View source

From CTLpedia

for Kaleidoscope Tran-Nguyen 2007-8
You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups user, ctl.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
'''<blockquote>Incorporating the Nature of Science in a Research Methods Course for Psychology, Ly T.L. Tran-Nguyen, Psychology, Mesa Community College, Contact me (mailto:lytran@mail.mc.maricopa.edu Contact me)
</blockquote>'''

'''Summary:''' The general public, although interested in science, has many misconceptions of what the “science enterprise” is all about (National Science Board, 1996). In fact, the survey from the National Science Board (1996) suggests that only about 2% of the sample surveyed have an adequate understanding of science. This lack of understanding can be attributed, in part, to the emphasis of content matter in science education at various levels rather than on equally important processes involved in the scientific enterprise. The term “nature of science” or NOS has been used to describe the processes of this enterprise. McComas, Clough, and Almazroa (1998) have described NOS as a “fertile hybrid arena which blends aspects of various social studies of science including the history, sociology, and philosophy of science combined with research from the cognitive sciences such as psychology into a rich description of what science is, how it works, how scientists operate as a social group and how society itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavors” (pg. 4). 
Although psychology is defined as a scientific discipline that attempts to explain behavior and mental processes, many students and lay people still have a misconception that this field of study is limited to the counseling of patients and therefore not in the realm of science. As part of the science enterprise, psychologists strive for objectivity in the data that they collect to support their claims. Psychological research and the resulting knowledge are empirically-based, logical, testable/verifiable, creative, theory-laden, socially-influenced, durable, and tentative. The nature of psychology as a science needs to be explicitly taught in the classroom through engaging classroom activities that illustrate how this science operates in order to dispel existing misconceptions. 


== Project Goals and Objectives ==

This project's objectives are to:
1. develop a better understanding of the nature of science (NOS) in psychology.
2. develop a laboratory manual for a research method's lab course that explicitly teaches the NOS.
3. assess the effectiveness of the laboratory assignments on students' understanding of NOS in psychology.

== Focus Course Information or Context for Project ==

The research methods course (PSY290A/C) that I teach every spring is a lecture and lab course. Students are taught the theoretical knowledge and research strategies in psychology in the lecture section. Then in the laboratory section, students are required to apply the knowledge that they gain in lecture to a personal research project which they develop, design, conduct and present. The goal is to give students an accurate overview of how it would be to conduct actual psychological research and disseminate their research findings to the class in a public poster session.

== Project Rationale ==

Psychology is considered to be a behavioral science; however, many students and lay people have a misconception that this field of study is limited to the counseling of patients. To dispel this misconception, I would like to explicitly teach the nature of psychology as a science in my research methods course. 

From my experience as a a member of the NOS faculty learning community and as an instructor of research methods, I realize that students cannot and do not extract what NOS is in psychology by just completing a personal research project. In fact, it has been suggested that science educators must explicitly teach aspects of the history and philosophy of science since it has been shown that the amount of science training (be it from course work or research experience) is not positively related to the understanding of NOS (for a review see Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Thus, I would like to modify and/or create new laboratory assignments in PSY290/AC to explicitly teach NOS.

== Project Implementation and Assessment Methods ==

Briefly, some literature on the NOS was explored including resources for explicitly teaching NOS prior to the start of the spring semester of 2007. Based on the readings, a survey on the views of the nature of science was modified from the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS) developed by Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Schwartz (2002). 

The VNOS was administered to students in PSY290 (research methods) and PSY293 (biological psychology)in the spring semester of 2007 during the first week of class as a pre-measure. Throughout the semester, assignments aimed at explicitly teaching the NOS was incorporated in PSY290 through engaging laboratory activities, classroom demonstration and lectures. Students in PSY293 served as the control groups since they received primarily explicit instruction about the nature of psychological science (NOPS) through lectures rather than hands-on activities. At the end of the semester, the VNOS survey was again administered to students to assess the effectiveness of these assignments on students' understanding of NOPS. In addition, the PSY290 class received an additional questionnaire measuring their evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities and perception of learning.

== Project Results ==

'''Top 5 student misconceptions''':
1. There is a natural progression from hypothesis to theories to laws with accumulating evidence.
2. The definition of a research hypothesis is an "educated guess."
3. To answer research questions, scientists follow the well-prescribed steps of the scientific method.
4. Compared to other research methods, knowledge is best gained through well-controlled experiments.
5. Science allows for an accurate understanding of reality.

Overall, students performed significantly better in the post-VNOS survey compared to the pre-VNOS survey regardless of class, F(1,22)=7.60, p=.012.

PSY 290 students perceived the research project and lectures to be the most effective in their learning of the nature of psychological science (average rating of 5.57 for both resources on a 6-point rating scale). They perceived the textbook and card-exchange game to be least effective (average rating of 3.93 and 3.77, respectively).

== Summary and Conclusions ==

Students have preconceived ideas about the nature of science (NOS) that may not be accurate.

Explicit instruction and/or class activities can dispel some myths about the NOS; however, one semester of explicit exposure to the NOS is not effective. It is suggested that repeated exposure in several classes across time may be more effective in enhancing students' understanding of NOS.

== Examples of student work ==

Students' early views of science based on the 'card exchange game' developed by Cobern and Loving (McComas, 1998)

Sample of a group's response after playing the game at the beginning of the semester:

"Many people believe that the scientific enterprise is situated in specific historical, political, cultural, and social settings; thus, scientific questions, methods, and results vary according to time, place, and purpose. One great feature about scientific research and the studies performed is that the scientists are skeptical about theories and ideas as a normal part of science. Scientists strike a proper balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas, which helps explain how new discoveries are happening at an alarming rate. When these new discoveries occur, the data should always be presented in an honest and straightforward manner. Experiments are designed to reveal scientific trut, not just support a particular view. Keeping that in mind, writing and talking about the way scientific knowledge is constructed allows others to replicate and/or challenge findings. In conclusion, we should all remember that science is never dognmatic; it is pragmatic-always subject to adjustments in the light of solid, new observations and, a phrase such as "many scientists believe..." misrepresents scientific inquiry because scientists deal in evidence."

== Target Nature of Science Principle followed by Resources and Activities ==

1. Students have preconceived ideas about science.
*Card exchange game (Cobern & Loving, 1998).

2. Inferences based on observations require scientific creativity.
*Mystery Tube (http://www.projectican.com/trickytracks.html)

3. There is no universal, step-by-step "scientific method."
*Student  research project (Researcher-developed assignment)

4. Careful, objective observation will not guarantee absolute knowledge about reality.
*Women's brain article (http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/natsc.fs.html)

== Annotated Reference List ==

# Cobern, W.W. & Loving, C.C. (1998). The card exchange: Introducing the philosophy of science. In W.F. McComas (ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education, (pp. 73-82). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
# Gould, S.J. (1980). Women's brains. In S.J. Gould (ed.), The Panda's Thumb, (pp. 152-159). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
# Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwarts, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner's conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 497-521.
# McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science and Education: 511-32.

Do not delete category codes below this line....
[[category:Kaleidoscope]]
[[category:2006-7]]
Return to Kaleidoscope Tran-Nguyen 2007-8.
Retrieved from "http://ctl.mc.maricopa.edu/wiki/index.php/Kaleidoscope_Tran-Nguyen_2007-8"