TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES FOR

NATURE OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

AND THEIR CLASSROOM PRACTICE

BY

STEPHEN A. BARTOS

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor in Philosophy in Mathematics and Science Education
in the Graduate College of the
Illinois Institute of Technology

Approved _________________________
Adviser

Chicago, Illinois
May 2013
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I must first recognize the generosity of Drs. Norman and Judith Lederman both of

whom not only motivated me by their example, but also had the faith in me to live up to

their high expectations and provided me the opportunities to do so. Far more important

than the intellectually stimulating and challenging professional environment of the

Mathematics and Science Education Department (MSED) was the caring, compassion,

and support Drs. Lederman provided me and my family throughout my four years with

them. This could not have been more evident than over the course of my final year, as my

family and I dealt with challenges far beyond those of the typical graduate student trying

to raise and support a family. To everyone at MSED, thank you so much for your

kindness.

I would not have had the opportunity to pursue this degree had it not been for the

considerable selflessness and sacrifice of my family.

To my parents, Richard and Betty, who, above all else, instilled in me a passion of

learning and ensured that I, in spite of the considerable time I took as an undergraduate to

“find myself”, was indeed afforded the opportunity to realize and pursue my true passion.

To my father-in-law George, whose unwavering work ethic provided me with the

mental fortitude to tackle a commitment of this type, and remain unfettered as I began

what would be, some 400 pages later, this current document.

To my mother-in-law Sharon, who made the almost unfathomable four-year

commitment to assist me and my wife in a multitude of capacities (including the care of

iii
our, at the time surprisingly, growing family), we are forever grateful. It is in large part

because of your sacrifice that I am writing this today.

To Vanessa, my wife, there is nothing I could ever write that would adequately

convey my love and appreciation for all that you have given me and our children. In what

turned out to be a greater challenge than either of us could have ever imagined, in the

end, I have only grown to love you more.

For my children Sophia, Stephen, and Sinjin, may this work serve as evidence of

the great things you too can accomplish when aided by the kindness and generosity of

unbelievable people who love you.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................ iii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ ix

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... x

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER
1. THE PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 1

Pedagogical Content Knowledge ....................................................... 1

Nature of Science ............................................................................... 4
Scientific Inquiry ............................................................................... 7
Summary ............................................................................................ 9
Statement of the Problem ................................................................... 9
The Question ...................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Study ................................................................... 13

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................... 19

Introduction ........................................................................................ 19
Knowledge Structures, PCK, and Classroom Practice ...................... 22
Views of the Subject Matter and Classroom Practice ................. 22
Subject Matter Knowledge Schemas and Classroom Practice... 24
Knowledge Structures and Responsive Elaboration ................... 30
The Influence of Experience on Knowledge Structures ............. 33
The Influence of Teaching on Subject Matter and
Pedagogical Knowledge ............................................................. 39
Knowledge Structures and their Influence on
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 45
High and Low Achievers’ Organization of Subject Matter ........ 58
Global and Specific Knowledge Structures and
Teaching Experience................................................................... 60
Identifying and Measuring Knowledge Structures ............................ 66
Concept Maps and the Ordered Tree Technique ........................ 66
The Concept Structure Analysis Technique (ConSAT) ............. 69
The Concept Map as a Research Tool ........................................ 71

v
 Nature of Science (NOS) and Scientific Inquiry (SI) ........................ 83
Factors Influencing the Learning of NOS................................... 83
Influence of Views of NOS on Classroom Practice.................... 88
Philosophical Stance and Classroom Practice ............................ 89
Influences on Planning and Teaching NOS ................................ 91
NOS as Subject Matter – Challenges of Implementation ........... 102
Epistemological Beliefs, Instructional Goals,
and Classroom Practice ............................................................... 107
Best Practices for Teaching NOS and SI .................................... 110
An Implicit Approach to Developing Knowledge of NOS ......... 115
Challenging Teachers Typically Naïve Views of NOS .............. 120
Concept Mapping with Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry ..... 123
Concept Maps and NOS ............................................................. 123
Summary and Discussion ................................................................... 127
Knowledge Structures and Classroom Practice .......................... 127
Further Insight into Elucidating Knowledge Structures ............. 132
Influence of Conceptions of NOS and SI on Teachers’
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 134
Insight and Recommendations ........................................................... 139

3. DESIGN AND METHOD ....................................................................... 143

Introduction ........................................................................................ 143

Participants ......................................................................................... 144
Overview ............................................................................................ 148
Questionnaires.................................................................................... 148
VNOS and VASI Questionnaires ............................................... 148
Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI Questionnaire ................. 152
Demographic Questionnaire ....................................................... 155
Classroom Observations .................................................................... 156
Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 159
Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure Diagram ................... 163
Post-Classroom Observation Interviews ............................................ 165
Knowledge Structures for NOS and SI ....................................... 165
VNOS and VASI Results ............................................................ 168
Data Summary ................................................................................... 169
Triangulation of Data Sets ................................................................. 170

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA ........................................................................... 172

Introduction ........................................................................................ 172

Case #1: Vince ................................................................................... 177
Academic and Professional Background ................................... 177
School ......................................................................................... 179
Class ............................................................................................ 183
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 184

vi
 Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ........ 187
Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI ........... 194
KS4NS Questionnaire Results ................................................... 195
Translation of Knowledge Structure into Classroom Practice .... 202
VNOS and VOSI Questionnaire Results .................................... 204
Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the
Questionnaires ........................................................................... 209
Case #2: Tari ...................................................................................... 210
Academic and Professional Background ................................... 210
School ......................................................................................... 211
Class ............................................................................................ 213
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 213
Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ........ 214
Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI ........... 222
KS4NS Questionnaire Results ................................................... 223
Translation of Knowledge Structure into Classroom Practice .... 228
VNOS and VOSI Questionnaire Results .................................... 231
Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the
Questionnaires ........................................................................... 236
Case #3: Mark .................................................................................... 238
Academic and Professional Background ................................... 238
School ......................................................................................... 240
Class ............................................................................................ 243
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 243
Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ........ 245
Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI ........... 255
KS4NS Questionnaire Results ................................................... 255
Translation of Knowledge Structure into Classroom Practice .... 261
VNOS and VOSI Questionnaire Results .................................... 264
Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the
Questionnaires ........................................................................... 270
Case #4: Cathy ................................................................................... 271
Academic and Professional Background ................................... 271
School ......................................................................................... 273
Class ............................................................................................ 276
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 277
Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ........ 278
Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI ........... 298
KS4NS Questionnaire Results ................................................... 299
Translation of Knowledge Structure into Classroom Practice .... 305
VNOS and VOSI Questionnaire Results .................................... 308
Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the
Questionnaires ........................................................................... 312
Summary of Cases ............................................................................. 314

vii
 5. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 317

Introduction ........................................................................................ 317

Discussion – Trends and Patterns within the Cases ........................... 317
Case #1: Vince ............................................................................ 317
Case #2: Tari ............................................................................... 321
Case #3: Mark ............................................................................. 323
Case #4: Cathy ............................................................................ 325
Summary ............................................................................................ 329
Discussion – Trends and Patterns between the Cases ........................ 334
Implications and Recommendations for Science Teacher
Education ........................................................................................... 342
Science Teacher Education ......................................................... 343
Classroom Practice ..................................................................... 345
Science Education Research ....................................................... 347
Limitations ......................................................................................... 350
Interaction of Classroom Practice and Opportunities to
Explicitly Teach NOS and SI...................................................... 350
Interaction of Subject Matter and Opportunities to
Explicitly Teach NOS and SI...................................................... 353
Interaction of PCK for Teaching Physics with the Teaching
and Inclusion of NOS and SI ...................................................... 355

APPENDIX
A. LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS .................................... 361

B. VIEWS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE (VNOS)

QUESTIONNAIRE, FORM D+ .............................................................. 363

C. EXEMPLARY RESONSES FOR THE VIEWS OF NATURE OF

SCIENCE (VNOS) QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................. 366

D. VIEWS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY (VASI)

QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................. 369

E. EXEMPLARY RESONSES FOR THE VIEWS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC

INQUIRY (VASI) QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................. 373

F. KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES FOR NATURE OF SCIENCE

AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY (KS4NS) QUESTIONNAIRE ............... 375

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 377

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Overview of Classroom Observations for Vince .............................................. 188

2. Vince’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS

Questionnaires, and also in Classroom Practice .............................................. 210

3. Overview of Classroom Observations for Tari ................................................. 216

4. Tari’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS

Questionnaires, and also in Classroom Practice .............................................. 238

5. Overview of Classroom Observations for Mark ............................................... 246

6. Mark’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS

Questionnaires, and also in Classroom Practice .............................................. 271

7. Overview of Classroom Observations for Cathy .............................................. 280

8. Cathy’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS

Questionnaires, and also in Classroom Practice .............................................. 313

9. Summary of Aspects of NOS and SI Explicitly Evidenced in Teachers’

Classroom Practice Across Three Categories of Understanding ...................... 315

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Vince’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ................. 195

2. Vince’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ........................... 196

3. Tari’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI .................... 223

4. Tari’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI .............................. 225

5. Mark’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI .................. 256

6. Mark’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ............................ 257

7. Cathy’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ................. 299

8. Cathy’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI ........................... 301

x
 ABSTRACT

Research on nature of science (NOS) and scientific inquiry (SI) has indicated that

a teacher’s knowledge of each, however well developed, is not sufficient to ensure that

these views necessarily manifest themselves in classroom practice (Lederman & Druger,

1985; Lederman, 2007). In light of the considerable research that has examined teachers’

subject matter knowledge structures and their classroom practices (e.g., Gess-Newsome

& Lederman, 1993, 1995), what was conspicuously absent from the research on teachers’

NOS- and SI-related classroom practice was an assessment of teachers’ knowledge

structures for NOS and SI.

As such, the current investigation developed case studies of four high school

physics teachers with the intent of inferring their classroom practice knowledge structures

for NOS and SI across 15 targeted aspects. These results were then compared to

responses communicated through the Knowledge Structures for NOS and SI (KS4NS)

questionnaire. The degree of congruence between the two instruments was gauged at the

level of included concepts, connections between them, and also for other structures or

thematic elements. In addition, the results from the KS4NS were compared to teachers’

conceptions expressed through more traditional instruments for assessing NOS and SI, in

this case the Views of Nature of Science (VNOS) questionnaire and the Views About

Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire, respectively.

The results of the current study indicate a limited congruence between teachers’

knowledge structures for NOS and SI and those espoused in their classroom practice,

most notably at the level of the connections between constituent aspects, as few were

evidenced in teachers’ instruction. In addition, there is indication that the KS4NS

xi
questionnaire is more attuned to identifying those specific aspects of NOS and SI most

likely to evidence themselves in teachers’ classroom practice.

The necessity of having teachers explicitly reflect on the structure of the subject

matter they are learning for teaching is reiterated through the findings of the current

study. The utility of the KS4NS as tool to foster teachers’ reflections on their

conceptualization of NOS and SI independent of, or in conjunction with, traditional

subject matter also warrants further investigation.

xii
 1

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Throughout the course of organized education in this country, standards have

been adopted that prescribe a set body of knowledge that every competent teacher should

possess as a requisite for stepping into the classroom. These recommendations have

focused their efforts on various components of the teacher and his or her practices. One

of these, the presage paradigm, failed to show that certain psychological, or personality,

characteristics were associated with students’ academic performance, while process-

product studies resulted in only weak correlations between certain teacher behaviors and

the performance of their students (Campbell et al., 2004; Hashweh, 1987). This latter line

of research examined the processes or actions of the teacher but failed to address the

intuitive notion that teachers’ subject-specific content knowledge, along with their

knowledge of pedagogy, directly influences student learning (Lederman & Latz, 1995;

Gess-Newsome, 1992; among others). Furthermore, this research failed to capture the

uniqueness of each classroom environment, the curriculum within which each teacher

operates, and the particular subject matter under examination (Shulman, 1986, 1987). In

effect, the teacher’s role, it was conceptualized, was to “correctly” implement a

curriculum designed by experts if student learning was to be positively impacted. This

emphasis continued, in part, with the “content free” approach communicated in much of

the effective teaching research (Brophy & Good, 1986) wherein effective teaching was

equated more with classroom management and general instructional practices than with

aspects of content-specific pedagogy (Even & Tirosh, 1995).

 2

While further research focused on both professional competencies and

professional decision-making, the aforementioned shortcomings were eloquently

encapsulated in Shulman’s conception of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which

he described as identifying “the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching” (Shulman,

1987, p. 8). While much past research, some of which is reviewed in detail in the

succeeding pages, has focused on examining subject matter knowledge and pedagogical

knowledge separately, it appears, as Shulman (1987) noted, that the “key to

distinguishing this knowledge base for teaching lies at the intersection of content and

pedagogy.”

From Shulman’s (1986, 1987) perspective the effective teacher needs to possess

not only an adequate understanding of the specific subject matter, but also knowledge of

the intellectual, social, and emotion factors impacting his or her individual students, the

educational contexts that influence instruction and learning, and knowledge (in general

and regarding development and implementation) of the specific curriculum in which

instruction is positioned. Furthermore, the successful teacher will also possess not only a

working knowledge of generic principles and strategies of classroom management and

instruction, but also a rich repertoire of appropriate pedagogical strategies to best present

specific content to students in a manner that maximizes the possibility of successful

learning taking place. Thus, teachers with similar levels of content matter knowledge do

not necessarily experience the same success in teaching their students (Shulman, 1987).

Shulman further hypothesized that the nature of teachers’ subject matter structures (i.e.

how they organize or conceptualize the content) may further impact the manner in which

content is translated during instruction and the efficacy of subsequent subject matter
 3

learning. Thus, he posited, it is not simply the amount of subject matter knowledge a

teacher possesses but how it is structured that may serve to better facilitate its translation

into practice (Shulman, 1987).

This examination of teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical

knowledge was greatly influenced by the growing body of research in the field of

cognitive psychology, originating in part from Bruner’s (1960) influential work, and from

Ausubel’s (1968) Assimilation Theory of Cognitive Learning. The latter presumes that

people hierarchically construct various cognitive structures when learning, whereby more

broader and inclusive concepts or terms are prominent, and where both examples of these

concepts and others closely related are subsumed (Novak, 1990). Similarly, the

importance of investigating teachers’ conceptions of their subject matter was emphasized

years before Shulman’s ground breaking address by researchers like Shavelson and Stern

(1981), that warned

Very little attention has been paid to how knowledge of the subject matter is
integrated into teachers’ instructional planning and the conduct of teaching.
Nevertheless, the structure of the subject matter and the manner in which it is
taught…is extremely important to what students learn and their attitude toward
learning and subject matter. (p. 491)

This view was echoed by Roehler et al. (1988) who argued that it is not necessarily

teachers’ beliefs and theories regarding pedagogy and subject matter that most influence

classroom practice, but the way they organize their knowledge that should be of

paramount concern.

To elucidate and investigate these “knowledge structures”, a variety of

methodologies have been employed including semantic networks, concept-mapping,

card-sorting tasks, ordered-trees, and other variations therein (Lederman, Gess-Newsome,

 4

& Latz, 1994). While many researchers utilized these methods in their investigations

(e.g., Champagne et al., 1978; Gorodetsky, et al., 1994; Hauslein et al., 1992; Naveh-

Benjamin et al., 1986; Wallace & Mintzes, 1990), some sought to further validate their

use for accurately representing participants’ subject matter structures (see Markham et al,

1994). Other researchers used more open-ended elicitations in purposively avoiding these

common practices, ones whose limitations in both design and implementation they felt

could not be adequately justified (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993, 1995;

Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994).

Nature of Science

While a point of educational focus for over 100 years (Lederman, 2007), nature of

science (NOS), “referring to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing,

or the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge” (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000, pp. 665-666; American Association for the Advancement of

Science [AAAS], 1993) and the implications of the manner in which scientific

knowledge is developed on that knowledge (Lederman, 2007), has been a focus of recent

educational reform. The National Research Council (NRC, 1996), AAAS (1993), and the

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen,

1997), for example, have included knowledge of NOS as a foundation to their revised

standards, believing that informed views of NOS are paramount to developing scientific

literacy, in addition to fostering deeper understandings of specific science content. For

example, AAAS’s Project 2061 initiative includes NOS benchmarks for students from

kindergarten through 12th grade. Therein knowledge of NOS is deemed essential in

 5

helping students evaluate scientific claims, thoughtfully follow science as it unfolds in

their lifetime, and in helping to dispel myths and alleviate scientific misconceptions

(AAAS, 1993). In effect, NOS is viewed as indispensible in the quest to develop a

“scientifically literate populace.”

Scientific literacy has been a component of, and a driving force behind, science

curriculum development and its reform for almost half of a century (Laugksch, 2000).

Usually relating to a foundational knowledge of science desired in the general public, or

an appreciation of the applications, goals, and limitations of the processes of science,

scientific literacy has been advocated and espoused as a worthwhile educational end

product by both educators and scientists (Laugksch, 2000; Lederman & Niess, 1997).

This emphasis is founded, in no small part, on the belief that scientifically literate citizens

are better prepared for dealing with the decisions that arise from complex, scientifically-

based issues (Bybee, 1997).

It should be noted that much of the efforts to promote scientific literacy have

emphasized overarching themes like nature of science and scientific inquiry as a means

for achieving this goal, in difference to a focus on simply increasing the “amount” of

science content that is to be taught (Bell, 1999).

The goal of developing scientific literacy through a deeper understanding of NOS,

though, has met with myriad obstacles. Studies conducted over the century or so that

NOS has been considered a significant emphasis for science education, have provided

some unequivocal results – the first of which is that students are typically uninformed, or

at best naïve, in their views of NOS, to the point of being unable to describe what NOS

refers to, or provide a suitable definition (Lederman 2007). In addition, teachers have also
 6

been shown to consistently evidence views of NOS not in line with those currently

espoused in the reform documents (Lederman, 1992).

Attempts to improve both students’ and teachers’ conceptions of NOS can be

categorized as taking one of two approaches. The first of these are Implicit approaches,

which have often favored the emersion of students’ in scientific inquiry activities,

emphasized various science process skills, incorporated history of science courses, or

manipulated specific “variables” within the instructional environment (Abd-El-Khalick,

1998, Lederman, 1998). In general, proponents of this approach espouse a belief that

immersion of learners in inquiry-rich environments (i.e., “doing” science) provides

sufficient experiences to afford them opportunities to develop understandings of NOS

(and often SI) independent of the further practices or instructional objectives of the

teacher. In this paradigm, “doing science” allows students to “know science”. Research

has indicated that these approaches are not sufficient for improving students’ and

teachers’ understandings of NOS or, for that matter, scientific inquiry (e.g., Abd-El-

Khalick, 1998; Barufaldi et al, 1977; Haukoos & Penick, 1985; Riley, 1979; Sharman &

Harris, 1992; Spears & Zollman, 1977).

By contrast, the second approach, typically labeled Explicit-Reflective, is not

necessarily associated with, or limited to, any typical types of activities (e.g., inquiry,

process skills, history of science) but instead, in the words of Abd-El-Khalick (1998),

seeks to ensure that “learners are provided, or helped to come to grips with the conceptual

tools, in this case aspects of NOS, that would enable them to think about and reflect on

the activities in which they are engaged” (p. 5). What is included in this approach, and

which is assumed unnecessary in Implicit approaches, is the provision of opportunities

 7

for learners to reflect on their experiences in relation to specific aspects of NOS. In other

words it is not left to chance that students will develop accurate conceptions of NOS,

adequate connections between classroom practice and aspects of NOS are planned for

and reflected on throughout the course of the lesson. These approaches have been shown

to be more efficacious in enhancing learners understandings of NOS and SI (e.g.,

Akerson et al., 2000; Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Schwartz et al., 2002; Schwartz et

al., 2004 ).

It should be noted before continuing that while there are clear implications of the

manner in which scientific knowledge is developed on the subsequent scientific

knowledge that is produced (Lederman, 2007), the process through which the knowledge

is generated, validated, etc. (i.e., scientific inquiry) are related yet distinct from the

characteristics of the knowledge (i.e., nature of science).

Scientific Inquiry

An overarching theme in science education for approximately 100 years (Dewey,

1910; Herron 1971; Schwab, 1962), scientific inquiry’s definition, while often a point of

debate, generally refers to the process of science, or the procedures through which

scientific knowledge is generated and affirmed (Lederman, Antink, & Bartos, 2012), and

to “the combining of these processes with scientific knowledge, scientific reasoning, and

critical thinking to develop scientific knowledge” (Lederman, 1998, p. 5).

At about the same time that various reform documents refocused their efforts at

improving conceptions of NOS, a similar emphasis was evidenced regarding the

development of students’ and teachers’ “understandings of inquiry” (NRC, 2000), viewed

 8

likewise as an integral component of scientific literacy (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 2000). These

documents emphasize the need for students to possess knowledge beyond that of typical

science concepts and procedures of scientific investigations. For example, The

Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), stress that students not only develop the

abilities to “do” inquiry, but also gain accurate understandings of various aspects of the

nature of scientific inquiry. This “inquiry as ends” approach (Abd-El-Khalick et al.,

2004) effectively positions scientific inquiry as an instructional outcome. As such, in

addition to fostering the development of appropriate inquiry skills (e.g., generating

questions, designing investigations, developing models, etc.) these approaches help

“students learn to do inquiry in the context of science content and develop

epistemological understandings about NOS and the development of scientific knowledge

(Abd-El-Khalick, 2004, p. 398).

Accordant with much of the aforementioned research on NOS, results have

likewise indicated that students and teachers do not necessarily hold informed

conceptions of SI (Schwartz et al., 2002). Moreover, implicit approaches to improving

conceptions of SI have, as was the case with NOS, also been shown to be ineffective

(e.g., Bell, et al., 2003), as simply engaging in scientific inquiry activities is not sufficient

for developing accurate conceptions of essential aspects of inquiry (Lederman &

Lederman, 2004; Schwartz, et al., 2001). It should be noted that what is again necessary,

independent of the learning activities or environment, and congruent with the

aforementioned NOS research, is that teachers employ explicit-reflective practices that

afford students time to reflect on aspects of SI through discussion, guided reflection,

 9

questioning, etc. that have been explicitly planned for, taught, and assessed (e.g.,

Lederman 2007; Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Schwartz, et al., 2001).

Summary

In regard to the brief introduction to pedagogical content knowledge, nature of

science, and scientific inquiry, what remains somewhat disconcerting is, as Lederman

(2007) noted, that “[v]irtually no research has used the PCK perspective, which was so

heavily researched during the 1990s, as a lens for research on the teaching of NOS” (p.

870), and SI for that matter. While some research has sought to discern the complex

interplay of pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and knowledge of NOS

and/or SI (e.g., Hanuscin, 2011; Schwartz, et al., 2001 to name a few), a limited amount

of research has examined other facets of Shulman’s conception of PCK with regard to the

teaching and learning of NOS and SI (e.g., Borda et al., 2009; Merle-Johnson et al.,

2011). Or, more specifically, it is unclear why there has not been a more thorough

examination of the structure or organization of teachers’ knowledge of nature of science

and scientific inquiry, and whether such research would provide deeper insight into the

challenges both of developing informed views of each and in seeing those understandings

evidenced in teachers’ classroom practice.

Statement of the Problem

Research has shown that experts’ structuring of their subject matter differs from

that of novices, in that it is more elaborate and contains both more cross-linking,

interconnections, and overarching thematic elements (e.g., Chi et al., 1982; Markham et
 10

al., 1994). What is more, expert teachers struggle to disentangle the structures for their

subject matter with that of pedagogy (Hauslein et al., 1992). The ways in which these

structural variations translate into classroom practice have provided varied results. Some

research into subject matter structures has indicated that teachers’ knowledge and

organization of subject matter is neither readily nor necessarily translated into their

classroom practices, nor is it necessarily reflected in the achievement of their students

(e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995; Hauslein et al., 1992; Lederman & Latz, 1985).

Further support for the lack of evidence of the direct translation of SMSs can be gleaned

from research that attempted to connect teachers’ views of nature of science with both

their classroom practices and students’ subsequent understandings of nature of science

(see Lederman, 2007, for an overview).

Other research must also be considered that has indicated myriad factors may play

a potential role in interfering with the translation of what teachers know (i.e. subject

matter knowledge) into their classroom practice. These include teachers’ attitudes and

beliefs about themselves, their students, and the subject matter (see Jones & Carter,

2007), epistemological beliefs (Kang & Wallace, 2004), constraints, either real or

perceived, imposed by the curriculum (Lederman, 1999), and the influence of students

(Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993), to name a few.

There is some indication, though, that teachers with more coherent and integrative

knowledge structures tend to teach lessons that more closely communicate this structure

(Roehler, et al., 1988). In other words, how this knowledge is organized does not

necessarily influence teachers’ general classroom practices, nor does it necessarily

influence the translation of this knowledge to practice, though what is translated

 11

regarding this subject matter tends to loosely resemble a teacher’s overall organization

schema. Additionally, Roehler et al. (1990) cite the more frequent “responsive

elaboration” in teachers with more integrated knowledge structures (i.e., meaningful and

explicit relationships between concepts) that allows them to respond more easily to

unforeseen opportunities to address student learning, and assists in their overall

instructional decision-making. Cognitive psychology and expert-novice research has

previously indicated that experts tend to exhibit highly coherent and patterned knowledge

structures consisting of connected series of meaningful clusters (see Chi, Glaser, & Rees,

1982; Fredrickson, 1984; Hoz, 1987) that invariably “influence subsequent perception,

comprehension, and processing of experiential information” (Roehler et al., 1990, p. 2). It

is postulated that teachers’ abilities to provide this “responsive elaboration” is a function,

in part, of this type of organization in their knowledge structures. Moreover, researchers

contend that the causal mechanism relating coherent and integrative knowledge structures

to better instructional decision making is the time taken or allowed for teachers to reflect

on their knowledge of subject matter (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995, 1999).

Regarding NOS and SI, research has indicated that a teacher’s knowledge of

each, however well developed, is not sufficient, in and of itself, to help challenge and

change the uniformed views in their students (Lederman, 2007). While these teachers

may favor certain educational environments or pedagogical strategies more so than

others, their views do not necessarily manifest themselves in classroom practice

(Lederman & Druger, 1985; Lederman & Zeidler, 1987). This translation is often

facilitated or impeded by various beliefs and attitudes pertaining to curriculum, students,

and the educational environment (Cronin-Jones, 1991). These beliefs and attitudes can be
 12

framed in various manners. In the sociocultural model, the determination and desire to

implement a particular curriculum or instructional approach is related to both the actual

practice and the teacher’s attitude regarding the specific actions he or she will need to

perform (Jones & Carter, 2007). In addition, efficacy beliefs help shape and weigh on

decisions regarding classroom practice. Surprisingly, preservice teachers have been

shown to possess epistemological belief systems that are resistant to change, though the

lack of pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge may serve as a catalyst for

this unwanted stability (Jones & Carter, 2007).

Social norms, real or perceived environmental constraints, and requisite

knowledge and skills also play a role in the dynamics of translating subject-matter

knowledge, in this case NOS knowledge, into practice (Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992;

Jones & Carter, 2007; Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000).

What is conspicuously absent from the research on knowledge structures, subject

matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (to name a few of the most

germane areas of research) is an investigation into teachers’ knowledge structures for

nature of science (NOS) and scientific inquiry (SI), both in general and in terms of how

these views are exemplified in their classroom practice.

The Question

While much work has examined the relationship between what teachers’ know

and/or how they know it (i.e., their knowledge structures) and their classroom actions,

other research has indicated these knowledge structures are not necessarily evidenced in

teachers’ classroom practice (see Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1985; Lederman & Latz,
 13

1985), particularly in the case of novice teachers. There is some indication that teachers

with more coherent and integrative knowledge structures tend to teach lessons that more

closely mirror them. In other words, how this subject matter knowledge is organized does

not necessarily influence teachers’ classroom practices in general, nor does it necessarily

influence the translation of this knowledge to practice, though, for teachers with better

organized structures what is translated tends to be similar to the teacher’s overall

organization schema (Roehler, et al., 1988).

With all of the aforementioned in mind, what still remains to be examined are

teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI and how the organization of this content

might potentially influence its inclusion in teachers’ classroom practice. As such the

current investigation sought to specifically answer the following research question:

1. How congruent are teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI with
those communicated in their classroom practice?

Furthermore, this study also sought to address the following secondary question:

2. How consistent are teachers’ views of NOS and SI as evidenced on

traditional instruments, in this case the VNOS and VOSI respectively, with
their views as expressed in their knowledge structures for NOS and SI?

Significance of the Study

This study sought to further elucidate the nature and structure of teachers’

conceptions of NOS and SI beyond, it is hypothesized, what current instruments afford.

The methods employed for generating these knowledge structures may allow for a deeper

understanding of teachers’, and for that matter students’, overall conceptions of NOS and

SI. Through the organization of concepts, the inclusion of others deemed inclusion-

worthy by the participants, and by providing a more readily accessible means for
 14

organizing and connecting concepts, added dimensions may be unearthed regarding these

understandings. Much like the utility of the Views of Nature of Nature of Science

(VNOS; Lederman et al., 2002) and Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI; Schwartz et al.,

2008) instruments to develop a holistic profile for each respondent, a readily accessible

means for the elicitation of teachers’ and students’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI

would provide further insight into the nature of these conceptions.

To the point of the necessary connectivity and overlap of NOS and SI (Schwartz

et al., 2008), the freedom to represent one’s conceptions of NOS and SI in a manner that

supports, or at least does not necessarily constrain, the two concepts’ interdependence

could provide further insight into the coherence and interconnectedness, or lack thereof,

regarding respondent’s views. Similarly, it may provide additional insight into to the

degree to which respondents are conflating the two concepts.

The use of knowledge structures for NOS and SI may help to further discern the

degree to which respondents hold compartmentalized versus integrative and inconsistent

versus coherent views of these constructs; in general, providing a more holistic measure

of understandings of NOS. These knowledge structures may also allow for the

identification of subtleties in respondent’s views of specific aspects of NOS and SI, not

currently afforded, by allowing them to communicate more integrated understandings

through the connections made between concepts.

Additionally, many individuals, be they students, teachers, or researchers, often

conflate NOS with science process skills, in other words not differentiating between the

actions involved in the collection and interpretation of the data and the epistemological

assumptions and characteristics of the knowledge produced. It should be noted, though,

 15

that the practices undertaken by scientists in generating scientific knowledge are

inextricably linked to the knowledge they inevitably produce. In regard to either instance,

the method of eliciting teachers’ knowledge structures will afford respondents the

opportunity to keep their conceptions of NOS separate from SI, diagram the two as a

single construct, link various concepts from each, or keep the two completely

independent.

Furthermore, respondents will be provided the opportunity to include any

additional words, concepts, phrases, etc. that they felt best represent “nature of science”

or “scientific inquiry.” The latter of these consideration, it was hoped, overcomes

concerns originally expressed by Lederman and O’Malley (1990) regarding many of the

original NOS standardized and convergent pencil-and-paper tests, “namely,

[whether]…respondents perceive and interpret an instrument’s items in a manner similar

to that of the instrument developers” (p. 502).

The current study will attempt to present a more complete, situated perspective on

teachers’ understandings of NOS and SI by observing their classroom practices regarding

each. A more detailed view of teachers’ understandings of NOS and SI will be attempted

through the development of teachers’ knowledge structure for each, and a comparison

with those and their VNOS and VOSI results. As Roehler (1990) provided evidence that

teachers with more integrative and elaborative maps (i.e., meaningful and explicit

relationships between concepts) tended to be better at “responsive elaboration” than

those who maps are more fragmented, this study may provide additional insight into the

difficulties that some teachers have in incorporating NOS and SI into their classroom

practice.
 16

Beyond “off the cuff” references of how science is done and how scientists work,

the failure of most teachers to plan for and assess students’ understandings of NOS and

SI, even while holding informed views, may be partially explained by the nature of these

teachers’ understandings (i.e., how integrative, interconnected, etc.). Moreover, the

means to glean additional insight into teachers’ understandings of NOS and SI may help

explain, in part, why some teachers are highly motivated to include NOS and SI into their

classroom practice and continue to further develop their repertoire of exemplars of

various facets of each within their own curriculum, while other do not. As Naveh-

Benjamin et al. (1986) contended, a lack of clustering, depth, and similarity (most often

to an “expert structure”) in a students’ cognitive structure could be the reason that these

students struggle to develop “the overall relations and a general framework for the

subject matter learned…which further prevents assimilation of specific information” (p.

139); the same may be the case for teachers regarding NOS and SI.

As teachers are the main intermediary of the science curriculum, it is therefore

important to further explore the nature and efficacy of the transfer of their understandings

of subject matter, in this case regarding NOS and SI, into what is readily apparent in their

classroom practice. It is hoped that the elucidation of common features of informed

teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI could be useful in reevaluating the design

of courses and programs that seek to produce teachers that include and value NOS and SI

in their common classroom practice. In part, this may underscore the effectiveness of the

efforts toward developing more integrated understandings of the two constructs and their

foundational aspects.
 17

As past research has suggested that the cognitive structure of a discipline is, in

part, transferred from teacher to student (Champagne et al., 1978; Gorodetsky & Hoz,

1985; Shavelson, 1974), a closer examination of students’ knowledge structures would

allow for a deeper examination of the efficacy of a teachers’ classroom practice regarding

NOS and SI. This, in general, could provide a means for more effective formative and

summative assessment of students’ learning of NOS and SI, in addition to providing more

dynamic answers to the question of “What exactly did students learn about NOS and SI?”

Further study will then seek to examine the transfer of these understandings evident in

teachers’ classroom practices to students’ understandings of, and knowledge structures

for, NOS and SI. As efforts, both in teacher preparation and professional development,

have aimed to improve teachers’ conceptions of NOS and SI with the hope that this will,

in turn, positively impact students’ views, these knowledge structures for NOS and SI

could potentially provide a means for garnering additional insight into the effectiveness

of these efforts.

These efforts, it should be noted, would conclude with a comparison of students’

knowledge structures for NOS and SI and their understandings and integration of

traditional science content. Some research has indicated that (a) students with a more

dynamic views of science tend to be more efficacious at developing integrated

understandings of subject matter (Songer & Linn, 1991) and that (b) students exposed to

explicit-reflective NOS instruction coupled with self-regulation and self-monitoring

showed significant content knowledge increases over implicitly taught (NOS) groups

(Peters, 2012). The conjecture forwarded by many researchers that informed views of

NOS and SI should help facilitate the learning of science subject matter has not, though,
 18

been sufficiently examined for the conceptions of NOS and SI as defined in the current

study. Songer and Linn (1991) do succinctly summarize the importance of developing

students’ understandings of NOS and SI

Unless students look jointly at knowledge generation and the outcomes of the
knowledge generation process, they are unlikely to develop an integrated,
productive understanding of science or of science concepts. Unless students have
sufficient opportunity to understand the nature of the knowledge generation
process, they are unlikely to become participants in this process in the future and
may instead believe that science knowledge is irrelevant to their own lives and to
the lives of others like them. (p. 782)
 19

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Efforts to identify effective teaching have, as previously mentioned, progressed

through various research paradigms. One of the most dominant of these, process-product,

is characterized by Gage and Needels (1989) as the attempt to, in general, “determin[e]

how more and less effective teachers act and then trying to get teachers to act in the ways

that distinguish the more effective ones” (p. 253). These process variables included

characteristics of teacher behavior, student behavior, and the interactions between teacher

and students. While, as Brophy and Evertson (2010) contend “process-product research

in education has continually failed to establish dependable relationships between teaching

process behaviors and student outcome measures”, it has, it should be noted, provided

insight into some general characteristics of more effective teachers (e.g., frequency of

question asking, clarity of instructional objectives, monitoring student progress,

providing timely feedback, etc.).

Though it served to inform much of the organized efforts to evaluate teachers

during the latter part of this century, critics of this line of research argued that it suffered

from a lack of consideration, partially through inappropriate conceptualization, regarding

what it was that was being taught; in other words, the subject matter. As Shulman (1986)

inquired, “Where did the subject matter go? What happened to the content?” (p. 5).

Specifically, he was curious about researching the organization of teachers’ content

knowledge, how that specific subject matter knowledge is transformed to that which is
 20

evident in teachers’ classroom practice and, further, how the specific formulation of this

content influences students’ subsequent understandings of it (Shulman, 1986).

This idea of how knowledge is structured or, in other words, of one’s “knowledge

structure”, was a phrase common to cognitive psychology research, much of which was

focused on developing deeper understandings of learning (e.g., Preece, 1976; Murphy &

Wright, 1984; Shavelson, 1972; Shuell, 1986). While some science education researchers

had investigated the nature of students’ and teachers’ knowledge structures prior to, or

independent of, Shulman’s aforementioned “call to arms” (e.g., Champagne et al., 1978,

1981; Novak, 1990; Wallace & Mintzes, 1990) others were more directly influenced by

his work. Whether attempting to elucidate ways to measure or uncover these knowledge

structures (e.g., Hoz et al., 1990; Roehler et al., 1988; Winitzky et al., 1994), to discern

the efficacy of their transference into practice (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-

Newsome & Lederman, 1995), or in identifying factors underlying their development

(e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; Lederman et al., 1994; Lederman & Latz, 1995; Roehler et

al., 1990), for example, there is no shortage of research agendas influenced by Shulman’s

“missing paradigm.”

The subject matter for the current investigation, nature of science (NOS) and

scientific inquiry (SI), has a history of research concerning the teacher’s role in

improving students’ conceptions that, to some extent, mirrors much of what was

previously detailed regarding the research on effective teaching. Contrastingly, research

that focused on teachers’ understandings of NOS (oftentimes conflated with SI) was the

first area of enthusiastic pursuit. This, as Lederman (2007) describes, was undertaken to

the almost complete exclusion of research on teachers’ classroom practices. Thus, it was
 21

assumed, until the early 1980s, that teachers’ with informed understandings of NOS

would (undoubtedly) positively impact the views of their students. This impact, it was

likewise assumed, was mediated by the classroom practices, typical classroom

environment, and behavior of the teacher. Research has almost unequivocally tested and

rejected this assumption (e.g., Bell et al., 2000; Lederman, 1986; Lederman, 1999;

Lederman & Druger, 1985; Lederman & Zeidler, 1986).

Once the aforementioned assumptions had been debunked, researchers focused

their efforts on examining classroom practices that positively influenced understandings

of NOS and SI. While some researchers did, and still do, believe that the nature of the

activities that a learner engages in can, in and of itself, lead to evidenced gains in

understandings of aspects of NOS and SI (e.g., Moss, 2001), this implicit approach is lies

in contrast to much of the aforementioned research. What has shown itself to be

efficacious in improving conceptions of NOS and SI are explicit approaches that treat

NOS and SI as valuable subject matter, planned for, assessed, and reflected on

independent of the types activities undertaken during instructional practice (e.g., Abd-El-

Khalick, et al., 1998; Akerson et al., 2000; Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Schwartz et al.,

2002, 2004 ).

In consideration of the research on knowledge structures and NOS and SI – what

is still not clearly understood is how the structure of a teacher’s knowledge of NOS and

SI evidences itself in their classroom practice. For example, research has indicated that

teachers considered informed across aspects of NOS often communicate markedly

different conceptions of NOS and SI. This may be the manifestation of certain

characteristics of their knowledge structures for NOS and SI (e.g., maybe they would
 22

evidence varying degrees of integration amongst those aspects); providing further

valuable insight into the lack of evidence regarding understandings of NOS and SI and

classroom practice. Or, it is possible that certain aspects of NOS and SI are harder for

teachers to incorporate into their knowledge structures (i.e., they are more isolated and

disconnected from other aspects of NOS and SI) and, likewise, are challenging to

subsequently communicate in a coherent fashion in their practice.

In any event, the review of literature that follows seeks to outline various seminal

and/or exemplary research relating to the focus of the current investigation. The review

specifically seeks to outline work related to (a) representing and “measuring” knowledge

structures (and the like); (b) teachers’ subject matter knowledge and their classroom

practice, and also to (c) nature of science and scientific inquiry, all undertaken with a

keen eye to any actual or inferred overlap between these three loosely defined categories.

Knowledge Structures, PCK, and Classroom Practice

Views of the Subject Matter and Classroom Practice. In an investigation that

provides insight into how teachers views of and beliefs concerning the subject matter

they teach potentially influences their classroom practice, Thompson (1984) examined

three junior high teachers with between three and ten years experience. Through

classroom observations, interviewing, and in their responses to a variety of writing tasks,

Thompson concluded that it appeared that teachers’ differing views of the content (in this

case mathematics) was the primary influent on their varying instructional emphases. For

instance, one teacher who viewed the subject matter “as a coherent subject consisting of

logically interrelated topics” (p. 119) tended to emphasize the procedural logic of the
 23

discipline and stress the mathematical meaning of concepts. A second teacher, who

treated mathematics as a dynamic and challenging subject best experienced through

discovery and creative problem solving, tended to, in her practice, stress more heuristic

problem solving methods. In addition, she tended to reflect on, and plan for, students’

questions that could potentially arise out of her pedagogical decision-making. This

teacher was also described as being noticeably perceptive regarding students’ struggles

during the lesson and frequently evidenced the ability to respond and capitalize on

opportunities presented through student questions and comments, to a greater degree than

her counterparts, both of whom viewed the content as more static and a collection of facts

to be learned.

Of particular interest to the current study is the finding that the influence of

teachers’ views of the content on their practice only seemed to be evident for those

teachers who possessed more “integrated conceptual system” for both the subject matter,

mathematics, and its teaching. As Thompson explains

A criterion for inferring the integratedness of someone’s beliefs and views in a

given domain – the extent to which these form a coherent conceptual system, as
opposed to each belief existing in isolation from the other – is the extent to which
they interrelate and interact with each other to modify each other. (p. 122)

Thus, it was concluded that the teacher whose views of mathematics were wholly

discrepant with views expressed in her classroom practice most likely lacked an

integrated conceptual system for the learning and teaching of mathematics. Another

teacher, while exhibiting a greater degree of congruity between espoused views and

practice, presented a very narrow and limited view of mathematics, thus further

indicative, in the view of Thompson, that she too had not develop a integrative

conceptualization, as it did not appear that either view was influencing or interacting with
 24

the other. The last teacher, who appeared to hold deeply integrative beliefs and

conceptions of mathematics and its teaching, on numerous occasions explicated the

potential incongruities between her views and her practices, and related them to her

previous classroom teaching experiences. It is this increased reflectiveness or, more

specifically, in Thompson’s view “[the] tendency to think about their actions in relation

to their beliefs, their students, and the subject matter” (p. 123) that explained much of the

variance in these three case studies.

Thompson concludes that “teacher beliefs, views, and preferences about

mathematics and its teaching, regardless of whether they are consciously or

unconsciously held, play a significant, albeit subtle, role in shaping the teachers’

characteristic patterns of instructional behavior” (pp. 124-125).

In light of the current study, it is hypothesized that those teachers with poorly

explicated knowledge structures for NOS and SI will also be characterized by a greater

degree of incongruence between their views of NOS and SI indicated in their knowledge

structures versus those “present” in their classroom practice.

Subject Matter Knowledge Schemas and Classroom Practice. Hashweh

(1987) sought to examine the impact of teachers’ subject matter, regarding both its

content and organization, on teacher planning and subsequent classroom instruction. This

work was motivated, in part, by Shulman’s (1986) domains of knowledge, namely

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and was undertaken, in the words of Hashweh

(1987), “to start an exploration of the relations between subject matter knowledge and

teaching” (p. 110).

 25

For this study six teachers were selected as participants, three “specializing” in

physics and three in biology. Of particular interest, though it is not provided by Hashweh,

would have been a description of the teachers’ overall teaching experience, both in

general and in their specific subject matter area, a description of their educational

background, and the details of their particular teaching situations (e.g., courses taught,

general description of “typical” students, and involvement in or freedom to develop

curriculum). This information is vital in illuminating the possible confounding effects

that these experiences may have on the variance, or lack thereof, in participants’ subject

matter knowledge and their classroom practice.

Each teachers’ subject matter knowledge in both physics and biology was

examined, allowing for a within subjects comparison for the two subject areas, in

addition to affording comparisons between the two groups of teachers. Each teacher was

also required to both plan a lesson in each subject area and respond to a series of critical

incident questions for both the biology and physics classrooms. This later component

serves to represent the simulated teaching component of the investigation.

The topics chosen for the physics and biology potions of the study were “levers”

and “photosynthesis”, respectively, because, in the words of Hashweh (1987) “both can

be treated at different levels, and both can be related to other discipline entities in

different ways; it is also possible to have different levels of understanding of each topic

while still being competent” (p. 110). In addition, levers and photosynthesis were

considered because students commonly possess various preconceptions about these two

topics in specific.
 26

Of particular relevance to the current study is the first component of the

investigation wherein teachers were guided through a series of tasks, first in their area of

expertise, which consisted of completing “summary statements” for the specific topic,

levers or photosynthesis. For this step, participants first provided a summary of the

concepts they felt should be included within that topic, were then asked to relate the topic

to others in the discipline, and then had to provide additional summaries for up to four

other topics in the specific discipline. Following this, teachers were given a list of terms

in the particular discipline and were asked to construct a concept map, which they then

had to describe to the researcher. Lastly, teachers were asked to sort physics and biology

problems by a general criteria, the former in terms of commonalities between the

problems, the latter in regard to how the problems (all photosynthesis-based) related to

other concepts in the discipline.

For the concept mapping component of phase one, unfortunately no explanation is

offered regarding the selection process of the terms presented to the teachers, or why

Hashweh did not ask the teachers to use information from the previous summary

statement exercise. Furthermore, how the process for constructing the concept map was

described to participants may have also influenced how it was subsequently constructed.

Similarly, the questioning protocol that was used when participants were asked to

describe their concepts maps is not described.

The second phase of the investigation involved an assessment of teachers’

planning in the two specific content areas. Teachers were given a chapter in either a

general science or biology textbook, related to levers or photosynthesis respectively, and

were asked to plan aloud under the context that they had been “called on to replace an ill
 27

colleague.” Eight follow-up questions were posed at the end of the planning activity

centering on evaluating the lesson, appropriate accommodations for gifted students,

elastic clauses, accessing and addressing prior knowledge, strategies for overcoming

student struggles, and any additional long-range planning considerations that need be

considered.

What is unclear, though, is how the “planning aloud” activity was specific

undertaken, or how, if at all, the researcher inquired about the planning process during

this time. A description of the lesson planning protocol used, detailing what components

needed to be included, is also not provided, nor is the contextual information about “the

grade level, abilities of students, and material already covered” (p. 111) Hashweh

purportedly collected. Of particular interest would be a means for gauging the

consistency between the physics and biology “classes”, and how and why these particular

classroom descriptors were used in this portion of the study. The eight questions the

researcher asked the teachers following their planning session were not included with the

paper, nor is any rationale provided regarding the specific categories of questions (e.g.,

evaluation plans, modifications for students, etc.) that were asked.

The final phase required participants to respond to a series of critical incidents (12

in physics and 8 in biology) consisting of vignettes that included, in part, various student

responses, opportunities to address students’ preconceptions, occasions to make further

subject matter connections, and for dealing with other lesson-implementation difficulties

and related management issues. Unfortunately, support for the use of critical incidents as

a means for simulating teaching is not presented, nor are any details provide about the

incidents and how they were implanted, other than the aforementioned general
 28

categorization. Similarly, whether these incidents are valid representation of the proposed

categories is also an issue that is not addressed by the researcher. Lastly, no explanation

is offered for why the number of critical incidents in biology and physics are not the

same.

Hashweh concludes that regarding physics knowledge, the experienced physics

teachers tended to use higher-order schemes to organize their knowledge both within the

topic of levers, and in regard to its relation to other concepts in physics. The physics

teachers used similar schemata in the construction of their concept maps, while the

biology teachers concept maps of ‘levers’ focused more on, as Hashweh (1987) puts it,

“surface features” (p. 112). Lastly, experienced teachers showed fewer misconceptions

and content inaccuracies than those who taught biology, as would be expected. Similar

results were found for the topic of photosynthesis, though the biology teachers, the

“experts” in this case, showed greater variation in the connections they made between

schemata, in contrast to the difficulty physics teachers exhibited in making connections to

other topics. As was the case above, the content area teachers showed fewer

misconceptions and knowledge inaccuracies than those operating outside of the area of

expertise.

For the second part of the analysis Hashweh examined teachers’ subject matter

knowledge’s influence on planning “through tracing the effects of prior knowledge on the

transformations made in chapter organization and content” (p. 114), in addition to an

analysis of the activities each participant planned for the lesson. Less experienced

teachers tended to design lessons whose sequence closely mirrored that of the textbook,

while failing to discern and incorporate the overarching theme of the chapter. This was in
 29

contrast to the content-area teachers who designed the chapter in accordance with their

prior knowledge structures, who modified or outright rejected the organization presented

in the textbook when it contrasted with their own, and also consistently related given

topics “to an important discipline conceptual scheme” (p. 114). In addition, experienced

teachers were more likely to plan for the implementation of alternative thematic

connections, regardless of how subtle or absent these were in the textbooks provided.

Regarding the inclusion of specific textbook-included concepts, teachers with less

experience tended to implement the concepts exactly as presented in the textbook, while

the other group was more likely to modify the suggested set in accordance to their subject

matter knowledge. Similarly, teachers with less knowledge of the subject matter did not

alter the activities as presented in the textbooks, nor were they likely to omit or include

any materials or ideas of their own, as they felt, in the opinion of Hashweh (1987) that

every concept and detail was important (p. 114). By contrast, modifications by the subject

matter teachers tended to be towards facilitating additional emphases on broader themes

and connections between content.

The analysis of participants’ assessment strategies revealed that content-area

teachers tended to ask higher-order questions (e.g., analysis, application, those requiring

synthesis), while those with less experienced relied more on recall questions and made

fewer connections within the subject area. The critical incidents component of the study

revealed that teachers with more subject matter knowledge were more effective in

identifying misconceptions, were more inclined to make “fruitful digressions”, and were

more competent and confident when dealing both with difficulties and in identifying

“veiled” correct responses.

 30

In addition to many of the specific conclusions detailed above, Hashweh (1987)

summarizes that teachers with more subject matter knowledge have “(a) more detailed

topic knowledge, (b) more knowledge of other discipline concepts, (c) more knowledge

of higher-order principles that are basic to their discipline, and (d) more knowledge of

ways of connecting a specific topic to other entities in the discipline” (p. 113). Hashweh

contends these differences, as evidenced in other aspects of this investigation, reveal

themselves in planning for instruction and, when these plans are eventually followed,

they are further evidenced in the “enactive curriculum” (p. 119), where they influence

instruction. This conclusion, it should be noted, is weakened by the lack of sufficient

detail and validity of the latter components of the study, particularly regarding the

simulated enactment of the lesson, its activities, and the subsequent assessment of

students.

Of particular interest to the current study is the possible influence that subject

matter structures had on the overall conception and the organization of a particular topic,

on the essential elements of the chapter (unit) plan, how it impacted individual lesson

plans and related assessments, and how, in the end, it evidenced itself in classroom

implementation of each.

Knowledge Structures and Responsive Elaboration. Roehler et al. (1988)

argued, in contrast to the conclusions of Thompson (1984), that it is not necessarily

teachers’ beliefs and theories regarding pedagogy and subject matter that most influence

classroom practice, but the way that they organize their knowledge or, in other words,

their knowledge structures for the particular discipline, that should be of paramount

concern to the researcher, and is certainly germane to the current investigation.

 31

Roehler et al. point out that the idea of knowledge structures had its beginnings in

cognitive science research into problem solving (e.g., Chi et al., 1982; Frederiksen,

1984), where results indicated that organization of information into meaningful “chunks”

aids in the expert’s ability to readily process and access at a later time. These structures,

contend Roehler et al. (1988) “[are] fluid and evolve as the teacher integrates knowledge

from new experiences into existing schema…[and] are the representative products of

teachers’ attempts to make sense of the experiences they encounter in the classroom” (p.

160).

Roehler et al. cite the “responsive elaboration” that teachers with more integrated

knowledge structures (i.e., meaningful and explicit relationships between concepts)

evidenced in previous research (e.g., Duffy & Roehler, 1987) that, it appears, allowed

them to respond more easily to unforeseen opportunities to address student learning, and

assisted in overall instructional decision-making. Moreover, Roehler et al. (1990) speak

of the need to elucidate the means by which “teachers gain control of their professional

knowledge” (p. 2), here referring to both knowledge of content and pedagogy. To gain

insight into this quandary, educational researchers, as previously mentioned, gleaned

valuable insight from both cognitive psychology and expert-novice research that

indicated that experts tend to exhibit highly coherent and patterned knowledge structures

consisting of connected series of meaningful clusters (e.g., Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982;

Fredrickson, 1984; Hoz, 1987) that invariably “influence subsequent perception,

comprehension, and processing of experiential information” (p. 2). As such, it was

believed that teachers’ ability to “provide responsive elaboration” was a function, in part,

of the organization of these knowledge structures.

 32

In light of the aforementioned results, Roehler et al. (1990) investigated the

prevalent hypothesis that coherent and extensive knowledge structures play a role in the

effectiveness of classroom teachers. To do so, they first examined the utility of a

modified ordered tree technique as a means for discerning respondent’s knowledge

structures. The details of this technique are provided more completely in the section to

follow, but, in general, this methodology requires the respondent to first brain storm a list

of words related to a targeted area of study. Secondly, the respondent can choose any

additional words or phrases from a pre-populated list (typically of 100 words). Next,

words and/or phrases are grouped together, the groups are then labeled, and the

relationship between the groups is described. The results are then analyzed regarding

their extensiveness, or specifically the depth and breadth of the concepts, chunks,

concepts per chunk, and hierarchical structure of the ordered tree. In addition, the

coherence of each tree was also examined. This, in general, was a measure of the logical

consistency of the relationships between concepts.

Once the ordered-tree technique was evidenced to sufficiently differentiate

between instructed and uninstructed teachers regarding reading pedagogy, they sought to

examine the relationship between teachers’ scores regarding their knowledge structure

and their ability to adapt “on the fly” to students’ educational needs and questions.

Results comparing various preservice teachers engaged in teaching reading during

a methods class provided evidence that those “who possess extensive and coherent

knowledge structures tend to respond more effectively during instruction” (p. 23). In

addition, Roehler et al. (1990) propose their modified ordered tree technique as a

potential means for reliably measuring the relationship between overall instructional
 33

effectiveness and characteristics of a teacher’s knowledge structure. Thus providing a

potential means for elucidating teachers’ knowledge structures but also, and maybe more

importantly, indicating why doing so is a vital line of research in desperate need of

further pursuit.

The Influence of Experiences on Knowledge Structures. With the intent of

further elucidating the relationship between science experiences and an individual’s

subject-matter specific knowledge structures, Hauslein, Good, and Cummins (1992)

compared the results of a biology-term sorting task for three groups of teachers with

varying degrees of experience, along with undergraduate and established scientists. It was

hoped that the variation in the sample would provide additional insight into how teachers’

knowledge structures vary in contrast to both science students and scientists, or in the

words of Hauslein et al. (1992), “an organization that may be unique when compared to

persons knowledgeable in content but outside of teaching” (p.940).

While not a longitudinal study, the selection of preservice, novice, and

experienced teachers was Hauslein et al.’s attempt to identify the possible influences of

teachers’ experiences teaching their subject matter on their subject matter structures, or

how, if at all, these structures vary over time. Moreover, Hauslein et al. were seeking to

clarify, to some degree, how teachers translate and transfer the content and structure of a

particular discipline that is “defined by the scientists at the leading edge of that

discipline” (p. 940) to their students. As they further posit, “[the] unique science

knowledge structure may ultimately be shaped by the demands and responsibilities of

teaching the content” (p. 941). This, it should be noted, would provide evidence for a

reversal, per se, to the Shulman’s original hypothesis that the structure of the knowledge
 34

should influence how that knowledge is taught, as the results of this investigation would

support the contention that there is a perceptible influence of teaching on one’s

knowledge structure.

The procedure used for this investigation asked participants to sort 37 biology

terms, “based upon their understanding of the relationships among the concepts”

(Hauslein et al., 1992, p. 943), into columns while also verbalizing their thought-process

(i.e. “think aloud”). In addition, it is mentioned that participants were questioned and/or

prompted regarding their actions, though no specific protocol was apparently utilized.

Unfortunately, no evidence is provided by Hauslein et al. (1992) that these terms are

representative of biology “in general”, or what they indeed were intended to represent

beyond “topics that are commonly found in biology textbooks” (p. 943).

In analyzing the results, Hauslein et al. (1992) identified group differences

through the use of latent partition analysis followed by (alpha) factor analysis. In brief,

the first procedure identifies the proportion of participants who group two particular

terms in the same category. The results of this initial procedure provide a concept-by-

concept correlation (or probability) matrix. This is followed by another data reduction

procedure, factor analysis, which, utilizing the correlation matrix, seeks to identify the

“latent structure of the group categorization” (p. 944). Appropriate measures (e.g.,

oblique rotation) were taken to adjust for the possible non-independence of responses,

with the results allowing for the comparison of the categorizations between the five

groups in terms of both the substance and its structure. In addition, multidimensional

scaling was used to generate a measure of cognitive distance determined, in part, by the
 35

“total number of differences between the latent category membership matrices of two

different groups” (p. 945).

While these statistical procedures are all adequately defended by Hauslein et al.

(1992), as appropriate, with supporting evidence provided from various statistics texts,

the one concern, though, is with the sample size and subsequent factor loadings for the

factor analysis component. Previous “rule of thumb” recommendations (e.g., Tabachnick

& Fidell, 2007), it should be noted, are for either at least 10 participants per variable or

300 participants in total. Thus for this investigation, 370 teachers would be needed, as

opposed to 37 that were included.

In brief, the cognitive distance indices, as presented in the form of a proximity

matrix, provide support for certain notable similarities and differences between the

cognitive structures of the five groups. Experienced biology teachers were the most

similar to the undergraduate biology majors and shared the least similarity to the research

scientists, while the scientists exhibited structures most like novice teachers and least like

the undergraduates. Biology majors and the novice teachers exhibited the most similarity

in cognitive structure.

Hauslein et al. (1992) also reported that multidimensional scaling “suggest[s] that

the groups are separated on the vertical axis by a deep versus surface structure” and on a

horizontal axis “interpreted as a continuum describing the cognitive structure as either

fixed or fluid” (p. 958). The results, as noted, support previous expert-novice studies

(e.g., Chi et al., 1981, 1982) where scientists and experienced teachers exhibit “well

organized, hierarchically arranged cognitive structures” (p. 958) and show broader
 36

thematic organizational schemes, in contrast to those of the preservice teachers and

biology majors who exhibit much narrower organizational bases for their structures.

Regarding the horizontal dimension, scientists, in sharp contrast to the other four

groups, provided evidence of a more fluid conception of the 37 terms, viewing them as

possibly belonging to multiple categories. By contrast, experienced teachers exhibited a

more fixed cognitive structure than the preservice and novice teachers. Hauslein et al.

posit that the difference between the teachers on this scale is due to experienced teachers

typically relying on textbook organization as opposed to reorganizing the content like a

beginning teacher. This is a conclusion is inconsistent with past research (see Hashweh,

1987) and with comments Hauslein et al. make previously in this particular article, in

addition to appearing incongruent with common-sense knowledge of classroom practices,

where more experienced teachers are usually more likely to diverge from the sequence

presented in a textbook or a similar curricular artifact. Furthermore, while a graphical

representation of these relationships is provided, no description of how the results of the

sorting task and the transcripts were merged to produce these results is presented by the

researchers.

In consideration of the hierarchical nature of the results of both scientists and the

expert teachers in the study, and the frequency of cross-linking of concepts by the

preservice teachers and the scientists, Hauslein et al. (1992) conclusions again echo that

of novice-expert research that has provided evidence that “experts…have well-developed

knowledge bases and organizations that are responsive to multiple external and internal

cues and are highly-linked allowing for flexible patterns of organization and problem

solving” (p. 972). While the cross-linking is beneficial for the scientists, it appears
 37

detrimental to the preservice teacher as they wrestle with translating their subject matter

knowledge into practice for the first time. For the preservice teacher this cross-linking,

when combined with their surface understanding of the content, appears to result in a

highly disorganized structure, of little use, that is likewise difficult to readily access in

practice. The scientist, by contrast, possesses a deeper understanding that, when

combined with the cross-linkages, allows for fluid movement between “ultimate and

proximate causation” (p. 960). In addition, experienced teachers have content knowledge

deeply embedded in the procedures needed for teaching it, and structures that are similar

to the biology majors. For the former, the characteristics relate to Shulman’s conception

of pedagogical content knowledge, while for the biology majors this may be associated

with the adjustments needed to learn what expected of them and to succeed in their

coursework on a class-by-class and professor-by-professor basis.

Moreover, the differences between the structures of the preservice, novice, and

expert teachers indicated that while a change in subject matter structures appears to be a

function of teaching experience as, in the words of Hauslein et al. (1992), it

seems not to be one of achieving deeper conceptual understanding or a greater

degree of integration of the concepts; rather it seems to be a transition from a
fairly large although loosely organized pool of biology concepts to one which is
highly structured but limited to the expectations of the established curriculum. (p.
960).

These results provide additional support for the belief that, much like Shulman (1987)

suggested, teachers tend to be unable to think of their subject matter outside of the means

with which it is taught or how it is best translated to students, an effect that increases with

additional teaching experiences and subsequent reflection.

 38

Hauslien et al. (1992) suggest that subject matter should be presented to

prospective teachers in a manner that is consistent with the knowledge structures of

experienced teachers and, furthermore, in a way that is closely related to how they will

use it as future educators. In closing, they conclude that it is “very important to engage

teachers from their earliest days as undergraduates in developing skills and attitudes for

transforming and organizing science content knowledge for effective transmission to

others” (p. 962).

While this study does not attempt to produce results that are widely generalizable,

it does provide evidence for the influence of the myriad experiences with teaching the

subject matter on its subsequent structuring. In addition, Hauslein et al. provide further

support for the influence that reflection plays in the restructuring of teachers’ subject

matter knowledge structures as a result of their teaching experiences. This influence

positions teaching as the influent on one’s knowledge structure, as opposed to the view of

Shulman, who theorized that the structure of one’s subject matter knowledge should

influence how they teach.

While the research design, subsequent procedures, analysis, and results permits

the authors’ conclusions, the shortcomings of the card sort task do limit their strength, as

both the preconceived list of terms and the one-dimensional nature of the results do not

provide a means for elucidating deeper structures, nor for discerning what concepts or

themes participants may feel define a particular discipline. Moreover, the card sort task

limits the breadth and depth of additional data that can be collected during both the

organizational process and in the subsequent summarization by participants.

 39

The Influence of Teaching on Subject Matter and Pedagogical Knowledge. In

Hoz et al.’s (1990) investigation of science teachers’ subject matter knowledge and

pedagogical knowledge, and how those types of knowledge change as a function of their

years of experience, further insight can also be ascertained regarding the use of various

mapping strategies to elucidate knowledge structures.

The authors make reference to the union of the two domains of knowledge,

subject matter and pedagogy, under Shulman’s (1987) conception of pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK), but choose here to examine the differences between the two, and to

discern some measure of stability in each. It should be noted that the researchers

collapsed multiple related domains of knowledge under the heading of pedagogical

knowledge, namely, knowledge of learners and knowledge educational contexts (i.e.

schools and curriculum).

For this study 13 teachers were selected, 6 of whom taught geography, while the

other 7 were biology teachers. The two groups were further divided into two subgroups,

those with more experience (10 to 18 years), and those with less experience (2 to 3 years

experience).

To discern the potential changes in teachers subject matter and pedagogical

knowledge, Hoz et al. (1990) chose to utilize concept mapping and the “ConSAT

interview and its analysis scheme [which] are based on semantic memory” (p. 974). No

specific mention is made to how the design explicated in the investigation adhered to this

format, other than the use of its concept lists for biology and geology, and that a “link

strength matrix was constructed that indicated the link between each pair of the list

concepts” (p. 976). While the details of the investigation are presented below, it should
 40

be noted that the absence of more information regarding this process makes discerning

and analyzing the research design and related procedures more difficult, and adversely

impacts the reliability and validity of the results as presented by the authors.

As stated above, the variables of interest for this investigation were the teachers’

subject matter area (i.e. geography or biology) and their years of teaching experience. To

measure subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge the participants, on two

separate occasions, constructed concept maps for each. The teachers’ two maps were

subsequently analyzed under five major categories: “disciplinary validity, convergence,

salience, quality of concept groups, and central concepts” (Hoz et al., 1990, p. 976). Prior

to analysis a group of experts, university-level biologists, geographers, and educators,

constructed a list of essential concepts from each of their subject-areas. These were

intended to represent the disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge the teachers should be

teaching in the classes and should have learned in college, respectively. The researchers,

unfortunately, do not comment on the congruence of these three lists with the actual

content they are expected to mirror, a process that could have been initiated by an

examination of typical high school biology curriculum or related final examinations, or

through the analysis of a sample of syllabi collected for the method courses offered at the

university at which these teachers trained.

From these three lists the experts devised a “link strength matrix” where each

concept that was linked to another was ranked on a three-point scale to represent the

strength of the association between the two. The category of disciplinary validity was a

measure of the congruence of each participant’s concept map to those of the experts, in

terms of the links between concepts. Each link made by the teachers was scored on a
 41

four-point scale, with the upper-half representing valid links (i.e. precise, clearly-stated or

slightly incomplete) between concepts, and the lower-half signifying invalid links (i.e.,

imprecise or incorrect). Each teacher’s score was then divided by the maximum possible

score and this percentage represented the “validity of the knowledge structure” (Hoz et

al., 1990, p. 977).

Convergence, representing the degree to which the teachers included links that the

experts felt were absolutely essential, was calculated as the ratio of valid teacher links to

mandatory expert links, while salience represented the ratio of valid links included by the

teachers to the total number of links they constructed. Central concepts represent the

main foci of the knowledge structure, and these were identified as concepts with valid

links to 15% of the concepts in the map, or for experts, concepts where 15% of their links

at judged as essential or mandatory. Clusters of concepts between the teachers were

compared through the evaluation of three different contrasts that comprised the quality of

a concept group, homogeneity, structure, and title-fit. All that is offered by Hoz et al.

(1990) regarding these three components is that “their values were determined by full

agreement between the discipline experts” (p. 977), but how many experts were utilized

and how exactly this agreement was arrived at is unclear from the article.

The results of the aforementioned analyses for the two different content-area

groups and between those teachers with “short” and ‘long” experience is presented

through a variety of descriptive and inferential statistics. The researchers tested their

hypotheses that subject matter knowledge should improve as a function of teaching

experience and that pedagogical knowledge should not, through the use of the Mann-

Whitney test for independent samples. It appears from the data presented that
 42

comparisons were made within and between the groups on four of the five components,

validity, congruence, salience, and group quality. No details are provided regarding how

the researchers controlled for type I error rate, as they appeared to run 16 different

comparisons, in total, for teachers’ subject matter and pedagogical knowledge. Though,

for the possible influence of teaching experience on subject matter knowledge, the

researchers concluded that there was no discernible impact, as on only two of the four

aspects were significant results evidenced. No significant differences were found for the

pedagogical knowledge within the two biology groups (more vs. less experienced), while

for the geography group the lesser-experienced teachers scored higher on two of the four

aspects. It should be noted that the results are not presented in accordance with

traditionally accepted guidelines, namely the inclusion of the measure of central tendency

compared, the U-statistic value for each group on each contrast, the sample size, and the

significance level.

To compare teachers’ subject matter knowledge with their pedagogical

knowledge, the researchers used a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. While the

use of a nonparametric test is warranted due to the unknown distribution of participants’

scores, it is unclear how this was used to compare the difference between a pair of

observations. Similar to the previously mentioned comparison, the authors do not

communicate the results of this test in the recommended manner. Furthermore, with 16

different comparisons control of the type I error rate becomes a concern, one that is not

addressed by the researchers.

The results indicate that only the more experienced biology teachers exhibit a

significantly greater “score” on any of the four aspects of their subject matter maps as
 43

compared to those representing their pedagogical knowledge. The less experienced

biology and geography teachers, by contrast, evidenced greater scores on their

pedagogical concept map scores for two and three aspects, respectively.

Hoz et al. (1990) also point to the possibility of interactions between “discipline,

type of knowledge, and experience” (p. 980), as the more experience biology teachers

scored significantly higher than the geography teachers on three of the four aspects of

their pedagogical maps, while less experienced biology teachers only outscored their

geography peers in one category.

The researchers would have benefitted from a more carefully organized results

section. With the reporting of four different components of the concept maps across the

various groups and subgroups it becomes critical to carefully present the results in

manner that does not carelessly cloak or moderate their importance. They do, though,

lend some support to the hypothesis that pedagogical knowledge remains static over

teachers’ years of classroom experience, while also running counter to the authors’

contention that the same should not be true for subject matter knowledge. Little insight is

offered from these data for the researchers’ third question regarding subject matter

knowledge versus pedagogical knowledge.

The authors make few conclusions beyond those describe in the paragraphs

above, though indicate that they were surprised by what they perceive as a lack of subject

matter knowledge in their participants; this as evidenced by teachers scores on the

measures of validity, correspondence, salience, and quality of group as evidenced in their

concept maps. While at face value a seemingly reasonable conclusion, the lack of

information regarding the validity of the experts’ concept lists and the constructed link-
 44

strength matrix, in addition to how both of these were produced, weakens this claim. The

authors do contend that, in regard to differences between the two groups on the measure

of both their subject matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, that these may

indeed be due content validity issues, owing in part to the multiple maps (three) the

biology teachers created versus the one created by geography teachers. This would seem

to be an easily avoidable fatal flaw in their methodology, and a decision that is never

adequately and explicitly supported or defended by the researchers. They also point to the

more in-depth and articulate biology curriculum as a possible influence on the superior

content knowledge performance of the biology teachers. It is unclear why this was not

further explicated in the procedure section, specifically regarding how the curriculum

relates to the experts’ lists, and is an apparent oversight that is a detrimental short-coming

of this investigation.

The researchers do point out that the results for the subject matter concept maps,

as a function of experience, tend to contradict the common-sense (at the time) assumption

that through the processes of both lesson planning and teaching a teachers’ subject matter

knowledge should continue to develop. In regard to pedagogical knowledge, Hoz et al.

(1990) contend that less experienced teachers are able to more easily access the content

of their methods courses, while those experienced teachers have internalized many of

these concepts and are less like to explicitly communicate them.

While bereft with a host of methodological shortcomings, the work of Hoz et al.

(1990) does provide the impetus for a more detailed and careful investigation of the

effects of teaching on teachers’ subject matter and pedagogical knowledge structures. The
 45

issues surrounding the use of concept-mapping activities to elucidate these knowledge

structures, though, were still not alleviated.

Knowledge Structures and Their Influence on Classroom Practice. In the first

of a host of studies motivated, in part, by the work of Shulman, Gess-Newsome and

Lederman (1993) conducted an investigation of subject matter knowledge and its impact

on classroom teaching. Specifically seeking, as one facet of their research, to determine if

and how teachers’ subject matter knowledge structures (SMSs) influence, or are

evidenced in, their instructional practices. The other aspects of their study concerned the

explication of the details regarding the appearance of SMSs, their sources, and their

overall stability.

The sample of 10 biology teachers was in their last year of coursework in a

preservice certification program, while also enrolled in at least one of three science

education courses offered during the time of investigation – either as a prerequisite for

their Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in science education or a related teaching

certification. Gess-Newsome and Lederman note that only the data from the biology

students were collected, as “both researchers possess extensive academic backgrounds in

biology and public school experience as biology teachers” (p. 27). This background

information serves to establish the credibility of the claims made by the researchers

regarding both the teachers’ subject matter structures, and to position them as

knowledgeable of the classroom environment and the challenges faced therein.

A multiple case study design was utilized for this study, with a two-phase data

collection procedure that made use of an open-ended questionnaire. The main prompt on

this questionnaire involved the construction of a diagram relating to teacher’s views of

 46

key topics in their subject matter and how they relate to each other, their “subject matter

structure” (SMS). A second question asked whether this was the first time participants

had conceptualized their subject matter in this way. This process of generating teachers

SMSs was repeated at mid-semester and at semester’s end, with subjects also given the

opportunity of commenting on the changes they observed across the sum total of their

work from previous “trials.”

Phase two included the final opportunity for participants to draw their SMSs. This

was followed up with a 30-minute interview where students were questioned about all of

their SMSs, the protocol to which is provided in the article. The final aspect, phase three,

was where subjects were able to elucidate their feelings in terms of changes in their

SMSs, allowing a degree of freedom not found on more rigid questionnaires or interview

protocols. The additional questions for this portion of the study include items that serve

to foster a discussion of the differences in the subjects’ responses and how the

relationship evidenced in them did or did not surface in their teaching. It is in regard to

the latter question that the authors acknowledge a shortcoming in their study, as

information on SMSs and teaching did not include actual observation of the subjects;

only through a self-report format were data collected.

The questionnaires created for this study exhibit no evidence of a priori

assumptions, allow for complete freedom of expression by the subjects, as Gess-

Newsome and Lederman sought to overcome the constraints and limitations of card-sort

and concept-mapping tasks. The interviews following the construction of SMSs were

employed to provide a means for validating inferences drawn by the researchers from

examining teachers’ SMSs.

 47

The authors treated each participant as an individual case study, analyzing data

for them individually and then across trials to seek emerging themes. Categories that

emerged after analyzing all 10 subjects are provided. These analyses provide guidance

for phase two of the investigation, where “patterns which emerged during the initial

analysis were used as the framework for [phase two] analysis” (Gess-Newsome &

Lederman, 1993, p. 30). In addition, the authors state that there was 100% agreement in

regard to their individual analyses of the data, and they provide documented evidence that

their findings are consistent with previous research (e.g., Borko & Livingston, 1989;

Morine-Dershimer, 1989).

Gess-Newsome and Lederman contend that the participants in this study were, in

difference to other works cited that employed card-sort tasks or concept mapping

variations, not aware of their SMSs, and that these structures were seemingly devoid of

thematic elements. What is more, these structures were not necessarily the result of

teachers’ experiences in content-area classes, as college coursework seemed to have

provided little opportunity for the development of, and reflection on, their organization of

the subject matter (i.e., their SMSs).

Furthermore, the authors conclude that teachers’ SMSs were affected by their

teaching, in addition to and in accordance with their perceptions of student abilities,

student needs, time limitations, or other influences from the practice. These results

strengthen the contention that subject matter cannot be viewed independently of how it

will be used, or in the case of the science educator, how it will be taught.

Regarding the implementation of these SMSs into classroom practice, the

subjects, while professing and exhibiting a more “integrated view” of biology over the
 48

course of the study, failed to, by their own admission, exemplify any of this growth in

their classroom practices. It was concluded, and subsequently supported by quotations

and previous research, that management and organizational issues, to the neglect of

incorporating overarching themes, inundated the participants in regard to the type of

teaching espoused during interviewing.

This study employed 10 preservice biology teachers in the last phase of their

science certification program. The results of this study are generalizable, to a degree, to

the population of inexperienced teachers, and provide further evidence of the perils new

teachers face in adjusting to the myriad variables they face as classroom managers, along

with similar challenges faced in implementing instructional content commensurate with

their SMSs.

The practical value of the conclusions reached in this study to the field of science

education in general, and to this review in specific, are clearly presented and supported

by the findings. The fact that these knowledge structures are not readily transferable into

instructional practice should serve to focus efforts in preparing classroom teachers,

specifically regarding management and organizational issues, with the hope of facilitating

their implementation. Moreover, it may be unrealistic to expect in-service teachers to

exemplify higher-order subject matter knowledge in their classroom practice until a

requisite level of familiarity and competence is achieved in the day-to-day organizational

and managerial routines of the classroom.

In another similar study, Lederman, Gess-Newsome, and Latz (1994) sought to

examine the knowledge structures, both for subject matter and for pedagogy, of

preservice teachers as they completed their subject-specific teacher-education

 49

coursework, up to and including their student teaching experience. In addition, Lederman

et al. examined the sources of preservice teachers’ knowledge structures, their stability,

and the relationship between these structures and teachers’ self-report of this evidence in

their classroom practice.

The methodology employed for this study was similar to that used previously by

Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993); in that it specifically sought to avoid the

limitations often place on participants representations of the subject matter conceptions

through card-sorts, or concepts maps that tend to work from a priori lists of important

concepts.

This study was motivated, in part, by the lack of evidence of a strong relationship

between “quantitative measures of what teachers know” (p. 130) and effective teaching,

as it sought a more qualitative investigation of the organization of teachers content and

pedagogical knowledge both prior to and after teaching for the first time. It was assumed

that teachers’ subject matter and pedagogical knowledge structures were a consequence,

for the most part, of their teacher preparation coursework and related experiences.

Lederman et al., in further explicating their methodology, underscore the

importance of conducting interviews regarding teachers’ knowledge structures as a means

of overcoming the inherent difficulty of “ infer[ing] individual’s conceptions, knowledge,

and beliefs solely from pencil-and-paper measures” (p. 134); a flaw, Lederman et al.

note, of much early research in nature of science conceptions.

Teachers initially exhibit knowledge structures that “lack[ed] integrative themes

or connections between or within the components of either subject matter or pedagogical

structures” (p. 135). Their subject matter knowledge structures tended to be discrete,
 50

comprised of simple hierarchies, or web-like in structure, while their pedagogical

knowledge structures were comprised of either a temporal sequence of instruction or

related actions, a discrete list of teacher responses, or a web-like representation of

activities. What Lederman et al. note that readily apparent from these representations is

that teachers “are not being presented with an overt or covert structure of subject matter”

(p. 136), and tend to, prior to teaching, simply regurgitate those concepts they recall from

introductory education class to populate their pedagogical knowledge structures.

Evidence indicates that, over their last year of course work, teachers’ subject

matter knowledge structures tended to more closely mirror their conceptions of how the

content needs to be taught in typical high school classes. Teachers now also presented

knowledge structures that were more integrated and with more interrelated concepts.

Similarly, their pedagogical knowledge structures changed, as they were now more

complex, less linear, and contained many additional roles of the classroom teacher.

Teachers, though, in their end-of-study interview, were adamant about the two

knowledge structures not being combinable as they were, in the teachers’ view,

representative of wholly different aspects of teaching, with more importance being placed

on pedagogical representations and understandings than on the (knowledge structures for)

subject matter.

Thus, in general, teachers tend to hold unstable, fragmented and disjointed

knowledge structures prior to teaching, with most conveying the perceived need for more

subject matter knowledge. These beginning teachers do not, until they are asked to

consider their subject matter in the context of teaching, hold coherent conceptions simply

from taking content course. Moreover, until teachers are asked to consider the subject
 51

matter they are learning in regard to its teaching, or are engaged in the planning and

teaching of it, they will not organize it as such, in other words, it does not happen

implicitly. To this point Lederman et al. (1994) conclude that “if we desire highly

interconnected subject matter structures in our preservice teachers, subject specific

pedagogy courses must be integrated as well as subject matter courses” (p. 143).

Another study from this line of research investigated inservice, experienced

science teachers’ conceptions of their subject matter and how these schemas are

translated in classroom practice. This was, as it still is presently, an area of research

underlying much of the efforts of the current reform movement to present a conceptually

unified and integrated view of science content. Gess-Newsome and Lederman’s (1995)

study of five high school biology teachers sought to determine (a) the characteristics of

their subject matter knowledge structures (SMSs), (b) the originations and predominant

influences on their SMSs, and (c) the factors that moderate or mediate the translation of

teachers’ SMSs into classroom practices. This area of research was motivated by the

authors identification of the myriad implications that these three questions held for the

reform efforts in science education, namely, that “if teachers have SMSs that they use to

guide instruction, the identification of these structures may have significant implications

for the viability of the reform movement and preparation of teachers” (Gess-Newsome &

Lederman, 1995, p. 303).

A sample of five biology teachers was selected with the intent of developing case

studies from a variety of data sources, namely semi-structured interviews, classroom

observations, various classroom documents, and anecdotal data. These teachers had

between 7 and 26 years of teaching experience and were all certified teachers who
 52

possessed a range of additional coursework beyond those required by their certification

programs. A convenient and unintended control in the design of this investigation was

that all five teachers utilized the same biology textbook.

The design for this investigation was presented in three distinct phases: pre-

observation, observation, post-observation. For the first phase, Gess-Newsome and

Lederman (1995) interviewed the teachers before the start of their school year with the

goal of developing an initial profile regarding “the general academic and professional

background of the teacher, the specific climate for teaching biology, and teacher

intentions and goals for teaching biology” (p. 304). In addition, a copy of the textbook

was collected along with a list of all science and education classes completed by the

participant. Two of the five teachers were also asked to represent their subject matter in a

manner congruent with a previous study (see Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993) and

guided by a two question, open-ended questionnaire. The initial interviewing of a fraction

of the sample regarding their SMSs was done to prevent a “potential testing affect”

evident in past studies on SMSs, where the act of asking teachers to reflect on how they

view their subject matter serves an unintended treatment (see, for example, the concerns

forwarded by Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993).

For phase two (observation), Gess-Newsome and Lederman attempted to

construct a SMS for each of the teachers through classroom observations and an analysis

of related artifacts and anecdotal data. It is noted that the observations took place for the

same class (same period) for each teacher, and for an approximately equal percentage of

observation time to overall class time for each participant.

 53

Gess-Newsome and Lederman point out that they had no knowledge of teachers

SMSs prior to the observational phase of the study; though no additional information

regarding how this was ensured is provided in the article. Field notes and audiotapes from

each of the observations were collected with the goal of augmenting other data gathered

in the pre- and post-interview phases. During this specific phase (phase two –

observation), the data collected was analyzed with the hope of generating a rich-

description of the classroom teaching environment, while also allowing for the

construction of the inferred SMSs for each teacher, as evidenced in their classroom

practice. This was done with intent of comparing those SMSs derived from the textbook

with those offered by the teachers. The second of these two goals, the development of

teachers SMSs from the data gathered, centered on the construction of an initial “linear

content map” (p. 305), followed by the inclusion of connections made between salient

topics and other overarching themes. These SMSs were modified two more times over

the course of the study before final structures were agreed on by the observers. No

information is provided by the researchers as to how this agreement was reached, for any

of the SMSs, or how incongruencies between the two observers were mediated.

For the final phase (post-observation) Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1995)

conducted semi-structured interviews with the intent of further elucidating participants’

SMSs for biology. These interviews focused on “the content taught, teacher’s perceptions

of personal subject matter knowledge, the teacher’s philosophy of teaching, source of

teaching ideas, and the rationale and constraints (intentions vs. reality) behind classroom

practice” (p. 307). In addition, teachers completed the questionnaire that their peers had

previously completed in phase one, and were asked to elaborate on their responses, while
 54

the two teachers who were given the questionnaire previously were asked to identify any

significant changes in their responses.

The authors make explicit how these procedures, the subsequent data analysis,

and triangulation of various sources were used for the answering of the research

questions, and their means for doing so are clearly articulated and more than sufficient.

For answering the first research question, SMS questionnaires were analyzed with the

aim of identifying individual differences and consistencies, in addition to the use of a

more “global lens” for inferring key structural elements. The analysis of data generated

by both classroom observations and artifacts for each teacher, and for the group as a

whole, provided the means for answering the second research questions, which sought to

identify “sources of a teacher’s SMS and the possible factors influencing its formation

and translation into classroom practice” (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995, p. 307).

These data were integrated with the SMSs the authors developed from both the textbook

and the classroom observations to further discern the textbook’s influence on classroom

practice.

For identifying possible influences of SMSs on classroom practice, the

researchers compared the SMSs developed through classroom data to those constructed

by the teachers. Gess-Newsome and Lederman do point out that the SMSs derived from

classroom observations are functions of the specific classes that were chosen for

observation, but make no indication how or why the specific class were selected, or how

any specific characteristics of these groups may impact the study. Also, no means for

differentiating between the various degrees or strength to which certain topics in SMSs

were connected was employed, thus limiting the dimensionality of the analysis.
 55

The unearthing of the nature of teachers’ SMSs for biology revealed that teachers

(a) tend to uses terms in their SMSs consistent with those commonly found in biology

textbooks, (b) all included connections between these terms, to varying degrees, (c) in

two of the five cases failed to included any evidence of overarching themes within the

more foundation components of the content, (d) all felt that they had some similar version

of a SMS ‘in place’ prior to the study, but (e) had not thought of structuring the subject

matter in the manner expressed in this study. Representative SMS-schematics were

provided in support of these conclusions, in addition to an array of representative

quotations.

The inability of two teachers to differentiate between the construction of SMSs

for biology as opposed to the teaching of biology is presented by Gess-Newsome and

Lederman as possible evidence “that the direct translation of SMSs into classroom

practice may be function of the tighter coupling of pedagogical knowledge and subject

matter knowledge” (p. 311) as is congruent with Shulman’s (1987) descriptions of

pedagogical content knowledge.

In regard to the origins and formations of teachers SMSs, several conclusions are

supported by Gess-Newsome and Lederman’s analysis of the data. First, teachers’ SMSs

appear to take either an integrated or logically ordered form, with participants further

pinpointing specific experiences as being instrumental in their development; one, in

specific, being college coursework. Also, four of the teachers described their SMSs as

malleable and changing as a result of their teaching experiences, with stability being

associated with an increase in teaching experience. Moreover, the teacher with the most

teaching experience also appeared to possess the most “well-formed, thought-out, and
 56

highly valued SMS” (p. 313), with myriad “opportunities for reflection and opportunities

that would reinforce SMS beliefs” (p. 313) appearing to be factors that place these

teachers on this extreme of the continuum. The authors are careful to point out that

teaching experience alone is not enough to strengthen a teacher’s commitment to their

SMS, as adequate opportunity for reflection appears to be a powerful influence, in

congruence with previous studies (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome &

Lederman, 1993).

The translation of teachers SMSs, as evidenced by their classroom practices, were

categorized as “direct”, “limited”, or “no relationship”, with one of the five teachers’

exhibiting a direct relationship, and the other characterized as “limited.” Variation

between the teachers’ SMSs in terms of integrated themes and their classroom practices

were noted, in addition to difficulty in translating and implementing their preferred

means for ordering the topics in the class. In other cases the SMSs developed during

interviewing did not adequately represent the connections and themes that teachers

exhibited in their actual teaching. Only one teacher verbalized his efforts to explicitly

transfer his SMS into classroom practice, and he was also the teacher that viewed the

textbook as an additional resource, not as the de facto curriculum, per se.

Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1995) identify six variables that appear to

influence the translation of teachers’ biology SMSs into classroom teaching: “teacher

intention, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, students, teacher autonomy, and

time” (p. 316). Regarding teacher intention, the authors concluded that teachers with a

higher level of confidence in their students’ abilities were more consistent in their

translation and implementation of their SMSs. Those teachers with identifiable subject
 57

matter deficiencies made fewer connections between different concepts than those with a

more robust understanding. Moreover, the teachers appear to be affected differently by

their varying levels of pedagogical knowledge, with some unencumbered and in control

while others struggled with classroom management and discipline-related issues. It is

noted that previous classroom experiences did not appear to be a discriminating factor in

this differentiation. The results suggest that students can impact teachers’ selection of

content, and while also lending credence to the role that students’ instructional needs play

in the inability of participants to differentiate between SMSs for biology as opposed to

those for biology teaching.

Teachers that exhibited higher degrees of autonomy in the classroom were also

more likely to successfully implement their SMSs, due in part to their proactive teaching

choices which allowed for a higher degree of “personal thoughts and conceptions of

biology to be evidenced in the classroom” (p. 319). Time to teach, reflect, and prepare all

appear influential, with time to reflect being inferred as the most crucial aspect of the

development and translation of SMSs into practice. In addition, this time is viewed as

critical for how teachers plan for instruction, and present well-orchestrated and articulate

biology lessons.

In conclusion, Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1995) summarize the findings of

their investigation, concluding that there were inconsistencies between the teachers’

stated view of biology, with its interrelated concepts and logically connected themes, and

those espoused in their SMSs, which tended to be piecemeal concepts that were loosely

connected, with an absence of overarching thematic elements. Additionally, these

knowledge structures appear to be the result of “early content experiences” (p. 320), and
 58

are more dynamic in experienced teachers who were afforded essential opportunities to

reflect on their SMSs. Lastly, the translation of teachers’ SMSs into classroom practice

appear to be moderated, to varying degrees, by six factors: “teacher intention, content

knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, students, teacher autonomy, and time” (p. 316).

The implications of this type of research on methodology, teaching practice,

preservice teacher preparation, and curricular reform efforts are offered by Gess-

Newsome and Lederman. These include the continued use of a more open-ended

approach to investigating SMSs, the lessening of teachers’ time-constraints to afford

more time for reflection on classroom practices, the integrated approach of subject matter

during science teachers college coursework, and lastly, that strategies must be examined

to facilitate the successful movement of beginning teachers from survival-mode to

reflective practice.

High and Low Achievers’ Organization of Subject Matter. Lian (1998)

strongly espouses her view of the importance of investigating both the structure and the

content of teachers’ subject matter knowledge. For her investigation she examined the

correlation between specific characteristics of elementary teachers’ concepts maps for

science and their understanding of the related content. Concept mapping, she reminds the

reader, has its foundation in Ausubel’s (1968) Assimilation Theory of Cognitive

Development, and is rooted in the belief that people hierarchically construct various

cognitive structures when learning, whereby more broader and inclusive concepts or

terms are prominent, and where examples of these concepts, and closely related concepts,

are subsumed (Novak, 1990).

 59

The sample was comprised of 48 preservice elementary school science teachers in

Malaysia, while the content test and concept mapping activity were informed by the

science subject matter included in the syllabus for their teacher preparation program.

The aspects of teachers’ concept maps that were examined where (a) the

appropriateness of the concepts contained, (b) appropriateness of linkages between

concepts, and (c) hierarchical nature of the map. The process by which teachers

developed the concept maps and the knowledge processing entailed therein were also a

focus of investigation.

The results indicate moderate to high (e.g., .67 to .94) positive correlations

between the aforementioned aspects of teachers’ concepts maps and their score on the

achievement tests, and a slightly lower significant negative correlations (e.g., -.53 to -.89)

for number of inappropriate concepts and/or linkages and teachers’ achievement test

scores. Poor performing students tended to evidence concept maps that were less

intricate, not well integrated, and typically contained few cross-linkages between

concepts, while high achievers evidenced “larger chunks or clusters with better

hierarchical ordering of concepts” (p. 347); results that are consistent with past research

(e.g., Novack & Gowin; Wallace & Mintzes, 1990). It is this clustering of concepts that,

Lian feels, helps experts more readily access information, as they “have more conceptual

chunks in memory, more relations or features for defining each chunk, more

interrelations among chunks, and effective methods for retrieving related chunks” (p.

347).

Regarding the processing of knowledge during the construction of the concept

maps, high achievers (those with scores of at least 75% on the achievement test) tended
 60

to focus on understanding and reflecting on both the meaning and the relationships

between the concepts prior to map construction. Furthermore, they tended to be more

detailed, elaborate, and deeply reflective in their explanations for the structure and overall

characteristics of their maps. This was in stark contrast to low achievers (those scoring

below 40% on the achievement test), who did not appear to have put in similar processing

effort regarding the concepts, linkages, and interconnections between concepts. Lian

postulates that this could be related to a previously documented lack of motivation

regarding these activities (e.g., Schmid & Telaro, 1990), which tend to require the use of

transformative and constructive strategies (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986), strategies that

could either be a by-product of, or a related cause for, low achievers lack of content

knowledge. In addition, low self-efficacy could also play a role in low-achievers lack of

engagement and reflection on the task of concept mapping.

Thus, Lian’s work provides further evidence for the influence of knowledge

structures on the ability to access the information contained therein, in line with the

aforementioned research on expert-novice problem solving, and congruent with the idea

that these organizational structures also impact teachers’ responsive elaboration during

teaching. In addition, in accordance with Shulman’s model of pedagogical content

knowledge, it would appear that the way knowledge is organized may indeed influence

the subsequent learning of related knowledge.

Global and Specific Knowledge Structures and Teaching Experience. In

Abd-El-Khalick (2006) the author examined two distinct subject matter knowledge

structures (SMSs), global and subject-matter specific, in both experienced inservice

teachers and preservice biology teachers. The global SMSs were examined with the intent
 61

of providing insight into the overall structuring of biology content, while the latter SMSs

provided a snapshot of a selected topic therein. The goal of this line of research was to

both describe these SMSs in the two groups and to discern the possible relationship

between them as a function of the teaching experience of the participants, a relationship

that seeks to further elucidate the “role for teaching experience in the development of

PCK [pedagogical content knowledge]” (p. 8). As explained by the author, this study

furthers the work by previous researchers who focused on either preservice or

experienced teachers SMSs and, similarly, on only their specific SMSs or their global

SMSs, but not both. Similar to Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993, 1995) this study

purposefully avoided the use of more structured or forced-response type formats, such as

card sort tasks and concept mapping, to elucidate respondent’s knowledge structures.

Four biology teachers were purposively chosen for this qualitative and

exploratory study, two experienced and two preservice. Both preservice teachers were

enrolled in a fifth-year master’s degree in teaching program, while the two experienced

teachers had 12 and 8 years of teaching experience. The preservice teachers, Pam and

Paula, as describe by the researcher, were the same age, the first of whom had completed

two years of graduate coursework in biology, while the other spent two years working in

non-educational endeavors before beginning the master’s program.

Of the experienced teachers, Eric was employed for 10 years between completing

his undergraduate studies and getting his teacher certification, while Ellen taught both

mathematics and biology for one year prior to beginning the certification process.

Each teacher in the study completed two open-ended questionnaires followed by a

semi-structured interview. The first questionnaire was identical to the one employed by
 62

Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993, 1995), while the second one was modified to

identify specific SMSs related to the topic of photosynthesis. The researcher administered

the global SMS questionnaire to one preservice and one experienced teachers first, while

doing the same with the subject specific SMS for the other two teachers. The order in

which these SMSs were discussed in the interview was also varied, the intent being to

assess any effect that the sequencing of completing the questionnaire and undertaking the

interview process may have had on participants’ responses.

For the questionnaire, Abd-El-Khalick ensured that the participants “had the

liberty to chose their own topics and or concepts and arrange them in which ever ways

they deemed appropriate” (p. 10). This approach provides a sharp contrast to card sort

tasks and concept maps utilized in previous studies which oftentimes “limit the nature

and form of the participants SMSs” (Abd-El-Khalick, 2006, p. 10). During the

succeeding interview, five questions were posed to each participant in reference to their

completed questionnaires. The author notes that, contrary to the belief or use of these

diagrams in other methodologies, the diagrammed SMSs should be viewed not so much a

final product, but as a means for allowing the participants time to consider both the

conceptual foundations of their discipline and how the topics comprising it are connected

and related. In general, the diagrams provide a powerful anchor for the succeeding

discussion of SMSs during the interview process. As Abd-El-Khalick (2006) cautions, in

regard to the diagrams, “these representations can only be meaningfully interpreted in

light of participants’ discussions of, and reflection on, the diagrams” (p. 11). It is for this

reason that care must be taken to methodologically control for the possible unintended
 63

treatment-effects of these procedures, as is the case in this research and that of Gess-

Newsome and Lederman (1993, 1995).

For the results of the study, the author presented participants’ global and

photosynthesis-specific SMSs separately and then compared the experienced and the

preservice teachers’ conceptions. Regarding global SMSs, questionnaire responses for

each of the four participants are provided, as are representative quotations from the

clinical interviews, while for specific SMSs only reprehensive quotes are provided,

though at an equivalent depth of analysis.

Preservice teachers were found to possess SMSs of biology that contained topics

and concepts similar to those typically included in undergraduate biology syllabi, though

at varying levels of fluidity. While some level of integration could be inferred from the

participants’ diagrams, in the interviews, Abd-El-Khalick states that it became readily

apparent that these teachers held conceptions with little evidence of interconnectedness,

and that they were almost completely devoid of any overarching or foundational themes.

This conclusion contrasted previous work (e.g., Lederman et al., 1994; Lederman & Latz,

1995) that supported the maturation of teachers SMSs (i.e. higher frequency of connected

concepts and presence of thematic integration) as they came to the conclusion of the

teacher preparation coursework.

The experienced inservice teachers, in congruence with the work of Gess-

Newsome and Lederman (1995), exhibited marked variance in their biology SMSs,

though each had the same years of experience teaching biology. While one teacher (Eric)

“was the only participant who articulated a clear, themes-based conceptual framework

with which he viewed biology and approached its teaching” (p. 12), the other (Ellen)
 64

presented a more disjointed view of the subject matter, and offered only a list of topics

that she felt were important. Furthermore, when asked to expand on her purported belief

that all of the listed topics were interconnected, she continually failed to provide a clear

picture of how or why. Her SMSs more closely resembled that of the preservice teachers

than of the other experienced teacher, a contrast attributed, in part, to the apparent lack of

time she had been afforded to reflect on her subject matter. This was a sharp contrast to

Eric, who had spent many summers working on textbook adoptions and the development

of related curricula, in addition to experiences prior to teaching that served to further

catalyze his conception of the subject matter.

Topic-specific SMSs were markedly more efficient in discriminating between the

two groups of teachers. While all participants chose to emphasize the essential elements

of the process of photosynthesis, and also restricted their responses to green-plant

photosynthesis, the differences were more noteworthy. First, preservice teachers provided

considerably more details regarding the process of photosynthesis, from structural details

to specific chemical reactions that occur. Experienced teachers, in contrast, provided a

more streamlined and straightforward account of photosynthesis. Secondly, the

experienced teachers, unlike their less experienced counterparts, conveyed a view that

photosynthesis is “one link in a larger chain of events” while also “[making] more

connections between photosynthesis and other areas of biology” (p. 21).

The role of teaching experience and the subsequent development of an

understanding of students’ instructional needs appear to be critical factors in contributing

to the variance exhibited between the two groups’ specific SMSs. Preservice teachers,

one (Pam) considerably more familiarity with the topic of photosynthesis than the other
 65

(Paula), both emphasized the specific details of photosynthesis. Experienced teachers

described a process using similar subject matter knowledge but incorporated their

knowledge of students to arrive at a more “central idea driven” approach to both viewing

and teaching photosynthesis, thus appearing to be unable to separate the content from

how they felt it is best presented to their students; this in accordance to previous research

(e.g., Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993, 1995).

As alluded to above, Abd-El-Khalick (2006) concluded that experience alone is

not sufficient in shaping teachers’ knowledge structures, as substantial opportunities for

reflecting on both the subject matter and its translation during classroom practice appear

to playing influencing roles. This is evidenced in the contrast between the two

experienced teachers, one of which (Ellen) was unable to communicate an integrated and

thematic view of her content, in spite of her eight years teaching experience. By her own

admission, when interviewed regarding her global SMS, Ellen stated that she had just

begun to reflect on her subject matter in a way that would foster any sort of conceptual

change, in direct contrast to the other experienced teacher in the study. Translating

subject matter to students also appeared to play a more pronounced role in differentiating

between the two groups, as, in the words of Abd-El-Khalick, “all this makes stronger the

contention that teachers’ conceptions of subject matter are affected by their reflecting and

acting on it” (p. 24).

While the results from teachers’ global and specific SMSs appear consistent with

Shulman’s (1986) conception of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), of interest,

though, is the mounting evidence that experience alone does not ensure the development

of PCK, as without adequate reflection on their subject matter and its underlying
 66

structures, teachers will not readily develop more integrated and thematic views of their

discipline.

While exploratory in nature, the purposeful sampling and particular research

design employed do provide a powerful springboard for further study of both teachers’

SMSs and for “explicating the model underlying [PCK’s] development” (Abd-El-

Khalick, 2006, p.26). In specific to these results, the powerful impact that reflection

played in the translation of Eric’s SMSs into practice appears to gain additional traction

from much of the work undertaken in examining how teachers’ conceptions of nature of

science (NOS) are translated into practice and how students best internalize these

conceptions, some of which are discussed in the a later section of this chapter.

Identifying and Measuring Knowledge Structures

The following investigations are primarily focused on the explication of specific

methodologies for elucidating respondents’ knowledge structures, but, in addition, do

provide further insight into the influence of the structuring of knowledge on various

aspects of educational environment.

Concept Maps and the Ordered Tree Technique. Winitzky et al. (1994) were

interested in tracking the effects of a teacher education program on teacher candidates’

conceptions of classroom management one year after graduation, while also investigating

“relationships between various measures of cognitive structure” (p. 125), in this case

ordered-tree and concept mapping techniques. While an investigation into the area of

general pedagogical knowledge is not germane to the current study, what is of interest is

the efficacy of various methods for investigating teachers’ organization of knowledge. As

 67

Winitzky et al. state, many cognitive psychologists had previously contended that

knowledge is structure, as it is the interrelationships between concepts that makes one

knowledgeable in a certain domain (Goldsmith et al., 1991; Putnam et al., 1990).

Educational researchers have likewise provided evidence that differences in the

knowledge organization between teachers often impacts their interpretation of, and

response to, events in the classroom (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Michelson, 1987;

Peterson & Comeaux, 1987).

Winitzky et al. briefly summarize two categories of assessment techniques for

measuring cognitive structure, indirect and direct methods. The ordered tree technique of

Naveh-Benjamin, et al. (1986) falls under the former category, where researchers rely on

inferences generated from the results of word/concept sorting procedures to discern

respondents’ cognitive structure. In contrast, when constructing concept maps

respondents graphically represent both the connections between and hierarchical

relationship among major concepts within a domain; the structures therein are then

subjected to various quantification schemas for comparison purposes.

Ordered tree techniques typically require respondents to organize a predetermined

list of concepts numerous times “in a way sensible to the subject” (Winitzky et al., 1994,

p. 126), where the subsequent analysis seeks both to graphically represent cognitive

structure and measure its complexity. Studies of students sampled over the course of a

semester of study have provided evidence of the validity of this method, as increases in

structure and complexity, both congruent with those of course instructors, were

demonstrated.
 68

Concept mapping can take either a structured of unstructured approach, this

referring to whether the respondent is provided with a “bank” of key concepts and/or

terms or must generate them for him/herself. The former, while limiting individual

nuances when seeking to track one’s conceptualization of a domain, does provide for a

more uniform means for cross-subject comparison. Unstructured approaches to concept

mapping often provide a richer picture of individual structuring of a domain, particularly

useful when tracking individual changes over time, for example. Concept maps have

typically been scored to reflect either the congruence between respondents and expert

maps, or, in the words of Winitzky et al., to analyze maps in terms of

both conceptual accuracy and structural complexity…assess[ing] whether

superordinate-subordinate relationships are logical or conceptually accurate…
measures of structural complexity may include the number of concepts included
in the map, the number of connections between concepts, the number of levels in
the hierarchy, and the breadth of the hierarchy. (p. 126).

Wintzky et al. provide a brief summary of research on the applications of these methods

for measuring the knowledge structures’ of teachers and teacher candidates. In general,

findings indicate that, in regard to concept mapping: (a) students maps become more

differentiated with instruction and tend to resemble those of the teacher; (b) experts tend

to have maps that are more complex, characterized by more frequent chunking of terms

and linkages between them; (c) characteristics of knowledge structures were found to be

related to the adaptation of instructional actions; and that (d) there are “links between

cognitive structure, teacher behavior, and student outcomes” (p. 127). Research

employing the ordered-tree technique has indicated a link between reflective practices

and changes in cognitive structure, as teachers with more coherent organizational

structures are able to exhibit a greater degree of analytical reflection and critical insight
 69

into their practices. With time, cognitive structure has also been shown to increase over

the course of teacher preparation programs. For example, Naveh and Benjamin (1986)

contended that as the correlations evidenced between an achievement test and those of

the various measures of a student’s ordered-tree were moderate, it indicated “that we are

measuring attributes not well represented by conventional achievement test scores but

that can help in estimating gains in knowledge of relationships between concepts learned”

(p. 138).

Regarding characteristics of low- and high-performing students’ ordered-tree

results, Naveh-Benjamin et al. (1986) contend that the lack clustering, depth, and

similarity in poor students ordered-trees, and thus their cognitive structures, could be, it is

hypothesized, the reason that these weaker students struggle to develop “the overall

relations and a general framework for the subject matter learned…which further prevents

assimilation of specific information” (p. 139).

The Concept Structure Analysis Technique (ConSAT). Champagne et al.

(1978) developed a unique means to elucidate students’ knowledge structures, inspired in

part by Shavelson (1974) and the researchers’ own realization that card sort tasks were

incongruous with the goals of their research. Shavelson’s work, it should be noted,

communicates two main assumptions regarding knowledge structures, namely (1) that the

structure of any subject matter, termed the “content structure” is that which is conceived

by its greatest scientist, and (2) “that a knowledge structure may be conceived, at least in

part, as a network of concepts and relations between concepts in memory” (p. 2). The

former structure is typically inferred either directly from professionals knowledgeable in

a field of study, or from experts as represented in their writings (e.g., professional

 70

journals, texts, etc.), but as Champagne et al. warn, must also be considerate of the target

audience and curriculum in which they will be couched (e.g., middle school science,

university graduate students ). In much of this research the knowledge structures

generated by students are evaluated in terms of their congruence with these expert

knowledge structure (i.e., the content structure).

Champagne et al. developed what they call the Concept Structure Analysis

Technique (ConSAT). Participants are presented with a stack of cards, representative of

the content structure and generated by one of the two previously described methods, and

are asked to identify any that are unfamiliar. These unfamiliar concepts are not included

in the generation of their knowledge structure. Participants are then instructed to organize

the cards in a way that, in general, represents how they think about them. The researcher,

either during or after the task is completed, probes the participant regarding the reasoning

behind the positioning of the concepts, the relationships between concepts or groups of

concepts, and what, if any, changes were made during the development of the structure.

While the specifics of the rigorous statistical analyses of the ConSAT task are of

little relevance to the current study, Champagne et al. (1978) do draw some conclusions

that appear to have implications for knowledge structures and their impact on learning

and teaching. For example, evidence provided indicates that students’ knowledge

structures following instruction tend to be more aligned with that of the content that is

presented (i.e., the content structure). Furthermore, results indicate that those students

whose pre-instructional structures were more integrated not only performed better on

traditional achievement measures but also evidenced a greater degree of such integrative
 71

structuring after instruction. These results support the contention forwarded by Shulman

(1987) that how subject matter is organized my influence future learning in that domain.

What is unclear from the ConSAT, card-sorting, and similar tasks, is some

indication of what terms and/or concepts populate respondents’ knowledge structures

independent of those proposed by these tasks, as they all tend to present respondents with

an a priori list of concepts. In addition, the means by which these “structures” are

typically analyzed provide little insight to further organizational qualities beyond that

which can be inferred from statistical procedures, like proximity matrices, for example.

But, to the credit of Champagne et al., the ConSAT task does include a component that

allows respondents to indicate various hierarchies, transformational structures, and

interrelations between concepts during the follow-up interviewing. The resulting

structure, though, is typically “scored” across seven categories mainly for the purpose of

drawing conclusions regarding the degree of congruence to the content, or expert,

knowledge structure.

The Concept Map as a Research Tool. With the intent of examining the

concurrent validity of concepts maps in their use as tools in examining conceptual

change, Wallace and Mintzes (1990) also provide some valuable insight into both how

concept maps can be employed in science education research and how their results can be

appropriately quantified. While reviewing related research in the field of conceptual

change, the authors felt strongly that designs imploring concept maps in conjunction with

clinical interviews provided the most versatility for “measuring” conceptual change, but

still questioned the validity of the concept map for doing so. Namely, they wondered

whether the results of concept mapping activities represent “what students know and how
 72

they organize their knowledge” (p. 1034), and when change does occur is it represented

in the concept maps that students create?

The participants in this study were 91 elementary education students enrolled in a

junior-year elementary science methods course. These students had completed two

science courses prior to enrolling, one physical science and one life science class, both

geared toward elementary education majors. The students comprised five sections of this

specific course. What is unfortunately not known is the science background of these

students, beyond the two classes required for enrollment, specifically in regard to the

topics being introduced in this study, and whether any of these students had prior

experiences in concept mapping or similar activities.

The study was carried out by Wallace and Mintzes over three weeks and included

six class session of 75-minutes each, dedicated to one of the six phases: training, practice,

review, pretesting, instruction, and posttesting. During the training phase, participants

were given instruction on the “concept mapping technique” (p. 1035), which consisted of

(a) an introduction to salient concept map terminology, all of which were included in the

scoring scheme, (b) a presentation of student generated concept maps, and (c) a

discussion meant to make participants familiar with the scoring rubric and its application.

For the practice phase, students both generated their own concept maps and reviewed the

maps of their peers. A homework assignment followed wherein students were required to

generate a map after completing a reading assignment from the text. The results of this

activity were used as the focal point of the review phase in addition to allowing for

further examination of the scoring process.

 73

Students were then given a pretest covering the material in the succeeding

instructional unit, “Life Zones in the Ocean.” This instrument was obtained through the

publisher of the software used for the computer assisted instruction (CAI) component of

this investigation, and it consisted of 40 multiple choice and free response items

reportedly ranging from knowledge- to application-type questions. No mention of the

validity of the instrument is provided by Wallace and Mintzes, leaving unclear the

congruence between the CAI-content and the instrument. Alpha reliability, calculated by

either the publisher or the researchers, was reported as 0.76.

Following the completion of the pretest, students were then asked to generate a

concept map starting with an initial list of 10 concepts. No additional information is

provided as to how this list was generated or why it was utilized, nor is it clear if students

necessarily instructed or expected to add additional items/concepts to their maps beyond

these 10. Further, no mention is made as to the possible treatment effect that the pretest

had on the construction of the concept maps.

During the instruction phase, students were randomly divided into two groups,

treatment and control, with the treatment group receiving instruction on the “Life Zones

in the Ocean”, while the control group was engaged with a non-related topic. While the

authors provide a brief overview of the topics covered in each program, additional

information regarding the structure of the CAI is necessary, particularly as it relates to the

development of students’ conceptual understanding and other categories from the scoring

rubric. Furthermore, Wallace and Mintzes (1990) state that both programs “introduce

domains of knowledge with which the subjects are judged to be relatively unfamiliar” (p.

1036), but provide no support for this claim, nor any evidence or explanation provided
 74

for how the “Life Zones” program fits into the curriculum of the course. Similarly, how

the introduction of concept maps and their scoring fits into the scope, sequence, and

instructional objectives of an elementary science methods course is never adequately

explicated.

The final phase of research consisted of the administration of the posttest, in

addition to the completion of another concept map. Wallace and Mintzes (1990) contend

that “to the extent possible, subjects in the experimental and control groups were treated

identically in all respects” (p. 1036), though they do not provide adequate support for this

claim. What is also unclear is an indication of how much time passed between students’

exposure to the CIA and their completion of the posttest instrument and concept maps.

Pre- and post-test scores were recorded for all students on both the 40 question

instrument and the concept maps. Wallace and Mintzes (1990) use a “split-plot factorial

design with repeated measures” (p. 1036), though critical details surrounding the

accompanying analysis of variance (ANOVA) are not provided, namely how the

assumptions of the test were met (e.g., independent and random observations, equal

variances in each of the cells of the design or sphericity). For a comparison of results

from the pretest to posttest for the two groups, the researchers report an “expected, small

but significant difference” (p.1036) in change scores attributed to differences in the

pretest scores. What is unclear is why the researchers did not attempt to control for these

differences to get a clearer measure of the impact of the treatment. As reported, the

control group improved 2.6 points to 26.2 (65.5%) while the experimental gained 3.2

points for a post-test score of 28.6 (71.5%). The researchers do not communicate any

concern over the low post-test scores or the modest differences in the two groups gain
 75

scores. Further, the results from the ANOVA are not reported in the recommended

manner, as the values of the F-statistic, the sample size, and the significance level are not

offered; all making interpreting the results problematic.

For the concept maps created by the two groups, a scoring guide is briefly

described by Wallace and Mintzes (1990), involving the identification of various key

components - relationships, hierarchy, branching, cross-links, and general-to-specific.

The scores for each group, pre- and post-test, for the five categories were analyzed, in

addition to a further examination of “critical concepts and prepositions” (p. 1037) in

respondents’ maps.

Quantitative analysis of the improvement between two-groups across the five

categories evidenced significant differences for each comparison at an alpha level of .05.

The effect size of these differences is reported as a percentage increase, which masks

some of the incrementally small changes that were evidenced. Other reported effect sizes

are equally difficult to interpret due to the lack of description of the five categories, and

the absence of any exemplary responses to provide context to these results.

For the examination of concepts and prepositions contained in the “Life Zones in

the Oceans” program, a “master list” was constructed by a panel of science educators,

comprised of a group of biology educators, who examined their own concept maps

generated while previewing the program. No other information is offered regarding the

background of these three educators or how their respective concept maps were used to

generate the list. Moreover, Wallace and Mintzes (1990) state that all participants’ maps

were then given a score for their congruence with the list of concepts and prepositions

developed from the biology experts, with the intent of gauging “the extent of biologically
 76

meaningful knowledge revealed in the concept maps” (p. 1037). While this practice may

indeed reveal this information (“biologically meaningful knowledge”), intuitively it

would appear more likely that the treatment group would show a greater degree of

alignment with the experts after being exposed to the same instructional material referred

to by the experts; this in direct contrast to the group that watched a different program on a

non-related topic. Thus, a comparison between the two groups seems untenable, while an

overall measure of the alignment of “Life Zones in the Ocean” group’s post-test concept

maps with the experts’ list would appear more consistent with the aims of the

investigation.

As expected, the treatment group performed significantly better on both measures,

as a whole, likewise on all 14 critical concepts, and on 19 out of 20 of the prepositions,

contrasted separately. For these, Chi-squared tests appear to have been utilized, as is

appropriate, though no rationale is given for their use, or regarding what comparisons

between groups were actually examined (e.g., pretest to posttest changes for each group

separately, or differences between the two groups). It is also not reported how the

researchers controlled for type I error rate in running such a large number of

comparisons.

The post hoc interviews were conducted by the researchers utilizing the five

highest and five lowest scoring members of the treatment group, with the intent of

determining the “relationship between the complexity of the cognitive structures as

revealed in the concept maps and the extent of biologically meaningful knowledge

possessed by the learner” (Wallace and Mintzes 1990, p. 1045). While the higher

achieving group provided more critical concepts and prepositions than the control group,
 77

the authors rightfully caution again the suggestive nature of these results due to the small

sample size. The lack of emphasis placed on this component of the research seems

unfortunate, as the interview process allows for addition insights into the congruence of

the concept maps with the subject matter knowledge possessed by the participants. The

results from the comparisons between the two groups offer much less in terms of

validating the content of the concept maps.

The authors conclude that the results of this study support the concurrent validity

of concept maps as a means for “documenting and exploring conceptual change in

biology” (Wallace & Mintzes, 1990, p. 1046) While the results support this contention,

albeit weakly, their claim would have been bolstered by the inclusion of more post hoc

interview data to better answer the question of how well these maps represent what

students actually know, in addition to whether these representations are consistent with

how participants actually organized this information. Further analysis of the stability of

these structures over time would provide additional insight, as it is unknown how much

time passed between the CIA and students construction of the post-test concept maps.

As this study took place with a homogeneous group of college students, over a

brief period of time, and after only 45 minutes of exposure to a CIA program, the results

appear very specific to this sample and design. Further examination of this research

question with a large more diverse sample, over a longer period of time, with

accommodation for multiple administrations and interviewing, and without the

aforementioned methodological weaknesses would strengthen the claims positioned by

these researchers.
 78

During the surge in popularity of concept mapping as a means for discerning, or

at least examining, a respondent’s possible underlying cognitive subject matter structure,

Markham, Mintzes, and Jones (1994) sought to provide further evidence of the

concurrent validity of the concept map “as a research and evaluation tool in science

education” (p. 91). This research continues this research group’s previous work with

concept maps (e.g., Wallace & Mintzes, 1990; Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994).

Simply put, Markham et al. (1994) intended to confirm, or dispute, the concept map’s use

as a means for identifying group differences in the “structural complexity and

organizational patterns” and whether they “are reflected in the underlying dimensions

used to assign class membership” (p. 91).

