Examining Student Understanding of the Nature of Science in
43
Lavonda Deale Chemistry Teacher Crestview High School “Examining Student Understanding of the Nature of Science In Relation to Frequency of Exposure to Biotechnology Inquiry”
Transcript of Examining Student Understanding of the Nature of Science in
Lavonda Deale
Chemistry Teacher
Crestview High School
“Examining Student Understanding of the Nature of Science
In Relation to Frequency of Exposure to Biotechnology Inquiry”
Abstract:
Student understanding of the Nature of Science is closely tied to experiences in the classroom and the
purpose of this study is to examine that understanding in relation to the frequency of exposure to
biotechnology inquiry using two week intervals. Students will begin their inquiry on the first day of
class and will conduct various biotechnology inquiry activities throughout the semester including
virtual, hands-on, historical and philosophical. Student understanding will be measured and
recorded through pre- and post-testing as well as journaling.
Rationale:
Teaching the Nature of Science has been an ongoing challenge for me and various of my colleagues.
I have tried many approaches in the classroom and have brought my industry experience as well with
little success. After reviewing the literature, I am enlightened by a three-step method for teaching
students the Nature of Science. First, students should be introduced to inquiry as early as possible
through a high interest, context-based activity. Second, this interest and motivation must be
sustained through ongoing inquiry with explicit instruction on the nature of science. Third, students
must be given time to reflect on their learning and practice individually resolving their understanding
of the nature of science. My goal is to accomplish these high interest activities through the use of
biotechnology.
The Nature of Science can be taught with varying instructional styles therefore a review of the
literature for data-based methods is warranted. Many review articles are easily accessed throughout
the last ten years concerning teaching the nature of science, but very few are data driven. Being that
the nature of science concerns habits of data collection and analysis to inform decision-making, it
seems appropriate to focus this literature review on evidence for successful methods of teaching the
concept. Through review, some common methods for teaching NOS materialized and can be
summarized as the early introduction of a high interest context-based activity with continuing
explicit instruction and reflection throughout the year. This integrative approach is appropriate for a
topic that underlies every aspect of science practice and education.
The data-based articles reviewed concerned methods for teaching the nature of science and data
collection to determine student understanding before and after instruction. Only half of the articles
concerned pre-collegiate students and the other half represented pre-service teachers.
“It seems clear that teachers’ understandings of science as a discipline, and command of science
disciplinary content knowledge, need to be established before they enter the K-12 classroom.”
(Pasley, Weiss, Shimkus, and Smith 2004) Therefore, with a review of methods the teacher becomes
central to suggestions for how best to teach the nature of science. Inexperienced teachers often
depend too heavily on the textbook, and “Any change would perhaps require the elaboration of a new
paradigm based on history, philosophy and epistemology of science, which in the long run could
show to the students that the normal science presented in their textbooks is in most cases quite
different from what science is all about.” (Niaz 2008) Yet it is critical to make this change and
empower teachers to facilitate rather than direct the learning of NOS. After all, “Teaching an
interactive inquiry course requires teachers who believe that students are capable of independent
learning give proper guidance and support.” (Lord, Shelly, and Zimmerman 2007) By instructing
pre-service teachers using the best methods for teaching NOS, their confidence to teach in this same
manner is enhanced and will benefit students.
Agreement exists among all accounts that the introduction to nature of science occurs at the
beginning of instruction and is motivational and preferably in context. “Science teachers generally
agree that the first few meetings of a science class are crucial in setting the tone for the entire term,
and sometimes for all future science courses for those students.” (Hohman, Adams, Taggart,
Heinrichs, and Hickman 2006) Just how students are motivated encompasses most of the creative
approaches in the literature and the importance of the motivational factor cannot be underscored.
“Motivation would be required initially to make students want to participate in learning, and then be
needed throughout the whole process until learning is complete. Motivation is therefore an essential
pre-requisite and co-requisite for learning.” (Palmer 2009) These initial encounters include
demonstrations, quick discovery activities, historical accounts or stories, and even examples of
pseudoscience. Their long-term effectiveness went beyond the initial novelty into context for
students. “In the ideal, lessons will hook students by addressing something they have wondered
about, possibly but not necessarily in a real-world context.” (Pasley, Weiss, Shimkus, and Smith
2004) After gaining student interest, the momentum must be maintained with realistic expectations.
Students’ and pre-service teachers’ first encounter with the nature of science results in a struggle
with a multiplicity of concepts. This review highlights realistic expectations and the
importance of sustained explicit instruction and reflection on NOS. “During the pilot phases of the
course, we were disappointed with students’ abilities to conduct quality research.” (Hohman, Adams,
Taggart, Heinrichs, and Hickman 2006) Pre-service teachers were no different than students in the
studies as they also lacked experience in applying NOS concepts. “These skills were not of a high
standard though – some students had difficulty articulating investigable questions, their observations
tended to be superficial, it was sometimes difficult to get them to propose explanations, in most cases
their experiments were not fair tests, and their reports were often lacking in clarity – all of which
suggested a lack of experience in this type of inquiry lesson.” (Palmer 2009) Following an initial
high interest activity with explicit instruction in nature of science will improve students’ skills.
Through follow-up inquiry activities with focused reflection, students will begin to view science in
reality as opposed to the format of their text and traditional teaching. “It shows the students that
scientific theories are not certain, but rather, are subject to change, given new evidence or new
interpretation of old evidence. Furthermore, students may realize that facts do not necessarily
accumulate linearly and that some discoveries are genuinely revolutionary, completely changing our
way of thinking about how nature works.” (Eshach 2009) When their understanding begins to
unfold, more controversial topics in science can be approached.
Storytelling came through in the literature review as a rather safe method for introducing more
controversial topics. Through an historical and philosophical approach to science, issues such as
gender, race, and religion can be studied while leaving students without feeling defensive. One such
study laid the ground rules for nature of science then explicitly reviewed each rule in light of various
religious stories. “It is clear that there is a danger that our storytelling analogy will enable some
students to reject unpopular scientific claims out of hand, but our experience has been that a much,
much larger problem is the tendency of students to reject or resist scientific claims because they think
they are being presented as absolute truth.” (Bickmore, Thompson, Grandy, and Tomlin 2009)
Interestingly, misunderstandings of the nature of science interfered with these students ability to
address the issue of religious beliefs and resolve them with respect to their scientific beliefs. Again,
storytelling is a method for teaching about the nature of science and should accompany true scientific
inquiry activities. “An explicit approach is more effective in improving pre-service teachers’
understanding of NOS than an implicit approach. However, to encourage pre-service teachers to
integrate their
understanding of NOS with their science instruction, explicit instruction of NOS needs to be
conducted in a science context.” (Seung, Bryan, and Butler 2009) Allowing students time to learn
from explicit instruction and reflect on and integrate this learning is essential. Performing
laboratory inquiry is the best method to accomplish this task.
Once an initial understanding of the nature of science has occurred, students should be allowed to
conduct experiments using their newly acquired skills. “By performing the labs, the participants
focused on how to arrive at and evaluate an answer in a scientific manner, rather than focusing on the
answer that is accepted by the scientific community.” (Kattoula, Berma, and Martin-Hansen 2009) It
should be emphasized that these labs are not dictated by the teacher rather they are created by the
student to maintain a high level of interest and promote learning. “The results of this research show
that the explicit, reflective process allowed participants to examine their NOS understandings, which
thereby fostered changes in their understandings.” (Kattoula, Berma, and Martin-Hansen 2009)
Students in a study who only performed inquiry experiments without reflection on their application to
the nature of science did not perform well on surveys to show their understanding of how science
works. “This focus on the development of an idea, rather than on the idea itself, was intended to
specifically target student learning about the nature of scientific knowledge and inquiry.” (Borda,
Kriz, Popejoy, Dickinson, and Olson 2009) It did not. Ongoing inquiry and reflection on the nature
of science were shown in the literature to promote understanding following a high interest
introductory activity and results were magnified by being presented in context.
A review of the literature has shown that teachers can use the following method for teaching the nature of science:
1) Begin with a high interest activity in context, 2) Immediately follow with explicit instruction on the NOS, and 3)
Maintain momentum with ongoing inquiry and reflection. Variations in the types of motivating activities and
context-based labs allow for creativity and will ultimately determine the success of this approach. Use of the
method is currently prescribed for pre-service teachers as well as students learning science. “Cooper’s advice is
particularly relevant for science education researchers and science teachers who may not have had the experience of
doing high-level scientific research themselves, but who need, nevertheless, to be experts in the process of doing
science.” (Niaz, Klassen, McMillan, and Metz 2010) While science teachers are learning to apply the nature of
science to their lessons,
students can be simultaneously learning the tenets of science and applying them to stories and inquiry activities in the
classroom. “The results of these investigations confirmed their understanding of these concepts, and that early
discussions of the nature of science increased the value of later lessons of scientific topics.” (Hohman, Adams,
Taggart, Heinrichs, and Hickman 2006) This simple method for implementing the study of NOS in education will
enhance every area of science that is explored by equipping students and teachers with scientific habits of mind.
Habits are only formed through repetition, so get their attention in context and teach them NOS explicitly then allow
them time to work and reflect like real scientists.
The unanswered question for my classes is how frequently to practice inquiry and reflection. I
believe most teachers conduct inquiry activities at least every two weeks, so I have chosen this
frequency for my initial action research. Students will have a hands-on, virtual, historical or
philosophical inquiry activity once every two weeks following an engaging first exposure at the
beginning of the year. Each activity will be taught explicitly and students will be given time for
reflection. Student understanding of the nature of science will be determined through pre-, mid- and
post-assessments as well as weekly journaling.
My action research questions are:
1. Will student understandings of the Nature of Science improve given an initial, context-based
inquiry activity followed by ongoing explicit instruction and reflection?
2. Does the frequency of explicit instruction and reflection affect student understandings of the
Nature of Science?
3. What is the optimum frequency of explicit instruction and reflection for students’
understandings of the Nature of Science?
Action Research Intervention:
To study student understandings of the Nature of Science, an area of inquiry should be chosen that
is both challenging and interesting to students. Most individuals are interested in biotechnology
and can learn valuable life lessons by following the bench to bedside to bench rationale. By
asking relevant questions, students will make their way to the bench where chemistry can be used
to improve patient care. By providing my first year Chemistry Honors students with these
ongoing biotechnology exposures, I hope to peak their interest in chemistry and teach them how the
Nature of Science is used in all aspects of translational research.
Connections to Bench to Bedside Summer Institute:
After spending time with the staff and scientists at UF, I have many stories to share with students
concerning the types of inquiry I want them to participate in. I will describe the many aspects of
translational research and have access to the equipment and expertise for performing biotechnology
inquiry activities with students. Given the curriculum constraints for Chemistry I Honors,
biotechnology will be interwoven into the required activities for the course as high interest
applications of basic science. A tentative schedule of activities follows with one highlighted lesson
plan attached.
Date Activity Objective
8/5/2010 Pre-Assessment VNOS (form
B)
Determine student
understandings of the Nature of
Science using a recognized
data collection instrument.
8/6/2010 Initial high-interest,
context-based inquiry activity
“New Society”
“New Society” activity
introduces inquiry as students
work like scientists to discover
a new society before starting
safety training.
8/20/2010 Inquiry and lab skills
introductory experiment
“Mixture Separation”
“Mixture Separation” applies
physical concepts and allows
formative assessment of
student laboratory skills to
inform instruction prior to full
safety training.
9/3/2010 Initial high-interest,
context-based inquiry lab
“Polymers and Toy Balls”
“Polymers and Toy Balls” gets
students excited about the
applications of chemistry to the
art of play. Manufacture and
testing of their toy balls
introduces the concepts of
science and engineering.
9/17/2010 Introduction to techniques for
exploring the unseen through
“Wave Particle Duality”
inquiry and “Flame Test
Analysis” lab
“Wave Particle Duality” and
“Flame Test Analysis”
introduce students to the
micro-world of chemistry as
they practice discovery of the
unseen and use modeling
techniques.
10/1/2010 Experience with “Hydrated
Crystals Lab” and return to
applications of
“Recrystallization and X-Ray
Diffraction”
“Hydrated Crystals Lab” for
determination of the formula
for a hydrate followed by
“Recrystallization and X-Ray
Diffraction” applications of
this purification technique.
10/15/2010 Reinforcement “Empirical
Formula Lab” coupled with an
empirical evidence inquiry
activity Bioethics Module 1 of
4 for the academic year
“Empirical Formula Lab”
reinforces concepts of
molecular analysis coupled
with “Empirical Evidence”
Inquiry activity “Bioethics
Module 1 – Concepts and
Skills” for compare and
contrast and to explicitly teach
discussion with NOS habits of
mind.
10/29/2010 Laboratory analysis technique
to determine “Activities of
Metals” with inquiry activity.
“Activities of Metals”
laboratory analysis techniques
followed by application lesson
concerning heavy metal
poisoning.
11/12/2010 Introduction to conservation of
mass through inquiry “Mole
Ratio” lab and the story of
Antoine Lavoisier
“Mole Ratio” inquiry lab
introduces key concept of
conservation in science is
enhanced with a history and
philosophy of science story
To foster ongoing interest and retention of biotechnology inquiry, students who continue
through my 3 year program will be involved in continuing activities. After an introduction in
Chemistry I Honors, students will explore more of the chemical applications to biotechnology
during Advanced Placement Chemistry including forensic investigations and exposure to
environmental quality testing and remediation specifically as it relates to green chemistry
initiatives. During their senior year, Advanced Placement Biology students will actively seek
out biotechnology experiences by participating in the Mission Biotech gaming program, visiting
with doctors and clinicians, and addressing the use of biotechnology in patient care specifically
the area of genetic engineering. The goals of this 3 year plan are to equip students with a broad
understanding of the implications of biotechnology in their personal and professional lives.
Data Collection and Analysis:
A standard data collection instrument for measuring student understandings of the Nature of Science
(NOS) will be used as well as informal discussion of topics in bioethics with assessment of student
abilities to apply NOS habits of mind. I like the mixed quantitative and qualitative data which will
allow a cold analysis of our success and at the same time a window into student perceptions and
applications of the inquiry activities. I have decided to use the VNOS Views of Nature of Science
(form B) which is open ended. Students will be given the assessment pre-, mid- and post-term. A
rubric for grading responses will be developed and attached with the data. The informal discussions
will center around four modules in bioethics that allow for student reflection and open discourse of
their positions on controversial topics. A rubric for their recorded responses will also be developed
to allow for data analysis.
Literature Cited:
See Attached
Budget and Budget Justification:
Budget items for my action research include materials for copying and administering the test,
journaling and lab materials for the inquiry activities.
Item Description Qty Cost
8/5/2010 Pre-Assessment VNOS (form
B)
Determine student
understandings of the Nature of
Science using a recognized
data collection instrument.
8/6/2010 Initial high-interest,
context-based inquiry activity
“New Society”
“New Society” activity
introduces inquiry as students
work like scientists to discover
a new society before starting
safety training.
8/20/2010 Inquiry and lab skills
introductory experiment
“Mixture Separation”
“Mixture Separation” applies
physical concepts and allows
formative assessment of
student laboratory skills to
inform instruction prior to full
safety training.
9/3/2010 Initial high-interest,
context-based inquiry lab
“Polymers and Toy Balls”
“Polymers and Toy Balls” gets
students excited about the
applications of chemistry to the
art of play. Manufacture and
testing of their toy balls
Permissions:
I have obtained permission from my principal and district to participate in this program and
complete an action research plan. I also obtain release forms from all of my students at the
beginning of each school year for using their images and work in my studies. In addition, I plan to
send a letter to parents explaining my research and asking their permission to include their student
anonymously in the study. I will include an option on each questionnaire for students to answer yes
or no about including their answers in the study.
Works Cited
Bickmore, Barry R., Kirsten R. Thompson, David A. Grandy, and Teagan Tomlin. "Science As Storytelling for Teaching the Nature of Science and the Science‐Religion Interface." Journal of Geoscience Education 57.3 (May 2009): 178‐90. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Borda, Emily J., George S. Kriz, Kate L. Popejoy, Alison K. Dickinson, and Amy L. Olson. "Taking Ownership of Learning in a Large Class: Group Projects and a Mini‐Conference." Journal of College Science Teaching (July/Aug 2009): 35‐41. Web.
Eshach, Haim. "The Nobel Prize in the Physics Class: Science, History, and Glamour." Science and Education 18 (2009): 1377‐393. Web.
Hohman, James, Paul Adams, Germaine Taggart, John Heinrichs, and Karen Hickman. "A "Nature of Science" Discussion: Connecting Mathematics and Science." Journal of College Science Teaching 36.1 (Sept 2006): 18‐21. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Kattoula, Ehsan, Geeta Verma, and Lisa Martin‐Hansen. "Fostering Preservice Teachers' "Nature of Science " Understandings in a Physics Course." Journal of College Science Teaching (Sept/Oct 2009): 18‐26. Web.
Lord, Thomas, Chad Shelly, and Rachel Zimmerman. "Putting Inquiry Teaching to the Test: Enhancing Learning in College Botany." Journal of College Science Teaching 36.7 (July/Aug 2007): 62‐65. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Niaz, Mansoor, Stephen Klassen, Barbara McMillan, and Don Metz. "Leon Cooper's Perspective on Teaching Science: An Interview Study." Science and Education 19 (2010): 39‐54. Web.
Niaz, Mansoor. "What 'ideas‐about‐science' Should Be Taught in School Science? A Chemistry Teachers' Perspective." Instructional Science 36 (2008): 233‐49. Web.
Palmer, David H. "Student Interest Generated During an Inquiry Skills Lesson." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46.2: 147. Web.
Pasley, Joan D., Itis R. Weiss, Elizabeth S. Shimkus, and P. Sean Smith. "Looking Inside the Classroom: Science Teaching in the United States." Science Educator 13.1 (Spring 2004): 1‐12. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Seung, Eulsun, Lynn A. Bryan, and Malcolm B. Butler. "Improving Preservice Middle Grades Science Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science Using Three Instructional Approaches." Journal of Science Teacher Education 20 (2009): 157‐77. Springer Science + Business Media, 12 Apr. 2009. Web.
Tairab, Hassan H. "Pre‐service Teachers' Views of the Nature of Science and Technology before and after a Science Teaching Methods Course." Research in Education 65 (May 2001): 81‐88. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Bench to BedsideAction Research
Lavonda Deale
Chemistry Teacher
Crestview High School
Abstract
• Student understanding of the Nature of Science is closely tied to experiences in the classroom and the purpose of this study is to examine that understanding in relation to the frequency of exposure to biotechnology inquiry using two week intervals. Students will begin their inquiry on the first day of class and will conduct various biotechnology inquiry activities throughout the semester including virtual, hands-on, historical and philosophical. Student understanding will be measured and recorded through pre- and post-testing as well as journaling.
Background• Teaching the Nature of Science has been an ongoing
challenge for me and various of my colleagues. I have tried many approaches in the classroom and have brought my industry experience as well with little success. After reviewing the literature, I am enlightened by a three-step method for teaching students the Nature of Science. – First, students should be introduced to inquiry as early as
possible through a high interest, context-based activity. – Second, this interest and motivation must be sustained through
ongoing inquiry with explicit instruction on the nature of science.
– Third, students must be given time to reflect on their learning and practice individually resolving their understanding of the nature of science.
• My goal is to accomplish these high interest activities through the use of biotechnology.
Action Research Questions
• 1. Will student understandings of the Nature of Science improve given an initial, context-based inquiry activity followed by ongoing explicit instruction and reflection?
• 2. Does the frequency of explicit instruction and reflection affect student understandings of the Nature of Science?
• 3. Will exposure to biotechnology increase student understanding of the Nature of Science by providing real world relevance to inquiry?
Methods
• Students are given a pre-assessment to determine their level of understanding the Nature of Science.
• Students engage in a high interest activity “New Society” to set the stage for inquiry.
• Students experience ongoing inquiry, explicit instruction, and reflection.
• Students are given a mid- and post-assessment on the Nature of Science
Methods
• Explicit instruction– Skills labs to learn the processes of science
– Historical and philosophical stories
– Confirming known ‘key’ experiments
• Ongoing inquiry– Science fair and research paper
– Open ended experiments and engineering
– Virtual experiments and inquiry games
– Bioethics Modules
Outcomes
• Views of Nature of Science (Form B)
– 1. Do theories change?
– 2. Creativity in modeling.
– 3. Theories vs. Laws
– 4. Science and art?
– 5. Creativity in data analysis?
– 6. Personal bias in data analysis?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 2 3 4 5 6
Correct Responses
Question
VNOS B
Pre-Test
Mid-Test
Program Obstacles
• Not able to complete the summer work
– Clostridium difficile infection
• Changing schedules to meet class size
– Midterm changes resulting in 4 preps
• Applications of biotechnology to chemistry
– Not much biotech in chemistry but lost of chemistry in biotech – aligned to AP Biology
• End of SSTRIDE curriculum – to Chem EOC
Program Benefits
• Focus on biotechnology in the classroom
– Watching for integration opportunities
• Support from CPET staff
– Excellent communication
– Mid-year reporting
• Opportunity to pursue action research
– Nature of Science continuation
• Networking with peers
New Ideas
• Exploring Bioethics Modules• NIH Curriculum Supplement Series Grades 9-12• http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih9/bioet
hics/guide/pdf/Teachers_Guide.pdf•
• Materials World Modules• Northwestern University and NSF• http://www.materialsworldmodules.org/index.shtml•
• CASE Center for the Advancement of Stem Education• US Department of Defense• http://www.caseforlearning.com/goals.html
Lavonda Deale
Chemistry Teacher
Crestview High School
1250 N. Ferdon Blvd.
Crestview, FL 32536
“Examining Student Understanding of the Nature of Science
In Relation to Frequency of Exposure to Biotechnology Inquiry”
Abstract:
Student understanding of the Nature of Science is closely tied to experiences in the
classroom and the purpose of this study is to examine that understanding in relation to the
frequency of exposure to biotechnology inquiry using two week intervals. Students will begin
their inquiry on the first day of class and will conduct various biotechnology inquiry activities
throughout the semester including virtual, hands-on, historical and philosophical. Student
understanding will be measured and recorded through pre- and post-testing as well as journaling.
Rationale:
Teaching the Nature of Science has been an ongoing challenge for me and various of my
colleagues. I have tried many approaches in the classroom and have brought my industry
experience as well with little success. After reviewing the literature, I am enlightened by a three-
step method for teaching students the Nature of Science. First, students should be introduced to
inquiry as early as possible through a high interest, context-based activity. Second, this interest
and motivation must be sustained through ongoing inquiry with explicit instruction on the nature
of science. Third, students must be given time to reflect on their learning and practice
individually resolving their understanding of the nature of science. My goal is to accomplish
these high interest activities through the use of biotechnology.
The Nature of Science can be taught with varying instructional styles therefore a review
of the literature for data-based methods is warranted. Many review articles are easily accessed
throughout the last ten years concerning teaching the nature of science, but very few are data
driven. Being that the nature of science concerns habits of data collection and analysis to inform
decision-making, it seems appropriate to focus this literature review on evidence for successful
methods of teaching the concept. Through review, some common methods for teaching NOS
materialized and can be summarized as the early introduction of a high interest context-based
activity with continuing explicit instruction and reflection throughout the year. This integrative
approach is appropriate for a topic that underlies every aspect of science practice and education.
The data-based articles reviewed concerned methods for teaching the nature of science
and data collection to determine student understanding before and after instruction. Only half of
the articles concerned pre-collegiate students and the other half represented pre-service teachers.
“It seems clear that teachers’ understandings of science as a discipline, and command of science
disciplinary content knowledge, need to be established before they enter the K-12 classroom.”
(Pasley, Weiss, Shimkus, and Smith 2004) Therefore, with a review of methods the teacher
becomes central to suggestions for how best to teach the nature of science. Inexperienced
teachers often depend too heavily on the textbook, and “Any change would perhaps require the
elaboration of a new paradigm based on history, philosophy and epistemology of science, which
in the long run could show to the students that the normal science presented in their textbooks is
in most cases quite different from what science is all about.” (Niaz 2008) Yet it is critical to
make this change and empower teachers to facilitate rather than direct the learning of NOS.
After all, “Teaching an interactive inquiry course requires teachers who believe that students are
capable of independent learning give proper guidance and support.” (Lord, Shelly, and
Zimmerman 2007) By instructing pre-service teachers using the best methods for teaching NOS,
their confidence to teach in this same manner is enhanced and will benefit students.
Agreement exists among all accounts that the introduction to nature of science occurs at
the beginning of instruction and is motivational and preferably in context. “Science teachers
generally agree that the first few meetings of a science class are crucial in setting the tone for the
entire term, and sometimes for all future science courses for those students.” (Hohman, Adams,
Taggart, Heinrichs, and Hickman 2006) Just how students are motivated encompasses most of
the creative approaches in the literature and the importance of the motivational factor cannot be
underscored. “Motivation would be required initially to make students want to participate in
learning, and then be needed throughout the whole process until learning is complete.
Motivation is therefore an essential pre-requisite and co-requisite for learning.” (Palmer 2009)
These initial encounters include demonstrations, quick discovery activities, historical accounts or
stories, and even examples of pseudoscience. Their long-term effectiveness went beyond the
initial novelty into context for students. “In the ideal, lessons will hook students by addressing
something they have wondered about, possibly but not necessarily in a real-world context.”
(Pasley, Weiss, Shimkus, and Smith 2004) After gaining student interest, the momentum must
be maintained with realistic expectations.
