Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.‏

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science the endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing office http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camhi, J. (2013). A dam in the river: releasing the flow of university ideas. New York: Algora Publications.

  • Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction. The Science Teacher, 71(2), 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science, (Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Diamond, J. (2002). Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodick, J., Argamon, S., & Chase, P. (2009). Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Science & Education, 18, 985–1004.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1997). School field trips: assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40(3), 211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: a cognitive approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Moody, C., & Kirschenbaum, S. (2009). Unscientific America: how scientific illiteracy threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: dynamics of scientific progress. Milton Keynes: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Ryan, A., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90, 965–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 68, 176–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-up nation: the story of Israel’s economic miracle. New York: Twelve Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shkedi, A. (2003). Words of meaning: qualitative research—theory and practice. Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shkedi, A., & Shkedi, Y. (2004). Narralizer: a software for qualitative research analysis (version 1.01.001). Yakum: Yazamut Yakum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shklovsky, V. B. (1998). Art as technique. In J. Rivkin & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory: an anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Teaching Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904, Jerusalem, Israel

    Dina Tsybulsky & Jeff Dodick

  2. Life Science Institute, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904, Jerusalem, Israel

    Jeff Camhi

Authors
  1. Dina Tsybulsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeff Dodick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeff Camhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dina Tsybulsky.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview protocol

  1. 1.

    How was your visit to the ecology lab? How did you feel when you visited the lab?

  2. 2.

    How was your visit to the cell biology lab? How did you feel when you visited the lab?

  3. 3.

    What questions did you and/or your friends ask the guide? What did s/he answer?

  4. 4.

    What do you think are the goals, in general, of biological inquiry?

  5. 5.

    What were the research goals in the labs you visited?

  6. 6.

    Can technological developments lead to breakthroughs in basic research?

  7. 7.

    Is research that does not show immediate practical implications worth conducting?

  8. 8.

    What are the differences (if any) between research objectives in ecological research vs. cell biology research?

  9. 9.

    What are the differences (if any) between the methods of research in cell biology vs. ecology?

  10. 10.

    Are all biological research studies conducted in the same format in terms of stages and methods of study?

  11. 11.

    Is modern scientific knowledge better able to explain natural phenomena than knowledge from previous years?

  12. 12.

    Do you agree that scientific knowledge is accurate and does not change over time?

  13. 13.

    Do scientists maintain a dialog with one another or do they work in isolation?

  14. 14.

    Do scientists share their results with other researchers? When? How?

  15. 15.

    Are scientists affected by any outside authority (government, institutions, ethics committees, etc.)? When? How?

  16. 16.

    Is the work of scientists influenced by society and culture? When? How?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsybulsky, D., Dodick, J. & Camhi, J. The Effect of Field Trips to University Research Labs on Israeli High School Students’ NOS Understanding. Res Sci Educ 48, 1247–1272 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9601-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9601-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation