Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Consistency of Practical and Formal Epistemologies of Science Held by Participants of a Research Apprenticeship

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to examine the consistency between students’ practical and formal understandings of scientific epistemologies (also known as nature of science (NOS) understandings) in the context of a research apprenticeship program. Six high school student participants of a residential summer research apprenticeship program at a major university in the southeastern USA were interviewed twice during their experience to elicit their perspectives regarding their practical epistemologies. A phenomenological approach was used to analyze these interviews. The students held practical epistemological understandings of scientific knowledge that were described as being developmental, valuable, formulaic, and authoritative. A survey administered at the end of the program was used to reveal students’ formal epistemologies of science. These practical and formal epistemologies were described in terms of Sandoval’s (Science Education 89:634–656, 2005) epistemological themes and then compared for all participants. Findings revealed that, for most students, at least some level of consistency was present between their formal and practical epistemological understandings of each theme. In fact, for only one student with one theme, no consistency was evident. These results hold implications for the teaching, learning, and assessment of NOS understandings in these contexts as well as for the design of apprenticeship learning experiences in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, R. E. (1996). High school students learning in university research laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1115–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgin, S.R., Sadler, T.D., & Griffin, R.D. (2011, April). Practical epistemologies of high school students participating in a research apprenticeship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Orlando, FL.

  • Burgin, S. R., Sadler, T. D., & Koroly, M. J. (2012). High school student participation in scientific research apprenticeships: Variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcomes. Research in Science Education, 42, 439–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, C. A. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 695–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research 3e: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal and professional development. Science Education, 91, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 470–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth grader’s view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). View of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: what is the nature of our assessments? Science Education, 7, 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education. Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, G., & Kurth, L. A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: high school students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 677–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 799–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientiric knowledge. Science Education, 62, 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 945–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 89, 634–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (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, 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific Literary Paper, 1, 1–14. University of Oxford, Department of External Studies.

  • Van Kaam, A. (1966). Application of the phenomenological method. In A. van Kaam (Ed.), Existential foundations of psychology. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoudes, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1229–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded in part by a grant from the Frances C. & William P. Smallwood Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Old Dominion University, 228 Education Building, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Stephen R. Burgin

  2. University of Missouri, 321 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Troy D. Sadler

Authors
  1. Stephen R. Burgin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy D. Sadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen R. Burgin.

Appendices

Appendix A

Interview 1: Semi-structured protocol.

Introduction

  1. 1.

    Describe _________________ (the topic of your research).

  2. 2.

    What do you know about it so far?

  3. 3.

    What have you learned about it? What did you already know about it?

Science as constructed

  1. 1.

    What counts as knowledge in your lab?

  2. 2.

    Have you discovered anything in your lab so far? If so what?

  3. 3.

    What are your findings so far?

  4. 4.

    Where did these findings come from?

Methods of Science

  1. 1.

    How did you go about collecting this data?

  2. 2.

    Where did you get your procedures from?

  3. 3.

    Why do you collect data in this way?

  4. 4.

    Do you anticipate ever needing to modify your procedures? Why?

  5. 5.

    Are there any other ways to collect your data?

  6. 6.

    Do all science labs utilize the same procedures when it comes to the collection of data? Why?

Forms of Scientific Knowledge

  1. 1.

    For your “experimental plan” you had to write a hypothesis for your research. What was your hypothesis?

  2. 2.

    What is a hypothesis in your own words.

  3. 3.

    How did you generate this hypothesis?

  4. 4.

    Do you think all science research must necessarily begin with a hypothesis? Why?

  5. 5.

    How are you developing your research plan?

  6. 6.

    What is going to come next? What are the next steps?

(If the student talks about any knowledge structures other than hypothesis (Theories, Models, Laws), use that as an opportunity to get the student to contrast these constructs with their ideas of a hypothesis.)

Certainty of Scientific Knowledge

  1. 1.

    Do you have any personal goals for your research?

  2. 2.

    Does your lab group have any goals for your research?

  3. 3.

    What do you hope to get accomplished this summer?

  4. 4.

    What would make your research successful? What’s the measure of success in science research?

  5. 5.

    Will your research project ever be truly complete?

  6. 6.

    Do science understandings change? Give an example from your current research project.

