Science & Education

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 1879–1909 | Cite as

Changes Observed in Views of Nature of Science During a Historically Based Unit

  • David Wÿss Rudge
  • David Paul Cassidy
  • Janice Marie Fulford
  • Eric Michael Howe
Article

Abstract

Numerous empirical studies have provided evidence of the effectiveness of an explicit and reflective approach to the learning of issues associated with the nature of science (NOS) (c.f. Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman in J Res Sci Teach 37(10):1057–1095, 2000). This essay reports the results of a mixed-methods association study involving 130 preservice teachers during the course of a three class unit based upon the history of science using such an approach. Within the unit the phenomenon of industrial melanism was presented as a puzzle for students to solve. Students were explicitly asked to reflect upon several NOS issues as they developed and tested their own explanations for the “mystery phenomenon”. NOS views of all participants were characterized by means of surveys and follow-up interviews with a subsample of 17 participants, using a modified version of the VNOS protocol (c.f. Lederman et al. in J Res Sci Teach 39(6):497–521, 2002). An analysis of the survey results informed by the interview data suggests NOS views became more sophisticated for some issues, e.g., whether scientific knowledge requires experimentation; but not others, e.g., why scientists experiment. An examination of the interview data informed by our experiences with the unit provides insight into why the unit may have been more effective with regard to some issues than others. This includes evidence that greater sophistication of some NOS issues was fostered by the use of multiple, contextualized examples. The essay concludes with a discussion of limitations, pedagogical implications, and avenues for further research.

Supplementary material

11191_2012_9572_MOESM1_ESM.docx (135 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 135 kb)

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on student conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Do history of science courses influence college students’ views of the nature of science? In Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of the International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Group, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allchin, D. (1993). Of squid hearts and William Harvey. Science Teacher, 60(7), 26–33.Google Scholar
  8. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15(5), 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. Pantaneto Forum, 25 (Jan). URL: www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm. Downloaded June 29, 2012.
  12. Cotham, J. C., & Smith, E. L. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dagher, Z., & Boujande, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  15. Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C.-S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Farrari, M., & Chi, M. (1998). The nature of naïve explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galili, I. (2012). Promotion of cultural content knowledge through the use of history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ginsberg, H. P. (1997). Entertaining the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Harper Collins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Philipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris, M. (1986 [1766]). The Aurelian or natural history of English insects; namely, moths and butterflies. Newnes, Twickenham, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Hodges, J. L., & Lehmann, E. L. (1963). Estimation of location based on ranks. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34(2), 598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howe, E. M. (2004). Using the history of research on sickle-cell anemia to affect preservice teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.Google Scholar
  25. Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research: Improving students’ NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 567–607.Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, E. W. (1994). HPS and school science education: Remediation or reconstruction? International Journal of Science Education, 16(6), 613–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1961). Evolution in progress. (Cinematographer N. Tinbergen)—sound popularization of the selection experiments film distributed by British Universities Film and Video Council, London.Google Scholar
  29. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relation between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and the nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lederman, N., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness of science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education. Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Lin, H., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Rutledge.Google Scholar
  40. Maxwell, A. E. (1970). Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. British Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 651–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McComas, W. (1997). The discovery of nature of evolution by natural selection: Misconceptions and lessons from the history of science. American Biology Teacher, 59(8), 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagasawa, P. (2004). Epistemological relevations in students’ science writing. In Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  46. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  47. Palmquist, B., & Finley, F. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a post baccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudge, D. W., Geer, U. C., & Howe, E. M. (2007). But is it effective? Assessing the impact of a historically-based unit. In Ninth international history, philosophy & science teaching (IHPST) conference, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, Session 4.0.3. http://www.ucalgary.ca/ihpst07/abstracts_thu.htm.
  49. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., Sowell, S., & Settlage, J. (2005). Perhaps triangulation isn’t enough: A call for crystallization as a methodological referent in NOS research. In Paper presented at the AERA 2005 annual meeting (Montreal, Canada). http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/terc_docs/1.
  53. Stuart, A. (1955). A test for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika, 42(3–4), 412–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Wÿss Rudge
    • 1
  • David Paul Cassidy
    • 2
  • Janice Marie Fulford
    • 2
  • Eric Michael Howe
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, The Mallinson Institute for Science EducationWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.The Mallinson Institute for Science EducationWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  3. 3.Department of EducationAssumption CollegeWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations