Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This consensus view that appears to equate understanding of NOS with a relatively short list of declarative claims has been the object of considerable recent debate. Clough (2007) contends students would be better served if practitioners discussed these issues as open-ended questions, rather than facts be memorized. Irzik and Nola (2011) present an alternative approach based on a notion of family resemblance; Allchin (2011) provides a fundamentally different approach to assessing NOS based upon a reframing of how NOS is characterized from a list of tenets to a multidimensional perspective of the practice of science. These debates unfortunately fall outside the scope of the present essay.

  2. A Two-sided Welch Two Sample t test revealed males in the study population were significantly older than females [t(19) = 2.34, p = 0.03]; but there was no significant difference between them with regard to achievement as measured by final grade [t(27) = 1.29, p = 0.206]. The bins for races other than Caucasian were too small (≪30) for any meaningful statistical tests to be performed.

  3. Lab sections were taught by inquiry (i.e., laboratory instructors taught primarily by means of carefully worded questions aimed at facilitating student driven discussions of and about biological topics and the process of science). Lecture sessions were devoted to practicing example problems of the sort that would appear on exams, with students attempting to solve problems on their own and with the help of the person seated next to them before the class as a whole discussed their answers.

  4. Only one lecture session took place during the course of this three lab sequence. Students practiced problems that required them to distinguish evidence for natural selection from evidence for common descent. They also practiced explaining microevolutionary phenomena in terms of natural selection and did some concept mapping.

  5. In the text that follows, results of the present study will be compared with those of the fourth author’s previous study (Howe 2004) as reported in Howe and Rudge (2005). The results of Abd-El-Khalick’s (1998, 2001) previous study were not reported in such a way to allow a question by question comparison with the results of the present study.

  6. Interview data was used primarily to assess whether participants interpreted the survey questions as intended and whether written responses were being interpreted as the students intended. For the most part good agreement was found between participant written responses and views shared during the interviews, but some discrepancies (discussed in Sect. 6 below) were also found.

  7. The codes for Question 6b included one code (3, vague reference to an example from the Mystery Phenomenon Unit [MPU]) that was ultimately not identified by the first author in any of the pre- or post-responses. This code was initially introduced in parallel with other items (1c, 2b and 4b) against the theoretical possibility one or more of the references to examples to the Mystery Phenomenon would be judged vague, rather than reflective. The first author chose to retain this unused code in the coding and ranking schema against the possibility the independent coder would identify an example from the Mystery Phenomenon Unit as only a vague reference among responses to Question 6b.

  8. Question 3 was not included in surveys used in Howe (2004).

  9. The total population of participants asked this question in Howe’s (2004) study was 42 rather than 81 because of a change in its wording between semesters when the survey was administered.

  10. Question 6(a & b) was not included in surveys used in Howe (2004).

  11. For this quotation and others in this section, in parenthesis is identified: (1) the number randomly assigned to the participant, (2) the source of the quotation, and (3) how the participant's response to the question was scored pre- to post-. In general, lower numbers represent codes that were ranked as more sophisticated.

  12. The decline in rank for Question 6b was not determined to be statistically significant, because, as discussed in Sect. 3.1 above, Question 6b could not be analyzed using the Stuart-Maxwell test for marginal homogeneity.

References

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (1993). Of squid hearts and William Harvey. Science Teacher, 60(7), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z., & Boujande, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrari, M., & Chi, M. (1998). The nature of naïve explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231–1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. (2012). Promotion of cultural content knowledge through the use of history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, H. P. (1997). Entertaining the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Harper Collins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. (1986 [1766]). The Aurelian or natural history of English insects; namely, moths and butterflies. Newnes, Twickenham, UK.

  • Hodges, J. L., & Lehmann, E. L. (1963). Estimation of location based on ranks. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34(2), 598–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jenkins, E. W. (1994). HPS and school science education: Remediation or reconstruction? International Journal of Science Education, 16(6), 613–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relation between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness of science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Rutledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, A. E. (1970). Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. British Journal of Psychiatry, 116, 651–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagasawa, P. (2004). Epistemological relevations in students’ science writing. In Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.

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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Stuart, A. (1955). A test for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika, 42(3–4), 412–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 0202923. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors here acknowledge the assistance of Professor Joshua Naranjo, Department of Statistics, Western Michigan University with regard to the statistical analyses; Phyllis Haugabook Pennock, who administered surveys and conducted most of the interviews; Katherine Rowbotham and Brandy Ann Skjold, who wrote up transcripts from the interviews; and Charles Henderson and Heather Petcovic, who gave us comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Thanks also to the participants at the IHPST 2009 conference and the International History of Science in Science Education (8th ICHSSE) conference held at Maresias, Brazil, where a preliminary report of these findings was shared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, 3134 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008-5410, USA

    David Wÿss Rudge

  2. The Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, 3134 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008-5410, USA

    David Paul Cassidy & Janice Marie Fulford

  3. Department of Education, Assumption College, 159 Kennedy Hall, 500 Salisbury Street, Worcester, MA, 01612, USA

    Eric Michael Howe

Authors
  1. David Wÿss Rudge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Paul Cassidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janice Marie Fulford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Michael Howe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Wÿss Rudge.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 135 kb)

Appendix: VNOS Survey

Appendix: VNOS Survey

  1. 1.

    Often in science we hear words like “theories” to describe scientific knowledge.

  2. (a)

    What is a theory?

  3. (b)

    How are theories created?

  4. (c)

    Give an example of when you have created or used a theory?

  5. 2.

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

If you believe that scientific theories do change:

a. Explain why.

b. Defend your answer with examples.

If you believe that scientific theories do not change:

a. Explain why.

b. Defend your answer with examples.

  1. 3.

    What is an experiment?

  2. 4.

    Does the development of scientific knowledge require experiments?

If yes, explain why and give an example to defend your position.

If no, explain why and give an example to defend your position.

  1. 5.

    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?

  2. 6.

    Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to find answers to the questions they put forth. Do scientists use their creativity and imagination during their investigations?

If you believe yes, scientists do use imagination and creativity,

a. Explain why, indicating which stages this occurs (planning and design, data collection, after data collection).

b. Defend your answer with examples.

If you believe no, scientists do not use imagination and creativity,

a. Explain why.

b. Defend your answer with examples.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudge, D.W., Cassidy, D.P., Fulford, J.M. et al. Changes Observed in Views of Nature of Science During a Historically Based Unit. Sci & Educ 23, 1879–1909 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9572-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9572-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation