Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 1247–1272 | Cite as

The Effect of Field Trips to University Research Labs on Israeli High School Students’ NOS Understanding

  • Dina TsybulskyEmail author
  • Jeff Dodick
  • Jeff Camhi
Article

Introduction

The nature of science (NOS) has been a central science education theme since Conant published his Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science in 1957; currently, it is an essential element of the US educational reforms (AAAS 1993; NRC 1996, 2000, 2012; NGSS Lead States 2013), as well as a key part of the high school biology syllabus in Israel, where our study was conducted (Israeli Ministry of Education 2010). Nonetheless, a fierce debate exists over the best instructional methods for learning NOS.

This paper evaluates the inquiry unit, Students Meet Authentic Science, one of whose goals is enriching NOS understanding in Israeli high-school biology students by exposing them to university research labs. Along with evaluating this unit in the short and long term, we also controlled for confounding factors, so that we could truly assess its learning impact. This unit is part of the drive to enhance the utilization of research universities in educating the public, a...

Keywords

Field trips Nature of science History and philosophy of science Science as inquiry learning 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Over and over again: college students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the nature of science (pp. 389–426). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.Google Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1095–1109.Google Scholar
  4. Abell, S., Martini, M., & George, M. (2001). ‘That’s what scientists have to do’: preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1095–1109.‏Google Scholar
  5. Aikenhead, G. S. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology-society. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71(4), 459–487.Google Scholar
  6. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activity based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.Google Scholar
  7. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth-McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194–213.Google Scholar
  8. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.Google Scholar
  9. Alters, B. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
  10. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Argamon, S., Dodick, J., & Chase, P. (2008). Language use reflects scientific methodology: a corpus-based study of peer-reviewed journal articles. Scientometrics, 75(2), 203–238.Google Scholar
  13. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 17–34.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  16. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21.Google Scholar
  17. Bush, V. (1945). Science the endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing office http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm.Google Scholar
  18. Camhi, J. (2013). A dam in the river: releasing the flow of university ideas. New York: Algora Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chiappetta, E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 71(2), 46–50.Google Scholar
  21. Cleland, C. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474–496.Google Scholar
  22. Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science, (Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. DeBoer, G. (2000). Questions, comments, cautions, and concerns regarding the teaching and testing of NOS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  24. Diamond, J. (2002). Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  25. Dodick, J., Argamon, S., & Chase, P. (2009). Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Science & Education, 18, 985–1004.Google Scholar
  26. Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, A., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139.Google Scholar
  28. Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realizing authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 317–332). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Elder, A. D. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students’ epistemological beliefs in science. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 347–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1997). School field trips: assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40(3), 211–218.Google Scholar
  31. Falk, J., & Needham, M. (2011). Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  32. Ford, M. (2008). Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17, 147–177.Google Scholar
  33. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: a cognitive approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gray, R. (2014). The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education, 98(2), 327–341.Google Scholar
  35. Griffiths, A. K., & Barry, M. (1993). High school students’ views about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 93(1), 35–37.Google Scholar
  36. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.Google Scholar
  37. Hanauer, D. I., Jacobs-Sera, D., Pedulla, M. L., Cresawn, S. G., Hendrix, R. W., & Hatfull, G. F. (2006). Teaching scientific inquiry. Science, 314, 1880–1881.Google Scholar
  38. Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the horse’s mouth: why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639–2665.Google Scholar
  39. Huang, T.-Y., Wu, H.-L., She, H.-C., & Lin, Y.-R. (2014). Enhancing students’ NOS views and science knowledge using Facebook-based scientific news. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 289–301.Google Scholar
  40. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy of science & science teaching (pp. 999–1022). Dordrecht: Springer Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2010). Syllabus of biological studies for high schools from all sectors of society. Tel Aviv: The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport.Google Scholar
  42. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2004). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314–334.Google Scholar
  43. Khishfe, R. (2015). A look into students’ retention of acquired nature of science understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1639–1667.Google Scholar
  44. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.Google Scholar
  45. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and understandings of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.Google Scholar
  46. Kleinhans, M. G., Buskes, C. J. J., & de Regt, H. W. (2010). Philosophy of earth science. In F. Allhoff (Ed.), Philosophy of the sciences: a guide (pp. 213–236). New York, NY: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: an approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.Google Scholar
  49. Leach, J., Scott, P., Ametller, J., Hind, A., & Lewis, J. (2006). Implementing and evaluating teacher interventions: towards research evidence-based practice? In R. Millar, J. Leach, J. Osborne, & M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Improving subject teaching: lessons from research in science education (pp. 79–99). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  50. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.Google Scholar
  51. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.Google Scholar
  54. Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy of science & science teaching (pp. 971–997). Dordrecht: Springer Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.Google Scholar
  56. Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–122.Google Scholar
  57. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.Google Scholar
  58. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: from nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  60. Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138–161.Google Scholar
  61. Moody, C., & Kirschenbaum, S. (2009). Unscientific America: how scientific illiteracy threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  62. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  63. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  64. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  65. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  66. Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: dynamics of scientific progress. Milton Keynes: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331.Google Scholar
  68. Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the ‘expert’ community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.Google Scholar
  69. Ozden, M., & Gultekin, M. (2008). The effects of brain-based learning on academic achievement and retention of knowledge in a science course. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  70. Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  72. Roth, W. M., & Lucas, K. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: a discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 145–179.Google Scholar
  73. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.Google Scholar
  74. Ryan, A., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.Google Scholar
  75. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–220.Google Scholar
  76. Sarikaya, M., Guven, E., Goksu, V., & Aka, E. (2010). The impact of constructivist approach on students’ academic achievement and retention of knowledge. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 413–423.Google Scholar
  77. Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90, 965–985.Google Scholar
  79. Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 68, 176–195.Google Scholar
  80. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.Google Scholar
  82. Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-up nation: the story of Israel’s economic miracle. New York: Twelve Publishing.Google Scholar
  83. Shkedi, A. (2003). Words of meaning: qualitative research—theory and practice. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv Press.Google Scholar
  84. Shkedi, A., & Shkedi, Y. (2004). Narralizer: a software for qualitative research analysis (version 1.01.001). Yakum: Yazamut Yakum.Google Scholar
  85. Shklovsky, V. B. (1998). Art as technique. In J. Rivkin & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory: an anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  86. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: the impact of school science experience on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 285–316.Google Scholar
  87. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493–508.Google Scholar
  88. Stein, S. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Students’ conceptions of science across the years of schooling. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 611–628.Google Scholar
  89. Tamir, P. (1994). Israeli students’ conceptions of science and views about the scientific enterprise. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
  90. Upadhyay, B., & DeFranco, C. (2008). Elementary students’ retention of environmental science knowledge: connected science instruction versus direct instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 23–37.Google Scholar
  91. Van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.Google Scholar
  92. Wenning, C. J. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education, 3(4), 3–14 Online www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo.Google Scholar
  93. Woolonough, B. E. (1989). Towards a holistic view of processes in science education. In I. Willington (Ed.), Skills and processes in science education—a critical analysis (pp. 115–134). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. Zietsman, A., & Clement, J. (1997). The role of extreme case reasoning in instruction for conceptual change. Journal of Learning Sciences, 6(1), 61–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science Teaching CenterThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Life Science InstituteThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations