c h i n g N O S

i n c r e a s e d

T i m

N C ( + +

+ ) N C ( + + )

E x

E , E

x , C

N C ( + + + )

E

S

P u r p o s e s c a n

d i f f e r

T e a c h i n g N O S s h o u l d b e

e x p l i c i t ; m o r e

c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h

t e a c h i n g N O S

G e o r g e

N C ( + + )

E , E

x

E , E

x

N C ( + + )

E , E

x

N C

( + + )

E , E

x

I n c r e a s e d a w a r e n e s s o f

N O S t e a c h i n g

B r e n d a

N C ( +

)

N C ( + )

N C ( + )

E x

N C ( + )

N C

( +

)

N C ( +

)

H a n k

E

N C ( + )

N C ( + )

N C ( + + )

N C ( +

)

N C

( +

)

N C ( +

)


W o n

t t e a c h

S c i e n t i c

M e t h o d ; m u s t t e a c h

N O S e x p l i c i t l y

N o t e

. M : m a j o r c h a n g e f r o m m i s c o n c e p t i o n t o i n f o r m e d v i e w ( r e s u l t a n t l e v e l ) ; N C : n o c h a n g e e v i d e n t ( r e s u l t a n t l e v e l ) ; E : e n h a n c e d ( s t a r t e d o u t

a d e q u a t e

, b u t g a i n e d ) ; S : s h o w e d c o n n e c t i o n s

t o s c i e n c e i n g e n e r a l ; E x : p r e s e n t e d e x a m p l e s f r o m c u r r e n t o r p r i o r r e s e a r c h s e t t i n g s ; C : s h o w e d

c o n n e c t i o n s a m o n g a s p e c t s . F i n a l N O S v i e w s : + p r o v i d e s a d e n i t i o n o r a f

r m a t i v e r e s p o n s e ; + + p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n i n o w n w o r d s

, e x a m

p l e s f r o m

c l a s s ; + + + p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n i n o w n w o r d s a n d a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t i n g e x a m p l e s ; i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e e x a m p l e g i v e n .

a P a r t i c i p a n t s a r e l i s t e d i n o r d e r o f m o s t c h a n g e t o l e a s t c h a n g e i n l e v e l o f N O S u n d e r s t a n d i n g .

b D e m o n s t r a t e d

c h a n g e s i n c o n c e p t i o n s o f i n q u i r y .


19/36

628 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

diversity is a great measure of complex habitat quality and conversely, structural diversityis good for animal diversity. These are all theories from which habitat researchers basetheir investigation designs and comparisons . . . Inference is made in interpreting meaningof results, and the basis of these theories give results credibility. [Kris, journal]

Establishing Connections Among NOS Aspects. Other enhancements involved es-tablishing connections among aspects of NOS and then to science in a broader sense.Novel connections were often in relation to speci c examples from research settings. Jaydemonstrated such an enhanced view. He had entered the course without much con dencein his NOS conceptions. He generally had af rmed that the targeted aspects did apply toscience but was unable to elaborate through written or verbal responses. Through his journalwritings, Jay demonstrated dramatic change in his supportive discourse. In one entry, heexplained how tentativeness, observation, inference, and evidence connected to his setting

and to science in general.

Where NOS ideas come into this process is that through every step we have changedour thinking and procedures based on what we have observed and why we think thathappened. For example, . . . [presents a lengthy example of a change that occurred in hissetting] . . . Science has to be able to change its ideas based on obs. and inferences or itcould not progress and develop new ideas, procedures, etc. I know that this connection isvery shallow, but it is what I have been a part of in my research setting. This is the mannerin which I have been able to observe these things . . . . Even though I have not observedtentativeness and obs/inf on a large scale or a more in depth manner, I understand theideas and signi cance of these things. It is kind of profound in its simplicity. In science

we try to answer questions about our world. To do this we do things like experiments andmake observations about what happened. Next we look at the observations (data) and makeinferences and conclusions about the reasons for what we observed. This can be in relationto a large concept or idea like evolution or it can be in regard to something smaller like in myexperiment where we were setting up a procedure. Based on ourobservations/inferences,wechange our ideas or questions tentativeness-science is always open to change. This is anawesome thing. We know that we are not always right, and if new ideas and evidence comein observations and inferences lead us to change. Science evolves over time to develop newideas and concepts all based on observations/inferences and supporting evidence. Threesimple ideas with very complex results. [Jay, journal]

Others made similar explications, again prompted through journal re ections:

All phases of the scienti c process use imagination and creativity. The design state of an in-vestigation takes a lot of research of . . . related studies these studies of course are based onsubjective scientists who designed that particular investigation. Creativity and inference aremost commonly used in interpreting the results. Inferences are based on data observations,inferences depend upon an individual s point of view and previous experiences. Inferencesin this lab are based on previous habitat study conclusions . . . . It takes creative insight tobe able to make inferences, and draw all, or any, of the pieces together. [Kris, journal]

. . . It is science . . . The aspects are most applicable in a real research setting, whether it bea small or large project. We analyze parts of inquiry and NOS but really in research theyare integrated and central to the doing of science. [Alice, journal]

In the second seminar session, Rich reported seeing a new relationship among NOSaspects. In his presentation, he drew a Venn diagram showing creativity, tentativeness, andsubjectivity in three overlapping circles. He said to the class,


20/36


What I thought was interesting that I didn t discuss with the group was that we kept comingupon the subjectivity and the tentativeness and the creativity. We kept going back and forthand saying that is more tentative and no that is more subjectivity. So we tried to take thesevary overlapping ideas and create a system we can make sense out of. For me sometimesit seems like this amorphous, chaotic, kind of goo with these ideas and it seems as thoughevery time we talk about these things they are constantly overlapping, again and again andagain. That is my take on it. [Rich, seminar #2]

Others reported similar realizations resulting from the NOS presentations during SeminarFour (Appendix B). Recall the seminar excerpt presented earlier in this report where Darrenraised a question about tentativeness. He had not considered howaspects were related beforethat discussion.

No Changes in NOS Views. Brenda and Hank did not demonstrate changes (Table 3).These two consistently focused on the content of their research settings throughout their journal writings and seminars. It is interesting to note their initial NOS views were notvery developed, and they both presented realist views of science. However, Hank held greatcon dence in his ideas, owing his views to his research background. When asked how hehad bene ted from the internship, he responded, Not much. I ve done master s degreesand run research projects, you know. I ve done those sorts of things, planned research andwritten papers. His response suggests he viewed the purpose of the internship as a wayto gain experience in doing scienti c research. Brenda held a similar view evidenced bycalling herself a mini-graduate student who was working on a project.

Non-NOS Change Outcomes

Other categories of change emerged from interns self reports. Eight of the 13 (62%)reported a better understanding of the multiple methods applied in scienti c investigations(Table 3).Where they hadbeenintroducedto this idea duringa previous course, theexamplesfrom their own and others research settings seemed to make this point more acceptable andrelevant to real science. Other outcomes included consideration of scientists NOS viewsand views of NOS pedagogy.

Consideration of Scientists Views of NOS. Interns talked with the scientists about journal focus questions and/or NOS in general. The interns expressed surprise when they re-alized the scientists either presented contrasting views of NOS or had not thought aboutNOSbefore. It became apparent to the interns that the scientists focused on doingscience :

How little thought to the phrases nature of science and scienti c inquiry is given bypeople who spend their time in research was demonstrated by the guests in the seminars,and in the chemistry dept. with people I talked to. They are concerned with the doing, notthe nature of science. [Tim, summary]

I took away from this experience a piece of how some scientists view their own work, theirown science. They are pretty much oblivious to the process. All they see is the goal, to ndthe answer, and the procedure that comes in between. [Rich, summary]

Views of NOS Pedagogy. Recognition of scientists perspectives may have impactedinterns views of teaching NOS. Even though NOS pedagogy was not a focus of the course,


21/36

630 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

all but two interns indicated the experience affected their views (Table 3). Most notable isrecognizing what we mean by explicit teaching of NOS and what we overlook by relyingon students to learn about NOS through simply conducting inquiries.

The internship did force me to spend a lot of time thinking about the NOS and inquiry.Whereas before I simply did research, this time I actually thought carefully about thenature of what I was doing. As a result I think I will teach NOS explicitly in the classroom,whereas before, I probably would ve done it more implicitly. [Kim, post-interview]

It gives me a real understanding as a teacher that, yeah, this stuff isn t just a natural out owof teaching science. [Tim, post-interview]

Overall, I came to value the apprenticeship rst when the professors at [my research setting]went off about how valuable they thought the experience would be for new teachers. Then itwas interesting to see several of the aspects of NOS appear in the lab. What was interesting,

however, was when I would talk to Dr. G about my journal questions and he would becompletely unaware of these aspects in his lab . . . My experience during this apprenticeshipsuggests they [the scientists] are not quali ed for teaching especially if you think the NOSis important for students to know about! [Darren, summary]

Factors for Change

The 11 interns who demonstrated advances in their NOS views reported their views to bemore formalized and that the course had made implicit ideas more explicit, and broughtthoughts about NOS to the forefront. A focus of this investigation was to identify factorsthat effected such desired changes. Table 4 summarizes the bene ts and learning outcomesas reported by the interns.

Journals. Eleven of the 13 (85%) attributed advancements, rst and foremost, to their journal writings. The questions forced the interns to consider their own views and comparethem to actual scienti c research.

When we rst started, and in fact all through the summer term, I d heard this NOS, but reallyit was just this thing, but after summer I still didn t have much idea of what this mysticalNOS thing I was supposed to be getting was. I had this list of 7 things that was a part of it,

but that was as far as I could go. I think through writing the journals and actually gettingconcrete examples, I really understood after all that emphasis. I understand these differentaspects of NOS. [Lisa, post-interview]

I think the main things that were helpful were the re ections and talking with people in thedepartment that I was working in about NOS type things was really enlightening to me.[Alice, post-interview]

Seminars. Interns reported the presentations and student discussions to be the most ben-ecial elements of the seminar portion of the course. As previously described, Rich andDarren realized connections among NOS aspects during the seminars. Although not ev-eryone could identify a single ah-hah! episode, others reported having similar learningexperiences:

This course has helped in developing my understanding of NOS by providing one moreforum for me to think, talk, and write about it. The connection of all the parts being relatedreally hit home when we made the 10-min presentations. No matter who was talking or


22/36


TABLE 4Reported Learning Outcomes from Course Components

Course Component

Research Setting Seminars Journals

Bene ts/ Bene ts/ Bene ts/ Learning Interns Learning Interns Learning Interns

Outcomes (%) a Outcomes (%) a Outcomes (%) a

Enhanced NOSviews

0 Enhanced NOSviews

62 EnhancedNOSviews

85

Researchtechniques/ skills

80 Multiple methodsand complexityof inquiry

31

Speci c sciencecontent

62 Speci c sciencecontent (guestspeakers)

31

Consideredscientists NOSconceptions

54

Provided contextfor reection

85

Valuable

interactionswithresearchers

92

a Percentage of interns who reported these outcomes from speci c course components.

which one of the aspects of the NOS were talking about, there was always reference to oneor most of the time more of the other aspects. [Laura, nal summary]

I learned more about each aspect of NOS and it became less nebulous. In particular, thepresentationswe each gave were valuable. The discussions about assumptions that are madein research but are not talked about was particularly helpful for me in opening my eyes toassumptions in science. [Alice, nal summary]

The scientists presentations brought new perspective and examples with which to com-pare interns developing views of NOS and scienti c inquiry. It was during these presen-tations when several interns realized the scientists do not necessarily think about NOS.Furthermore, interns considered their own views of scienti c inquiry in the context of the speakers presentations and realized there are a variety of scienti c methods. When

reecting on the speakers, Adam stated,

Scientist don t operate under the same scienti c method. Each scientist has their ownquestions and motivations when investigating. These unique circumstances create uniqueneeds and therefore unique procedures for conducting scienti c investigations. [Adam,summary]


23/36

632 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

Four interns (31%) reported more interest in the content of the scientists presentations.Hank reported the science content was the only bene t from the whole internship.

The seminars and hearing scientists talk about their work was interesting. That was valuablefor kind of keeping up with scienti c interests . . . We are scientists in this program and weare not doing science anymore. A lot of times, we give up that connection. We are teachers.It was really interesting to hear what is going on now and directions of research and howthat relates to what we are doing. That was really valuable. The other parts, the journalwriting and internship, were I thought, something I had to do and I didn t look forward tothem and didn t think they were useful or valuable. [Hank, post-interview]

The Research Setting. The research setting had the least direct in uence, in and of itself, on NOS learning. None of the interns thought their activities within the researchsetting directly impacted their NOS views. Most reported learning techniques and content.Those new to research, or in a setting much different from previous work, valued such novelexperiences. What the research setting did provide, however, was an authentic context forreection: a real research setting with which to apply and revise one s knowledge of NOS.This was viewed as the most bene cial aspect of the research portion of the course relative toNOS learning. The context provided fuel for re ections that deepened 11 of the 13 interns NOS conceptions. Additionally, the context seemed to make the concept of NOS more realand applicable to science and scienti c inquiry.

Writing about it [NOS] in a real life setting gave it validity. It wasn t a list of this is theNOS where I would say well, how am I going to teach that. All of a sudden it was what

scientists do everyday. They just don t put a label it. When I asked her [the scientist] abouttentativeness, she gave me this blank look of what are you talking about There was nolabel on it. NOS is assumed in science investigations. I guess that is what I learned is that Icould describe it more than I thought I could by nding examples. [Kris, post-interview]

My understanding of NOS has increased with this course. I don t think it is a result of theresearch as much as that we were forced to look at and think about these different aspectsof NOS . . . I think I did learn more about NOS because of the journals we had to do. Theymade us apply those concepts to what we were doing in our labs. So for me at least I wasable to get a better handle on that stuff because I could see how it applied in a real situation.So I got a little more out of what those things [NOS aspects] mean, I think, than I hadbeforehand when we just talked about it. It was like Oh, I get it. I see what we are doing. So I liked that. [Jay, post-interview]

Interactions with other researchers were invaluable. The interns learned about the work involved, direction of the research, impacts and assumptions inherent to the research, andNOS views of the researchers. Even interns with years of research experience claimed thatthe personal interactions and lab/journal club meetings were valuable for closely examiningauthentic research and the role of collaboration. For example, Kim reported

Departmental seminars are another example of a social activity and the members of thislab attend these seminars regularly. [Scientist mentor], in fact, gave the department seminarthree weeks ago. These activities are social because there is a lot of interchange of ideas,suggestions, and encouragement between peers. I would suggest that students be requiredto attend lab meetings. They could see the planning, the rationale, the data, and emotions.

Brenda reported not to have gained anything from the journals or seminars. However,she did learn about the porphyrins and the chemistry research conducted in her setting:


24/36


Well for someone who has already done research before, they have already done researchfor years and they aren t going to gain anything. For me, the reason I gained a lot from theliterature background was because the guy I was working with was recommended by theguy used to work with. I had sought him out. We kind of were coming from the same place.[Brenda, post-interview]

Brenda reaf rms her emphasis on traditional content in contrast to the nature of the research.She and Hank seemed to hold images of themselves as scientists and learners of traditionalscience content.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that the science research internship, as a whole, effected desirable

changes in the interns NOS views. In general, those who made the greatest advances beganthe course with fairly shallow views of NOS. This result is not surprising given that theyhad the most to gain. Adam, Darren, Jay, Kris, Laura, and Lisa could do little more thanmimic the descriptions they had heard previously. It is important to note that they alsorecognized their de ciencies during the initial interview and worked throughout the courseto clarify their views. Brenda and Hank held views similar to these six, yet they held morecon dence in their initial views. This nding suggests that their high ef cacy impededtheir advancement because they saw no need for change. The remaining interns entered thecourse with more developed NOS views, with Tim and George holding the most informedviews. As such, they did not have as many conceptual hurdles to clear. Enhancement for

these two was more in the form of supporting examples that corroborated their existingviews. These results are consistent with proponents of conceptual change learning (Posneret al., 1982). Cognitive dissonance may have enabled the interns to seek new information,grapple with new ideas, and attain acceptable resolution.

Prior research background did not appear to have a differential effect on NOS learning.Kim and George had the most prior experience, and both demonstrated some enhancements.Rich and Hank held similar research backgrounds, yet only Rich showed NOS-relatedadvancements. Brenda held little experience compared to Hank, and neither advanced.George reported having dif culty applying his NOS knowledge to his internship settingbecause of his limited background knowledge relative to that research area. In contrast,he had extensive knowledge of the background, assumptions, and direction of his priorresearch of 16 years. The task of identifying examples relevant to NOS issues was mucheasier for him when he considered his prior research and then attempted a comparisonwith his internship setting. Kim and Rich made similar claims. The more familiar contextmay have served as the more meaningful context for initial reection. Overall, however,prior research experience did not differentially impact these interns developments in NOSconceptions.

WHAT FACTORS OF THE SCIENCE RESEARCH INTERNSHIPCOURSE INFLUENCED CONCEPTIONS OF NOS?

Active Reflection

The research experience, if considered by itself, had little impact on interns conceptionsof NOS. The lack of perceived effect on NOS views along with the reported inconsistenciesin mentor scientists conceptions of NOS lend support to the claim that just doing science, or experiencing scienti c inquiry in an authentic setting, is insufcient to enhance one sNOS


25/36

634 SCHWARTZ ET AL.

conceptions. There is a missing, critical factor. The results of this study suggest that explicitand guided attention to and re ection on NOS in the context of the authentic scienti cresearch experiences is that missing factor. These ndings corroborate reports promoting

an explicit/re ective, constructivist-based approach to teaching about NOS through inquirypedagogy (e.g.,

rese schawrts

Documents