Students’ and pre-service teachers’ first encounter with the nature of science results in a
struggle with a multiplicity of concepts. This review highlights realistic expectations and the
importance of sustained explicit instruction and reflection on NOS. “During the pilot phases of
the course, we were disappointed with students’ abilities to conduct quality research.” (Hohman,
Adams, Taggart, Heinrichs, and Hickman 2006) Pre-service teachers were no different than
students in the studies as they also lacked experience in applying NOS concepts. “These skills
were not of a high standard though – some students had difficulty articulating investigable
questions, their observations tended to be superficial, it was sometimes difficult to get them to
propose explanations, in most cases their experiments were not fair tests, and their reports were
often lacking in clarity – all of which suggested a lack of experience in this type of inquiry
lesson.” (Palmer 2009) Following an initial high interest activity with explicit instruction in
nature of science will improve students’ skills. Through follow-up inquiry activities with
focused reflection, students will begin to view science in reality as opposed to the format of their
text and traditional teaching. “It shows the students that scientific theories are not certain, but
rather, are subject to change, given new evidence or new interpretation of old evidence.
Furthermore, students may realize that facts do not necessarily accumulate linearly and that some
discoveries are genuinely revolutionary, completely changing our way of thinking about how
nature works.” (Eshach 2009) When their understanding begins to unfold, more controversial
topics in science can be approached.
Storytelling came through in the literature review as a rather safe method for introducing
more controversial topics. Through an historical and philosophical approach to science, issues
such as gender, race, and religion can be studied while leaving students without feeling
defensive. One such study laid the ground rules for nature of science then explicitly reviewed
each rule in light of various religious stories. “It is clear that there is a danger that our
storytelling analogy will enable some students to reject unpopular scientific claims out of hand,
but our experience has been that a much, much larger problem is the tendency of students to
reject or resist scientific claims because they think they are being presented as absolute truth.”
(Bickmore, Thompson, Grandy, and Tomlin 2009) Interestingly, misunderstandings of the
nature of science interfered with these students ability to address the issue of religious beliefs
and resolve them with respect to their scientific beliefs. Again, storytelling is a method for
teaching about the nature of science and should accompany true scientific inquiry activities. “An
explicit approach is more effective in improving pre-service teachers’ understanding of NOS
than an implicit approach. However, to encourage pre-service teachers to integrate their
understanding of NOS with their science instruction, explicit instruction of NOS needs to be
conducted in a science context.” (Seung, Bryan, and Butler 2009) Allowing students time to
learn from explicit instruction and reflect on and integrate this learning is essential. Performing
laboratory inquiry is the best method to accomplish this task.
Once an initial understanding of the nature of science has occurred, students should be
allowed to conduct experiments using their newly acquired skills. “By performing the labs, the
participants focused on how to arrive at and evaluate an answer in a scientific manner, rather
than focusing on the answer that is accepted by the scientific community.” (Kattoula, Berma, and
Martin-Hansen 2009) It should be emphasized that these labs are not dictated by the teacher
rather they are created by the student to maintain a high level of interest and promote learning.
“The results of this research show that the explicit, reflective process allowed participants to
examine their NOS understandings, which thereby fostered changes in their understandings.”
(Kattoula, Berma, and Martin-Hansen 2009) Students in a study who only performed inquiry
experiments without reflection on their application to the nature of science did not perform well
on surveys to show their understanding of how science works. “This focus on the development
of an idea, rather than on the idea itself, was intended to specifically target student learning about
the nature of scientific knowledge and inquiry.” (Borda, Kriz, Popejoy, Dickinson, and Olson
2009) It did not. Ongoing inquiry and reflection on the nature of science were shown in the
literature to promote understanding following a high interest introductory activity and results
were magnified by being presented in context.
A review of the literature has shown that teachers can use the following method for
teaching the nature of science: 1) Begin with a high interest activity in context, 2) Immediately
follow with explicit instruction on the NOS, and 3) Maintain momentum with ongoing inquiry
and reflection. Variations in the types of motivating activities and context-based labs allow for
creativity and will ultimately determine the success of this approach. Use of the method is
currently prescribed for pre-service teachers as well as students learning science. “Cooper’s
advice is particularly relevant for science education researchers and science teachers who may
not have had the experience of doing high-level scientific research themselves, but who need,
nevertheless, to be experts in the process of doing science.” (Niaz, Klassen, McMillan, and Metz
2010) While science teachers are learning to apply the nature of science to their lessons,
students can be simultaneously learning the tenets of science and applying them to stories and
inquiry activities in the classroom. “The results of these investigations confirmed their
understanding of these concepts, and that early discussions of the nature of science increased the
value of later lessons of scientific topics.” (Hohman, Adams, Taggart, Heinrichs, and Hickman
2006) This simple method for implementing the study of NOS in education will enhance every
area of science that is explored by equipping students and teachers with scientific habits of mind.
Habits are only formed through repetition, so get their attention in context and teach them NOS
explicitly then allow them time to work and reflect like real scientists.
The unanswered question for my classes is how frequently to practice inquiry and
reflection. I believe most teachers conduct inquiry activities at least every two weeks, so I have
chosen this frequency for my initial action research. Students will have a hands-on, virtual,
historical or philosophical inquiry activity once every two weeks following an engaging first
exposure at the beginning of the year. Each activity will be taught explicitly and students will be
given time for reflection. Student understanding of the nature of science will be determined
through pre-, mid- and post-assessments as well as weekly journaling.
My action research questions are:
1. Will student understandings of the Nature of Science improve given an initial, context-based inquiry activity followed by ongoing explicit instruction and reflection?
2. Does the frequency of explicit instruction and reflection affect student understandings of the Nature of Science?
3. Will exposure to biotechnology increase student understanding of the Nature of Science by providing real world relevance to inquiry?
Action Research Intervention:
To study student understandings of the Nature of Science, an area of inquiry should be
chosen that is both challenging and interesting to students. Most individuals are interested in
biotechnology and can learn valuable life lessons by following the bench to bedside to bench
rationale. By asking relevant questions, students will make their way to the bench where
chemistry can be used to improve patient care. By providing my first year Chemistry Honors
students with these ongoing biotechnology exposures, I hope to peak their interest in chemistry
and teach them how the Nature of Science is used in all aspects of translational research.
Connections to Bench to Bedside Summer Institute:
After spending time with the staff and scientists at UF, I have many stories to share with
students concerning the types of inquiry I want them to participate in. I will describe the many
aspects of translational research and have access to the equipment and expertise for performing
biotechnology inquiry activities with students. Given the curriculum constraints for Chemistry I
Honors, biotechnology will be interwoven into the required activities for the course as high
interest applications of basic science. A tentative schedule of activities follows with one
highlighted lesson plan attached.
Date Activity Objective
8/5/2010 Pre-Assessment VNOS (form B) Determine student understandings of the Nature of Science using a recognized data collection instrument.
8/6/2010 Initial high-interest, context-based inquiry activity “New Society”
“New Society” activity introduces inquiry as students work like scientists to discover a new society before starting safety training.
8/20/2010 Inquiry and lab skills introductory experiment “Mixture Separation”
“Mixture Separation” applies physical concepts and allows formative assessment of student laboratory skills to inform instruction prior to full safety training.
9/3/2010 Initial high-interest, context-based inquiry lab “Polymers and Toy Balls”
“Polymers and Toy Balls” gets students excited about the applications of chemistry to the art of play. Manufacture and testing of their toy balls introduces the concepts of science and engineering.
9/17/2010 Introduction to techniques for exploring the unseen through “Wave Particle Duality” inquiry and “Flame Test Analysis” lab
“Wave Particle Duality” and “Flame Test Analysis” introduce students to the micro-world of chemistry as they practice discovery of the unseen and use modeling techniques.
10/1/2010 Experience with “Hydrated Crystals Lab” and return to applications of “Recrystallization and X-Ray Diffraction”
“Hydrated Crystals Lab” for determination of the formula for a hydrate followed by “Recrystallization and X-Ray Diffraction” applications of this purification technique.
10/15/2010 Reinforcement “Empirical Formula Lab” coupled with an empirical evidence inquiry activity Bioethics Module 1 of 4 for the academic year
“Empirical Formula Lab” reinforces concepts of molecular analysis coupled with “Empirical Evidence” Inquiry activity “Bioethics Module 1 – Concepts and Skills” for compare and contrast and to explicitly teach discussion with NOS habits of mind.
10/29/2010 Laboratory analysis technique to determine “Activities of Metals” with inquiry activity.
“Activities of Metals” laboratory analysis techniques followed by application lesson concerning heavy metal poisoning.
11/12/2010 Introduction to conservation of mass through inquiry “Mole Ratio” lab and the story of Antoine Lavoisier
“Mole Ratio” inquiry lab introduces key concept of conservation in science is enhanced with a history and philosophy of science story concerning the father of chemistry – Lavoisier.
12/3/2010 Technique of “Gravimetric Analysis” mastered then contrasted with the biotech “DNA Extraction” technique
“Gravimetric Analysis” chemical lab followed by “DNA Extraction” biotechnology lab to illustrate similarities and differences in these two disciplines.
12/10/2010 Mid-Assessment VNOS (form B) and Bioethics Module 3 activity
Assess student understandings of the Nature of Science using a proved data collection instrument. Bioethics Module 3 – The Case of Organ Transplantation as informal assessment of student abilities to discuss using NOS concepts
1/7/2011 Observe a “Heating Curve for Water” to dispel misconceptions and apply new knowledge to controversial topic.
“Heating Curve for Water” dispels student misconceptions through hands-on activity then extension into the Origins of Life on Earth Webcast and discussion.
1/21/2011 Biotechnology skill “Gel Electrophoresis of Dyes” and “Tie Dye” organic dyes activity.
“Gel Electrophoresis of Dyes” introduces skills in biotechnology followed by chemistry of fiber reactive dyes activity through high interest Tie Dye T-shirts.
2/4/2011 Learn separation techniques of “Chromatography” and applications of Proteomics to
“Chromatography” chlorophyll lab shows basic separation techniques; Enhancement review of “Pharmaceutical Proteomics”
Pharmaceuticals applications.
2/18/2011 Learn “Titration” lab technique then apply this new skill to the problem of Vitamin C deficiency
“Titrations” skills lab followed by the analysis of ascorbic acid in vitamin C tablet or selected juices – implications of vitamin C deficiency past and present.
3/4/2011 Solve the problem of “How Blood Maintains pH” using student designed demonstration then explore Bioethics Module 5
“How Blood Maintains pH” student demonstration followed by an exploration of Bioethics Module 5 – The Power and Peril of Human Experimentation with explicit instruction in discussing with NOS habits of mind.
3/18/2011 Basic skills and analysis introductory “Calorimetry” lab then student designed calorimetry lab application
“Calorimetry and Hess’s Law Lab” for basic skills and analysis, then “Energy in Foods” student designed calorimetry lab as biotechnology application – comparing natural vs. genetically engineered foods
4/8/2011 Application of “Beer’s Law” using the CBL and experiment into a local gulf waters problem
“Beer’s Law” CBL Lab introduction with application to photosynthesis in gulf waters during algal blooms.
4/22/2011 Analysis of weak biological acids “Measuring Ka for Acetic Acid Titration” and journal review of weak acids in biofuels
“Measuring Ka for Acetic Acid” provides an understanding of weak biological acids then review of a journal article concerning the role of weak acids in biofuel production.
5/6/2011 Post-Assessment VNOS (form B) and Bioethics Module 3 activity
Final assessment of students understandings of the Nature of Science; discussion of Bioethics Module 3 – Ethical Issues in Genetic Testing as informal analysis of student discourse in NOS issues.
To foster ongoing interest and retention of biotechnology inquiry, students who continue
through our projected three year program will be involved in additional activities. After an
introduction in Chemistry I Honors, students will explore more of the chemical applications to
biotechnology during Advanced Placement Chemistry including forensic investigations and
exposure to environmental quality testing and remediation specifically as it relates to green
chemistry initiatives. During their senior year, Advanced Placement Biology students will
actively seek out biotechnology experiences by participating in the Mission Biotech gaming
program, visiting with doctors and clinicians, and addressing the use of biotechnology in patient
care specifically the area of genetic engineering. The goals of this three year plan are to equip
students with a broad understanding of the implications of biotechnology in their personal and
professional lives.
Data Collection:
A standard data collection instrument for measuring student understandings of the Nature
of Science (NOS) will be used as well as informal discussion of topics in bioethics with
assessment of student abilities to apply NOS habits of mind. I like the mixed quantitative and
qualitative data which will allow a cold analysis of our success and at the same time a window
into student perceptions and applications of the inquiry activities. I have decided to use the
VNOS Views of Nature of Science (form B) which is open ended. Students will be given the
assessment pre-, mid- and post-term. A rubric for grading responses has been developed and
attached with the data. The informal discussions will center around four modules in bioethics
that allow for student reflection and open discourse of their positions on controversial topics. A
rubric for their recorded responses will also be developed to allow for data analysis.
Data Analysis:
Results of the Nature of Science Questionnaire administered fall and winter are included with question, expected responses, and numbers of students responding with applicable quotes.
1. After scientists have developed a theory, does the theory ever change? If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why and defend your answer with examples. If you believe that theories do change: (a) Explain why. (b) Explain why we bother to teach and learn scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples.
Incorrect response: Correct response:
Yes, but due to new theories/facts only
Yes, inference and paradigm shifts
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
13 responses AA “scientists are always doing research and tests to see if the theory is still valid”
3 responses LW “a theory is more or less like an idea” CH “which can alter the way we see the world”
JH “causing what we think to change”
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test
8 responses Students are now using the term ‘modified’
9 responses CH “it was all scientists knew at the time” AR “it shows us what people think happened” KP “it can change our entire outlook on life” RB “how theories evolved and scientists knowledge changed”
Pre‐Test
Three students responded that theories do not change as illustrated by BS “they usually put a lot of work into it and aren’t wrong”. Many students believe theories change only with new information and students must learn them to keep up to date. Students do not understand the concept of advances in technology and paradigm shifts having an effect on theories.
Mid‐Test
Two students still say that theories do not change, but they are starting to come around. For example, the term ‘modified’ appears in many responses and according to AA “they develop a new one” rather than changing the old one, as well as CT “take time to learn the false theories” as if they are important to developing new theories.
Summary:
Most students agree that theories change over time but their understanding of the human component in these changes is still developing. Students do not realize that interpretation of the data and societal issues affect science, and in particular theories. My focus in getting these ideas across include stories about the history and philosophy of science and the evolution of theories such as atomic theory, in addition to students’ own research through Science Fair as a first semester project.
2. Science textbooks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of positively charged particles (protons) and neutral particles (neutrons) with negatively charged particles (electrons) orbiting the nucleus. How certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine the structure of the atom?
Incorrect response: Correct response:
Scientists can ‘see’ the atom Scientists used inference, creativity, and models
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test 8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
14 responses Students overwhelmingly think we ‘see’ atoms
2 responses JH “how protons, neutrons, and electrons interact
with high powered microscopes and behave” CH “use the elements to see how electrons react”
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 1 response Only student that still believes we can ‘see’ atoms
17 responses KF “can’t look at it with the naked eye” JL “scientists use models” DN “scientists perform tests . . . to determine the structures” CT “learn . . . to piece together the structure” CH refers to evidence from models, and supporting evidence from the periodic table for the structure of the atom
Pre‐Test
Four students did not respond to this question. Most students have the misconception that we can see atoms with a high powered microscope. Note that this is their first chemistry course in high school yet two students are aware of inference and modeling to visualize the unknown although they do not specifically state that we cannot ‘see’ atoms.
Mid‐Test
By the mid‐test all students have answered the question and only one holds on to her belief that we can ‘see’ atoms. I am guessing she was either absent or not paying attention when we visited this topic. All other students now realize that we cannot ‘see’ atoms and must use models, tests, and other evidence to create a picture of the atom.
Summary:
This concept is central to chemistry which is the course being taught and I choose to convey the concept through storytelling, explicit teaching, and modeling. We take time to explore the events leading up to our modern understanding of the atom after a discovery lesson in which students ‘guess’ what is in an wrapped present. I never tell the contents just as we do not know for sure the inside of an atom. Even so, one student holds on to her belief that we can see inside the atom proving how difficult it is to change a student misconceptions.
3. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Give an example to illustrate your answer.
Incorrect response: Correct response:
Theories become laws with additional evidence Theories evolve and laws are observed facts
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test 8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
Zero responses 17 responses Most students gave examples of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Newton’s Laws of Motion Good discussion of hypotheses becoming theories
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test Zero responses 19 responses
Students replaced their examples with Atomic Theory and the Law of Conservation
Pre‐Test
Three students gave no answer. Those that did answer demonstrated a good understanding of the difference between theories and laws but did not make the distinction that theories are tested through experimentation which is not necessary for laws.
Mid‐Test
All students answered correctly with examples from chemistry replacing their earlier biology and physical science examples. Still no distinction between is made between the necessity for testing theories and the absence of this requirement for laws.
Summary:
It is refreshing that students already know the difference between scientific theories and laws. This has not been the case for most of my high school students. Now the task is to refine their definitions and examples with the criteria for differentiating a theory from a law. Again, storytelling and practice with observation and inference during experimentation will be needed. While this point was made during class, it was not modeled and obviously needs further reinforcement.
4. How are science and art similar? How are they different?
Incorrect response: Correct response:
Science is based on facts, no art Science is creative too
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test 8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
5 responses
KG “science is based on research and facts”
NY “The difference is science you have to put thought and knowledge into it and art you don’t.”
1 response, 4 vague responses
AR “similar because they involve thinking and making models to show ideas . . . different because science involves more research . . . art involves painting and making things come to life.”
AW “both deals with creativity and a mind
structure”
LW “They are both good ways to express yourself.”
KP “similar because you have to break things down to get the final piece. . .different because art is something that comes to you, but science is already there.”
CH “You have free will to study what you want . . . however, while art is left to the imagination, science revolves around evidence”
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 2 responses
BS “creative and imaginary” vs. “literal and realistic”
14 responses
KF “they both also allow you to see the world in new and different ways”
DN “When an artist envisions a painting . . . it’s the same way when a scientist envisions an experiment.”
CT “Both can have different perceptions depending on who’s looking at it.”
AR “they both use models whether it’s to draw a picture or draw a conclusion”
CH “They both follow trends and have venues that tend to break away from said trends to start a revolution.”
Pre‐Test
Nine students did not answer and several responded as if a silly question was being asked. For example, JH “You tell me?” and MB “If you are painting a picture of earth I guess science and art could be similar”. Students clearly believe there is no art in science.
Mid‐Test
Only three students did not answer and positive responses included details. Students clearly see the similarities between art and science such as DN “When an artist envisions a painting . . . it’s the same way when a scientist envisions an experiment.” and my favorite from AR “they both use models whether it’s to draw a picture or draw a conclusion”.
Summary:
Students seemed confused by this question on the Pre‐Test then gave good answers with relevant examples on the Mid‐Test. Having opportunities in class to be creative in designing and interpreting experiments as well as the stories of scientists with creative solutions helped students understand and respond to this question.
5. Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to solve problems. Other than in the stage of planning and design, do scientists use their creativity and imagination in the process of performing these experiments/investigations? Please explain your answer and provide appropriate examples.
Incorrect response: Correct response:
No creativity in data analysis Yes, data analysis can be creative
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test 8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
3 responses 5 responses
DN “Yes because when drawing conclusions two people could look at the data and come up with different results because of the ways they think.”
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 3 responses
RB “Most scientists use the scientific method and plan out their experiment before doing it.”
15 responses
NY “imagine the outcome”
JH “Scientists have to use their imaginations when investigating to come up with explanations and to connect the dots.”
Pre‐Test
The majority, twelve, students did not answer this question. Five agreed but noted only experimental creativity not including data analysis, except for the one student quoted DN “Yes because when drawing conclusions two people could look at the data and come up with different results because of the ways they think.”
Mid‐Test
Still three negative responses from students, but all from students who did not answer the first time leading me to believe they are still processing the question. Of the positive responses, students used examples including Rutherford and the nucleus as well as Edison and the light bulb.
Summary:
While students have begun to understand the significance of creativity in science for designing experiments, we still need to work on imagination in the interpretation of data. By allowing more open ended experimentation and various choices for presentation of the data along with stories such as Rutherford and Edison, students will make the connection to creativity throughout the scientific process.
6. In the recent past, astronomers differed greatly in their prediction of the ultimate fate of the universe. Some astronomers believed that the universe is expanding while others believed that it is shrinking, still others believed that the universe is in a static state without any expansion or shrinkage. How were these different conclusions possible if the astronomers were all looking at the same experiments and data?
Incorrect response: Correct response:
They should get the same answer They are influenced by personal preferences and biases, social and cultural factors
8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test 8‐5‐2010 Pre‐Test
3 responses
CT “they are all theories”
AK “they don’t know what they’re talking about”
MB “It’s possible they made it up.”
8 responses
JH “Minds think differently”
JL “Every person has their own. . .opinion”
KG “They each had a different way of thinking”
NY “Some might see things in it that others don’t”
12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 12‐10‐2010 Mid‐Test 2 responses
16 responses
LW “It is also based on how each scientist comprehended the data.”
BS “one may look at it from a different point of view and their past knowledge may be different”
JH “People view things differently. . .science is similar to art”
CT “every person perceives what they look at differently”
CH “not only does science depend on the interpretation of data, but the interpretations
depend on beliefs and knowledge”
KG “another possibility could have been misleading or biased data”
Pre‐Test
Nine students did not respond and those that did gave no indication that personal bias or society affected their thinking. Students seem to discredit theories because they are just ideas or opinions.
Mid‐Test
Two students definitely believe the data changed over time because the topic is astronomy, and one student did not answer the question. The majority of students responded positively, and believe that ‘interpretations’ can vary even when the data does not change.
Summary:
Students need additional time to interpret data and self‐realization of their own biases as well as the impact of society on their choices. The task could be addressed through societal issues which are scheduled next semester.
Graph of the Data:
Students show growth from the pre-test to mid-test on all questions with inquiry activity frequency of once every other week.
Literature Cited:
Bickmore, Barry R., Kirsten R. Thompson, David A. Grandy, and Teagan Tomlin. "Science As
Storytelling for Teaching the Nature of Science and the Science‐Religion Interface."
Journal of Geoscience Education 57.3 (May 2009): 178‐90. ProQuest Education Journals.
Web.
Borda, Emily J., George S. Kriz, Kate L. Popejoy, Alison K. Dickinson, and Amy L. Olson. "Taking
Ownership of Learning in a Large Class: Group Projects and a Mini‐Conference." Journal
of College Science Teaching (July/Aug 2009): 35‐41. Web.
Eshach, Haim. "The Nobel Prize in the Physics Class: Science, History, and Glamour." Science and
Education 18 (2009): 1377‐393. Web.
Hohman, James, Paul Adams, Germaine Taggart, John Heinrichs, and Karen Hickman. "A
"Nature of Science" Discussion: Connecting Mathematics and Science." Journal of
College Science Teaching 36.1 (Sept 2006): 18‐21. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Kattoula, Ehsan, Geeta Verma, and Lisa Martin‐Hansen. "Fostering Preservice Teachers' "Nature
of Science " Understandings in a Physics Course." Journal of College Science Teaching
(Sept/Oct 2009): 18‐26. Web.
Lord, Thomas, Chad Shelly, and Rachel Zimmerman. "Putting Inquiry Teaching to the Test:
Enhancing Learning in College Botany." Journal of College Science Teaching 36.7
(July/Aug 2007): 62‐65. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Niaz, Mansoor, Stephen Klassen, Barbara McMillan, and Don Metz. "Leon Cooper's Perspective
on Teaching Science: An Interview Study." Science and Education 19 (2010): 39‐54. Web.
Niaz, Mansoor. "What 'ideas‐about‐science' Should Be Taught in School Science? A Chemistry
Teachers' Perspective." Instructional Science 36 (2008): 233‐49. Web.
Palmer, David H. "Student Interest Generated During an Inquiry Skills Lesson." Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 46.2: 147. Web.
Pasley, Joan D., Itis R. Weiss, Elizabeth S. Shimkus, and P. Sean Smith. "Looking Inside the
Classroom: Science Teaching in the United States." Science Educator 13.1 (Spring 2004):
1‐12. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Seung, Eulsun, Lynn A. Bryan, and Malcolm B. Butler. "Improving Preservice Middle Grades
Science Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science Using Three Instructional
Approaches." Journal of Science Teacher Education 20 (2009): 157‐77. Springer Science +
Business Media, 12 Apr. 2009. Web.
Tairab, Hassan H. "Pre‐service Teachers' Views of the Nature of Science and Technology before
and after a Science Teaching Methods Course." Research in Education 65 (May 2001):
81‐88. ProQuest Education Journals. Web.
Budget and Budget Justification:
Budget items for my action research include materials for copying and administering the
test, journaling and lab materials for the inquiry activities.
Item Description Qty Cost
Copy Paper Case of white copy paper for student assessments and activity handouts
1 25.00
Equipment Hot plates for DNA Extraction Lab 4 500.00
Consumables Agarose gel and pipette tips 4 sets
75.00
Total: 600.00
Permissions:
I have obtained permission from my principal and district to participate in this program
and complete an action research plan. I also obtain release forms from all of my students at the
beginning of each school year for using their images and work in my studies. In addition, I plan
to send a letter to parents explaining my research and asking their permission to include their
student anonymously in the study. I will include an option on each questionnaire for students to
answer yes or no about including their answers in the study.
