 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, Volume 4, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2003) John LOUGHRAN, Amanda BERRY, Pamela MULHALL and Dick GUNSTONE Teaching and testing about the Nature of Science: problems in attempting to determine students' perceptions
|
FindingsPart One:
The first question on the test asked students whether or not they had completed any work in Year 10 science that examined issues in a similar way to the article which they had been given to read (see Appendix 1). We had hoped that those students from Susan's class would have seen the link between the article and their Year 10 science unit and responded positively to this question. However, the response to this question was not as straightforward as we had imagined.
From the 87 responses to question 1, 76 stated that they had not completed any work of this nature in science, and 11 stated that they had. Of the 11 who responded positively to the question, only two came from those that we could definitely attribute to being members of Susan's class (the class taught the particular unit of work which was the impetus for this study). Hence it was not possible to draw any conclusions about the nature of the unit and their views of science.
We were surprised that such a small number of students (11 students which is equivalent to 13%) identified that they had done work related to the ideas inherent in the article. We had expected that even students who had not completed the unit might have considered the fact that having done experiments during Year 10 that they may have linked with the scientists in the article doing an experiment as part of their research. On the other hand though, the low response rate should not be so surprising considering how consistently findings of this type are reported in the literature (for example Lazarowitz and Tamir, 1994). Therefore, this result is a reminder of the difference between researchers' expectations and intentions when personally involved in a study. The fact that we saw value in Susan's unit of work combined with our overall view of the teaching approach by both Susan and Alice created an expectation of impact on students' thinking despite our knowledge of the research literature. Further to this, within the 13% who noted a link, about half of those students saw content as the link between the article and their Year 10 science experiences. For example, they selected either "light" or "genetics" which they had studied in Year 10 as the link yet we were 'expecting' the link to be related to processes of science, not the content per se.
Of those that did see links in the way we had envisaged we were 'searching' for, two students offered answers related to aspects of scientific practice. The first student (Student 75), who had been in Susan's class noted,
I suppose the main link would be that the scientist probably undertook a more advanced, yet similar process when doing the experiment [reported in the article]. When we did experiments, we had an aim, and analysed our results etc. etc. This would have been the basis of what those scientists did.
The other student (Student 78) had been in Susan's class as well. She commented on the Qualitative Analysis (chemistry) unit that Alice had taught in Year 9 as well as on her experiences in Year 10. She wrote,
Qualitative analysis - they link because in both instances the experimentors [sic] try to find flaws in the experiments especially if the results of the experiment ere 'unexpected'. Also, in year 10 we conducted experiments that I learnt something from but as with the article - the results of one experiment is not solid proof - other scientists have to get the same result from the same experiment for the results to be considered factual (Also something I learnt in Year 10 science).
In both cases, it is clear that their school science experiences have enabled these students to recognise that the way in which experiments are conducted to validate claims is an important feature of science. Both students have applied this thinking to the article used in the test. Although this abstracting from one situation to another is obviously extremely low in frequency, it is important to note that it did occur and that their school science experiences have helped these two students to build some appreciation of the ways in which scientific knowledge is constructed. So developing a more holistic view of science - beyond "science as facts" - can happen! However, it is somewhat disappointing that the take-up rate by students is very low. To understand why more students did not respond in this way, we need to consider what the negative responses illustrate.
76 students (87% of the total cohort) did not see a link between the article and their Year 10 school science experiences. Of these, we noted that 28% (21 out of 76) specifically said that they did not remember doing any work that was like that described in the paper. For example, consider the following:
I can't remember what we did in Year 10, but I don't think there were any topics which related to the article. In science we would always research for the answer instead of saying [in] a 'mysterious way'. (Student 19)
No this had nothing to do with our Year 10 course for science. If it did I can't remember. (Student 60)
It is interesting to note that the remainder (72%) of those that could not see a link indicated that in Year 10 they had not studied content which was relevant to the article in the test. Again, this may well illustrate how the students used content as an organising principle in their thinking about science and recognition of what constitutes science. The following responses are indicative of those in which the student could not see a link between the article and their Year 10 school science experiences:
In Year 10 we studied plants, animals and bacteria. The article doesn't link with anything in the Year 10 science we also studied human development. (Student 64)
No because Year 10 science was mainly about gravitation and forces and plant and animal cells, not anything to do with the biological clock in the human brain. (Student 43)
This framing (Schon, 1983, 1987) for linking we consider to be a most important issue as it may influence how the students begin to make sense of the relationship between their school science experiences and their developing understanding of science practice. Student 41 pushed this point further in her comment,
The article does not link with Year 10 science because we first had to plan our experiments and predict our results before presenting theories on how we obtained our results. The experiment would then be conducted as the last step towards the particular research. (student 41)
Again, her framing of the situation governed what she saw as a link between her school science experiences and this particular article. In essence, she compared her school experience of scientific practice with what she saw in the article, and rejected a link because the process suggested in the article did not map on to her learned experience from her school science. Interestingly, this (student 41) response highlights the staged, verification mode that practical activities normally represent. This student was not in Susan's class, although there were responses similar to this from students in Susan's class.
For us, the most telling factor about these students' responses is that the way students' portrayed their understanding of the nature of science in this test seems to be affected by the way they organise their memories of school science. For most students, content was the organising principle and this directed their linking of school science experiences to other science experiences. Unfortunately, because of the methodological issues it was not possible to determine whether there was any influence as a result of Susan's unit, however, it seems unlikely from the overall results. Another interesting result to us considering our 'expectations'! However, perhaps this result is interesting in another sense for the question was sufficiently open to allow students to respond in ways that drew on their initial views of construction of memory, therefore if content is their way into school science, it is something to be careful considered in constructing meaningful learning activities in school science.
Copyright (C) 2003 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 4, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2003). All Rights Reserved.