|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2006) Norman G. LEDERMAN Research on Nature of Science: Reflections on the Past, Anticipations of the Future
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2006) Norman G. LEDERMAN Research on Nature of Science: Reflections on the Past, Anticipations of the Future
|
Regardless of the “holes” that one can find in the existing research literature, the past 50 or so years of research on NOS does provide us with some clear direction in terms of future research and teaching. What follows are just a few of the critical lines of research that need to be pursued.
How do teachers' conceptions of NOS develop over time? What factors are important and are certain factors more related to certain aspects of nature of science than others?
We need more in-depth knowledge of how views on NOS change over time. Certainly, change in such views must be similar to the change that one sees with other science concepts. Shifts in viewpoints are most likely gradual and certain aspects of NOS may be more easily altered than others. It is just as likely that those factors of importance have a differential influence on the various aspects of NOS. To date, the available research simply identifies whether an individual's views have changed from “naïve” to “adequate.”
What is the influence of one's worldview on conceptions of nature of science?
Although much research on individuals' worldviews has been pursued, such research has rarely been directly and systematically related to views on NOS. One notable exception has been Cobern's work (2000). It seems that NOS may be a subset of one's worldview or is at least impacted by one's worldview. Of primary importance is the relevance of this line of research for the teaching of NOS across cultures. What happens when there is a clash between one's cultural views and the views expressed in western-influenced depictions of science and NOS?
What is the relative effectiveness of the various interventions designed to improve teachers' and students' conceptions? Is one better than another or is a combination needed?
Although there is strong emerging evidence that an explicit approach to the teaching of NOS is more effective than implicit approaches, there has been virtually no research that compares the relative effectiveness of the various explicit approaches. Are the various approaches equally effective? For example, is explicit instruction in the context of a laboratory investigation more or less effective than explicit reflection within the context of an historical case study? Is a combination of the two approaches more effective than either approach alone?
Is nature of science learned better by students and teachers if it is embedded within traditional subject matter or as a separate "pull out" topic? Should nature of science be addressed as both a separate "pull out" as well as embedded?
Similar to the issue of the relative effectiveness of various instructional approaches, is the issue of the curriculum context of NOS instruction. There is an existing assumption that when NOS is embedded within the context of lessons on other aspects of subject matter, that student learning is enhanced. There is little published research specifically related to this issue. Even the most superficial perusal of the recent research on explicit instruction, however, shows that explicit teaching of NOS has supporters for embedded and non-embedded approaches. Systematic research that compares the relative effectiveness of these instructional approaches alone and in combination is needed.
How do teachers develop PCK for nature of science? Is it related to their knowledge structures for traditional science content?
The relationship between one's views of NOS, subject matter, and pedagogy remains uncertain. If we are to assume that NOS is analogous to other aspects of subject matter that teachers teach and students hopefully learn, it also stands to reason that teachers can and should develop PCK for NOS. Virtually no research has used the PCK perspective, that was so heavily researched during the 1990s, as a lens for research on the teaching of NOS. Such research would provide critical information for the planning and quality of professional development activities that focus on NOS. After all, it is one thing to teach teachers about NOS, it is a totally different endeavor to teach them how to teach NOS to their students.
How are teachers' conceptions of nature of science affected during translation into classroom practice? How much of an independent variable is the act of teaching?
Anyone who has ever attempted to enhance teachers' understandings of NOS is aware that the “newly developed” views resulting from a methods course or professional development workshop are fragile at best. Given what is known about how science is typically presented in various curriculum materials, there is the possibility that the curriculum may influence a teacher's views of NOS. Within the literature on PCK, there is some recognition that how one uses his/her subject matter (e.g., teaching) can influence the individual's subject matter structure (Hauslein, Good, & Cummins, 1992). Consequently, it is quite possible that the teaching of science may have an impact on how a teacher views the epistemology of science.
Does the difficulty of the subject matter within which nature of science is embedded influence student learning?
Unless NOS is taught independently of other science subject matter, it represents an additional outcome that students are expected to learn during science instruction. That is, for example, students would be expected to learn that scientific knowledge is tentative while at the same time learning the details of the model of the atom. It is quite possible that the difficulty level of the subject matter may interfere with the learning of NOS. Should NOS be withheld for situations in which relatively concrete science topics are being addressed?
Does knowledge of nature of science improve students' learning of other science subject matter?
One of the original rationales for teaching NOS has been the belief that an understanding of NOS will enhance students' subsequent learning of science subject matter. This assumption, as is true with other assumptions related to the purported value of NOS as an instructional outcome, has yet to be systematically tested. Should students learn to view the subject matter they are being asked to learn through a lens of NOS? This line of research would inform the placement and role of NOS within the science curriculum.
Does understanding of nature of science significantly influence the nature and quality of decisions students make regarding scientifically-based personal and social issues?
A second rationale for the teaching of NOS has been that such understandings would enhance decision-making on scientifically-based personal and social issues. Other than Bell and Lederman's (2003) investigation of university faculty members (scientists and non-scientists), this assumption has remained untested. The results of that investigation did not support the long-held assumption about the value of NOS as an instructional outcome. In general, the assumptions that have been used as advocacies for the teaching of NOS need to be systematically tested. It may very well be that the only value in teaching NOS is that it gives students a better understanding of science as a discipline.
Are nature of science and scientific inquiry universal, or are conceptions influenced by the particular scientific discipline?
Although NOS has been treated in the research literature as “generic” across all scientific disciplines, there appears to be a growing belief in the view that different disciplines may have different “definitions” of NOS. For example, is NOS in biology the same as it is in physics? Intuitively, it seems that there would be differences. Indeed, the phrase “natures of science” is starting to be heard in the halls of professional meetings. The published research literature, however, does not contain a test of this assumption. At this point, all that exists is the unpublished work of Schwartz (2004) and the results, as usual, do not support our intuitive assumptions. The implications this line of research has for teaching NOS in schools are clearly significant. Should NOS be characterized differently in the different science classes? Clearly, we need much more research that compares the views of nature of science (and scientific inquiry) of individuals viewed to have strong understandings of each. It can not be over emphasized that researchers should carefully consider the developmental appropriateness of conceptions of inquiry and NOS they consider for use with K-12 students.
How do teachers come to value NOS as having equal or greater status than “traditional” subject matter?
The last bulleted item at the beginning of this section noted that teachers do not value NOS at a level equal to that of “traditional” subject matter. The existing research clearly indicates that teachers can be taught NOS and it clearly shows that teachers can be taught how to teach NOS to students. However, the research is lacking when it comes to providing guidance for how to develop teachers' valuing of NOS as an important instructional outcome. Few would argue with the notion that teachers spend less time teaching what they don't value or value less than other material. Even teachers who understand NOS and how to teach it, may not actually attempt to teach NOS to students. This was illustrated in Lederman's (1999) case study of five biology teachers quite knowledgeable about NOS. One reason teachers may not teach NOS, even though they are capable, is that NOS is typically not assessed on local, national, or international tests. However, if we hope to improve teachers' instructional attention to NOS in a more creative way than just putting it on the test, a concerted effort must be made to unearth what it takes to get teachers to value NOS relative to other instructional outcomes.
Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2006). All Rights Reserved.