Interview 2: Semi-structured protocol.

Introduction

  1. 1.

    Ask about midterm oral presentations

  2. 2.

    Ask about research paper progress (materials and methods)

  3. 3.

    Ask about collecting research papers from the 6 students

Science as constructed

  1. 1.

    What have you found out so far?

  2. 2.

    How would you characterize these findings?

  3. 3.

    Have you discovered something? Have you created something? Have you verified something that was already known?

  4. 4.

    What does it mean to you to discover science? Create scientific knowledge? What are you doing?

  5. 5.

    Do you think that these results have been discovered, or created, or would you use a different way to describe where they have come from?

Methods of Science

  1. 1.

    Have you had to change your methods? Why?

  2. 2.

    How has that affected the certainty/rigor of your project?

  3. 3.

    Are there any other ways to collect your data?

  4. 4.

    Do all science labs utilize the same procedures when it comes to the collection of data? Why?

Forms of Scientific Knowledge

  1. 1.

    How has your hypothesis shaped the work that you have done? Has it changed at all? Have you reexamined your hypothesis since the first time you generated it? Why or why not?

  2. 2.

    Are there any scientific theories that are involved in your work? Are you testing any scientific theories? Is your work based on any scientific theories? What roles have scientific theories played in your work? How has it influenced your work? What is a scientific theory?

  3. 3.

    Are you using scientific models in any way in your research? How are you using them? What is a scientific model?

Certainty of Scientific Knowledge

  1. 1.

    What’s the purpose of your project?

  2. 2.

    What is the connection between your work and the broader goals of your lab group? What is that broader goal? What will be the outcome of that goal? How certain will you be of the outcomes associate with that goal? What would be true value of that goal? Will we have any undeniable claims? Will there ever be a different understanding of this? (Certainty of scientific knowledge and Value of scientific knowledge)

  3. 3.

    Do you consider the work you’ve done to be of value to you lab group? Why or why not? What does value mean in your context. Also ask same question about that broader thing.

  4. 4.

    What defines productivity in your specific lab context?

Appendix B

Ideas about Science Survey adapted from Bell et al. (2003); Lederman et al. (2002); Sandoval and Morrison (2003)

Please answer all questions as completely as possible. Feel free to use the back if you need extra space.

  1. 1.

    Some think scientific knowledge is constructed others think it is discovered? Which do you agree with and why?

  2. 2.

    Some claim that science is infused with social and cultural values. That is, science reflects the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced. Others claim that science is universal. That is, science transcends national and cultural boundaries and is not affected by social, political, and philosophical values, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced.

    • If you believe that science reflects social and cultural values, explain why. Defend your answer with examples.

    • If you believe that science is universal, explain why. Defend your answer with examples.

  3. 3.

    What do scientists do? How do they accomplish this work?

  4. 4.

    What is the “scientific method”?

  5. 5.

    Do all scientists use the “scientific method”? If so, why? If not, what else do they do?

  6. 6.

    What are the differences between hypotheses, scientific theories and scientific laws?

  7. 7.

    What is a scientific model? How are models used by scientists? Give an example.

  8. 8.

    Science textbooks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (neutral particles) with electrons (negatively charged particles) orbiting that nucleus. How certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine what an atom looks like?

  9. 9.

    It is believed that about 65 million years ago the dinosaurs became extinct. Of the hypotheses formulated by scientists to explain the extinction, two enjoy wide support. The first, formulated by one group of scientists, suggests that a huge meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago and led to a series of events that caused the extinction. The second hypothesis, formulated by another group of scientists, suggests that massive and violent volcanic eruptions were responsible for the extinction. How are these different conclusions possible if scientists in both groups have access to and use the same set of data to derive their conclusions?

  10. 10.

    After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g., atomic theory, evolution theory), does the theory ever change?

    • If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why. Defend your answer with examples.

    • If you believe that scientific theories do change; (a) Explain why theories change? (b) Explain why we bother to learn scientific theories? Defend your answer with examples.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burgin, S.R., Sadler, T.D. Consistency of Practical and Formal Epistemologies of Science Held by Participants of a Research Apprenticeship. Res Sci Educ 43, 2179–2206 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9351-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9351-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation