Nature of Science FPLC Freeman 2006-7
From CTLpedia
My Teaching Project for the Nature of Science Faculty and Professional Learning Community, Carol Butler Freeman, Department of Physical Sciences, Mesa Community College, Contact me
Student Understanding of the Nature of Science in Introductory Geoscience Courses
Sumary: College students enter introductory science courses with conceptions about the nature of science based on their previsous experiences both in and out of the classroom. My FPLC project was to measure incoming introductoy geology students conceptions about the nature of science and test whether the inquiry-oriented approach I use in the classroom helps guide students from a naive to a more normative conception.
Nature of Science FPLC Background
The goal of our Nature of Science Faculty Learning Community is to promote the understanding and appreciation of the nature of science, technology, engineering and math by all students to enable them to be informed and productive citizens, professionals, and scientists of tomorrow. More about the NOS FPLC from 2005
Project Goals, Objectives and Rationale
Most students enroll in an introductory physical geology course to earn a science lab credit. Anecdotal evidence indicates they often choose geology because they "are not good at science" and a friend, or even a college adviser, told them geology was "easy". As a result, the majority of students in an introductory physical geology class are not science majors. Additionally, in general, they have completed very few science classes during their high school and college years. Therefore, my goal for my FPLC project was to test whether the inquiry-oriented approach I use in the classroom helps guide students from a naive to a more normative conception of the nature of science.
Focus Course Information or Context for Project
The focus course for my project was my Tuesday/Thursday 7:30-8:45 am GLG101 Physical Geology class here at MCC. There were 20 students enrolled in the class.
Project Implementation and Assessment Methods
On the second day of class I had the students participate in an activity in which they sorted through a number of statements about science. These statements were drawn from the Cobern and Loving 1998 study. Working with a small group the students selected those statements with which they agreed and wrote a brief paragraph on the nature of science.
Throughout the semester we engaged in a number of discussions about the nature of science. An example of such a discussion is the observational activity students engaged in to explain a lava lamp. Students working in small groups were asked to observe the lava lamp, describe what they saw happening and develop two different hypotheses to explain what was happening. In a class brainstorming session we put all potential hypotheses on the board. Then the groups were asked to develop tests for their hypotheses. This led to a whole class discussion about which of the proposed hypotheses were scientifically testable. Deciding on that led to a whole class discussion about "THE" scientific method, and whether there even was such a thing. This is one example of several opportunities in class to discuss the nature of science.
At the end of the semester the students were asked to individually revise their group paragraph from the beginning of the semester, and to explain why they made those changes.
Project Results
Group A:
“The nature of science is facts based on theories that are logical constructs of facts and hypotheses that attempt to explain a range of natural phenomena and that can be tested in the natural world. Scientists attempt to convert possible explanations into testable predictions. Careful and repeatable observation and experimentation give the facts about the world. Scientists recognize that scientific evidence supports a point of view and sometimes not all data and facts are clear. The ambiguous nature of scientific pursuit provides new inspiration for research.”
Group A held the least normative understanding of the nature of science at the beginning of the semester. Their use of sentences regarding science as “facts” is a common naïve perspective. The various activities and discussions directly addressed how science changes over time and how a specific theory cannot be conclusively proven as a “fact.” These students should therefore have moved toward a more normative understanding of the nature of science by the end of the semester.
Six students from Group A completed the final exam and revisited their paragraph. The Out of the three groups, Group A students showed the greatest variability in their reflections on their paragraph at the end of the semester. Half of the group made no changes or only minor changes. One student did not make any changes because she could not read and understand the writing from the initial paragraph. In the future, students will be asked to recopy the paragraph into their own notes rather than being provided with a photocopy of the group notes. Another student chose not to change the paragraph because he was too tired after finishing the final exam. One student made a minor change, inserting, “All theories must be testable to some extent or they are of little use” after the first sentence.
Two students in Group A changed their paragraph almost completely. Colin rewrote his paragraph as a single sentence, “The nature of science is to learn, understand, collect data, and use that information to improve the quality of life and protect it.” Alice changed the paragraph, but rather than address the nature of science, she described what geology is and how it helps us. She seemed to be describing the nature of the science of geology rather than the nature of science in general. She did not use any terminology from the original paragraph. It is difficult to know whether Colin and Alice moved toward a more normative understanding of the nature of science without additional information.
The final student remaining in this group at the end of the semester, Kathy, felt that the sentence “careful and repeatable observation and experimentation gives the facts about the world” should be changed, though she did not specifically rephrase the sentence. In her discussion, Kathy stated that through the semester she has learned that “even with much research, observation, and experimentation sometimes we just don’t know certain things about the world.” This comment indicates Kathy seems to have moved toward a more normative understanding that science is not about finding and proving incontrovertible facts.
It is disappointing that only one student in Group A seemed to let go of their naïve understanding of science as “fact.” The majority of the students in this group were good students with regular attendance and participation in class activities and discussions. There could be many different explanations for the lack of change in this group including lack of time, lack of motivation, and lack of serious reflection, among others in addition to the possibility that they still hold this misconception.
Group B:
“Scientists should not allow their preconceived notions to affect or influence observation and experimentation. They strive to improve explanations of natural phenomena and are willing to modify existing theories if new evidence appears. All data should be presented in an honest, straightforward manner. Experiments are designed to reveal scientific truths, not just support a particular view. Scientific progress has made possible some of the best things in life and some of the worst.”
The initial paragraph for Group B included several statements with which many scientists would be in general agreement. However, the fourth sentence about “scientific truths” is not a normative understanding. A more normative understanding of the nature of science would recognize that science cannot ultimately prove “truths.” There were several class discussions throughout the semester that addressed this point. It was hoped that these discussions would help students that held this naïve conception move toward a more normative understanding of science as a process of learning and increasing our knowledge, and not as a fact-finding or truth-seeking mission.
Four of the six remaining students in Group B did not make any major changes to their original paragraph. One of these four students, Lucy, did think that maybe the last sentence was wrong, she thinks now that maybe “progress is progress” and that is not necessarily bad. Three of these four students in this group were not very active in class discussions and frequently drifted off topic during class activities. The fourth student was frequently absent and as a result barely passed the class. With such a lack of interest and participation, it is unsurprising that they did not change their paragraphs. They may not have engaged in the class material enough to come to a more complete understanding of the nature of science, or they may not have been motivated enough to reflect deeply on their initial paragraph.
The fifth student in Group B, Patty, stated that her opinion had “changed a lot” over the course of the semester. She said that when she started the class initially she did not “really know about science, theory, etc.” but that the chapter and class discussion and activities really helped this student “look at everything differently.” Unfortunately, she did not rewrite the paragraph to reflect her new understanding. Interestingly, Patty entered the class with very naïve conceptions about geology, she had never taken a geology class before and did not even remember learning about the Earth in a general science class. She had the lowest score in the class on a pretest for general geology knowledge. However, Patty was very interested in the class material and ended up with one of the highest grades in the class.
The final Group B student, Tony, rewrote the entire paragraph. He was an excellent student, his insights during class discussions were beneficial to many students in the class, and his questions to the instructor demonstrated a sophistication of geologic knowledge. His revision of the paragraph is, “Scientific study is a guessing game. We can never be sure of how anything really works. The ideas have changed, the experiments have produced different results. It is hard to say whether anything is true or just speculation.” Tony seems to have gained insight into the nature of science through the course of the semester, moving towards, and perhaps beyond the normative understanding to an extreme position. He clearly does not hold with the statement about “scientific truths” any longer. This was very encouraging. His views on the nature of science in this regard are clearly influenced by some of the class discussions, particularly about the interior of the Earth. However, his first sentence that “Scientific study is a guessing game” is surprising, and his third sentence about experiments is confusing. Tony did not explain his reasoning for these sentences, it would have been interesting to interview him about his new paragraph. Unfortunately, that was not possible given the time constraints in the semester.
Group C:
“Through the study of science, we find some of the best things in life and some of the worst. There are many influences on scientific studies that can be good or bad. Scientists continually strive to improve explanations of natural phenomena and modify existing theories when new results appear. The funding for scientific studies influences decisions and the way that research goes. Scientists are constantly questioning and trying to improve methodology, theories, and interpretation of published writings and works.”
The initial paragraph for Group C was already very close to a normative understanding of the nature of science. Therefore, it was not expected that there would be a lot of change in the student’s final paragraphs for this group.
There were seven students in Group C. Five of the seven students made no changes, or only minor changes to their sentence. Minor changes included small wording changes and giving examples of good and bad things that can influence or come from scientific studies. The final two students remaining in this group took out the sentence about the scientific funding. One student removed the sentence because it had not been addressed in class, and therefore he thought it did not apply. The other student removed it because he thought that despite influences, scientists will still strive for uncorrupted understandings. It is unsurprising that there was little change for this group overall because their paragraph was the closest to a normative understanding of the nature of science.
Project Results and Conclusions
Overall, this activity did not record a great deal of change in the students’ understanding of the nature of science. Many of their conceptions at the beginning were very similar to how a career scientist might explain the nature of science. For the students who were further from the normative understanding, the class activities and discussions were not sufficient to cause a conceptual change. In the future, class activities and discussions will be revised to more directly address the nature of science. Homework and reflective exercises will be added to the curriculum to help the students to think about and reflect on the nature of science throughout the semester. This paragraph revision will be given as a separate assignment rather than at the end of the final exam. Additional questions will be given to have the students explain their reasoning more completely. Follow-up comments from the instructor may help them clarify their reasoning and provide a more complete picture of their understanding of the nature of science. With more direct concentration and focus on the nature of science throughout the semester, it is hoped that in future implementations the students will show greater change in their understanding with their final paragraph revision.
Reflection on My NOS FPLC Experience
Our NOS FPLC read, discussed, and analyzed some of the research on teaching and the nature of science. We also examined "the scientific method". During our examination we realized that many science textbooks, and many teachers, present science through this scientific method, as if there were a specific recipe that must be followed for science to occur. We identified numerous conflicting definitions of key terms like hypothesis, theory, and law. We realized that these conflicting definitions exist even within the science community. Our research, discussion, and analysis therefore has helped we to gain a better understanding of the nature of science so that I can modify our teaching to help my students come to a better understanding as well.
In addition to gaining a better insight into the nature of science as applied in the classroom, I found the interaction with experienced faculty from several difference science and math disciplines to be very helpful. All of the members of the NOS FPLC became mentors to me as I experienced the trials and tribulations of a first time instructor. With the help of their advice I gained insight into curriculum design, classroom management, and student issues among other things. My participation in the NOS FPLC had an unforeseen benefit as well. From discussions with other adjunct faculty, I realized that my participation in the NOS FPLC led me to feel like a more active participant in the college than is typical for adjunct faculty. This was a wonderful experience for me in ways I will continue to appreciate and discover for years to come.
Annotated Reference List
Cobern, W.W., and Loving, C.C. (1998). The card exchange: Introducing the philosophy of science, in W.F. McComas (ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education, 73-82. Kluwer Academic Pbulishers: The Netherlands.
