Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in

This article was downloaded by: [Dana Zeidler] On: 23 April 2012, At: 15:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues a

b

c

Jennifer Lynne Eastwood , Troy D. Sadler , Dana L. Zeidler , d

c

Anna Lewis , Leila Amiri & Scott Applebaum

c

a

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA b

MU Science Education Center, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA c

Department of Secondary Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA d

Coalition for Science Literacy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Available online: 18 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Jennifer Lynne Eastwood, Troy D. Sadler, Dana L. Zeidler, Anna Lewis, Leila Amiri & Scott Applebaum (2012): Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues, International Journal of Science Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.667582 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

Downloaded by [Dana Zeidler] at 15:04 23 April 2012

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Science Education 2012, 1–27, iFirst Article

Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues Jennifer Lynne Eastwooda∗ , Troy D. Sadlerb, Dana L. Zeidlerc, Anna Lewisd, Leila Amiric and Scott Applebaumc Downloaded by [Dana Zeidler] at 15:04 23 April 2012

a

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA; bMU Science Education Center, University of MissouriColumbia, Columbia, MO, USA; cDepartment of Secondary Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; dCoalition for Science Literacy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of two learning contexts for explicit-reflective nature of science (NOS) instruction, socioscientific issues (SSI) driven and content driven, on student NOS conceptions. Four classes of 11th and 12th grade anatomy and physiology students participated. Two classes experienced a curricular sequence organized around SSI (the SSI group), and two classes experienced a content-based sequence (the Content group). An openended NOS questionnaire was administered to both groups at the beginning and end of the school year and analyzed to generate student profiles. Quantitative analyses were performed to compare pre-instruction NOS conceptions between groups as well as pre to post changes within groups and between groups. Both SSI and Content groups showed significant gains in most NOS themes, but between-group gains were not significantly different. Qualitative analysis of postinstruction responses, however, revealed that students in the SSI group tended to use examples to describe their views of the social/cultural NOS. The findings support SSI contexts as effective for promoting gains in students’ NOS understanding and suggest that these contexts facilitate nuanced conceptions that should be further explored.

Keywords: Nature of science; Scientific literacy; Science; Technology; Society; Socioscientific issues

∗

Corresponding author. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, 503 O’Dowd Hall, Rochester 48309, MI, USA. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/000001–27 # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

2 J. L. Eastwood et al.


Introduction Understanding the nature of science (NOS) is an essential part of scientific literacy (Allchin, 2011; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996; Roberts, 2007), and thus teaching NOS is a primary focus of science education worldwide (Lederman, 2007). Along with science concepts and inquiry practice, NOS is highlighted as an essential component of the content that science instruction should provide (NRC, 1996). Socioscientific issues (SSI) have been established as effective contexts for development of knowledge and processes contributing to scientific literacy, including evidence-based argumentation, consensus building, moral reasoning, and understanding and application of science content knowledge (Sadler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, 2011). Considering that SSI engage students in these central processes of science, and that they provide many opportunities for explicit discussions of NOS, several researchers have proposed relationships between NOS views and decision-making in SSI (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Bell & Lederman, 2003; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002, 2004; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). In this study, we explore how students’ NOS views change through explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized over a full school year in an SSI-based course and a content-based course.

Nature of Science Scholars in the field of science education generally agree that NOS represents the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, and ‘the values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and development’ (Lederman, 1992). Although there is no complete consensus on a definition of NOS, generally accepted aspects include: scientific knowledge is tentative, empirically based, influenced by social and cultural factors, and inspired by human creativity and imagination, scientists’ interpretations are subjective, theories and laws are different kinds of scientific knowledge, and making observations and inferences are distinct activities (Lederman, 2007). Research into students’, teachers’, and pre-service teachers’ NOS conceptions has shown these groups to have generally unsophisticated understanding of NOS (Lederman, 1992; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992), and much research has focussed on developing effective NOS instruction (Lederman, 2007; Sandoval, 2005). Two distinct approaches to teaching NOS have been discussed in the literature: the implicit approach in which students are expected to build understanding of NOS through participating in inquiry activities and enacting process skills, and the explicit approach in which learning NOS is treated as a cognitive outcome (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 2007). Research has shown that an explicit approach to teaching NOS is more effective in facilitating students’ and teachers’ development of more informed views of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). In addition, the combination of explicit NOS instruction with opportunities to reflect on NOS in the context of inquiry (Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004), history of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000), and


Nature of Science in SSI 3 elementary science methods (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000) has been shown to improve NOS conceptions. In the explicit-reflective approach used in these studies, students or teachers are introduced to the aspects of NOS through examples and activities (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) and engaged in structured opportunities for reflection, which encourage learners to draw connections between these experiences, their growing understanding of science, and NOS aspects. Explicit approaches to NOS teaching may be characterized as ‘integrated’ where NOS instruction is embedded in the science content and ‘non-integrated’ where explicit NOS instruction is treated as an independent body of knowledge. Featuring NOS instruction as a stand-alone unit in the midst of broader science curriculum is a typical non-integrated approach. Studies that compare integrated and non-integrated approaches with high school students (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006, 2007) have shown learner gains in NOS conceptions for both conditions, but no significant differences between the two approaches. Socioscientific Issues SSI are ill-structured problems for which solutions are uncertain and complex (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Kuhn, 1991; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), and, at a minimum, incorporate two main elements: (1) connections to science content, and (2) social significance. Because SSI are controversial, have relevance to society, and encompass varying viewpoints, they have great potential for generating interest among students. In developing their own positions on SSI, students not only incorporate scientific knowledge and data, but must also consider social, economic, ethical, and moral aspects of the problem (Sadler, 2009). Productive SSI-learning environments tend to engage students in processes of data analysis, reasoning, argumentation, and decision-making. The learning environment is collaborative and respectful, and expectations for student participation are high (Sadler, 2011). Existing literature about SSI has focussed on the effects of SSI-learning environments on higher-order thinking skills, including argumentation, creativity, and reflective judgment; science content learning; and motivation (Sadler, 2009). Many studies of students’ argumentation processes in SSI have documented gains (Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu, 2003; Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Tal & Kedmi, 2006; Pedretti, 1999; Walker & Zeidler, 2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Others have documented difficulties, common to argumentation in general, in students’ development of argumentation practices in SSI (Albe, 2008; Harris & Ratcliffe, 2005; Kortland, 1996). Studies have shown that students in SSI contexts were more likely to display creativity in their work (Yager, Lim, & Yager, 2006) or show gains in creativity (Lee & Erdogan, 2007). Additionally, SSI-based instruction was shown to promote epistemological development through documenting gains in reflective judgment (Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). The majority of research on science content learning in SSI has found that SSIlearning environments promote gains in conceptual knowledge (Sadler, Barab, and Scott, 2007; Dori et al., 2003; Klosterman & Sadler, 2010; Yager et al., 2006).

4 J. L. Eastwood et al. Researchers that compare SSI contexts to traditional science learning contexts support the claim that SSI contexts facilitate content learning as effectively as (Barker & Millar, 1996; Yager et al., 2006) or more effectively than traditional learning environments (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). The literature also supports the premise that students find SSI interesting (Albe, 2008; Bennett, Grasel, Parchmann, & Waddington, 2005; Bulte, Westbroek, de Jong, & Pilot, 2006; Dori et al., 2003; Zeidler et al., 2009; Harris & Ratcliffe, 2005) and motivational for learning (Dori et al., 2003; Parchmann et al., 2006). In addition, SSI have been linked to increases in students’ community involvement (Yager et al., 2006), improved attitudes toward science (Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Yager et al., 2006), and stronger intentions to study science in college (Barber, 2001).


NOS in SSI Contexts SSI-learning environments incorporate processes that relate to NOS and provide numerous opportunities for explicit connections to aspects of NOS. For these reasons, researchers have proposed connections between NOS conceptions and decision-making in SSI. Some have investigated whether NOS conceptions relate to reasoning processes in the context of SSI. For example, Zeidler et al. (2002) investigated the relationships between students’ NOS understanding and their responses to evidence that challenged their beliefs. Forty-one pairs of high school students or pre-service science teachers who represented opposing viewpoints responded to questionnaires and interviews, eliciting their conceptions of NOS and their beliefs on an SSI. Taxonomies of students’ NOS conceptions revealed that NOS understanding is represented in the ways students respond to evidence conflicting with their beliefs about SSI; however, students’ explanations of their reasoning with the SSI were not always congruent with evaluations of their NOS conceptions. In another study, Sadler et al. (2002) investigated students’ understanding of three NOS aspects (meaning and interpretation of data, cultural embeddedness, and tentativeness) and students’ negotiation of conflicting evidence in the context of an SSI. Students read two contradictory reports on global warming and responded to questions eliciting understanding of targeted NOS aspects and factors influencing decision-making in SSI. Distinct categories emerged for each targeted NOS aspect, which included how data are used to support positions (the empirical NOS), social influences on a scientific issue, and explanations of the existence of opposing positions (the tentative NOS). Results revealed that students brought various NOS conceptions into SSI, and the authors highlighted that SSI could provide abundant opportunities for addressing NOS in the science classroom. Other studies have evaluated students’ development and application of NOS views when engaged in SSI-learning environments. In an exploratory case study, Walker & Zeidler (2007) investigated the ways in which high school science students interacted with explicit links to NOS in a web-based SSI unit and the characteristics of students’ argumentation and discourse in a debate. Instruction embedded in the WISE (web-based inquiry science environment; Bell & Linn, 2000; Linn, Clark, & Slotta,


Nature of Science in SSI 5 2003) platform explicitly incorporated NOS aspects and was designed to engage students in inquiry and scaffold development of evidence-based arguments. Using field observations, responses to the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (Rubba & Andersen, 1978), written artifacts from web-based activities, student participation in a debate activity, and semi-structured interviews, the authors found that students did refer to NOS ideas, including creative, tentative, subjective, and social aspects. However, students did not incorporate discussion of NOS into their debate activity, even when invoking NOS aspects would have been relevant and useful. Matkins and Bell (2007) also investigated the effects of integrating NOS instruction into an SSI. Fifteen pre-service elementary teachers were engaged in instruction on global climate change and global warming (GCC/GW) with explicit-reflective teaching of NOS. From analysis of pre- and post-assessments on NOS and GCC/ GW, class assignments, student journals, and interviews, Matkins and Bell concluded that students improved their understanding of both NOS and GCC/GW, and they applied these understanding in their decision-making about the SSI. Khishfe and Lederman (2006) also studied NOS instruction embedded within an SSI-learning environment. They compared ninth grade environmental science students’ NOS conceptions after explicit NOS instruction integrated into a controversial issue, and non-integrated. In the integrated group, NOS aspects were explicitly connected to global climate content through reflective discussions. The non-integrated group experienced the same unit on global climate, but received NOS instruction through generic activities (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) that were temporally dispersed throughout the unit. Using survey responses and interview data, profiles of NOS views were generated for each student’s pre- and post-instructional understanding of the tentative, empirical, creative, and subjective NOS and the distinction between observation and inference. Khishfe and Lederman found that while both groups improved their NOS conceptions, the integrated group showed slightly greater gains in informed views and the non-integrated group showed slightly greater gains in transitional views. The findings suggest that integration of NOS in controversial science topics is at least as effective in improving NOS conceptions as de-contextualized explicit-reflective NOS instruction. In a more recent study, Bell et al. (2011) examined NOS understanding of four sections of an elementary science method course in relation to two variables: explicitreflective or implicit approaches, and SSI-embedded or non-SSI-embedded contexts of NOS instruction. A 2 × 2 design was used where two sections experienced SSIbased instruction through a unit on GCC/GW, and two groups received explicitreflective NOS teaching incorporating activities, discussion, and reflection. The four treatment groups included explicit GCC/GW and explicit NOS, no GCC/GW and explicit NOS, explicit GCC/GW and implicit NOS, and no GCC/GW and implicit NOS. With the use of pre- and post-questionnaires, classroom artifacts, and semistructured interviews, the authors found that students in the explicitreflective NOS treatment groups (both GCC/GW and no GCC/GW) made significant gains in NOS conceptions and were able to appropriately apply their understanding to new situations, but students in the implicit NOS groups made no significant


6 J. L. Eastwood et al. gains in NOS understanding. Although NOS gains were not significantly different between the two explicit NOS groups, only the students who experienced explicit NOS teaching in the SSI context were able to apply targeted NOS views in their justifications for government-supported alternative energy in post-tests. These students incorporated their understanding of evidence, subjectivity, and consensus in a question on decision-making on GCC/GW. Although many researchers have proposed connections between students’ NOS views and decision-making in SSI, the existing research still provides little empirical evidence for that link (Sadler, 2009). The studies that have addressed NOS instruction in SSI-learning environments suggest that these environments can be effective to facilitate improvement in students’ conceptions of identified NOS aspects. Several authors have criticized the conceptualization of ‘aspects’ of NOS and associated assessments as promoting an overly processed ‘consensus list’ that encourages students to learn declarative statements about science rather than gain competence in interpreting scientific practice for personal and democratic decision-making (Allchin, 2011; Feinstein, 2010). While we recognize the value of NOS understanding to informed analysis and decision-making in real-world SSI, we also do not discount the value of these understanding as cognitive outcomes in themselves, similar to understanding the role of base pairing in DNA replication or the purpose of a negative control in an experiment. However, these understanding must be more robust than borrowed statements, such as ‘science is tentative’. Students’ elaboration of their views is required to establish an informed view, and we consider well-elaborated conceptions of NOS valuable knowledge. Given these perspectives on NOS and SSI, more information is needed on the effectiveness of SSI-learning contexts in helping students develop informed NOS conceptions. This study addresses how a longterm, explicit-reflective approach to NOS instruction in SSI-based and contentbased courses influences students’ NOS understanding. Theoretical Perspective Guiding Classroom Context and Research Our view of SSI is grounded in the interrelated theoretical constructs of situated learning, communities of practice, and Gee’s discourse (Sadler, 2009; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Gee, 1999; Greeno, 1998; Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Situated learning emphasizes the interconnectedness of the environment and the processes of knowing and learning. Learning occurs as students interact with other individuals and resources, and the relationship between the individual and the context afford and constrain the learning that can occur (Greeno, 1998). A community of practice includes the physical environment, individuals interacting within that environment, and the tacit and explicit cultural norms of that environment (Lave, 1991). Learners undergo a process of enculturation, where they come to understand the norms of participation in that community (Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002). Sadler (2009) calls for SSI contexts that transform science classrooms into communities of practice, in which participants develop socioscientific discourses. Socioscientific discourse (capital ‘D’), as consistent with Gee’s (1999) construct of discourse, includes

Nature of Science in SSI 7 both verbal interaction between individuals (discourse—lower case ‘d’) and the activities of the community in which individuals interact. In such a ‘transformed’ science classroom, learners develop identities as legitimate participants in socioscientific discourses, in which they are willing and empowered to contribute to society through negotiation of both scientific and social aspects of real-world problems (Sadler, 2009). Additionally, socioscientific discourses should incorporate epistemological norms, such as an emphasis on NOS. The SSI classes in this study represent a ‘transformed’ learning environment, in which a high school anatomy and physiology curriculum was altered to engage students in scientific inquiry, promote epistemological development, and encourage reflection on developing commitments (Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011).


Focus of the Current Study This study examines two different contexts for integrated, explicit-reflective NOS instruction carried out over a full school year: SSI driven and Content driven. We investigate how NOS instruction contextualized in an SSI-learning environment and NOS instruction contextualized in a science content-driven curriculum influence students’ NOS conceptions and whether the two conditions shape student NOS conceptions in unique ways. Additionally, we examine whether students’ responses reveal qualitative differences in students’ understanding of NOS that relate to the context of instruction. Research questions include the following: (1) Does explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized within an SSI-driven curriculum lead to student gains in NOS understanding? (2) Does explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized within a content-driven curriculum lead to student gains in NOS understanding? (3) Are there pre- to post-instructional changes in NOS understanding between students for whom NOS instruction was contextualized in SSI and students for whom NOS instruction was contextualized in science content? (4) Do students in the two treatment conditions provide qualitatively different responses to NOS prompts? If so, what is the nature of those differences? Methods Context of Study The current study originated as a collaboration between two science educators with established records of research in SSI and an experienced high school science teacher who was also a graduate student in science education. While the teacher was comfortable and proficient with traditional methods of teaching, it is fair to say he was both supportive yet skeptical of the SSI intervention (Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011). Accordingly, the teacher had helped in preparing and delivering the SSI curriculum and was, therefore, comfortable and proficient in its delivery. The larger project focussed on three areas of research on SSI-learning environments in which little had been published: student development of reflective judgment,

8 J. L. Eastwood et al. moral sensitivity, and NOS understanding. The researchers developed two curricular sequences that featured explicit-reflective NOS instruction for an academic year-long high school anatomy and physiology course. One curricular sequence (the SSI-driven curriculum) was organized around a series of SSI with conceptual links to anatomy and physiology. The content-driven curriculum was organized around anatomy and physiology content. The lead researcher on this project maintained a close relationship with the teacher, meeting weekly to discuss pedagogy after observing the classroom and sometimes modeling activities. Multiple researchers were involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.


Participants Participants included students from four 11th and 12th grade Anatomy and Physiology classes in a large, public, suburban high school in Florida. The school was located in an upper middle class neighborhood where the majority of participants lived. Few students of low socioeconomic status were represented in the sample. Each class included 27–31 students and males and females were equally distributed. The course was an elective with most students planning to attend college after graduation and some interested in pre-med majors. Two classes used the SSI-driven curriculum (the SSI group) and the other two classes used the content-driven curriculum (the Content group). Classes were randomly assigned to condition and there was no self-selection of students into conditions. The teacher, who contributed to the design of both curricular sequences, taught all four classes. NOS Instruction The SSI and Content groups both received explicit-reflective NOS instruction. Although we view SSI as providing many opportunities to discuss aspects of NOS in relation to real-world situations (Zeidler et al., 2002), we also view NOS instruction as compatible with a content-driven approach to teaching science, considering that NOS aspects are central to understanding scientific processes and the origins of scientific knowledge. In both the SSI and Content groups, NOS instruction included explicit teaching through activities and demonstrations as well as making explicit connections between NOS aspects and classroom content. At the beginning of the year, both groups participated in a variety of stand-alone NOS learning experiences (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 1998) including black box activities and puzzle solving activities. The presence of one of the researchers with his continuous feedback to the teacher confirmed and assured that the initial explicit NOS instruction was virtually identical for all classes in each group. The instructor explicitly introduced NOS aspects through these activities, and engaged students in reflection on these experiences. As the semester progressed, the instructor adopted more integrated approaches; he continually referred back to the foundational NOS experiences and helped students to explore NOS themes in the context of science content and/or SSI. For example, in the Content classes, students studied

Nature of Science in SSI 9 cell biology. As a part of these experiences, the instructor drew explicit connections to empirical bases for our current understanding of cell structure and function, highlighted how the field’s understanding of cells has changed over time, and discussed how creative advancements in experimental design and technology mediated the field’s evolving understanding. In the SSI classes, students studied cell biology through exploration of issues associated with stem cell research. As in the Content classes, the instructor highlighted ways in which understanding of cells (and stem cells in particular) had changed as well as ways in which the creativity of scientists and technologists has shaped this field. The SSI context also afforded opportunities for students to critically examine ways in which science and society are mutually influenced and shaped.


The SSI Group For the SSI group, course content was embedded within a series of SSI. Kolstø’s (2001) ‘content transcending’ themes informed the design of instruction for the treatment group. These themes include (1) Science-in-the-making and the role of consensus in science; (2) Science as one of several social domains; (3) Descriptive and normative statements; (4) Demands for underpinning evidence; (5) Scientific models as context-bound; (6) Scientific evidence; (7) Suspension of belief; and (8) Scrutinizing science-related knowledge claims. Pedagogical strategies for decisionmaking with SSI included establishing the difference between general and scientific knowledge, establishing criteria for evidence, considering scenarios that may lead to different conclusions, and considering moral consequences (Keefer, 2003; Pedretti, 1999; Ratcliffe, 1997; Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003). The SSI framework established in this study was consistent with strategies to advance students’ development of reflective judgment (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Kegan, 1994; King & Baxter Magolda, 1996). Such strategies guided classroom instruction and included showing respect for students’ ideas, including discussion and resources for exploring different perspectives on ill-structured problems, facilitating critical evaluation of different arguments on an issue, scaffolding evidence-based decision-making, and explicitly addressing uncertainty and epistemological assumptions (King & Kitchener, 2002). The researchers and teacher developed activities to facilitate student understanding of both science concepts and the social context of the issues discussed. Figure 1 illustrates the SSI curriculum including interrelationships between content knowledge and SSI contexts. Topics included controversial contemporary issues such as stem cell research, euthanasia, fluoridation of public water supplies, safety of marijuana use, and fast food and health. Units were designed to highlight the subjective, theory-laden, empirical, creative and culturally embedded NOS. Class time was spent in discussion, argumentation, role-play, small group activities, and research into particular issues. Little time was spent in lectures and traditional lab activities. Anticipated student outcomes included enhanced understanding of anatomy and physiology content, improved argumentation and decision-making with SSI,



Figure 1. Design of SSI curriculum

Nature of Science in SSI 11 participation in scientific discourses, socio-moral development, and more informed NOS conceptions. Although content gains (i.e. anatomy and physiology concepts) were not a specific focus of the current study, we conducted analyses of content understanding through examinations administered at the beginning and end of the school year. The examinations focused on structure and function of all major organ systems in the human body. We found the SSI group to have demonstrated more positive changes in understanding of fundamental anatomy and physiology concepts than the Content comparison group (Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, Callahan, & Amiri, 2005).


The Content Group The Content group was taught using a traditional, content-driven approach, where course topics followed the organization of the textbook, covering the organ systems of the human body. The topics included the organization of the human body into cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems, with in-depth treatments of body systems including skeletal, muscular, nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, excretory, and reproductive. Classroom activities included lectures, lab activities, discussion of anatomy and physiology concepts, and completing worksheets. The NOS aspects emphasized in the SSI group (subjective, theory-laden, empirical, creative, and culturally embedded NOS) were also emphasized in the Content group. However, whereas explicit NOS connections to science were made in both groups, the SSI group considered NOS themes to be contextualized and extracted from contemporary issues, while the Content group explored NOS themes in the context of research associated with anatomy and physiology content. While both groups engaged in reflection and discussion of NOS, we recognize that students experienced different learning activities. Therefore, our study addresses two different types of learning contexts, not simply two different presentations of content. For both the SSI and Content groups, intended student outcomes included knowledge of anatomical form and function and more informed NOS conceptions. Administration of the VNOS Students in both the SSI and Content groups responded to the VNOS form C (VNOS-C) prior to instruction and at the end of the academic year to provide pre and post data points. VNOS is well established in terms of face and content validity, and has been extensively used in research with various groups of students and teachers (Lederman, 2007; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). VNOS-C (Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) was adapted from prior VNOS forms (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Lederman & O’Malley, 1990) to assess individuals’ understanding of target NOS aspects, including the tentative, creative, empirical, inferential, socially and culturally embedded, and theory-laden NOS as well as the distinctions between theory and law and the myth of a single scientific method (Lederman et al., 2002). Open-ended questions allowed students to elaborate on

12 J. L. Eastwood et al. their understanding of NOS, and overlapping of target aspects among the questions allowed researchers to generate profiles of students’ understanding of each aspect. For example, the following questions are included in VNOS-C:


. After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g. atomic theory, evolution theory), does the theory ever change? . Science textbooks often define a species as a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring. How certain are scientists about their characterization of what a species is? What specific evidence do you think scientists use to determine what a species is? Both questions could elicit responses on a range of target NOS concepts, including the tentative, empirical, inferential, and theory-laden NOS. From the full set of VNOS responses, researchers are able to develop inferences about participants’ conceptions of the target NOS aspects.

Data Collection and Analysis Four researchers participated in the analysis of VNOS data. The teacher was not involved in data analysis. All these researchers were familiar with exemplar coding schemes for NOS aspects generally and VNOS data more specifically. To develop a valid coding scheme for the particular context of the participants in this study, the researchers initially engaged in independent inductive analysis of the data set to generate an emergent taxonomy that characterized the range of patterns observed in this particular data set (Lederman et al., 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Analysis of the data proceeded in several distinct iterations. For each phase of coding, researchers were blind to the group affiliations of participants. In the first round of review, the researchers independently examined 12 sets of VNOS responses randomly sampled from among the four classes including both pre- and post-instruction data. Based on these reviews, the researchers identified six distinct NOS themes to examine within the data sets: the empirical, tentative, creative, and social NOS along with distinctions between laws and theories and the use of scientific models. The researchers also shared initial ideas for an emergent taxonomy for characterizing the diversity of views observed within each of these aspects. The negotiation of intra-theme codes continued through two more rounds of independent review of VNOS responses. After these three iterations of review and negotiation, the researchers established a coding system that included three ordinal categories for each NOS theme in addition to a ‘no relevant response’ code. The ordinal categories were ‘informed’, ‘transitional’, and ‘naı¨ve’. These categories and examples of student responses are presented in Table 1. Two researchers then applied the emergent coding scheme to 10 transcripts, which had not been previously examined, to calculate inter-rater reliability. Based on these results, Cohen’s kappa was calculated at 0.91, indicating a high level of inter-rater reliability. In the final iteration of this phase of analysis, the two researchers applied the analytic codes to the rest of the data set.

Nature of Science in SSI 13 Table 1. Themes


Empirical

Tentative

Creative

VNOS coding scheme with examples from student responses Informed

Transitional

Naive

Science is a process which involves the collection of data and generation of inferences. Science becomes a tool to explain natural phenomena ‘Science is the knowledge and acquisition of knowledge . . . it has the stated aim to be unbiased . . . however obviously this is impossible . . . Nonetheless, it is the attempt towards empirical explanations of the world’ Scientific understanding can change over time given new evidence or interpretations; however, scientific understanding is dependable

Science is a process that leads to the closest approximations of fact and truth

Science is proven fact. It is the way to know the right and true answers

‘Science is learning from our observations and others’ observations . . . Science may not be fact but it is the best that humans can do’

‘Science is answers to questions we have about the world. It gives us proof and knowledge’

Scientific understanding is uncertain and changing. (A student recognizes the tentative NOS but does not acknowledge the dependability or usefulness of scientific knowledge) ‘Science is always changing . . . Theories are constantly changing’

Scientific understanding is certain and unchanging

Creativity and imagination play roles only in specified areas of scientific practices.

Science has no room for creativity or imagination.

‘I believe that scientists must use imagination in order to find ways to test a hypothesis and to find a hypothesis in the first

‘I believe that ideally scientists would stick to only what the data said and not add their own

‘Theories change because of new technological developments and influence of differing scientific opinions. However, it is still necessary to learn theories to gain current knowledge’ Creativity and imagination play significant roles throughout scientific practices. ‘Scientists do use creativity & imagination to resolve problems that come up with planning & design . . . Also the need

‘They [scientific theories] definitely do not change. A theory is something that’s been proven time and time again by numerous people and when done the correct way, it always turns out with the same results’

(Continued)

14 J. L. Eastwood et al. Table 1. Themes

Informed


Theory and law

Scientific models

Transitional

place. I don’t think, however, that imagination is used in finding data or stating a conclusion. A conclusion must be a fact’ Scientists may be Personal, social and cultural influences shape personally influenced by social and cultural science and the ways factors, but science as an scientists interpret data and arrive at conclusions enterprise is insulated from these influences ‘I guess its [a scientific ‘Science is definitely conclusion is related to] reflected by social and how you perceive the cultural values. First of data, and what you base it all some people don’t even question things . . .’ on . . . I think science is universal. . . And that once proved, political wishes have nothing to do with theories . . .’ Theories are explanatory Theories and laws are unique representations of in nature but the primary distinction relates to the scientific understanding because theories explain fact that laws are proven and unchanging complex phenomena while laws describe consistent regularities ‘There is a difference ‘A scientific theory is a between scientific theory possible explanation for something, which can be and scientific law. proven false. A scientific Scientific theory is test an law, however, is more . . . idea that makes sense to it’s like Newton’s laws of most people and is widely accepted. Scientific law is motion and the law of always a definite and can gravity . . .’ always be proven . . .’ Scientific models are Scientific models are based on data and based on data and inferences and are useful inferences and are useful because they present for understanding or concrete representations predicting phenomena. of phenomena. There is a They represent abstract ideas. Multiple models of best model but this may the same content/context change over time given new data are possible and useful

to come up with new approaches and figuring out what the results tell us’

Social/ cultural

Continued Naive [imagination and creativity]

Science is insulated from social and cultural influences

‘I would say it [science] is universal . . . It is not so much influenced by social, political and philosophical values’

Theories can become laws when enough data is collected

‘A theory can become a law after it is sufficiently tested and is proven true’.

Scientific models are visual or concrete representations of reality (one-to-one correspondence). Science has a best model for phenomena

(Continued)

Nature of Science in SSI 15 Table 1.


Themes

Continued

Informed

Transitional

Naive

‘The phylum, genus, species system is just what it implies—a system. This system was manmade and thus is likely less than perfect’

‘I don’t think scientists are positive that atoms look the way they are drawn. Atoms are too small to see even under a microscope, so scientists take information that they do know and apply it to a shape they think would be best for the structure’

‘I’m relatively certain that scientists are sure that the atom exists with all the aforementioned parts . . .’

Pre-instruction NOS conceptions, designated as proportions of students at each rating, were compared by NOS themes for the SSI and Content groups using Fisher’s exact tests. Within-theme changes from pre- to post-instruction assessments were determined for each group using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Pre to post changes for the SSI and Content groups were compared for each NOS aspect using the Mann–Whitney U test. We used an alpha level of 0.05 for all statistical tests, which we consider to be conservative based on the small sample size.

Results Analysis of the pre-instruction VNOS questionnaire data revealed that the SSI and Content groups were not significantly different in their levels of NOS understanding prior to instruction (see Table 2). After instruction, both SSI and Content groups showed significant gains in each aspect of NOS with the exception of the social/ cultural NOS for the Content group and the scientific models category for the SSI group. In these two cases, students demonstrated gains, but the gains were not interpreted to be statistically significant at an alpha of ,0.05 (see Table 3). However, given the relatively small sample size and the fact that the two p values in question were 0.05 (social/cultural NOS for the Content group) and 0.06 (scientific models category for the SSI group), it would be inappropriate to draw extensive inferences from these slight deviations from the otherwise consistent patterns seen in both groups. Comparing pre to post gains between groups revealed no significant differences between the SSI and Content groups (see Table 4). The fourth research question called for a qualitative analysis of potential differences in the ways in which the SSI and Content groups responded to the VNOS prompts. Research questions 1 –3 focussed on pre- to post-instructional changes, and changes were documented through the ordinal rubric presented in Table 1. This particular approach to analysis was appropriate to the first three research questions but somewhat limited with respect to documenting the full range of differences between



Table 2. Pre-instruction VNOS results for SSI and content groups

Empirical Informed Transitional Naive No response Tentative Informed Transitional Naive No response Creative Informed Transitional Naive No response Socially/culturally embedded Informed Transitional Naive No response Theory and law Informed Transitional Naive No response Models Informed Transitional Naive No response

Content (%) (n ¼ 35)

SSI (%) (n ¼ 43)

p-Value (Fisher’s exact test)

0 17 66 17

2 26 49 23

0.45

31 51 14 3

30 51 14 5

1.00

23 40 11 26

40 37 12 12

0.29

29 9 31 31

30 16 19 35

0.54

0 17 77 6

0 7 84 9

0.37

0 17 46 37

2 14 51 33

0.92

VNOS responses provided by students in the two groups. Hence, the fourth research question prescribed a more open-ended analysis that enabled our team to explore differences between the groups not captured in the rubric created for the other parts of the analysis. There were no discernible differences between the groups on the pre-instruction NOS assessment. Individual students certainly varied with respect to the kinds of responses they provided, but we did not observe any differences that varied systematically by instructional group. In analysis of the post-instruction responses, we noticed differences in the ways in which students used specific examples to support their discussion of VNOS questions. We made this observation during the iterative qualitative review process during which the reviewers were unaware of the respondents’

Nature of Science in SSI 17 Table 3.

Within group pre- to post-instructional changes in VNOS results


Content Empirical N 26 Mean 0.62 SD 0.94 Median 1 Tentative N 34 Mean 0.41 SD 0.78 Median 0 Creative N 21 Mean 0.62 SD 0.80 Median 1 Socially/culturally embedded N 21 Mean 0.57 SD 1.1 Median 0 Theory and law N 32 Mean 0.41 SD 0.76 Median 0 Models N 20 Mean 0.40 SD 0.68 Median 0

Table 4.

p-Value (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

SSI

p-Value (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

0.005

32 0.56 0.91 0

0.003

0.007

39 0.38 0.78 0

0.006

0.006

35 0.51 0.82 0

0.001

0.050

27 0.52 0.89 0

0.009

0.009

38 0.37 0.75 0

0.007

0.030

24 0.38 0.88 0

0.060

Between group pre to post changes for aspects of NOS p-Value (Mann –Whitney U test)

Empirical Tentative Creative Socially/culturally embedded Theory and law Models

0.87 0.81 0.55 0.80 0.63 0.95



group affiliations. In order to determine whether the variation in the use of examples varied by group (SSI and Content), we revealed group affiliation for approximately half of the sample and re-examined the VNOS responses with a more fine-grained analysis than typically done when only looking for indicators of NOS tenets, paying particular attention to the use of contextualized examples subsuming NOS tenets. We did detect systematic differences in how students from the two groups used examples on one particular item that targeted learner views on social and cultural NOS. The item prompt is listed here: 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.

After identifying this particular item as a source of potential difference between the groups, we initiated another round of open coding with group affiliation blinded. We developed an emergent coding scheme to systematically characterize potential differences in the use of examples. We found three distinct patterns: (1) respondents effectively used examples to support their perspectives on the social and cultural NOS, (2) students discussed examples but the examples were either inaccurate or irrelevant to the perspective being advocated, and (3) students provided a response that did not feature examples. Within the first group, we observed students using examples to demonstrate three different perspectives on the interactions of science and society: (a) students discussed examples of how social and cultural values influence scientists and the work they do, (b) students used examples to illustrate how social and cultural values influence citizen’s views of science, and (c) a couple of students presented examples as a means of demonstrating the universality of science. In the case of group (c), students were reporting a non-normative view of science, but they did so with a legitimate example that supported their espoused view. Table 5 presents each of these categories and exemplar quotations along with the proportion of students from each group who demonstrated the corresponding pattern. As evidenced in Table 5, a greater proportion of students in the SSI group used examples to strengthen their presentation of their perspectives related to how science is socially and culturally influenced. A post hoc chi square analysis indicated that the group differences were not statistically significant; however, given the relatively small sample size, we believe that these results highlight a potentially important trend that warrants further investigation. Discussion Research on NOS supports the conclusion that most learners do not have adequate understanding of NOS. However, there is evidence to suggest that explicit-reflective

Nature of Science in SSI 19 Table 5. Student use of examples to justify positions related to the cultural and social NOS

Uses appropriate examples Examples of the social and cultural NOS


Examples of the universality of science

Uses inaccurate or irrelevant example

Does not use examples

Content (n ¼ 36)

SSI (n ¼ 38)

14 (39%)

23 (61%)

2 (6%)

0 (0%)

3 (8%)

2 (5%)

17 (47%)

13 (34%)

Exemplar quotation

Science definitely reflects social and cultural values. Prime example: USA. President Bush has ended the research of stems cells due to his own personal and religious beliefs. As a result, science cannot develop its capacity in the field of stem cells. Thus, philosophical values have affected science I think it [science] is universal because no matter where you do research, like let’s say I was to conduct research on the stars. Whether I was in Florida or China the stars are still going to look the same and get the same results I believe that science is universal but in some cases it is influenced by social and cultural values. For example, the food that people eat can be influenced by social or cultural values If science was pure then it would be universal, but, because we are human, there is sociocultural influence in science. It is very difficult to think completely objectively and to detach oneself from core beliefs/opinions. Social [and] cultural values influence all of us and are inevitably reflected in science

approaches to NOS instruction can promote students’ development of more informed NOS understanding. SSI provide excellent contexts for explicit-reflective NOS instruction in their numerous opportunities to exemplify aspects of NOS. SSI contexts highlight conflicting evidence, different interpretations of data, and alternative perspectives. Such problems lend themselves to discussions of scientific knowledge as empirically based, inferential, tentative, subjective, creative, and influenced by social and cultural factors. For example, in a unit on the SSI of stem cell research, sociocultural characteristics of NOS may be discussed when considering how legislation and moral concerns of scientists and society influence embryonic stem cell research. Creative aspects may be discussed in the possibilities envisioned for new treatments for diverse conditions and diseases. Tentative features may be considered in examining a timeline of discoveries, advances, and pitfalls in stem cell research, while empirical qualities may be deliberated when comparing and contrasting evidence for the usefulness of embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells for treating disease. This study documents learning environments in which explicit-reflective NOS instruction was contextualized in an entirely SSI-based science course and another


20 J. L. Eastwood et al. in a more traditional content-driven course. Based on our results, we cannot conclusively support SSI- or content-driven contexts as more effective in promoting gains in students’ formal conceptions of NOS. However, our findings indicate that SSI contexts are as effective as content-driven ones in promoting more informed conceptions of NOS. This study adds support to previous studies suggesting that SSI are effective contexts for improving students’ NOS views (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006; Matkins & Bell, 2007; Walker & Zeidler, 2007) and that NOS instruction integrated in SSI is at least equally effective as NOS instruction delivered through de-contextualized activities that are unrelated to SSI (Bell et al., 2011; Khishfe and Lederman, 2006). This study confirms results generated in previous work, but it extends those findings because of its longitudinal nature. Until now, efforts to embed NOS instruction in SSI have been limited to relatively short-term units. The current study extends over an entire school year; the fact that similar results were found in such a lengthy study suggests that the previously found gains could persist beyond short treatments. This study offers important insights into the sustainability of benefits associated with SSI-based education. In the current era of ‘accountability’, in which teachers hesitate to ‘add’ anything to their curricula in fear that it will detract from their students’ abilities to master standards-based content (including NOS ideas), the findings of this study have pragmatic importance. Focussing on SSI in classrooms does not have to be considered an add-on: teachers can contextualize instruction in SSI and support important NOS learning gains among their students. From a conceptual perspective, it seems plausible that embedding NOS instruction in SSI could be particularly effective in promoting sophisticated notions of the social and cultural NOS. By definition, SSI showcase interactions between science and society and provide natural opportunities for learners to reflect on ways in which science and society are mutually constitutive in terms of their influences. We noted that in the post-instruction instrument, as Table 5 indicates, students in the SSI group used socioscientific examples more frequently to support their responses, particularly in areas connected to social and cultural concepts of NOS (61% to 39%). For example, these students commonly referred to political influences and societal interest in stem cell research, genetic engineering, and AIDS research. In contrast, their peers in the Content group invoked examples of any kind less frequently. This result was not found to be statistically significant, but shows potential for further research. We inferred that the SSI group was more likely to provide examples of science as socially and culturally embedded because their instruction highlighted a series of specific issues where social factors were discussed, debated, and reflected upon. With this inference, we recognize that features of the learning environment, such as engagement in argumentation and debate, could be significant factors in this result as well as the issues around which instruction was built. In our analysis, we found that the SSI group was more likely to provide examples that were both specific and accurate as compared to the Content group (see Table 5). Our finding suggests that SSI may enhance understanding of the social/cultural NOS by providing students with accessible examples that help them articulate and reflect upon aspects of NOS, and that further research could be fruitful. Future studies should investigate

Nature of Science in SSI 21 how SSI-based education affects student understanding of the social and cultural aspects of NOS in addition to ways in which students apply knowledge from instructional examples or cases to new SSI contexts.


The Assessment of NOS Understanding in SSI Contexts Considering that VNOS prompts are primarily decontextualized, it is possible that explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized in SSI promotes development of NOS understanding that we were unable to detect. Sandoval (2005) notes several limitations of assessments of science epistemologies, similar to VNOS, such as abstract questions and responses that tend to be short and ambiguous. Existing instruments to assess NOS conceptions primarily target students’ understanding of formal science. Sandoval differentiates formal epistemology, which includes ideas about scientific knowledge and formal scientific practice, from practical epistemology, which includes students’ ideas about how they produce knowledge in school science. Essentially, Sandoval asserts that the epistemological views students hold about formal science are different from the views they hold about how they do science. Therefore, an assessment targeting formal epistemology may not fully capture students’ understanding of NOS. Additionally, several scholars have theorized that students’ epistemologies are context-dependent. Hammer and Elby (2002) view epistemologies as collections of ‘resources’ called upon in particular contexts. Several research studies report that students’ NOS conceptions are inconsistent among different contexts (Hammer, 1994; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Solomon, Duveen, & Scott, 1994). Leach, Millar, Ryder, and Sere (2000) found that open-ended survey responses varied between contextualized and de-contextualized questions. The majority of the VNOS prompts we used to assess students’ NOS views were de-contextualized, although some provided examples from science content. An assessment contextualized in socially relevant science-related situations could provide more insight into students’ NOS conceptions that are called upon in SSI contexts. Sandoval (2005) discussed possibilities for assessing practical epistemologies as students are engaged in scientific processes. For example, Driver, Leach, Millar, and Scott (1996) and Leach, Driver, Millar, and Scott (1997) used interview protocols to probe students’ epistemologies while students were engaged in problem solving. Perhaps an instrument that would allow the researcher to probe ideas in the context of SSI activities, where students can draw upon their existing knowledge, would be more fruitful for exploring links between NOS and SSI. Some existing research has examined students’ articulation of NOS views in the context of SSI, although most of those studies do not assess changes in NOS views before and after instruction. Several studies have shown that students do effectively apply NOS views in decision-making with SSI (Sadler et al., 2002; Zeidler et al., 2002), although Walker & Zeidler (2007) found that students did not spontaneously incorporate discussion of NOS into a debate activity. Matkins and Bell (2007) provided qualitative evidence of students’ changes toward greater sophistication of


22 J. L. Eastwood et al. NOS views as contextualized in SSI after an SSI-based unit with explicit-reflective NOS instruction. Students applied observations and inferences to scientists’ description and explanation of global warming (GW) and discussed the idea that scientists held different perspectives on the danger of GW due to different inferences from the same data. Students also noted that study of GCC/GW changed their views of science, citing the subjective, tentative, and socially/culturally embedded NOS. Additionally, although Bell et al. (2011) found that there were no differences in NOS gains as assessed by VNOS-B between pre-service teachers who experienced explicit-reflective teaching in an SSI context and those who experienced NOS as a stand-alone topic, they found that when NOS instruction was connected to an SSI context, students were better able to apply understanding of subjectivity, evidence, and consensus in decision-making with SSI. Our finding that students who received explicit-reflective NOS instruction in SSI were more likely to explain the social/ cultural NOS using examples also suggests that context is important to students’ articulation of NOS views. Possibilities for Assessing NOS Contextualized in SSI More research is needed to better understand how SSI-based learning environments may promote NOS understanding and whether NOS instruction contextualized in SSI may provide different outcomes in students’ understanding of NOS. Different methods of assessing NOS conceptions may be designed, which are sensitive to relevant sociomoral contexts and align with the scientific literacy goals of NOS instruction in SSI-learning environments in more nuanced ways. Sandoval’s (2005) suggestions for research on practical epistemologies, such as prompted recall interviews or questions on students’ reasoning where epistemological ideas are likely to come into play hold promise. Allchin (2011) presents a prototypical method for assessing NOS understanding in historical and contemporary SSI contexts, called ‘Knowledge of the Nature of Whole Science (KNOWS)’. The assessment engages students in analysis of socioscientific cases, such as the debated link between vaccines and autism, and examines their ability to identify relevant NOS concepts and relate them to their interpretation of the reliability of claims. Allchin reframes NOS from a consensus list to a set of dimensions that encompass contextually dependent conceptions of NOS. In analyzing such an assessment, student profiles may be developed using rubrics based on the proposed NOS inventory, and these may be adapted to quantitative indexes. These types of careful, in-depth examinations, though time consuming, have potential to form foundations for alternative valid instruments that may be used on a larger scale. Conclusions This study adds evidence to the few existing studies on NOS learning in SSI, finding that SSI-based learning environments can provide effective contexts for improving students’ NOS conceptions. Using the VNOS questionnaire, we found that


Nature of Science in SSI 23 explicit-reflective NOS instruction promoted NOS gains in both SSI-based and content-based contexts, although the gains were not significantly different between the two groups. The important point here is that purposeful pedagogy entailing SSI, in addition to engaging students to consider multiple perspectives of ethical concerns, affords opportunities to explore important features of NOS that are contextualized crossroads of scientific inquiry and humanity. Because epistemological views appear context-dependent, measuring NOS conceptions within learning contexts may shed light on how different types of learning contexts influence those conceptions. Considering that reasons cited for teaching NOS predominantly relate to preparing students to make informed and ethical decisions on science and technology issues, new assessments should examine NOS views in these kinds of decision-making contexts. Finally, we offer a caveat. Employing an academic year-long SSI curriculum would, no doubt, present a challenge for the best of teachers. Therefore, one may question the extent to which teachers may be able to implement an SSI curriculum (let alone one coupled with explicit NOS outcomes) without the support of a team of researchers. These issues have recently been addressed in some detail (see: Zeidler, Bell, Sadler, & Eastwood, 2011; Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011). Suffice it to say that progressive teachers, who are willing to take calculated risks, can take first steps to begin implementing aspects of an SSI-focussed curriculum. As teachers begin to tap into their own ability to draw out connections from social and ethical issues back to the scientific content at hand, they can build confidence in their ability to promote students’ use of evidence-based data to form deeper conceptual understanding of scientific information. This goes beyond the rather ineffective skill of merely pointing out science-technology-society-type connections to social issues when only teaching in a more conventional manner. Teachers will need to use more of their experiential worldly knowledge to effectively navigate students through a maze of data, misinformation, and passions. However, there is no reason why SSI cannot be blended with conventional instruction so that the transformative pedagogy required for meaningful epistemological development connected to SSI curricula can be developed in a systemic manner over time.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank Cyndi Garvan, Associate Scholar and Statistics Director in the UF College of Education, for her contributions to the statistical analysis for this study.

References Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR). Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socio-scientific issues in pre-college classrooms. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41–62). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.


24 J. L. Eastwood et al. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417 –437. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665 –701. Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295 –317. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67– 90. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518– 542. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Barab, S.A., Barnett, M.G., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 489 –542. Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and salters A-level chemistry: Students views and achievements. York: University of York. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between salters’ and traditional A-level chemistry students’ understanding of basic chemical ideas. York: University of York. Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-author(s)ship: Constructivedevelopmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific argumentations as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797 –817. Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science- and technology-based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377. Bell, R.L., Matkins, J.J., & Gansneder, B.M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 414–436. Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1521–1547. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 34–41. Bulte, A.M.W., Westbroek, H.B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1063–1086. Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors. Science Education, 87, 767– 793. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press. Feinstein, N. (2010). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168– 185. Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge. Greeno, J.G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.


Nature of Science in SSI 25 Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151– 183. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169 –190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk what can be learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439 –453. Keefer, M.W. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 241 –259). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 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, 551–578. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395– 318. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 939 –961. King, P.M., & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 163 –173. King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Klosterman, M.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017–1043. Kolstø, S.D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, . . .’ Pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877– 901. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673 –689. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about ‘the nature of science’: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 147 –166. Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M.G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497– 527. 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. 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. Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.


26 J. L. Eastwood et al. 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, 497 –521. Lederman, N.G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225– 239. Lee, M.K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315–1327. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517 –538. Matkins, J.J., & Bell, R.L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137 –163. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). ‘Chemie im Kontext’: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041–1062. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174– 181. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupils’ decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167 –182. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Buckingham: Open University Press. Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729 –780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 5 –30. Rubba, P., & Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62, 449 –458. Ryan, A.G., & Aikenhead, G.S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559 –580. Sadler, T.D., Chambers, W.F., & Zeidler, D. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387– 409. Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371 –391. Sadler, T.D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1 –42. Sadler, T.D. (2011). Socioscientific issues-based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–306). New York: Springer. Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634 –656. 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.


Nature of Science in SSI 27 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. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 361 –373. Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in the ‘WISE’ project in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 69–89. Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socio-scientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies in Science, 1, 615 –644. Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410. Yager, S.O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248– 260. 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 socio-scientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343– 367. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B., & Amiri L. (2005, April). Socioscientific issues in secondary school science: Students’ epistemological conceptions of content, NOS, and ethical sensitivity. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101. Zeidler, D.L., Applebaum, S.M., & Sadler, T.D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T.D. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277 –306). New York: Springer. Zeidler, D.L., Bell, R.L., Sadler, T.D., & Eastwood, J.L. (2011). Metalogue: Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T.D. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 307 –312). New York: Springer. Zeidler, D.L. & Sadler, D.L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D.A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176 –192). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in

Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in

Suggest Documents

Embedding Nature of Science Instruction in ...

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - CiteSeerX

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - Semantic Scholar

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - NepJOL

Contextualizing science in the aftermath of the evidence-based ...

Vocabulary Instruction in Science - Pearson

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - Nepal Journals Online

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - Nepal Journals Online

Explaining for Contextualizing and Contextualizing for ... - CiteSeerX

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - Nepal Journals Online

Contextualizing Social Science in Nepal - Nepal Journals Online