For this purpose, Markham et al. selected one intact class of non-biology majors

enrolled in an introductory biology course, and another class of upper-level

undergraduates, junior-year and above, enrolled in a mammalogy course. For the non-

majors, this course represented their first and only foray into biology during their college

years, while for the biology majors this class represented, at minimum, their forth class in

the subject-area. The sizes of the two groups were equal, and a general description of the

gender and classification (i.e., freshmen, sophomore, etc.) breakdown is provided.

The discrepancy between the two courses, as one provides a basic overview of

biology at an introductory level, while the other is a mammalogy course that, as the

description implies, stresses more prevalent themes like evolution may be cause for

concern. Markham et al. (1994) support this selection, though, as they intend to establish

the concurrent validity by examining “widely divergent groups of students” (p. 92), this

in direct contrast to the recommendations of other sources that claim that the “results are
 79

more powerful if [they] can discriminate between similar groups” (Trochim, 2006,

Measurement Validity Types page). Thus, by choosing two markedly different groups of

students enrolled in completely different courses and plans-of-study, this investigation’s

design increases the chance that the intended differences will be identified, to little

benefit of the concurrent validity of the concept mapping activity. It would seem that

comparing the concept maps of high- and low-performing students in the same class, if

indeed the concept mapping task was able to discern between the two groups, would

provide a stronger foundation for the establishment of concurrent validity than the current

research design. With that weakness identified, we turn our attention back to an

examination of the work of Markham and colleagues (1994).

The concept mapping task was completed by the group of non-majors at the

midway point of their semester, and was immediately followed up by an interview. The

biology majors completed their concept maps at the end of the semester right before

taking their final examinations, with the interviews conducted immediately following the

final examination. Each group was trained in concept mapping by a graduate research

assistant who was also a student in the mammalogy class. No detail of the training

protocol is provided by the authors, nor is any mention made of the controls that were in

place to ensure fidelity of implementation and instruction.

The concept maps were scored using a method modified from previous research

by Novak and Gowin (1984); as such this scoring system summarizes six distinct

characteristics of the concept map: concepts, relationships, branching, hierarchies,

crosslinks, and examples (p. 94). Point values are awarded for each instance. Markham et

al. (1994) chose not to give an overall score to their participants, a divergence from the
 80

suggestions of Novak and Gowin (1984), though no rationale is provided for this

departure. The group averages on each of these six measures were then compared using a

one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). While appropriate for this type of comparison,

the researchers do not provide evidence that the assumptions of this inferential test were

met (e.g., the assumption that scores are normally distributed) or that the results are

robust against moderate violations of these assumptions. Furthermore, how the

researchers controlled for the type I error rate, or at what alpha level these comparisons

were made, is also unclear.

During the interviews that followed the concept mapping activity each group was

first asked to generate an exhaustive list of propositional statements related to 20

different stick-figure drawings of mammals. From where these stick-figure drawing

came, how they were related to the mammalogy course, and the rationale for this

component of the research, much less the subsequent results, are not provided by the

researchers.

Of interest to Markham and colleagues (1994) though are the results of the

subsequent card sorting task which took place after the stick-figure activity. For this third

phase of the interview participants had to organize 20 mammals into meaningful groups.

What was sought was some measure of the congruence between the results of the concept

mapping task and the card sort task. The results of this component of the investigation

were then analyzed using multi-dimensional scaling. Unfortunately, no support is

provided for the use of these 20 mammals, nor is any evidence provided regarding how

these concepts were represented in the two classes. Of further interest is the possible

impact of the proposition statement task on the subsequent ordering of the mammals, in
 81

addition to the details of the protocol for this component of the research. Also, the

discrepancy in the time-gap of the concept mapping and the interview between the groups

is not addressed, further widening the gap that exists between the experiences of the two

groups, while potentially impacting the congruence between the concept maps and the

card sort evidenced in the two groups.

The lack of sufficient details regarding the interview portion of the research,

which has often been cited as being more critical than the actual concept map or any

other representations generated, further weakens the case for the concurrent validity of

concept mapping as was the focus of this study. Moreover, in seeking to establish the

concurrent validity of the concept mapping task by correlating the results with a card

sorting, the researchers have overlooked the possibility that each method has its own

inherent weaknesses, some of which are reflected in the other, and that this is what is

being represented in the correlation between the two instruments. Thus, the correlations

may represent the short-comings in one instrument as reflected in the other, as opposed to

presenting an association between the two that, it is hoped, strengthens the case for the

concurrent validity of one of the instruments.

Markham et al. (1994) provide two pairs of exemplary concept maps, one from

the nonmajors, one from the biology majors, and highlight the disparity in all of the six

categories. Nonmajors’ concept maps are characterized as “less extensive and complex”

while biology majors “create more hierarchies” and their concepts maps “are also more

integrated, as revealed in greater numbers of crosslinks between concepts” (p. 94).

Examples of mammals were also more prevalent in biology majors’ concept maps, and

these students emphasized overarching, thematic concepts in the organization of their

 82

maps. The results of the statistical comparisons of the two groups (one-way ANOVA)

across these six categories are presented and appear to support these conclusions, with

each being significant at an alpha-level of .01. Though, as stated previously, no mention

is made regarding the assumptions of this test, if the results are robust to any violations of

these assumption, or how the researchers controlled for the type-I error rate.

The results of the multidimensional scaling analyses, carried out on the data from

the third phase of the interview process, were then used by Markham et al. (1994) with

the hope of discerning whether “these differences [are] reflected in the way students use

or apply their knowledge in a simple sorting task” (p. 98). The resulting “configurations”

exhibit marked differences in the organizational patterns of the two groups, contrasts that

the researcher view as mirroring those from the concept map activity. Unfortunately,

sufficient evidence is not provided to support this claim, it is unclear if card sorting task

is indeed a valid representation of students actually using and applying their knowledge,

and adequate support is not provided for how the sorting of these 20 terms (mammals) is

similar to the organizational schemes each group presented for biology as a whole. Thus

the validity, and for that matter, the case the reliability (which is never mentioned), of the

card sorting task is of deep concern.

Relating to the question of the concurrent validity of the concept map, Markham

et al. (1994) conclude that these results “offer further evidence of the concurrent validity

of concept mapping as a research and evaluation tool in science education” (p. 100). How

this study addressed the evaluation component regarding the scoring of these maps is

unclear, though. It is likewise unclear why or how the purported similarities in the results

of these two phases of the investigation establish the concurrent validity of the concept
 83

map. It would appear that the dissimilarity between the two groups, and their subsequent

experiences in their respective biology classes, could manifest itself in any number of

tasks, the mere evidence of which would not be enough to establish the concurrent

validity of either of them. As discussed previously, these results (i.e. the differences

between the groups) would have far greater implications, and make a stronger case for

the concurrent validity of concept maps in the groups, if the respective experiences of the

two groups were more similar.

In the end, the vested interest of the researchers in establishing the concurrent

validity of the concept map, and the aforementioned flaws in the research design, can

offer guidance to researchers that the use of concepts maps, while providing a possible

starting point for a deeper investigation of participants underlying cognitive structures,

should be used cautiously as a stand-along assessment tool. Further, the researcher

should be doubly cautious in accepting the purported claims of validity for the use of

concept mapping as a means for elucidating knowledge structures.

Nature of Science (NOS) and Scientific Inquiry (SI)

Factors Influencing the Learning of NOS. It is safe to assume that myriad

factors play a role in influencing the educational development of students. Lederman and

Druger (1985) sought to identify those specific classroom factors that related to changes

in students’ conceptions of nature of science (NOS). This line of research was in response

to the pervasive assumption, at the time, that teachers’ conceptions of NOS should be

positively correlated to those of their students. This study examined prevalent classroom
 84

variables and related their frequency to students’ conceptions of NOS, or, more

specifically, changes in these views.

In employing a case study approach similar to those initiated in the Beginning

Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES; Denham & Lieberman, 1980), Lederman and Druger

studied the classrooms of 18 high school biology teachers and their students. One tenth-

grade class from each teacher was randomly chosen, with a maximum of three classes

being observed at any one school. The teacher and their entire class serve as the units of

analysis for this study.

The research design can be examined in five separate phases: pretest,

observations, posttest, delineation of variables, and quantitative analysis.

For the pretest and posttest, the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS;

Rubba & Andersen, 1978) questionnaire was administered to students and teachers. The

NSKS “is purported to be an objective measurement of a respondent’s understanding of

the nature of scientific knowledge” (Lederman & Zeidler, 1986, p. 3) across various

subscales. These subscales include the idea that scientific knowledge is (a) amoral; (b)

partially a product of human creativity; (c) developmental and thus tentative; (d)

parsimonious, in that it attempts a simplicity in explanation; (e) put to empirical test; and

is (f) unified and integrated across the various scientific domains.

While the NSKS “was developed, validated, and found to be reliable for high

school students” (Lederman, 2007, p. 865), issues involving face-validity and reliability

are raised due to the positive-negative pairs of questions, as these potentially provide an

opportunity for subjects to check their previous answers. Lederman (2007) states that this

may distort reliability coefficients for this instrument, calling into question conclusion
 85

validity. Pretests were conducted at the beginning of the semester, while posttests were

conducted prior to school closing for winter vacation.

Classroom observations were conducted in phase two, without, as the authors

point out, any knowledge of students’ NSKS pretest scores. These observations were

completed in an eight-week timeframe. The result was approximately 90 pages of field

notes per teacher. What is not known is how the observation days were selected, or if the

researchers purposefully chose lessons that would provide a variety of classroom

activities (i.e., laboratory work, group work, lecture, etc).

The posttest analysis of phase three involved examining whether a teacher’s score

on the NSKS was correlated with a change in the scores of his or her students. This was

done by comparing the average change score for each class with the NSKS score of their

teacher. Both pre- and posttests for the teacher were used to eliminate any effects due to

changes in teachers’ conceptions of NOS over the time period of the study. Coefficient

alpha scores are provided as a measure of both pre- and posttest reliability, and were

sufficient to support this intention, with overall scores for teachers and students

exceeding 0.916 and 0.771, respectively. Scores were standardized, as a precaution

against heterogeneity of variance, even though tests of homogeneity of variance proved

to be insignificant at the 0.05 level.

In phase four, the authors derived the variables that would serve to characterize

each classroom. This was done without knowledge of whether a classroom and its

representative teacher were labeled as “high” (more informed regarding NOS) or “low”

(more naïve or uninformed regarding NOS). From the extensive field notes, 44 codes

were derived to classify each teacher’s classroom behaviors (e.g., anecdotal, receptive,
 86

language accuracy), some of which were identical to the NSKS subscales (e.g., creativity,

fallibility, etc.). It should be noted that these codes were generated without explicit

knowledge of a teacher’s NSKS score.

Phase five compared the variables from phase four to the results of the NSKS pre-

and posttest. Specifically, the authors sought to determine if a relationship existed

between certain characteristics of classrooms and the students who showed the most (or

least) improvement in their NSKS tests. This involved the analysis of extensive field

notes by 16 independent assistants, all with experience in studying and teaching science.

Each derived classroom characteristic required 75% inter-rater agreement. Any variable

not reaching this benchmark was excluded from providing a categorization of the class

from which it came. Next, pairs of classrooms were compared to discern which class

exhibited more, or less, of a particular category (i.e., classroom characteristic). With this

design, and the resulting sequence of binomial variables, the authors employ a binomial

test to determine the “discriminatory significance of each classroom variable”

(Lederman, & Druger, 1985, p. 653). While Lederman and Druger did not specifically

control for the type I error rate, they do (correctly) claim that the error rate due to testing

the 44 variables need not be of paramount concern, as each significant result will serve as

a hypothesis of future research.

An analysis of the correlations (Pearson’s r) between teachers’ NSKS scores and

the changes in students’ scores did not provide significant evidence (alpha = 0.05) of a

relationship between teachers conceptions of NOS and changes in their students.

Lederman and Druger conclude that “teachers’ conceptions of science, in and of

 87

themselves, were not found to be significantly related to changes in their students’

conceptions of science over an instructional time period” (p. 657).

The derived variables and their preponderance in the classrooms of the “high

NOS” and “low NOS” teachers were then calculated. Any variable whose increased or

decreased frequency of appearance in one type of class versus the other could be

attributed to chance less than five percent of the time (p < .05) was considered

significant. A table of frequencies and subsequent probabilities shows 25 classroom

variables as significantly differentiating the classrooms of informed teacher (the “high

group”) from less informed teachers (“low group”). From these, Lederman and Druger

(1985) posit that the greatest conceptual changes was found in classrooms where

“inquiry-oriented questioning…problem solving, and teacher-student interactions” (p.

660) were prevalent, though the authors caution against inferring causational

relationships between data of this type.

The significance of the work of Lederman and Druger provided substantial

evidence for the independence of teachers’ views of NOS and change in their students’

conceptions of NOS, contrary to the prevalent belief of the time. It further detailed the

importance of identifying significant environment factors that may serve to facilitate this

translation from teachers’ knowledge of NOS to students’ understandings. More

importantly, once identified, it substantiated the claim that an emphasis must be placed

on focusing the training of teachers beyond that of simply improving their own

understandings of NOS if students’ conceptions of NOS were going to positively

impacted. Further, it became increasingly clear that, in regard to NOS as in other

“traditional content” that simply knowing the subject matter is not sufficient.
 88

Influence of Views of NOS and Teachers’ Classroom Practice. In attempting

to further examine the validity of the assumption undergirding much of the early work in

NOS research, namely that teachers’ classroom behaviors are influenced by their views

of NOS, Lederman and Zeidler (1986) examined the view of NOS and classroom

practices of the18 high school biology teachers originally part of Lederman and Druger

(1985).

Lederman and Zeidler compared pairs of teachers regarding the presence of the

aforementioned 44 classroom characteristics. These pairs consisted of one high scoring

and one low scoring NSKS teacher, constructed by one researcher, the other of whom had

no knowledge of teachers’ NSKS scores. Each teacher-pair was compared across the 44

derived characteristics, with the researchers asking “What teacher exhibit more or less of

a particular trait”?

The “ability of each classroom variable to statistically discriminate between

‘high’ and ‘low’ teachers” (p. 7) was examined through the use of non-directional

binomial test. Results indicate that only the variable “Down Time” was a significant

predictor of teacher classification (i.e., high versus low NSKS score), as it was more

predominant with low scoring teachers. Of particular interest was the fact that none of the

NSKS-related classroom behavior variables (i.e., Amoral, Creative, Developmental,

Parsimony, Testable, and Unified) proved to be statistically significant predictors of

NSKS-score. In general, the work of Lederman and Zeidler and Lederman and Druger

resoundingly welcomed in a new line of research in NOS, one that did not operate under

the presumptions of a connection between knowledge of NOS and teachers’ classroom

 89

behaviors, or of teachers’ classroom behaviors implicitly influencing students’

understandings of NOS.

Philosophical Stance and Classroom Practice. In a study similar, in part, to

Lederman and Zeidler, Hodson (1993) sought to reexamine the influence of teachers’

epistemological beliefs and their classroom practices, specifically attempting to “establish

whether teachers’ views about the nature of science and scientific inquiry are reflected in

their choice and design of learning experiences and, therefore, are significant influences

on children’s understandings of science” (p. 41). As much of what is communicated to

learners about science and, thus, nature of science and scientific inquiry, is done so

through more implicit channels (e.g., language used; messages in textbooks and other

materials; characteristics of learning experiences, most notably investigation), Hodson

contended that it appeared reasonable that teachers’ views of NOS and SI would have

some appreciable influence over their classroom practices, specifically “how learning

experiences should be designed” (p. 42). Hodson was motivated, in part, by related

research that he felt provided evidence that (a) within-class views of science tend to be

more homogeneous than between-class views; (b) epistemological views often influence

teachers choices of instructional materials; (c) views of the nature of a specific discipline

often influence how subject matter is taught within that discipline; and (d) that inquiry-

approaches to instruction, when adopted by teachers, appear to positively impact on

students’ understandings of NOS and SI.

After conducting interviews with 12 secondary school teachers from New Zeeland

with between 2 to 23 years of experience, representing all of three main subject areas of

science, Hodson chose only those individuals with “coherent, clearly identifiable and
 90

consistent philosophical stance” (p. 45). What this entailed, or how this accomplished, it

should be noted, is not clearly explicated by Hodson. From these five teachers, all

classroom artifacts were collected over a period of several weeks, 15 hours of classroom

observations were conducted, in addition to post-lesson interviews that focused on the

purpose of the lesson, features that were deemed essential, and for further discerning how

successful teachers felt the overall lesson was at addressing the intended objectives.

Findings from the investigation, Hodson contends, support the conclusion that

teachers tend to alter their philosophical stance or, in other words, present through their

classroom practice a conception of NOS and SI incongruent with those espoused when

interviewed. This, it appears is in response to the subject matter of the lessons and the

real and/or perceived abilities of their students. Hodson contends that this is similar to the

results of previous research, namely Rowell and Cawthorn (1982), that evidenced a

perceptive difference between university students’ views of “science as it should be” and

“science as it is”; where the latter falls under the constellation of common classroom

constraints, such as time, pressure to cover subject matter, resources, management

concerns, and logistics of conducting laboratory work, to name a few.

Of interest, also, is Hodson’s finding that pressures to cover content, in addition to

real and/or perceived challenges in presenting that content, subvert attempts at depicting

more accurate conceptions of science. Thus, teachers, when faced with the challenges

inherent to particular subject matter or a specific group of students, will often present

conflicting philosophical views at the expense of perceived learning opportunities. Put

another way, when working in laboratory settings the need for students to “get the right

answer” or a “clean conclusion” often outweighs the opportunity to potentially discuss

 91

specific aspects of nature of science or scientific inquiry that may arise from variations in

students’ results.

In conclusion, Hodson summarizes that in accordance to Lederman and Zeidler

(1987), for example, teachers’ behaviors in the classroom practice do not appear to be

directly influenced by their conceptions of science (i.e., NOS and SI), but these practices

do appear to be rationalized by (a) issues concerning management and classroom

organization; (b) considerations surrounding “concept acquisition and concept

development” (p. 48); and, to a lesser extent (c) considerations related to NOS and SI.

Concerning students, Hodson feels strongly that most decisions concerning the

use of laboratory activities is to further reinforce ideas that the teacher feels are essential

to “get across”, as opposed to providing opportunities to shed light on various aspects of

NOS and SI, most notably with anomalous data. This common practice, while oftentimes

lying in direct opposition to teachers’ stated epistemological views, further communicates

a distorted view of science to students. Of great concern to Hodson “is that the underlying

messages neither consistently reinforce nor consistently conflict: they merely serve to

confuse” (p. 50). When taken in consideration of the results discussed previously,

Hodson provides further evidence for the lack of a direct translation of teachers’ views of

NOS and SI into their practices by identifying specific constraints and beliefs that appear

to moderate, or directly derail, this influence.

Influences on Planning and Teaching NOS. Once teachers have developed an

adequate conception of NOS the next step is to ensure that this knowledge finds its way

into classroom practice. While we have seen in the aforementioned research that

informed views of NOS and not sufficient to improve students’ conceptions of NOS, little
 92

was known about how, and how effectively, teachers with informed views of NOS

implement its subsequent teaching in the classroom. Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Lederman

(1998) sought to further investigate this process, in addition to identifying critical

influences on the translation of NOS into classroom practice. In specific, their research

questions targeted teachers’ conceptions of NOS, the identification of salient NOS

planning and teaching, and the factors that inhibit or facilitate the translation of

knowledge into classroom practice.

For their study, 14 preservice teachers, all of whom were members of a master’s

degree teacher-certification program (MAT), were chosen as the sample of the study. All

had received a Bachelor’s of Science degree prior to their enrollment in the program,

with half having also earned a Master’s of Science degree in their field of study.

Students in this year-long MAT program complete two NOS-rich courses in the

summer and fall semester prior to their 12-week student teaching experience, with the

most intensive work taking place in the semester prior to their first classroom teaching

experiences. The program provided students with an understanding of the background

and development of NOS, its place in the current reform movement, and how to

successfully instruct and assess NOS in the classroom. The latter of these objectives was

accomplished through the completion of 15 NOS activities, some serving as “stand

alone” activities, others imbedded in the specific content-area. Consistent with currently

accepted practice (e.g., Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Lederman, 2007 for example),

all activities were explicitly discussed with preservice candidates with respect to the

salient aspects of NOS contained therein, to further model how they could be effectively

utilized in the classroom, and to allow time for adequate reflection by the teacher-
 93

candidates. It is this component of the research, the development of teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK; Shulman, 1986) for NOS that differentiates it from previous

research that sought to simply relate understandings of NOS to classroom practice and/or

behaviors. Here, the teachers being examined were, in effect, “equipped” to teach NOS.

Data were continuously collected from the 14 subjects continuously over the year-

long MAT program. Multiple data sources were utilized for this study to ensure that a

clear and coherent profile of each subject could be adequately developed. At the

completion of the second semester of coursework, having just concluded their last NOS-

intensive course, students were administered what is now categorized as an early version

of the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS).

It should be noted that the results of these NOS-questionnaires were not reviewed

in any way until after all other data sources were analyzed. Abd-El-Khalick et al. note

that prior research has been flawed by a lack of attention to the creation and subsequent

influences of a biased-view of subjects, this in light of researcher’s knowledge of

participants’ NOS views. This, it was feared, served to impact data collected in classroom

observations, for instance, and distorted the lens through which the observer views the

teacher and his or her actions. The authors sought to successfully eliminate any influence

that a priori assumptions would have during the construction of respondents’ profiles by

not scoring NOS-questionnaires until after all other data were collected and analyzed.

Profiles were constructed for each teacher using numerous data sources taken

from the 12-week teaching experience. Daily lesson plans, videotapes of classroom

teaching, supervising teachers’ field notes from clinical observations, along with each

teacher’s extensive MAT-program portfolio were collected. All of these sources were
 94

analyzed for evidence of NOS in the following: planning, instructional objectives,

assessment, and implicit and explicit evidence in teaching. The aforementioned

interviews served to provide additional support for any conclusions reached through the

analysis of these data sources, in addition to providing insight into subject’s conceptions

of NOS.

In analyzing the data, the researchers first established inter-rater reliability by

each independently analyzing three randomly selected data samples. These were

inspected for both explicit and implicit instances in which the teacher implemented NOS

in classroom practice. The researchers established agreement in excess of 90% for

explicit examples, though chose to disregard implicit references in light of the subjective,

high-inference analysis required, and subsequent difficulty in establish an acceptable

level of inter-rater agreement. The study, in turn, focused only on explicit examples of

NOS in planning and classroom practices.

Once 14 individual profiles were developed, the entire set was analyzed for the

purpose of identifying descriptive categories or discernible patterns in both views of NOS

and instructional practice and planning relating to its implementation.

Results indicate that teachers did possess an adequate understanding of most

aspects of NOS, though little if any planning for its implementation in the classroom was

evidenced. Moreover, when NOS was observed in classroom practice it was ill-focused,

haphazard, and poorly connected to salient aspects of NOS that emerged in classroom

activities. This served as stark contrast to the purported importance of NOS as an

instructional objective as reported by the teachers when interviewed. Delineating the

 95

factors that inhibited NOS, as an intended goal of instruction, from coming to fruition

was the focus of the latter portion of this research.

The researchers do provide a possible alternative interpretation to the

incongruence between intention and action by making note of the fact that the subjects

were immersed in a program that had stressed the importance of NOS as an instructional

objective from the beginning. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that few subjects would,

when questioned during the interview, state their discontent or under-appreciation for

NOS as an educational objective.

A similar bias may also be at work in the comparison of teacher’s self-reported

emphasis on NOS instruction, and the realities of their classroom practices. Subjects

tended to have deep misconceptions about the frequency in which they implement NOS,

particularly in a manner consistent with the teachings of the program (i.e. the emphasis

on an explicit-reflective approach). Whether teachers truly thought they were teaching

NOS, thought their students could learn NOS implicitly, or were biased by their

perceptions of the researchers, is open for further interpretation.

The results also indicate that not a single member of the sample planned for or

made any attempt to assess students’ understandings of NOS. Thus, teacher-candidates,

in effect, failed to view NOS as an instructional objective or overarching goal of their

classroom practices. While it appears that this was not done intentionally, at least not by

all 14 teachers, it still positions NOS as an inferior curricular and instructional “concern”

of these teachers regardless of their training and purported belief in its importance.

The representative responses to support these conclusions provide additional

insight into the factors that inhibit or, in the rare case, facilitated the implementation of
 96

explicit NOS instruction in classroom practice. These included the familiar difficulties

with classroom organization and management, a lack of self-efficacy in regard to NOS,

subject-matter, and NOS-pedagogy, along with concerns with student abilities, attitudes,

and the need to cover required content. Some of these prominent influences come in spite

of the researchers’ best attempts to control for them, specifically by providing not only a

wealth of NOS-activities, but the related training and best practices to include them in

their instruction. This is significant as it speaks to the depth and breadth of training

required to develop in teachers a level of confidence that facilitates effective classroom

practice, and, in many cases, alters their current attitudes and beliefs about effective NOS

instruction and its “true” importance.

Of further interest is the fact that even after completing courses specific tailored

to help inform and facilitate NOS-related instruction, subjects were rendered almost

helpless by the aforementioned constraints. In addition, teachers appeared to cling to a

belief that NOS could be taught implicitly by simply emerging students in science-rich

activities, or, in other words, “the processes of science”. This is in stark contrast to what

they learned in their (recently completed, it should be noted) teacher preparation classes.

It also speaks to the necessity of getting teachers’ to reflect on and question their

oftentimes common sense beliefs about learning NOS, and confirms the strength with

which teachers’ beliefs and conviction are held, oftentimes negating and usurping what

had been taught in the classes prior to student teaching.

In summary, the research done by Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Lederman

substantiates previous research that indicated when teachers do possess adequate

conceptions of NOS (Lederman, 1986; Lederman, 1992) that these conceptions rarely
 97

influence classroom practice (Lederman, 1992; Lederman, 1999). The practical

importance of these findings relates directly to the processes and structure of teacher

preparation programs. As the authors contend, a stronger emphasis on establishing the

rationale for NOS inclusion, in concert with increased experience in the methods and

procedures of classroom implementation, would help mediate the influences of those who

are less informed and may deliver contradictory messages. Additional support is also

needed to help keep teachers on course, prevent misconceptions from undermining

implementation, and systematically develop a deeper understanding of the means for

continually delivering and improving NOS-related instruction.

Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Lederman believe that many of the aforementioned

difficulties with NOS instruction and planning center around the inexperience of the

subjects in this sample, as all were observed and studied during their first experiences in

the classroom. Thus, as the authors contend, they were forced to juggle the challenges of

an unfamiliar environment, teaching subject-matter for the first time, and incorporating

aspects of NOS into their curriculum and instruction. All of these factors, in effect, add

an additional layer of complexity with which they had to contend, as the newness of the

entire student-teaching experience may have made an analysis of NOS-related instruction

difficult to tease out from the factors affecting the “regular” instructional practices.

In a study similar in intent, Lederman (1999) sought to further debunk the

prevalent assumption that simply increasing teachers’ understanding of NOS was a likely

and logically starting point for meeting the goal of increasing students’ understanding of

NOS. But, as research has shown, the relationship between teachers’ knowledge of NOS

and what transpires in the classroom is more complex than once believed. In specific,
 98

Lederman sought to identify “how teachers who understand nature of science transform

or translate their understanding into classroom practice” (p. 917), while seeking to also

illuminate specific influences, whether catalysts or hindrances, on this transmission.

For this extensive case-study design, five biology teachers, all with informed

views of NOS, were chosen. These teachers had worked with, enrolled in classes taught

by, and attended professional development orchestrated by, the researcher. It is through

these interactions that the researcher bases his confidence on their informed views of

these subjects in four areas of NOS: tentativeness, the difference between observations

and inferences, scientists’ use of creativity, and scientific knowledge’s empirical-basis.

The five teachers selected, three females and two males, represented a wide

range of teaching experience, educational backgrounds, and “instructional environments”

(i.e., school setting, typical students, etc.). The inexperienced teachers, one male and one

female, had no more than four years experience, while the experienced group had spent

between 9 and 15 years in the classroom. The subjects ranged in age from 27 to 50, with

some employed by urban schools with many college-bound students, the other schools

were situated in depressed logging towns where most students would head to work after

high school. All teachers possessed at least a M.S. in science education, while one teacher

had completed extensive work toward her Ph.D.

In addition to its diversity, and established working relationship with the author,

this sample was also selected because of the freedom afforded to them by their current

teaching position, namely the ability to follow a curriculum of their own choosing. This

factor helped eliminate the institutional pressures to abandon the teaching of NOS, which

could have potentially served as a conflating variable. The depth and breadth of the
 99

sample allowed for greater scrutiny in the examination of various mitigating factors, and

for greater strength in generalizing the results.

Lederman conducted an extensive, year-long investigation of all classroom

practices and related goals of the five teachers using semi-structured interviews at the

onset and conclusion of the study to collect mostly demographic information from the

subjects. An open-ended questionnaire assessing views of NOS (an early precursor to the

VNOS), classroom observations, informal interviews and discussions, evaluation of

lesson plans and other instructional materials, and interviews with a sampling of students

were also utilized.

Each teacher was originally given a questionnaire covering aspects of NOS.

These questionnaires, once completed, were not evaluated; rather they were placed in a

sealed envelope until the final interview as means of clarifying and confirming the

responses given. This was done as a precaution against the creation of a priori

assumptions regarding the five subjects, and with only one researcher, was the only way

to assure this bias was avoided.

For each teacher one biology classes was randomly selected and observed once

each week, unannounced, for the entire school year. Each week, the author compiled field

notes from the observations, in addition to all lesson plans, weekly plans, and instruction

materials from the entirety of each subject’s biology classes. In addition, a post-

observation interview was conducted to discuss the lesson, instructional materials, and

the plan going forward for all classes. The author conducted some of these meetings at a

local “teacher bar” when time did not permit otherwise. Next, a final interview with each
 100

subject was conducted, the purpose of which was to review the initial questionnaire for

accuracy in its interpretation, and as a member check, of sorts.

The final phase in the data collection involved a sampling of the students in the

observed biology classes. The students were given the same questionnaire as the teachers

with minor modifications made to the wording of the questions. The author intended for

this portion of the data, in conjunction with the myriad other data sources, to provide a

complete picture of the factors that inhibit or foster the translation of NOS knowledge

into practice. To this end, he is more than successful, though he notes that the student

data provides little more than confirmation of previous conclusions regarding effective

NOS instruction (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick et al, 1998).

In regard to the subjects’ views of NOS, a criterion for selection in this study, all

teachers were found to successfully confirm the author’s assumption (i.e., they held

inform views, in general, of NOS). Lederman provides representative quotations, both

from the initial administration and the follow-up interview, that clearly support this

claim.

Deciphering the dynamics of the relationship between teacher’s views of NOS

and classroom practice proved a more difficult undertaking. A difference in the

experienced teachers and their inexperienced colleagues was readily apparent.

Management and organizational issues overwhelmed the less experienced subjects, often

rendering their plans to implement NOS in the classroom useless. This, as the author

states, is also consistent with previous research (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman,

1993).
 101

The two experienced teachers taught in manner that was conducive to teaching

NOS, but neither stated NOS as an educational objective, nor did they plan for or

implement NOS-related instruction in the classroom. They did not suffer from the

countless maladies plaguing the inexperienced subjects, but their teaching of NOS was

inconsistent with their knowledge of NOS and their related training. Moreover, and in

opposition to previous research (Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) the teachers’ beliefs about NOS

were unaffected over the course of the study, further narrowing the scope of significant

factors affecting the translation of knowledge into practice. In addition, as previously

stated, these teachers were free to teach in a manner unencumbered by the curriculum,

thus eliminating another possible constraint on the translation of their informed views

into explicit practice.

Lederman does present the possibility that two of the experienced teachers may

appear to be teaching in a manner consistent with their goal of increasing students

understanding of NOS, namely through inquiry-type activities. However, on further

analysis of the data (e.g. interviews, lesson plans, weekly planning, etc.), it was

determined that no intent to teach NOS was evident, and that the employment of these

pedagogical approaches was related to other intentions, and was independent of their

views of NOS.

Lastly, the analysis of the student questionnaire data provided shows over 90%

of the sample holding uninformed views of NOS, in stark contrast to those of their

teachers. Illustrative replies are given that explicate the author’s assertions about the

students. This portion of the research confirms previous studies showing that teachers’

knowledge of NOS is not directly transferred to their students and that explicit attention
 102

must be paid, during planning and instruction, to NOS instruction; in accordance with

past research (e.g., Lederman & Druger, 1985; Lederman & Zeidler, 1986).

This study builds on the body of NOS research by providing additional evidence

of the complexities of translating informed views of NOS into practice. Lederman has

controlled for and re-examined a few variables, namely the constraints of curriculum and

teaching experience, respectively. The results of this study provide further affirmation

that NOS instruction must be explicitly planned for and intended if teachers are going to

attempt to have a positive impact on students’ conceptions of NOS.

NOS as Subject Matter – Challenges of Implementation. Further complicating

the process of both understanding NOS and translating that knowledge into classroom

practice is the inclusion of subject-matter knowledge interactions and their effects on

NOS views and instructional intent. Schwartz and Lederman (2002) uncovered this

relationship in their investigation of preservice teachers and their attempts to both learn

about and teach NOS.

For their research, a case study comparison of two teachers, both of whom the

authors previously encountered as part of a separate study (Lederman, et al, 2001), was

conducted. The intent was to elucidate the progression and challenges of each from their

learning about NOS as subject matter, to their attempts to translate this knowledge in

classroom practice. The comparison, it was assumed, would provide greater insight into

the complexity of this transition, and add to the existing literature regarding

implementation of NOS-related instruction.

As stated, the two subjects chosen for the case study were members of a previous

study, were enrolled in a master’s of arts teaching program, and were selected by the
 103

authors as “an interesting contrast.” They had differing degrees of NOS understanding, in

addition to different backgrounds in, and experiences with, science. It is stated that the

researchers have data on these two subjects from their first days in a master’s program,

and thus can be reasonably assumed that their knowledge of the subjects is adequate to

inform their selection.

The subjects, Rich and Laura, are similar in age, education (Rich has an M.S.in

his field, Laura a B.S.), and teaching experience (Rich has taught undergrads as a

graduate student, while Laura has no relevant experience).

The study, in general, comprised of six different components. First, the subjects

were taught about various aspects of NOS, and attempted for the first time to teach NOS.

Subjects then took part in an extensive research internship that included NOS instruction

and guided journal reflections. Thirdly, explicit instruction and NOS resources were

provided to help facilitate the teaching of NOS. Subjects then completed a full-time

student teaching experience, followed by an exit interview in which they discussed their

growth and overall changes in regards to NOS. Lastly, teachers were contacted and

surveyed at the halfway point of the first year of their first fulltime teaching assignment.

In terms of the data collected and its subsequent analysis, the authors separate this

into two components, one directed towards the subjects’ developing understandings of

NOS, the second concerned with characterizing their attempts at teaching NOS.

The authors utilized the VNOS-C (Lederman et al., 2002) at the onset of the

investigation to assess subjects’ knowledge of NOS, and it was administered two more

times, once at the completion of the first class, and once at the end of their teaching

internship. The scoring of these is detailed by Schwartz and Lederman, and includes a
 104

scale on which articulation, the providing of examples, and evidence of the

interconnectedness of NOS to traditional science content was highly valued. The scoring

results of the two researchers were corroborated during the second and third of the

interviews through the use of member checks. These were conducted at the end of the

first class, and at the midway point of the student teaching semester to ensure accuracy in

interpretation, and to help illuminate any changes that may have occurred.

An analysis of classroom observation and subject-participation, in addition to

journal entries and transcriptions of conferences and meetings provided further evidence

of changes in NOS beliefs. This also served to provide a gauge for judging subject’s

interest and motivation to learn about and incorporate NOS in classroom practice.

To facilitate the analysis of the planning and teaching of NOS, a plethora of data

sources were utilized. In the first class, mini-lessons were planned for and taught, in

addition to traditional lesson plans and NOS activity cards. In the second phase, subjects

responded to a simple question, “What is important to teach in science?” This question

was administered by a party not affiliated with the study, thus, in the view of the authors,

the results are more representative of subject’s true views, and not biased by the

perception of what might be the answer expected from the researchers.

During student teaching, formal observation were conducted, followed by

conferences in which the subjects discussed their opinions regarding what fostered or

hindered the teaching of NOS, in addition to reflecting on the overall effectiveness of

their teaching efforts. An interview was also conducted at the end of the student teaching

session. Similar to the post-observation meeting, the subjects were asked to reflect on

their effectiveness in implementing NOS instruction, and how various factors of the
 105

preparation program may have contributed to their successes or failures. These interviews

were audio-taped and transcribed. Lastly, six months into their first teaching assignment,

both subjects were contacted for one final interview, similar to the previous ones, except

that all data took the form of self-reporting, as no subsequent observations were

conducted once the student teaching experience concluded.

The authors utilized the numerous data sources to triangulate the data, develop

rich profiles of the two subjects, and relate attempts at NOS instruction with subjects’

views of NOS. This was done by the first researcher and then confirmed or contradicted

by the second, with all discrepancies discussed until consensus was reached.

The results are presented in three distinct sections. The first of which details

initial NOS views, changes during the first phases of the study, and teachers’ initial

attempts to teach NOS. The second section examines subsequent attempts to teach NOS

and related changes to NOS understandings. Lastly, instructional practices during

subjects’ first full-time teaching assignment are discussed. The scores of each subject’s

VNOS administrations are presented, in addition to a summary of attempts at teaching

NOS during student teaching. Each case-study is presented separately in extensive detail.

In conclusion, and in summary of their findings, the authors compare and contrast Rich

and Laura.

In summary, both Rich and Laura appear to progress to a point where they see

NOS as existing in all scientific content, “the nature of the beast,” as they put it. Their

attempts at integrating NOS into science content were successful as were, to some

degree, their attempts explicitly teaching NOS. This was due, Lederman and Schwartz

contend, to both the success they experienced in the program leading up to their first full-
 106

time job, and to the fact that they “held strong intentions and beliefs that NOS was an

important topic to include in their teaching” (p. 231). This determination allowed them

oftentimes to side-step the traditional pitfalls that side-track other novice teachers (e.g.

classroom management, organizational issues). Rich, in addition, over the course of the

study developed a more integrated view of the various aspects of NOS, no longer seeing

them as separate entities, but as integrated and overlapping components.

Limited subject-matter knowledge and a less mature conception of NOS did

serve to limit Laura’s attempts at incorporating NOS, though the latter was mitigated by

the availability of a NOS activity guides and instructional materials, which she utilized

systematically, oftentimes with limited insight into the prevalent aspects of NOS included

therein. In addition, the authors conclude that additional professional development is

needed to help foster more mature and sophisticated pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK) with respect to NOS.

Rich, while describing an inquiry-rich classroom as the ideal place to foster

mature views of NOS in his students, did not reflected this in his classroom practice. It

seemed that his limited experienced and underdeveloped PCK made this a difficult task

to complete with consistency.

Both subjects did, it should be noted, fall prey to the usual pitfall evidenced by

many in their first full-time teaching assignment, though Rich did make more creative

and effective attempts at NOS instruction. Classroom management and organizational

issues, in addition to the difficulties in navigating an unfamiliar curriculum, and, in

Laura’s case, unfamiliar subject matter did, at times, relegate NOS to more of an

“instructional after-thought.” Explicit NOS instruction was rarely planned for, and in
 107

Laura’s case, was almost exclusively didactic in nature, much like her early attempts

during student teaching.

The researchers concluded that these results suggest that teachers need to

develop PCK for NOS, just as they must for their subject matter, if their efforts are going

to be optimized. Related professional development needs to focus on nurturing the

complex relationship between content knowledge, traditional pedagogy, NOS, and the

interactions among the three. In addition, teachers must be motivated, or have the intent,

to teach NOS, and see its worth as an educational objective. Teachers without adequately

developed PCK for NOS will continue to either fall victim to traditional restraints (e.g.

curriculum) when they lack intent, or may simply limit their effectiveness in creating

informed views of NOS in their students.

Epistemological Beliefs, Instructional Goals, and Classroom Practices.

Whether or not the nature of experienced teachers’ beliefs influences the goals they have

for instruction and the practices they employ in the classroom was one of the goals of an

investigation by Kang and Wallace (2004). They sought to further explicate the factors

surrounding mature epistemological beliefs and classroom practices (similar to

Lederman, 1999, among others), and to examine teachers’ use of laboratory activities as

they relate to these epistemological views.

The sample for this study, selected by convenience, consisted of three volunteers

who participated in a one-week summer workshop. These three teachers had taught long

enough to be considered experienced, with an average of over 17 years in the classroom.

Two other volunteers, who were both first year teachers, were excluded from the study

due to their lack of experience. This is consistent with the authors’ intent of controlling
 108

for experience as a potential influential factor, as it has been shown to be in previous

studies, by virtue of poor classroom management and other organizational issues (see

Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993).

The sample comprised of two males and one female subject, one teacher taught

chemistry to college-prep students, three-fourths of whom go to college, while the other

two teachers taught physical science (9th grade) in the same school, one of lower

socioeconomic background than the first teacher’s, with a lower percentage of students

eventually going to college. Both schools were relatively equal in overall student

population. The differences in the two environments and the overall nature of the subject-

matter being taught weaken the study in terms of the generalizability and the ability to

control for influential variables. There are two markedly different subjects being taught to

two contrasting populations of students, who also differ by age and grade level. All of the

aforementioned inconsistencies play a role in determining how teachers implement and

orchestrate instruction in relation to their epistemological beliefs and should have been

controlled for with a more diverse or homogenous sample, depending on intent.

A multiple case study design was employed, with the researchers observing the

three subjects over the course of an entire school year, with an average of seven

observations per teachers conducted in laboratory settings. In addition, Kang and Wallace

conducted numerous interviews, both formal and informal, and examined teaching

materials related to the observed lessons.

In phase I, the authors completed their initial interview and developed a coding

scheme for subsequent categorization, jointly, using constant comparative analysis. The

interview followed a semi-structured format, the stated intent of which was two-fold: to
 109

first discern subject’s ideas (purposes and uses) about laboratory activities, and secondly,

through the use of “critical incidents” gain insight into their epistemological beliefs. The

latter purpose is supported through the consistency between the questionnaire and the

cited literature (Nott & Wellington, 1995). For phase II, data collection and subsequent

analyses were performed on both formal and informal interviews along with classroom

observations. Observations were video recorded, transcribed, and field notes were taken.

The observations, as previously mentioned, spanned the entire year long course. Both

researchers conducted the initial observations for the sake of consistency, comparing

common themes and areas of interest. One researcher conducted the subsequent

observations, and at the completion, field notes and video were exchanged for analyses

by the other researcher. No mention of inter-rater reliability is made, or how

discrepancies between the two researchers were resolved. During the last interview

(formal) a member check was performed to ensure agreement with observer’s

categorizations and coding.

Phase II also included the analysis of data characterizing teachers’

epistemological beliefs and their relation to instructional goals and classroom actions.

This was done through developing categories from the first questionnaire and relating

them to teacher’s actions during observation. Moreover, the researchers developed

conceptual maps for each subject and refined them during the school-year long process.

A summary of data pertaining to the three teachers’ epistemological goals and beliefs,

and the differences between them are clearly summarized by the researchers, providing

evidence for their later inferences and conclusions.

 110

For each of the three teachers a detailed analysis of the findings is provided

across each of Kang and Wallace’s three research questions, including representative

quotes, along with a summary table of epistemological beliefs are provided. In addition,

applicable data from classroom observation is intertwined into the results as appropriate,

further strengthening the case study “portrait.”

In summary, Kang and Wallace link the epistemological beliefs, goals, and

actions for each of three subjects by creating a rich profile of each subject that supports

their conclusion that “teachers’ sophisticated epistemological beliefs are rarely reflected

in their teaching practices (2004, p. 160).” This is the result, the authors conclude, of the

dynamic construction necessary in developing mature epistemological beliefs. By

contrast, it appears that teachers’ naïve or immature epistemological beliefs (e.g. science

as factual knowledge) become more readily evident in the practices of the teachers that

hold them. This is exemplified by the direct delivery of information, a lack of student

engagement, and the use of demonstrations over inquiry-rich laboratory activities in these

instances.

The importance of these findings, in terms of this review, is in the implication for

understanding the incongruence between developed, mature epistemological beliefs and

classroom practice, and the difficulty of seeing these beliefs come to fruition. This study

further underscores the intricate and complicated interplay of beliefs, attitudes, and their

impact on classroom instruction, and the need for ensuring that informed educators are

also competent in best pedagogical practices.

Best Practices for Teaching NOS and SI. Research, much of which had its

beginnings in the 1960s, tended to relate improved conceptions of NOS to various

 111

inquiry-oriented, laboratory-based science curricula (e.g., Crumb, 1965; Sorensen, 1966)

to the exclusion of consideration for teachers’ understandings of NOS. As these studies

were examined with increased scrutiny, it became apparent that teachers were the main

conduit for the intended science curricula and, furthermore, were an undervalued yet

clearly essential, component in the development of students’ understandings of content

(e.g., Merill & Butts, 1969; Ramsey & Howe, 1969), including NOS and SI.

To the point of NOS and SI as subject matter, a host of implicit approaches were

advocated by researchers, mostly centering on the participation of students in inquiry

activities, scientific practices, and learning of content. In contrast, other researchers

chose to focus their efforts on explicitly connecting various aspects of NOS to elements

from the history and philosophy of science. To the former, Akerson et al. (2000)

identified two assumptions that both underlie and compromise the effectiveness of the

implicit approach. First, that it treats NOS-understandings as an “affective” learning

outcome, as opposed to a “cognitive” one, and secondly, that it assumes students will

develop understandings of NOS “as a by-product of engagement in science process-skills

instruction or science-based activities that lacked any explicit references or reflective

components related to NOS” (p. 297).

To address the issue of whether the immersion of students in a scientifically-rich

environment is sufficient to change conceptions of NOS, a question remained – Was

there another pedagogical approach that could serve to best develop informed views of

NOS? Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) sought an answer to this question in their

comparison of implicit and explicit-reflective instruction and the subsequent impact on

students’ views of NOS. As mentioned, while attempts to influence students’ and

 112

teachers’ conceptions of NOS have been approached through the inclusion of historical

contexts and submersion in inquiry-rich environs (see Lederman, 2007 for a review of the

history of teaching and learning NOS), little research had been conducted on the

effectiveness of an explicit-reflective approach, in contrast to implicit approaches,

particularly with students.

The authors are careful to define what is meant by explicit and reflective,

namely, that NOS is an explicitly planned for curricular objective that will be addressed,

and, further, assessed, during instruction. The reflective component is an instructional

one, as teachers must provide opportunities for students to reflect on the processes in

which they were engaged with respect to aspects of NOS. In other words, the connections

must be made explicit between “activity” and NOS, and students must be provided with

opportunities to reflect individually on these connections.

The subjects in this study were from two sixth-grade classes in an American

speaking school in Lebanon, comprising 62 students in total, all taught by the first

researcher. The classes were left intact and were approximately the same size (32 and 29

students, respectively), with the two groups not differing significantly (p<.05) in “school

science achievement,” though it should be noted that no mention is given as to what that

phrase refers to, or what test was conducted to arrive at these results.

Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick’s study focused primarily on interpreting the

meanings students attributed to selected aspects of NOS as a function of their educational

environment. This was done through an analysis of student responses and subsequent

comparison (pre- and post-test) of the two groups’ scores on a NOS instrument after 10

weeks of science instruction.

 113

The instrument used to measure students’ knowledge of aspects of NOS was a

modified version of questions used in the second researcher’s previous work (VNOS;

Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). To further establish validity, and to assist in the reliable

interpretation of student responses on the questionnaire, semi-structured interviews were

conducted with approximately half of the students. These subjects were chosen

purposefully to represent a diverse cross-section of responses and views of NOS, while

controlling for differences in gender and science achievement in the two groups

comparatively. The scores of each student were calculated, and a comparison of the

changes exhibit by the two classrooms was afforded.

In terms of the instruction, or as the authors refer to it “the treatment,” the first

author, as previously stated, was the classroom teacher for the two groups, delivering all

instruction over the course of the investigation. The approach utilized was, as Khishfe

and Abd-El-Khalick report, was more inquiry-rich than what was typical for these

classes, and as such, the researchers and a third party continuous monitored, by reviewing

videotape, the adherence to planned instruction and classroom activities to ensure proper

implementation of the treatment. Both groups participated in the same six inquiry

activities, conducted twice a week for 10 weeks. The only difference, “the intervention,”

was that one group concluded their activity with an explicit discussion of aspects of NOS

as they related to science content and specific activities meant to teach about NOS. As

videotaped classroom observations revealed, the discussion of salient aspects of NOS was

initially motivated and orchestrated by the teacher, but, as the authors note, over the

course of time it became noticeably more student-driven and natural. Provided is a richly-

described example lesson further informing the reader as to the expectations of the six
 114

inquiry activities. The duration of these lessons was kept uniform by the inclusion of a

parallel discussion with the implicit group of specific science content or process skills

related to the inquiry activity.

Both authors analyzed the NOS-questionnaire results, with the second author

blindly scoring them to help eliminate any bias that may have been introduced by the

first, since she was the instructor, and may have found the results indicative of the quality

of her instruction. It is stated that discrepancies in scoring occurred less than 5% of the

time and that all of these differences were resolved through further data analysis.

To further validate the scoring of the questionnaires, prior to the aforementioned

analysis, each researcher independently created a profile for the 16 interviewees. These

were then compared to the questionnaire scores and profiles, and a consensus between the

two researchers was reached for each subject. Lastly, group profiles, both pre- and post-

instruction, were created by each researcher independently, with 95% agreement

reported.

With respect to the battery of scoring done by the researchers in this study,

Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick are careful to make a pertinent disclosure about the “low

inference” measures employed. Namely, that they took every effort to not “put words in

the respondents’ mouths” in terms of their responses to the NOS questionnaire.

The results indicate that the implicit group and explicit group were virtually

identical prior to the initiation of the treatment, as approximately 85% of each group held

naive views of NOS. Moreover, the implicit group showed no discernible change over the

course of the six inquiry activities; as the only change of note was that three students

(11% of the implicit group) that previously were scored as naïve, developed informed
 115

views on one tenant of NOS. By contrast, the explicit group showed marked

improvement on the entire range of NOS aspects from pre- to post-instruction, with

approximately 40% of students, on average, developing informed views of NOS over the

course of instruction.

Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick do concede that while the overall comparison of the

two groups provided a stark contrast, it was difficult for students to develop informed

views on all four aspects of NOS included in the questionnaire. They explain that to have

a wholly informed view of NOS requires a deep understanding of science as a human

construct, which is often a tall order for the majority of middle and high school students.

Furthermore, the duration of the study makes it difficult to undo students’ accumulated

“knowledge” of NOS and to combat the vigor with which they oftentimes hold these

conceptions. Lastly, subject matter as a mitigating factor should also be considered.

The design of this investigation and the attention to detail in its subsequent

procedures further strengthens the authors’ conclusions regarding an explicit-reflective

approach as a fertile environment for developing informed views of NOS. While the

difficulty in getting informed teachers to translate their views of NOS into instruction

remains, what we now know is that when NOS is an instructional objective, it must be

planned for and assessed, and that students must be provided opportunities to reflect on

their experiences. This further serves to guide teacher preparation curriculum and

instruction, and to better focus those inservice teachers who view NOS as an important

education outcome for their students.

An Implicit Approach to Developing Knowledge of NOS. Not all researchers

have “heeded the call” of explicit-reflective approaches as the preferred means to

 116

improving students’ conceptions of NOS. Prevalent still is the belief that to develop

informed views of NOS immersion in a scientifically- rich environment, with a plethora

of inquiry-oriented activities, will sufficiently help foster a greater appreciation of science

as a human construct, and serve as a catalyst for developing desired views of NOS and

SI. This logic is founded on the assumption that this inquiry-rich environment more

closely resembles those in which scientists operate, thus it should be more conducive to

helping inform students of the manner in which scientific knowledge is constructed. To

this point, Moss (2001) explored both students’ conceptions of NOS and how these

conceptions changed over their yearlong participation in a project-based environmental

science class.

The five students selected as the sample for this investigation were all members

of a 11th and 12th grade environmental biology course. These five were categorized as

high achievement, mid-level achievement, or low achievement students. The first two

groups consisted of one male and one female student, while the last include a solitary

female subject. These classifications were reportedly performed by assessing students

overall GPA’s (“as an indicator of academic success,” p. 774), though the researcher does

not adequately elaborate on what these GPA’s include. Additionally, no information is

provided to allow the reader to validate these claims, or how they specifically defined the

three achievement categories. Moreover, the researcher intended to use the sample to

investigate the conceptions of NOS held and developed by pre-college students, though

there is no mention of how this sampling represents a pre-college population, unless they

are referring to anyone who is in grades K-12, and thus “before college.”
 117

For the investigation, Moss conducted six semi-structured interviews with each

of the five subjects over the course of the entire school year. These were audiotaped and

transcribed. Student work samples and notes were collected, and weekly classroom

observations were conducted, in addition to the analysis of other classroom materials

(e.g. syllabi, assessments, project outlines). The goal of these procedures was to develop

an accurate portrait of each subject’s conception of NOS.

For the questionnaire used in the semi-structured interviews, the author

developed an original model of NOS, supporting their decision to do so from the research

literature on NOS (Lederman, 1986). This specific reference concludes that a consistent

and agreed upon conception of an “adequately informed” view of NOS does not exist,

and that there may be an exaggeration of how uninformed students and teachers are

regarding NOS. This unfortunately does not support the development of a unique model

of NOS, and, more alarmingly, it distorts the conclusions and work of the cited

researcher. Moreover, and further to the point, the author goes on to cite two additional

papers (Abd-El-Khalick & Boujaoude, 1997; Mathews, 1998) for support of creation of

unique and individual models of NOS, but, unfortunately these researchers views are

likewise incongruent with Moss’ and are furthermore inaccurately summarized in the

process. In addition, the researcher makes no mention of the numerous NOS instruments

that have existed for over 50 years (Lederman, 2007) seeking instead, it appears, to

develop his own “nature of science.”

The tenets of NOS that the author derives are purportedly couched in “science

education and philosophy of science literature, science education standards, reform

 118

documents, discussions with scientists, and personal experiences…” (p. 773). Though, it

should be noted, that no further elaboration or evidence is provided to support this claim.

During the interviewing of the five subjects, questions were asked whose purpose

was to investigate their perceptions of this newly develop model of NOS. Additional

items focused directly on individual students’ work, and/or on some subject-specific

aspects of the model of NOS. No explanation is given as to what or how student work

was utilized, in what manner it was evaluated, nor are any representative quotations that

would serve to help elucidate this practice provided.

In terms of the categorization of student’s understandings of the model of NOS,

each student was given a grade of “fully formed”, “partially complete” or “none” if they

did not refer to the specific area. What is evident from this scale is that all students, if

they made reference to a particular aspect of NOS were graded as having a partial

understanding, and that this “rubric” clearly does not take into account completely

inaccurate responses.

While certain representative quotations are provided, some are categorized by the

author as exhibiting fully formed views of the aspect of NOS in question, but for other

aspects of NOS no evidence is provided. Moreover, some of the student responses

furnished require a high degree of inference to confidently conclude that the subject

indeed has an informed view of NOS, even based on the model developed for this study.

Others are simply inaccurate or unmistakably naïve in their interpretation.

The results are presented with the researcher concluding, “…by the end of the

academic year participants held fully formed conceptions of the nature of science for

approximately half of the premises across the model” (p. 776). With respect to the model
 119

of NOS created for this study, in exclusion of the numerous shortcomings mentioned

previously, and in respect to their own heretofore unknown scoring rubric, this is an

accurate statement.

In response to the second research question, Moss states that students’

conceptions of NOS remained static for about three-fourths of the NOS aspects. This

appears support by the data, but surprisingly, in analyzing the summary of results

provided by Moss, one can see that the majority of their eight NOS aspects consist of

multiple sub-categories. No explanation is provided as to how changes in one sub-

category constitute an overall change in the understanding of the aspect of NOS in its

entirety. With this in mind, and taking into account the sub-categories, we can see that

nearly five-sixths of all the categories remain unchanged, or, furthermore, if we consider

all five subjects conceptions of all 23 sub-categories, that change was observed in less

than 7% of the cases. Nevertheless, the claim that these students’ views of NOS remained

relatively unchanged over the course of the yearlong class is accurate, the aforementioned

pervasive methodological shortcomings notwithstanding.

Moss, in contrast to his interpretation of the results of this activity, appears to

have provided additional support to the contention that simple immersion in a

scientifically rich environment does not significantly impact students’ views of NOS.

This is significant in light of certain teacher preparation practices that purport to develop

well-trained and NOS-informed teachers by their participation in authentic research and

internship activities in which they simply “do science.” What appears to be needed is a

more thoughtful approach with NOS as a curricular outcome, and one that provides

distinct evidence of growth and maturation in individuals views of NOS, like the efficacy
 120

of the aforementioned explicit-reflective instruction (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick

(2002).

Challenging Teachers’ Typically Naïve Views of NOS. To the point that past

research has indicated that teachers’ frequently provide naïve responses on instruments to

assess nature of science understandings (like the VNOS), Guerra-Ramos, Ryder, and

Leach (2010) examined “the informal ideas used by teachers in situations directly

relevant to their teaching of science” (p. 282). The authors find support in past research

that has, in part, assumedly supported the notion that how teachers’ respond on these

instruments is not congruent with their views as evidenced in their classroom practice

(e.g., Hodson, 1993; Taylor & Dana, 2003), or that professional scientists, similarly, do

not necessarily communicate informed views (Wong & Hodson, 2009). Guerra-Ramos et

al. also criticize the vast body of research on NOS (much of which originates from “the

Lederman Group”, e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 1992, 2007;

Schwartz & Lederman, 2002) in that is does not examine the context, or “pedagogical

setting” (Guerra-Ramos et al., 2010, p. 283) in which these views of NOS are expressed.

They also are similarly critical of the assumption that informed understandings of NOS,

as represented in the aspects examined by the VNOS, for example, will relate to better

student understandings of science content. It is unclear how, though, their study addresses

this last criticism (one for which no citation of past research is provided), as no measure

of student achievement was undertaken.

The sample of teachers consisted of 50 primary school teachers from Mexico,

chosen by random selection, and comprising a wide variety of teaching experience.

Teachers were required to respond to one of three prompts to elicit their general view of
 121

science. Of paramount concern, though, is the weak substantiation for the presumed

“Ideas about Science” that are used as a loose guide for the development of the prompts

(“pedagogical scenarios”) and the categorization of teachers’ responses. The categories

that were supposedly represented by the three prompts were ideas about scientists,

scientific inquiry, and measurement. It is reported that the first author had previous

identified these three areas of concern through an analysis of curricular materials and

documents in Mexico, but how these aspects related to generally accepted views of nature

of science, and why they conflated nature of science and scientific inquiry is never

addressed by the authors.

Each participant, it should also be noted, only responded to one of three scenarios,

and a description of which teachers responded to which of the three scenarios is not

provide by Guerra-Ramos et al. These scenarios, in brief, asked teachers to either (a)

decide on which scientists would be most appropriate to introduce to primary school

students; (b) describe an activity that would be appropriate for serving as an example of

scientific inquiry; or (c) explain how they would rectify a situation where the

measurements made by two students during an investigation were markedly different.

The authors contend that the aforementioned approach, and the follow-up

interview, where the “emphasis…was to encourage teachers to articulate views about the

nature of science within the context of each pedagogical scenario” (p. 287) follows the

more desired situated perspective, as these scenarios provide “valid insights into some of

the ideas most likely to be communicated during teaching” (p. 287), similar to that which

could be gleaned from actual classroom observations would be preferred, they have faith
 122

that these scenarios provide “valid insights into some of the ideas most likely to be

communicated during teaching” (p. 287).

What is unclear, though, is what the researchers decided a priori would represent

more informed views, as they only characterize responses on a continuum from limited to

extended contextualization, and make no judgment as to the accuracy or naiveté of a

respondent’s answer. Furthermore, the various aspects of NOS assessed on the VNOS

instrument are considered educationally appropriate for most learners and they are not, as

is the case in Guerra-Ramos et al., simply peripheral and happenstance “ideas about

science”.

In their discussion of results, Guerra-Ramos et al. contend that this type of

research, which provides more details regarding teachers ideas about nature of science

“closely connected to classroom practice” (p. 299), help shifts the focus from more

evaluative research (i.e., whether teachers hold informed conceptions of NOS), and is

further informed by consideration of views of nature of science in the context of “real

teaching demands” (p. 299). Moreover, they conclude that teachers do indeed express a

diverse range of ideas about science, which, it could be argued, are no different than

those views expressed on the instruments that Guerra-Ramos et al. criticize. By their own

admittance, and in accord with the findings of Windschitl (2004), teachers often hold

views that are both partially congruent with and also misrepresentative of scientific

inquiry and, in this case, nature of science. Thus, what Guerra-Ramos et al. contend is,

despite the various logical limitations they forward, that what is needed is further

examination of the range of teachers’ understandings about nature of science.

Unfortunately, their study does little to inform this effort, as it essentially provides a
 123

limited overview of teachers ideas about science, in general, as Driver at al. (1996) did

previously and much more efficaciously, for secondary students.

Concept Mapping with Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry

Concept Maps and NOS. There are a handful of studies that have used concept

mapping as a tool for assessing students’ and teachers’ understandings of NOS. Borda

and colleagues (2009) sought to discern the utility of employing concepts maps for

investigating the question “What is science?” as a complement to preservice teachers’

responses on more typically employed instruments, in this case the Views of the Nature of

Science Questionnaire (VNOS; Lederman et al., 2002). Concept mapping, because of its

utility as a tool to make transparent both the quality and structure of understanding

(Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 2001), it was believed, could help researchers gain

insight into the interrelationships, or lack thereof, in students or teachers’ conceptions of

NOS. It is this integrative view of NOS, and for that matter SI, that researchers contend

more accurately represents a sophisticated epistemology of science (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick

et al., 1998; Lederman, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2004). While evidence has been provided

regarding issues with concept mapping, this particular investigation does provide

valuable insight into research seeking a different approach to examining understandings

of NOS and SI.

Borda and colleagues sampled preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a

science methods course, where NOS was purportedly an instructional outcome, who

completed VNOS questionnaires and constructed concept maps prior to and following

instruction. Data were analyzed with a focus on three primary characteristics of teacher
 124

responses on the two instruments: (1) the quality of responses, (2) the descriptions

provided regarding understandings, and (3) the ability to identify the “structure of

participants’ epistemologies” (p. 176).

During phase one of data analysis, teachers’ were categorized as either “naïve” or

“informed” across six aspects of NOS, namely (a) that science is empirically-based; (b)

scientists use creativity and imagination; (c) the myth of the scientific method; (d)

science affects and is affected by society; (e) scientific knowledge changes due to

reinterpretation of existing data and through the accumulation of additional evidence; and

(f) scientists’ backgrounds, values, and philosophical commitments influence their

investigations, interpretations, and explanations. Additionally during this first phase,

teachers’ group-constructed concept maps were scored based on the concepts, examples,

and valid relationships/linkages evidenced.

In the second phase of data analysis teachers’ concepts maps and the first question

from the VNOS-C questionnaire were examined for “emergent themes.” These themes, it

should be noted, have little relationship to teachers’ understandings of NOS as they are

categorization of responses outside of the six previous listed aspects of NOS examined.

Lastly, in phase three, connections between NOS tenets were examined in both data

sources, with the concept maps also being examined for instances of branching,

hierarchical relationships, and cross-linkages. Unfortunately, the specifics regarding the

identification and scoring of this last component of data analysis are not clearly

communicated.

Results from Borda, et al. indicate that while more connections between tenants

were evidenced in the concepts maps than on the VNOS, these tended to provide less
 125

information regarding the nature of the connection evidenced, as they were typically only

a single word or short descriptive phrase. Borda et al. also cite the increase in teachers’

valid links between concepts, which could be evident of more sophisticated and

integrative epistemologies – information that could not necessarily be gleaned from

VNOS results alone. Methodological limitations make further conclusions regarding

comparisons of specific NOS concepts untenable, most notably the fact that teachers

individually completed the VNOS questionnaires while cooperatively constructing

concept maps. One issue not discussed by Borda et al., and germane to the intent of the

current study, is how one could discern a level of understanding from the results of a

concept map for NOS, as these would appear to be more an instrument for identifying

connections and/or relationships than for categorizing conceptions of NOS aspects as

naïve or informed, particularly without individual interviewing of respondents.

In another study exploring the use of concept maps and understandings of nature

science, Merle-Johnson et al., (2010) sought to improve their knowledge of assessing

NOS, an area of research that, beyond the typical use of the VNOS, has received

considerably less attention than that which focused on improving students’ and teachers’

conceptions NOS.

Of particular interest to the current study is the means by which participants

constructed their concept maps. A group of preservice teachers were given the

instructions to start with the main idea of “science” and, in their concept maps,

specifically include aspects of NOS (e.g., “subject to change”, “creativity and

imagination”, “scientific method”, and “bias”), in addition to any other words/concepts

 126

they felt were relevant to NOS. The second group was only provided with instructions to

beginning mapping from the main idea of “science.”

Student clusters in group one evidenced more connections and linking words than

group two, as the latter group typically generated considerably more independent terms

that had little to do directly with NOS. Similar to the construction of the VNOS, wherein

an initial question is provided to help get the respondent “warmed up” per se, there may

be some utility in temporally sequencing concept prompts, beginning with the “science”

concept, before moving on to providing the respondent with a more specific queues like

“NOS”, or even furnishing various aspects of NOS. But, without specific and explicit

reference to mapping concepts related to NOS, it appears that much of respondents’ time

was spent in vain, if the purported intention was to assess NOS.

Summary and Discussion

Knowledge Structures and Classroom Practice. Thompson (1984) provided

evidence that teachers’ overarching views of the content they are teaching, specifically

regarding how it is best taught and learned, may serve as influents on how it is that the

subject matter evidences itself in classroom practice. What appears to moderate this

translation, from belief to practice, is the degree to which these beliefs and related views

of the domain form an integrated conceptual system. In Thompson’s words this type of

integrated system is present to “the extent to which [these beliefs and practices]

interrelate and interact with each other to modify each other” (p. 122). The teacher in

Thompson’s investigation that evidenced such an interrated conceptual system appeared

to be, at least in part, the one who had spent the most time reflecting on both her views of
 127

the subject matter and how she was actually communicating this in her practice; where

she was clearly knowledgeable of certain incongruities between the two.

While one’s views of the subject matter they are teaching may influence their

practice, Hashweh’s (1987) examined both the structuring of that subject matter (i.e.,

knowledge structure) and planning practices of teachers as a function of their general

understandings of the content. Results provided some evidence that teachers with more

knowledge of a topic, as may have been expected, typically identified higher-ordered

principles basic to that discipline and also represented the content with more

interconnections between topics within and peripheral to the given topic. These structural

elements appear to manifest themselves in teachers’ instructional plans and in their

simulated teaching. While methodological concerns weaken the inferences that can be

drawn from the results of the teaching component of this investigation, there is evidence

that how knowledge is structured influences the manner in which that knowledge is

presented in teachers’ lesson plans.

The work of Roehler et al. (1988) provided further indication that the nature of

teachers’ knowledge structures influences their actions within the classroom, particularly

regarding their “responsive elaboration”, or ability to tend to the perceived needs of their

students. It is further posited that the organization of knowledge into meaningful chunks

can aid in the recall ability of the teacher. To this point, Roehler et al. conclude that

teachers possessing “extensive and coherent knowledge structures” (p. 23) are much

more adept at responding effectively during their classroom practice.

These results gain further support in the findings of Lian (1998) who provided

evidence that the knowledge structures of preservice teachers appeared to influence their
 128

ability to retain and recall the subject matter contained therein, as indicated on a

traditional achievement test. Respondents’ concept maps, it should be noted, were only

scored for the appropriateness of the concepts, the connections between the concepts, and

the general hierarchical nature of the map; a fairly simplistic view of the potentially

complex knowledge structure that these maps were purportedly representing. Results

indicate that teachers scoring higher on the content test also scored similarly across these

three categories. These higher scoring teachers also maintained that they had invested

considerable time reflecting on their understandings of the meanings and relationships

between the concepts they were presented during the concept mapping activity. Thus, it

appears the structuring of one’s knowledge, and the time spent reflecting on it, in part,

plays a role in its subsequent accessibility.

The act of teaching was also identified as a significant influent on teachers’

knowledge structures, as Hauslein et al. (1992) demonstrated in their examination of a

sample of teachers with varying degrees of experience. While limited, to some degree,

due to certain methodological shortcomings of the card sort task employed and its

subsequent analysis, these results were significant in that they provided affirmation that

teachers, in consideration of translating subject matter into classroom practice, do appear

to reorganize their structuring of the content in response to the varied demands therein.

The results further substantiate the aforementioned role that the reflective practices of

teachers play in their organization of content (Thompson, 1984). In addition, it appears

that as teachers engage in the process of teaching they begin to exhibit knowledge

structures inextricable from the act of teaching. Hoz et al. (1990), to a much lesser extent,

owing again in part to methodological shortcomings in their use of concepts mapping,

 129

also point to the possibility that the act of teaching, and the constellation of necessary

considerations for that process, leads to a reorganization of the subject matter and

pedagogical knowledge acquired during preservice experiences.

The work of Gess-Newsome, Lederman, and others has provided the strongest

evidence regarding the nature of teachers’ subject matter knowledge structures, the

sources of their development, their stability, and how they impact and are evidenced in

teachers’ classroom practice. Specifically, Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993) offered

further insight into the incongruence that is often indicative of preservice teachers’ initial

attempts at translating their subject matter into readily accessible forms during

instruction. While classroom management and general organization issues may have, in

part, adversely impacted these efforts (and led to the incongruity between espoused and

in-practice knowledge structures), teachers had not previously considered their subject

matter in manner in which they were asked to in this investigation. Furthermore, their

college coursework had not required them to ever consider (i.e., reflect on) the manner in

which they were organizing the concepts that they would eventually be responsible to

teach; strengthening the preponderance of evidence for the positive moderating effect that

reflection plays in the restructuring of one’s knowledge structure.

Additional insight into the origins of teachers’ subject matter knowledge

structures can be gleaned from Lederman et al. (1994), in a sampling of preservice

science teachers’ knowledge structures (both for subject matter and pedagogy) prior to,

during, and following their student teaching internship. Teachers, prior to undertaking

their student teaching, typically exhibited knowledge structures “lacking integrative

themes or connections between or within the components of either subject matter or

 130

pedagogical [knowledge] structures” (p. 135). Lederman et al. contend that teachers are

unfortunately not being presented with the structures of the discipline they are being

asked to learn, and eventually teach. As such their knowledge structures are populated

with discrete “pieces” of knowledge, oftentimes resembling the temporal sequence with

which the subject matter was taught.

Once teachers were inundated with the demands of planning for how they were

going to actually teach the subject matter they had learned, perceptible changes were

noticeable in their knowledge structures. Through reflecting on the translation of content

into practice, teachers exhibited more integrated structures that contained an increased

number of interconnected concepts; further indicating the role that reflection plays in

preparing to teach effectively, and also speaking to the need for teachers to be

considering their subject matter for instruction while learning it for the first time.

In a similar study, Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1995) provided insight into the

characteristics of experienced classroom teachers’ knowledge structures, their origins and

primary influents, and factors moderating or mediating their translation into classroom

practice.

As was the case in Hauslein et al. (1992), teachers appeared unable to

differentiate between knowledge structures for the subject matter and for the teaching of

the subject matter. Their knowledge structures tended to use included terms consistent

with those found in common textbook, while indicating varying degrees of connections

between topics, but, it should be noted, did not necessary include any overarching

themes. Gess-Newsome and Lederman contend that the stability of these structures is

attributable to overall teaching experience, though the degree to which these were “well-
 131

formed, thought-out, and highly valued” (p. 313) appeared, yet again, to be a function of

time spent reflecting on their efficacy during practice.

Gess-Newsome and Lederman also identified six prevalent variables influencing

the translation of these knowledge structures into classroom practice: “teacher intention,

content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, students, teacher autonomy, and time” (p.

316). While time to reflect was deemed the most critical factor identified, teachers with

sufficient subject matter knowledge, strong pedagogical acumen, a high degree of

confidence in their students, and sufficient curricular autonomy evidenced a higher

degree of congruence between professed and observed subject matter knowledge

structures.

While a comparison between preservice and inservice teachers is afforded by the

two Gess-Newsome and Lederman studies (1993, 1995), Abd-El-Khalick (2006) sought

to provide additional insight into the role that teaching experiences plays on the

structuring of content. For this he examined the specific and general knowledge

structures for inservice and preservice teachers.

In accordance with the aforementioned findings, preservice teachers exhibit

general knowledge structures devoid of overarching thematic elements, with little

evidence of interconnections between concepts. One of the experienced teachers

exhibited a knowledge structure similar to that of the preservice teachers, while the other,

who had spent considerable time reflecting on the content through various curriculum

development experiences, “articulated a clear, themes-based conceptual framework” (p.

12). When asked to explicate their knowledge structures for a specific topic, the

experienced teachers presented a more streamlined and straightforward account of the

 132

subject matter, owed in no small part, to the time they had spent in consideration of the

challenges inherent to teaching this subject matter to actual students.

Further Insight into Elucidating Knowledge Structures. Champagne et al.

(1978) developed their Concept Structure Analysis Technique (ConSAT) as a means of

elucidating respondents’ knowledge structures. In general, a list of concepts

representative of the “structure of the discipline” (i.e., the content structure”) is provided,

whereby cards that are unfamiliar to the respondent are removed from consideration.

Those that remain are then organized in any manner desired. A final interview is

conducted wherein the researcher probes the participant regarding the reasoning behind

the positioning of the concepts, the relationships between concepts or groups of concepts,

and what, if any, changes were made during the development of the structure.

The results of the aforementioned procedures are then subject to various intensive

inferential statistical procedures, most typically as a means for comparing the results for a

targeted group to those of an expert’s representation of the subject matter (i.e., the

content structure). Of greater concern than the intricacies of the statistical analyses is the

methodological consideration regarding the list of concepts presented to respondents, as it

is unclear what concepts populate respondents’ knowledge structures independent of

those proposed by these tasks, as they all tend to present respondents with an a priori list

of concepts. The strength of the ConSAT technique, though, may lie in the extensive

interviewing that is undertaken to explicate the reasoning behind the organization of the

concepts, what certain connection or clusters represent, and to indicate the nature of

various hierarchical structures that may be present.

 133

Concept mapping is another means typically employed for explicating knowledge

structures, though, as evident in the aforementioned summary of the work by Wallace

and Mintzes (1990) and Markham et al. (1994), the research seeking to establish the

efficacy of this “technique” for examining knowledge structures suffers from

considerable methodological shortcomings. While the details of these concerns were

presented in the previous section, the most pressing concern related to concept mapping

as a means for examining knowledge structures is the influence of a priori concepts on

the “true” nature of respondents’ conceptualization of the subject matter. That point

notwithstanding, concept mapping, when employed with a thorough interviewing

protocol can be efficacious in affording insight into the structuring of the concepts

presented, though no degree of accordance between these concepts and those initially

residing in respondent’s knowledge structures can be inferred. The same can be said for

typical card sorting activities similar to those employed in the latter half of the

investigation by Markham et al. (1994), and for the ordered-tree technique of Naveh-

Benjamin et al. (1986, 1989).

Four related studies (Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993,

1995; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994) sought to avoid the aforementioned

methodological shortcomings of concept mapping, card-sort tasks, and ordered-tree

techniques by allowing respondents to represent the targeted content in any manner of

their choosing. These diagrams then served as referents during the requisite follow-up

interview, where the details of the concepts presented, the reason for their inclusion, the

nature of the connections between concepts, and the inclusion of any overarching

thematic elements are further examined. Moreover, the results of these processes are not
 134

subjected to further quantification and inferential statistical procedures, but are examined

more qualitatively.

Influence of Conceptions of NOS and SI on Teachers’ Classroom Practice.

While the preponderance of evidence indicated that teachers’ knowledge structures

evidence themselves in their classroom practice to varying degrees, a similar

understanding regarding teachers’ conceptions of NOS and SI is also desired in light of

the focus of the current study.

Lederman and Druger (1985) in their thorough examination of teachers’ and

students’ understandings of NOS and the various classroom characteristics related to

each, debunked the assumption that teachers’ understandings of NOS should implicitly

influence the views of their students. Their results showed no significant correlation

between teachers’ NOS-scores and the change scores of their students, thus underlying

the importance of identifying other significant factors that may mediate or moderate this

translation. Classrooms that evidenced the greatest conceptual change in students’ NOS

views tended to be those with more inquiry-type questioning, problem solving activities,

and more frequent teacher-student interaction. A follow-up study with the same sample

of teachers, Lederman and Zeidler (1986), indicated that only 1 of the 44 classroom

variables derived in Lederman and Druger were significant predictors of whether a

teacher was more or less informed regarding NOS. Thus it could no longer be taken for

granted that teachers’ knowledge of NOS directly impacted their practice or that this

knowledge necessarily influences students’ understandings of it.

Hodson (1993), similarly, sought to discern the influence of teachers views of

NOS and SI on their choices and design of learning experiences, and thus, students’
 135

understandings of the epistemology of science. The secondary teachers he chose for his

study all were experienced teachers with a coherent and consistent view of science. These

teachers frequently presented conceptions of NOS and SI incongruent with those

espoused in interviews intended to explicate these views. Hodson identifies various

contributing factors (e.g., subject matter concerns, views and beliefs regarding students,

classroom management, etc.), but also cites the perceptible influence of getting “clean

results”, in difference to allowing students to struggle with various anomalous data. The

end result, he argues, is that teachers often present an inaccurate view of science, one that

is focused more on conveying essential, and typical content at the expense of shedding

light on aspects of NOS and SI. When teachers do indeed take time to reflect on aspects

of NOS and SI that emerge in classroom practice it often conflicts with those views

presented previously. The result is that students do not receive coherent and consistent

representation of NOS and SI.

In further consideration of teachers epistemological beliefs and their typical

classroom practice, Kang and Wallace (2004) provide some evidence that sophisticated

epistemological beliefs may be, because of the dynamic nature and effort inherent in their

construction, less readily perceptible in teachers classroom practice than those that are

naïve or immature. They contend that it is the contrasting manner in which these views

are typically presented by teachers that is partially to blame. Their work further

underscores the intricate and complicated interplay of beliefs, attitudes, and their impact

on classroom instruction, and the need for ensuring that informed educators are also

competent in best pedagogical practices.

 136

As research had indicated that teachers with informed views of NOS do not

necessarily evidence these views in their practice, Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) sought to

further investigate how these views are presented during planning and instruction and to

identify critical influences on this translation. The preservice teachers sampled typically

did not plan for the inclusion of NOS in their lessons, nor did they assess it, though often

stressing its importance as an overarching educational objective. Teachers were also

wholly inaccurate in communicating the frequency with which NOS was actually

included in their classroom practice.

While teachers were equipped with a host of NOS-instructional supports as part of

their preparation, they fell victim to many of the same deleterious influences that were

identified in research on the translation of knowledge structures into practice. These

included classroom management issues, knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical

knowledge, concerns and beliefs regarding students, self-efficacy regarding NOS

instruction, and the pressure to cover content. Some of these impediments were, in the

view of Abd-El-Khalick, due in large part to the inexperience of these teachers, as they

were all struggling to teach actual students for the first time.

Lederman (1999) undertook a similar investigation to Abd-El-Khalick et al. but

included experienced teachers, who were likewise informed regarding NOS, as part of his

sample, one group with under five years experience, the other well beyond this critical

induction period (i.e., more than five years). Evidence indicated that the inexperience

teachers, much like the preservice teachers in Abd-El-Khalick et al., were overwhelmed

by the daily rigors of teaching, specifically regarding classroom management and general

organizational issues. Experienced teachers, while creating an environment apparently

 137

consistent with potentially increasing students’ understandings of NOS, they nevertheless

taught in manner inconsistent with their knowledge of NOS. The lack of explicit planning

for NOS-instruction and its subsequent assessment were also notably absent, much as the

case was for the preservice teachers in Abd-El-Khalick et al., and the less experienced

teachers in this study. These results provide further indication of the complexity of

translating subject matter knowledge, whatever its structure may be, into classroom

practice.

One additional factor that appears to play a role in the translation of NOS

knowledge into practice is a teacher’s subject matter knowledge, as Schwartz and

Lederman (2002) investigated as teachers learned about NOS and attempted to teach it

for the first time. While a strong belief in the necessity of including NOS in their practice

helped the two teachers in this investigation sidestep some of the potential pitfalls

detailed above, their varying degrees of subject matter knowledge and conceptions of

NOS impacted their efforts. In general, Schwartz and Lederman conclude that teachers

need to develop pedagogical content knowledge for teaching NOS just as they must for

any subject matter, in addition to possessing a belief in its importance and having the

intent to teach it.

Guerra-Ramos et al. (2010) believe that it is the nature of the instrument used to

assess teachers’ understandings of NOS, particularly regarding the lack of consideration

of the pedagogical setting in which these views are expressed that is to blame for the

incongruity between teachers’ understandings and their views evident in their classroom

practice. While an examination of how teachers views of NOS may be affected by the

considerations inherent to teaching is a provocative idea, Guerra-Ramos et al. do not

 138

present a view of NOS that is consistent with those reflected in the reform documents,

nor are they consistent with the vast body of research on NOS and SI.

As conclusions regarding the effectiveness of immersing students in inquiry-rich

environments and other more implicit approaches to improve their understandings of

NOS and SI proved inconclusive at best, Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) wonder

whether there was a more efficacious means to this end. In specific they compared two

classes taught in the same inquiry-rich manner, but where one concluded with a

discussion of various aspects of NOS aspects as they related to the science content

included (i.e., an explicit-reflective approach). Results indicate that the explicit-reflective

group exhibited marked improvement across the entire range of NOS aspects, in contrast

to that of the control group, who showed no discernible improvement. This investigation

provides resounding evidence that if you want students to learn NOS, and for that matter

SI, you must make the connection between the activity (whatever type it may be) and the

aspects of NOS and SI explicit, and provide students time to reflect on these connections.

Moss (2001), in an investigation crippled with a host of conceptual and

methodological shortcomings did, even for his own ill-conceived representation of NOS

and SI, provided some early indication of the insufficiency of implicit approaches to

improving students’ conceptions in advance of the work of Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick

(2002).

Lastly, the two studies that attempted to use concept maps to (1) complement

traditional NOS instruments (in this case the VNOS; Borda et al, 2009) and (2) assess

students’ understandings of NOS (Merle-Johnson et al., 2010) did provide some

interesting possibilities regarding alternative means for assessing NOS understandings.

 139

Unfortunately, in the former study, teachers individually completed VNOS

questionnaires, while concept mapping activities were undertaken in a small group

format. In the latter, as much of the data was presented through self- report interviews

with teachers, and did focus on an analysis of the concept maps in a way to elucidate the

knowledge structure represented therein. As such it is difficult to discern the validity of

the conclusions, but what is clear is that if students were specifically prompted to include

concepts related to NOS, there may be some utility in employing this method to gain

further insight into understandings of NOS, and for that matter, SI.

Insight and Recommendations

What is clear from the preponderance of evidence presented is that teachers’

subject matter knowledge structures are not necessarily translated into their classroom

practice, nor are their understandings of NOS and SI. While myriad factors hinder this

translation in regard to teachers’ knowledge structures, many of these (e.g.,

organizational demands, classroom management issues, unfamiliarity with the

curriculum) appear to be a function of the challenges faced by beginning teachers during

their induction to the profession (i.e., the first three to five years of their careers). Others

center on perceptions of the subject matter to be taught, beliefs about the needs and

abilities of the students, and the pressures of covering the content reflected on high stakes

tests or similar assessments.

Regarding NOS and SI, while beginning teachers struggle to include NOS and SI

explicitly into their classroom practice for many of the same organization and

management issues referenced above, it is necessary that teachers also value NOS and SI
 140

as worthwhile instructional outcomes, on par with that of the “regular” subject matter.

Moreover, many of the challenges inherent to translating content to students result in

teachers communicating views of NOS and SI that are not consistent with their own,

oftentimes informed, views. Teachers, in effect, need pedagogical content knowledge for

NOS and SI, which encapsulates knowledge of NOS and SI, pedagogical knowledge

regarding the teaching and assessing of NOS and SI, knowledge of the “traditional”

subject matter, and how these domains interact, overlap, and modify each other. In

specific, when the improvement of students’ conceptions of NOS and SI is a targeted

instructional objective, it is imperative that teachers explicitly draw attention to the

relevant aspects of NOS and SI reflected in classroom practice (i.e., take an explicit

reflective approach).

Of paramount concern for facilitating the translation of teachers’ knowledge

structures into practice appears to be the time they have spent reflecting on this content,

particularly with regard to how it will be translated in readily accessible forms in

classroom practice. Teachers’ that have invested and/or been afforded time to reflect on

this process (i.e., the translation of knowledge into practice) tend to evidence knowledge

structures more integrated in nature than those who have not; providing some explanatory

evidence for the moderating role that explicit reflection plays. Though, in contrast,

teaching experience, in and of itself, does not appear to play a significant role in the

restructuring of these structures when teachers do not actively reflect on the efficacy of

their practice. Furthermore, highly integrated knowledge structures appear to play a

facilitatory role in allowing teachers to respond to students’ needs during lesson

 141

enactment, in part due to the ease with which such highly structured knowledge in

recalled.

An assortment of methodologies have been utilized to elucidate respondents’

knowledge structures (e.g., card sort, concept map, ordered tree), nevertheless most are

bereft with certain shortcomings, centered on the introduction of a priori concepts and

the utility of extensive inferential statistical analyses to represent the seemingly dynamic

nature of the representations; others are more appropriate for comparisons with an

expert’s knowledge structure. In the end, it appears that allowing respondents to represent

the subject matter under examination in any manner of their choosing, and explicating

these abstractions through extensive interviewing is the most efficacious means to this

end.

While there is some indication that researchers have attempted to use concept

mapping activities to assess respondents’ views of NOS, unfortunately the dearth of such

research provides little insight into the nature of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS

and SI, nor whether they can afford deeper insight into the respondents’ understandings

of these constructs, beyond that provided by more commonly utilized assessments.

Furthermore, the characteristics of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI

could provide additional insight into the challenges encountered when attempting to

transform informed views of NOS and SI into classroom practice. When seeking to

examine the translation of these knowledge structures for NOS and SI it would appear

most efficacious, in light of the aforementioned research, to examine (a) experienced

teachers (i.e., at least five years experience); (b) teachers with adequate subject matter

knowledge; (c) teachers who feel sufficiently unconstrained by their curriculum; (d)
 142

teachers with informed views of NOS and SI; (e) those who have sufficient preparation

geared toward the development of their pedagogical content knowledge for teaching NOS

and SI; and (f) teachers who value NOS and SI as instructional outcomes.
 143

CHAPTER 3

DESIGN AND METHOD

Introduction

The main purposes of the current study was to discern physics teachers’

knowledge structures for nature of science (NOS) and scientific inquiry (SI) and

determine how congruent these views were with those knowledge structures

communicated through teachers’ classroom practice. A comparison between teachers’

views of NOS and SI as evidenced on traditional open-ended measures and those

espoused through solicitation of their knowledge structures was also sought.

The main component of the study (i.e., the construction of teachers’ knowledge

structures) necessitated a multiple case study design, similar to past research on biology

teachers’ subject matter structures (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome &

Lederman, 1995; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994). The details regarding data

collection and analysis are described in detail in the following sections. In general,

teachers’ NOS and SI knowledge structures were inductively generated from multiple

data sources relating to their classroom practice, and subsequently compared to those

generated through a questionnaire and follow-up interview.

Secondly, teachers’ views of NOS and SI as evaluated by traditional, open-ended

instruments were compared with their views communicated through their knowledge

structures. Regarding the “traditional” evaluation of teachers’ views of NOS and SI, the

Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS D+; Lederman et al., 2002) and Views

About Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire (VASI; Lederman et al., 2012) were used,

respectively, to generate rich profiles of each participant between and within a variety of
 144

targeted aspects. Details regarding each instrument are provided in the sections that

follow.

Participants

The main research question driving this study dealt, in part, with teachers’

conceptions of NOS and SI evidenced in their classroom practice. Past research suggests

that teachers neither necessarily value nor include NOS and SI in their classroom practice

(see Lederman, 2007 for a complete review). As such, only teachers that self-reported

both valuing NOS and SI and typically including it in their practice were chosen for this

study. Moreover, as teachers do not always hold informed views of NOS and SI, nor do

they possess an adequate repertoire of pedagogical strategies (i.e., pedagogical content

knowledge, PCK) for teaching about NOS and SI, only teachers that have completed a

teacher preparation program or similar professional development experiences that

targeted developing teachers’ PCK for NOS as an overarching and pervasive instructional

objective were considered.

Prospective participants were solicited from a roster of current full-time teachers

who have graduated from the preservice, master’s certificate in teaching, master’s degree

in science education cohort, or Ph.D program in science education from the Illinois

Institute of Technology’s Mathematics and Science Education Department. This group of

graduates all completed required coursework that included a course, Scientific Inquiry &

Problem Solving, focused on the development of understandings, pedagogical strategies,

and assessment of both NOS and SI. Furthermore, NOS and SI are also an overarching
 145

thematic element of the preservice, master’s teaching certificate, and master’s degree

programs.

In addition, teachers were also considered that had taken part in the High School

Transformation Project (HSTP), a three-year extensive professional development

program funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Chicago Public Schools

aimed at turning around failing inner city schools. This large-scale initiative sought to

improve the overall quality of instruction in Chicago’s worst-performing high schools by,

in part, overhauling their science and mathematics curricula and providing intensive

professional development and coaching to their teachers. The group of teachers who

completed the HSTP also received extensive instructional support throughout their three

year participation, in best practices both for teaching general course content and specific

to NOS and SI. For example, teachers were provided with a wealth (about 40 for physics

teachers) of model lessons that sought to equip them with readily accessible means for

teaching and assessing NOS and SI. Instructional coaching further focused on the

inclusion of more inquiry-based classroom strategies while serving to bolster teachers’

attempts at including NOS and SI as content in their lessons.

It should be noted that, while not failsafe, it was presumed that teachers who had

successfully completed either of these two “programs” (formal program of study at IIT or

professional development through HSTP) should be more likely to have developed the

requisite PCK to teach NOS and SI. In general, the structure of these programs

constituted what Lederman (1999) referred to as “a systematic and concerted effort to

help teachers develop their conception and the classroom skills and abilities that will
 146

enable them to transform their understandings of science into classroom practice…” (p.

927).

Furthermore, it was conjectured that teachers who had completed these programs

were more likely to have internalize the instructional importance of NOS and SI and are

thus were more likely to include it in their instructional decisions (Lederman, 1999).

This, it was hoped, would help secure a sample of teachers who are not easily deterred in

their efforts to teach about NOS and SI by influences common to lesser experienced and

“equipped” teachers (e.g., classroom management, organizational issues, subsuming NOS

and SI because of pressure to cover typical content), and are potentially more likely to

include a conception of NOS and SI in their classroom practice congruent with their own.

Only physics and physical science teachers were (primarily) considered for this

study, as this is the area of expertise of the researcher and it was speculated that this

familiarity would help facilitate the identification and contextualization of the inclusion

of aspects of NOS and SI in teachers’ practice. While the research guiding a considerable

portion of the methodology of the current study examined teachers subject matter

knowledge structures (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995;

Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994, among others), and thus required the

researcher to have a content background in the subject matter under examination, it was

conjectured that expertise in the subject matter (in this case, NOS and SI) aided the

researcher in providing a more accurate picture of the quality of inclusion for aspects of

NOS and SI, beyond that afforded by informed understandings of NOS and SI alone.

Initial inquiries were made in the spring of 2012 by email to recommended

physics teachers meeting the aforementioned criteria. Initial contact soliciting

 147

participation provided a brief and purposefully vague explanation of the investigation, a

general overview of the data that would be collected, and an approximation of the overall

time commitment. The teachers were also informed that the study was not evaluative in

nature, and were asked if they would be willing to consider participation and to talk more

about this project with the researcher. A copy of this correspondence can be found in the

Appendix A.

Those teachers agreeing to consider participation were contacted by phone, where

they were asked general questions about the inclusion of NOS and SI in their classroom

practices (or lack thereof as the case may be), specifically whether they did, and to what

degree, include NOS and SI in their classroom practice. Respondents who provided a

confirmatory response, and agreed to participate, were informed about additional details

of the study, mostly concerning the logistics of completing the questionnaire(s) and for

scheduling initial classroom observations during the following semester. Specifically,

participants were asked for a time when they could complete the Knowledge Structures

for NOS and SI (KS4NS) questionnaire and, if they had not done so, also complete the

VNOS and/or VASI questionnaires, as necessary.

All participants previously expressing a willingness to participate were contacted

again in the fall of 2012. Once they reaffirmed their commitment to participate, they were

again reminded of the intent of the investigation, and were asked for the appropriate

administrative contacts to provide permission to participate. Furthermore and prior to the

first classroom observation, signatures of approval were obtained in compliance with the

requirements of the Institutional Review Board. This resulted in six physics teachers from

five different school districts, all fitting the aforementioned criteria.

 148

Overview

In developing the NOS and SI profile for each teacher, specifically regarding the

knowledge structure for NOS and SI, a quantitative design guided both data collection

and analysis, as the researcher was primarily concerned with a set of a priori aspects of

NOS and SI, and how these evidence themselves in a teachers’ classroom practice. While

the entirety of data collected and analyzed was primarily qualitative, this study, in

contrast to those cited previously (specifically, Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome &

Lederman, 1995; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994) sought to specifically

identify teachers’ conceptual organization of predefined aspects of NOS and SI. In

general, data relating to these aspects was collected and analyzed continuously to discern

the inclusion of specific NOS and/or SI concepts or ideas, the relationships between these

concepts and/or ideas, and the presence of any more hierarchical structures that are

evident. Subsequent phases of data collection and analyses served to confirm or

contradict these various organizational structures.

Triangulation among the various data sources aided in contrasting or confirming

patterns evidenced and/or inferred from the varied sources of data, and the numerous

phases of data analysis. The specifics of this methodology are discussed, as appropriate,

in what follows.

Questionnaires

VNOS and VASI Questionnaires. The first phase of data collection began with

participant teachers receiving two questionnaires, the Views of Nature of Science (VNOS
 149

D+; Lederman et al., 2002) and Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI; Lederman et al.,

2012) questionnaires. These questionnaires are provided in Appendices B and D

respectively. While all participants had completed each during their coursework or

professional development experiences, some have not completed the recently developed

VASI, having instead completed the Views of Scientific Inquiry questionnaire (Schwartz,

et al., 2008). Moreover, the time that had elapsed since participants completed the VNOS

was not uniform across the sample. As such, each teacher was asked to complete another

VOSI and a VASI questionnaire to overcome these potential conflating variables.

In brief, the VNOS (Form D+) is an open-ended questionnaire consisting of 10

questions. Respondents are asked, in general, to respond to each question as completely

and clearly as possible, using examples when necessary. The VNOS aims to ascertain

respondents’ views on seven specific aspects of NOS, namely that (1) scientific

knowledge is empirically based; (2) observations and inferences are qualitatively distinct;

(3) scientific theories and scientific laws are different types of knowledge; (4) the

generation of scientific knowledge requires human imagination and creativity; (5)

scientific knowledge is theory-laden (i.e., influenced by scientists’ prior knowledge,

beliefs, training, expectations, etc.); (6) scientific knowledge both affects and is affected

by the society and culture in which it is embedded; and (7) scientific knowledge, while

reliable and durable, changes. Lederman et al. (2002) can be referenced for a more

complete explication of these aspects and the development of the VNOS questionnaire in

general.

As noted by Lederman on numerous occasions (e.g., Lederman, 2007; Lederman

et al., 2002) this “list” of aspects of NOS is not meant to convey the belief in a singular,
 150

definitive NOS, only a representation of those aspects that are noncontentious, and for

which research has indicated are educational appropriate for students (in this case, those

in high school).

Lederman et al. (2002) contend the open-ended nature of the VNOS

questionnaires, and the same it is argued can be said for the VASI, overcome three major

criticisms of standardized instruments used to assess respondents’ views of NOS. These

include two prominent issues with validity, wherein respondents do not necessarily

interpret questionnaire items in accordance with the intent of the developers and,

furthermore, that these instruments tend to be biased towards developers own conceptions

of NOS, obfuscating respondents’ views. In addition, the aggregate measures produced in

scoring these standardized instruments are difficult to interpret, specifically regarding the

categorization of respondents as “informed” versus “naïve”, limiting, in Lederman et al.’s

(2002) words, “the feasibility of drawing meaningful conclusions regarding the nature of

learners’ NOS views and/or assessing the meaningful and importance of any gains in

understanding NOS…” (p. 503).

While the details regarding the establishment of the face validity and construct

validity of the VNOS can be found in Lederman et al. (2000), the validity of respondents’

views of NOS can be further established through examining the congruence between

profile developed through analysis of written answers to those generated from the semi-

structured interview that follows VNOS completion. In general, a high degree of

congruence has been evidenced across the myriad administrations of this questionnaire

for a similar population of respondents (i.e., classroom teachers) for this and similar

forms (Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; Bell, 1999; Lederman et al., 2002). It should be further
 151

noted that the current researcher has been trained in scoring the VNOS, and has

successfully scored in excess of one thousand.

The VASI is, for the most part, the scientific inquiry counterpart to the VNOS. It

is almost identical in construction and design, consisting of seven open-ended questions,

for which respondents are given identical instructions as the VNOS. The VASI targets

respondents’ views of SI across eight different aspects, specifically that (1) scientific

investigations always begin with a question; (2) there is no single set or sequence of steps

in a scientific investigation; (3) the procedures followed in an investigation are invariably

guided by the question(s) asked; (4) scientists following the same procedures will not

necessarily arrive at the same results; (5) the procedures undertaken in an investigation

influence the subsequent results; (6) conclusions drawn must be consistent with collected

data; (7) data is not the same as evidence; and (8) scientific explanations are developed

through a combination of evidence and what is already known. The reader is encouraged

to reference Lederman et al. (2012b) for more details regarding these aspects and the

specifics surrounding the development of VASI.

The VASI questionnaire, like the VNOS, seeks to overcome the aforementioned

shortcomings of standardized instruments, has been validated in a similar manner for the

current study’s sample (please see Lederman et al., 2012b for details), and is

administered in exactly the same manner as the VNOS.

Both the VNOS and VASI questionnaires are scored similarly. All items on each

instrument are considered holistically to generate a profile of respondents’

understandings across the targeted aspects as either naïve or informed. Contradictory

responses or those providing partial evidence of understanding are given a label of mixed,
 152

while those not are incomprehensible are labeled as unclear. Appendix C and Appendix

E, along with Lederman et al. (2002) and Lederman et al. (2012b), provide illustrative

examples of informed and naïve views for the VNOS and VASI respectively.

Participant teachers in the current study were asked to print out, complete, and

store these questionnaires in a safe place until the related interview following classroom

observation. It should be noted that the results of teachers’ VNOS and VOSI

questionnaires were never revealed to the researcher until after the completion of all

classroom observation, a precaution undertaken to limit the risk of the results potentially

biasing these observational data and/or analyses. Furthermore, participants’ VNOS and

VASI questionnaires were not scored until all inductively generated (through classroom

practice data) knowledge structures for NOS and SI had been completed.

Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI Questionnaire. In addition to completing

the VNOS and VASI questionnaires, teachers were asked to complete the Knowledge

Structures for Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry (KS4NS) questionnaire. The entire

questionnaire is provided in Appendix D. As was the case with the VNOS and VASI

questionnaires, teachers were instructed, once finished, to place the completed

questionnaire in a safe place until the related interview after the completion of classroom

observations. This step was similarly undertaken to ensure that the researcher had no

knowledge of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI prior to beginning

classroom observation, at the risk of introducing bias into those instances where NOS and

SI were included in classroom practice.

The KS4NS questionnaire asked teachers to represent their understandings of

NOS and SI in any manner of their choosing, and using any concepts/terms they feel is
 153

appropriate. As emphasized in past, similar research (e.g., Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-

Newsome & Lederman, 1995; Lederman, Gess-Newsome, & Latz, 1994) it was believed

that this “free-form” approach to eliciting knowledge structures (or “subject-matter

structures” as they are referred to in the aforementioned studies) was superior to other

methods (e.g., concept mapping, card sort tasks, ordered-tree, etc.) that impose a

superficial structure on respondent’s representations, potentially limit the concepts for

inclusion, and restrict the manner by which they can be included.

The construction of teachers’ knowledge structures in this manner, where teachers

were given time to consider essential concepts and represent them in any manner of their

choosing independently, and under no time constraints, served two purposes. As Abd-El-

Khalick (2006) describes, the process allows teachers time to reflect on these questions,

in addition to “address[ing] concerns associated with over-reliance on quick recall, which

might compromise the validity of assessing teachers' [knowledge structures]” (p. 10).

These NOS and SI diagrams, it should be emphasized, later served as the

foundational referent during follow-up interviews, where respondent’s knowledge

structures were actually explicated (i.e., when they “explain” their diagrams).

Furthermore, the gap in time between construction of the knowledge structure and the

related interview allowed the researcher “to discuss participants' ideas…rather than

asking participants to (a) come up with the topics they deem important, (b) think about

ways in which these topics connect, and (c) explicate their thinking about these

connections, all in the same interview” (Abd-El-Khalick , 2006, p. 11). Interviewing

respondents concerning their knowledge structures was essential, as while these diagrams

do potentially offer insight into an individual’s organization and conceptualization of the

 154

subject matter in question, they do not necessarily, when considered in isolation, provide

an accurate model of an individual teacher’s knowledge structure. This has been

supported by the incongruencies between the subject matter structures (i.e., knowledge

structures for a particular subject area or domain) constructed by teachers during the

administration of the questionnaire, which were often characterized as integrated with

overarching thematic elements, and teacher’s subsequent inabilities to explicate the

relationships during the subsequent interview (Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome &

Lederman, 1993, 1995; Lederman & Gess-Newsome, 1991).

In specific, the KS4NS questionnaire contains the following:

 What concepts and/or ideas comprise Nature of Science (NOS) and Scientific
Inquiry (SI)? Please include any and all concepts and/or ideas that you feel
comprise NOS and SI.

 If you were to make a diagram of these topics, either separate or together,

what would it look like?

 Have you ever thought about NOS and SI in this manner before? Please
explain.

As was the case in the aforementioned studies, teachers were told that the vagueness of

the questionnaire was intentional, that there were no right or wrong answers, and also

that, specific to this study, they could construct a single diagram for NOS and SI or, if

they preferred, keep them separated (i.e., construct two separate diagrams).

Concerning the completion of the KS4NS questionnaire, past research (e.g., Gess-

Newsome, 1992) has cast doubt on the influence of a testing effect (i.e., the influence of

when teachers complete their knowledge structure questionnaires) on teachers’ classroom

practice. As such, all teachers in the sample completed their questionnaire prior to

beginning instruction in the fall semester. Teachers, though, were not interviewed until
 155

after the completion of all inductively generated (from classroom practice) knowledge

structures.

As mentioned previously, to help ensure the objectivity of the classroom

observations and data analysis procedures the researcher had no knowledge of

respondents’ KS4NS questionnaire results until after all data have been analyzed and

inductively generated knowledge structures have been completed. This precautionary

measure sought to decrease the potential of confirmatory bias that could impact the lens

through which the researcher viewed teachers’ classroom practices and made subsequent

decisions about the translation of teachers knowledge structures for NOS and SI into their

classroom practice.

Demographic Questionnaire. A demographic questionnaire, completed after

classroom observation data collection and analysis was concluded, included questions

related to each teachers’ years of experience (in general and in teaching physics), the

degrees they hold, and the number of courses they have completed in physics, education,

and science education. While the collection of these data was considered prior to

beginning classroom observation, it was believed that this had the potential to introduce

bias in the construction of teachers’ inferred subject matter knowledge structures from

classroom practice.

This information was used to not only to inform the development of each case

study, but also to identify the possible influence of previously identified factors that

potentially served to inhibit or moderate the translation of teachers’ knowledge structures

into classroom practice (Gess-Newsome, 1992; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995),

including, among others, content and pedagogical knowledge, teaching experience,

 156

perceptions (real or perceived) of curricular and instructional “freedom”, and overarching

philosophies of teaching and learning.

Classroom Observations

To inductively generate the knowledge structures for NOS and SI of each teacher,

extensive classroom observations were conducted, in addition to the collection of all

related classroom artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, worksheets, assessment, etc). Prior to

beginning classroom observations, teachers were asked, if they preferred to select a

specific class and related class period for inclusion in the study. It was hoped that, in

being allowed to choose the class for observation, teachers would be more at ease being

observed. The selection of a specific course, class, or multiple classes was deemed

appropriate, as the three questionnaires are not class, or even content, specific.

Classroom observations commenced at the start of the fall 2012 semester. While

the physics teachers in this investigation followed markedly different curricula, the

coordinated start time (i.e., start of the school year) provided some measure of

consistency within these two groups, as most of these classes typically begin, almost

invariably, with topics comprising mechanics. As research has indicated that various

topics within a subject area often provide teachers with increased opportunities for

including aspects of NOS and SI in their practice (Lederman et al., 2012), this

consistency in curriculum, it was hoped, offered insight into the influence of various

demographic influents on the translations of knowledge structures for NOS and SI into

classroom practice, and helped, to some degree, inform judgments regarding the quality

of respondents’ understandings (i.e., informed, transitional, or naïve).

 157

Over the course of the semester, each teacher was asked by the researcher to

provide advanced notice for any lesson in which NOS and/or SI was going to be

explicitly addressed, with, hopefully, a minimum of approximately one lesson per week.

This purposeful sampling of observed classes was undertaken to first maximize the

productive or “on-task” time spent by the observer in each teacher’s classroom, and to

insure the teacher had the intention of including aspects of NOS and SI in their

instruction for that particular lesson. Intention to teach NOS has been identified in past

research as an influential factor on teachers’ instructional decision making (Lederman,

1999; Lederman et al., 2001), while the same is assumed for SI.

Secondly, informing the researcher of the intent to include NOS and SI in

classroom practice served to further facilitate a focus on (only) explicit references to

aspects of NOS and/or SI, as opposed to other more implicit approaches where NOS

and/or SI may be simply “instructionally modeled.” This emphasis on explicit references

to NOS and SI is in accordance with the growing body of research that supports an

explicit-reflective approach as the only reliable means for positively influencing students’

conceptions of NOS and SI (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, et al., 1998). In addition, there is

extensive evidence that teachers’ knowledge of NOS and SI are not necessarily reflected

in their classroom practice (Hodson, 1993; Lederman & Druger, 1985; Lederman &

Zeidler, 1986).

As such, the current research did not attempt to infer instances where NOS and SI

could possibly be reflected on, or where understandings can be inferred by the researcher.

Observations were undertaken with a focus on explicit attention to the 15 aspects of NOS

and SI outlined previously.

 158

The overarching purpose of examining explicit references to NOS and SI, in both

the observations and the collection of related artifacts, was to closely mirror the

methodology employed in previous studies by Lederman & Gess-Newsome (1991),

Gess-Newsome (1992), and Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993, 1995), in an “attempt

to inductively generate the [knowledge structure] of each teacher as evidenced by

patterns of classroom teaching” (Gess-Newsome, 1992, p. 33).

As previously stated, participants were given the choice of which of their physics

or physical science classes they wanted to include for examination and informed the

researcher weekly regarding the best opportunities to observe NOS and SI in their

classroom practice. While the researcher made every attempt to visit as many of each

participant’s classes, and sections of these classes that they were willing to include,

logistical complications did limited the efficacy of this goal. The observed variation, it

was hoped, did help provide a clearer “picture” of teachers’ knowledge structures for

NOS and SI, as various aspects of these different curricula may have present better

opportunities, either real or perceived, for teaching NOS and SI. In other words, teachers

may have had higher degree of PCK for teaching NOS and SI for certain topics than

others. As sections of the same class can vary greatly, observations spanning all of the

sections of a class did potentially eliminate or helped identify factors that served to

moderate the translations of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI into

classroom practice.

All classroom observations were audio recorded, with field notes focused on (1)

data to inform the generation of a general profile for each case, (2) non-verbal data (e.g.,

writing on the board, student movement, and observational notes), and (3) the specific
 159

inclusion of NOS and SI. These notes both provided data not readily apparent when re-

listening to the related audio, but also provided a means for better accessing and

analyzing the audio data, as the notes were synchronized with the audio through the

recording device.

Prior to, and following classroom observation, a brief conference was held, either

in person or via email) with each teacher. The purpose of the pre-observation meeting

was to provide insight into the lesson to follow, its instructional objectives, what has been

done previously in class, and how NOS and/or SI was going to be included. The post-

observation conference sought to get general feedback on the lesson, provide an

opportunity for inquiring about instructional decision-making, and to ask about the

teacher’s overall impression regarding the inclusion of NOS and SI.

Data Analysis

The aforementioned data were continuously analyzed to inform the construction

of each teachers’ inductively generated knowledge structure of NOS and SI. In general,

classroom observation data were examined first, specifically focusing on the 15 a priori

aspects of NOS and SI outlined previously. Subsequent passes through these same data

were undertaken to (a) better understand the inclusion of NOS and SI during instruction,

(b) to qualify the inclusion of these conceptions as informed, mixed, or naïve, (c) to

discern the level of engagement of the students, (d) to inform the identification of

possible connections between aspects of NOS and/or SI, and (e) for potentially

establishing the presence of other “conceptual structures” (e.g., clustering, subordination,

hierarchies, etc.).
 160

In general, each explicit reference to an aspect of NOS or SI was consider on an

inclusion-by-inclusion basis, where the unit of analysis that served to define each

inclusion or instance was the “paragraph.” Consistent with Merriam-Webster’s definition

(paragraph, 2012), or that it is “a subdivision of a written composition that consists of one

or more sentences…[and] deals with one point or gives the words of one speaker…”, for

the current study these units of “teacher talk” typically included a single or multiple

utterances on a single concept or connection, uninterrupted by a change in turn (i.e., a

student comment or answer to a question). While typical teacher discourse does not, as

can be imagined, necessarily follow as clearly defined rules as written text, every effort

was made to adhere to the aforementioned definition in its application to the classroom

observation transcripts.

Each explicit reference to one of the targeted aspects of NOS and SI was then

examined for its congruence with currently accepted “definitions.” These can be

referenced in Lederman et al. (2002) for the VNOS Questionnaire, and in Lederman et al.

(2012b) for the VASI Questionnaire, and are included in Appendix C and E, respectively.

In general, a “score” of informed was given when a teacher’s conception was expressed

in congruence with the definition provided in these sources. When only partially aligned

with these definitions, or when providing a contradictory explanation, a score of mixed in

assigned. If the definition communicated contradicted or was wholly incongruent with the

excepted meaning, it was labeled as a naïve conception.

A connection between two concepts refers to instances where a teacher related

two aspects of NOS and/or SI. For example, a teacher may have mentioned that scientists

following the same procedure to answer the same question may not arrive at the same
 161

answer due to the influence of their theoretical commitment or their subjectivity. A

comment such as this would be viewed as potential evidence for a connection between

“subjectivity” and “same question, same procedure, but different results.”

Thematic elements were considered conceptual structures or organizational

schema that were “laid over” the other aspects of NOS and SI, or unified multiple aspects

of NOS and SI. A teacher continually referring, for example, to subjectivity as a

influencing the questions scientists ask, the procedures they favor, the data they collect,

the inferences and conclusions they draw, what they considered as evidence, and why, in

the end, the knowledge they generate is subject to change (i.e., tentative) would

potentially provide evidence in favor of “subjectivity” as an overarching thematic

element in this teacher’s knowledge structure for NOS and SI.

Lastly, each instance of inclusion was further categorized as either explicit or

explicit-reflective, the latter pertaining to cases where participant teachers attempted to

explicitly connect the activities students were engaged in, and their experiences therein,

to characteristics of scientific knowledge (i.e., NOS) or how scientists typically do their

work (i.e., SI). Evidence has supported these explicit-reflective practices as being most

efficacious in positively impacting learners’ conceptions of NOS and SI. These explicit

approaches lie in direct contrast to the unfounded assumption that students come to

understand NOS and SI by simply “doing science”, without explicit instruction focused

on understandings of NOS and SI (see Lederman, 1998 for more details). Explicit

references to NOS and SI, whereby a teacher may, for example, point out a historical or

current example of NOS and SI, were also considered for the current investigation.

Though not appearing as effective in positively impacting learners’ views of NOS and SI
 162

as those that allow learner to explicitly reflect on their experiences doing science or some

facsimile thereof (i.e., explicit-reflective), there is some indication that these approaches

may positively impact students’ conceptions (Abd-El-Khalick, 1998).

Once inferences were drawn regarding a teacher’s classroom practice subject

matter knowledge structure, confirmatory or contradictory examples were sought in other

observational data, or from the variety of other sources (e.g., lesson plans, worksheets,

notes, and assessments) analyzed separately. These additional data were used to generate

a similar knowledge structure for each teacher independent of, to the best of the

researcher’s ability, those constructed from classroom observations. Congruence or lack

thereof between the two knowledge structures served to inform the interviewing protocol

for each teacher, and provided some measure of validity regarding their accuracy, and the

overall strength of the knowledge structure evidenced for classroom observation data.

An analysis of the level of engagement of students during the inclusion of NOS

and/or SI was considered to provide additional support to a potential dearth of additional

classroom artifacts (i.e., lesson plans, worksheets, and assessments, among others). This

was categorized as either transmission when teachers spoke at or to students, in a manner

consistent with lecturing, though not necessarily at that level of sustainment. On the other

end of the continuum was interaction, wherein students could be, for example, prompted

with questions to consider and discuss, either verbally or as part of an assignment.

Furthermore, the level of sustainment for each aspect included in classroom

practice was examined. This sought to identify how many statement or phrases

concerning a particular aspect were chained together at one time. This, it was assumed,
 163

would provide further insight into the level of engagement of the class, and some

measure of how strong the emphasis was in their instruction.

At the conclusion of the analysis of data from classroom observations and other

related artifacts, a profile was constructed for each teacher. In general, this included

information about their academic and professional preparation, a general overview of

their school, its leadership and its students, and some general information about

participants’ views of physics teaching. In addition, a rich profile related to teachers’

classroom practice in regard to the15 targeted aspects of NOS and SI is provided, which

served to inform the development of their classroom practice knowledge structure for

NOS and SI. Lastly, summaries of teachers’ responses on the three questionnaires are

discussed, along with an examination of the congruence between classroom practice and

the KS4NS, and also between the three questionnaires.

It should be noted that the final inductively generated profile of teachers’

knowledge structures for NOS and SI was completed before any subsequent analysis of

teachers’ views of NOS and SI or their knowledge structure for NOS and SI were

examined. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the researcher did not examined

teachers’ specific responses to the KS4NS questionnaire nor those provided on the VNOS

and VASI questionnaires until all observations and data analysis for the inductively

generated SMKSs had been completed.

Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure Diagram. In addition, an NOS and

SI knowledge structure diagram, much like those evidenced in previously related research

and representing the researcher’s best attempt to recreate the teacher’s classroom practice

knowledge structure for NOS and SI, was developed. These graphical representations
 164

were generated with the primary intent of providing a supplement to the rich descriptions

afforded by the individual case studies.

Each diagram considered both the frequency of inclusion, and also the “degree”

of explicitness with which it was introduced into classroom practice. While only those

instances of NOS and SI made explicit were considered, as opposed to those which the

researcher could potentially infer (i.e., implicit), the distinct was made between explicit

inclusion, and explicit-reflective inclusion. Explicit references to NOS and SI refer to

instances where a teacher may, for example, point out how a historical or more current

example of “science” relates to a particular aspect of NOS and SI. Though not appearing

as effective in positively impacting learners’ views of NOS and SI as those that allow

learner to explicitly reflect on their experiences doing science or some facsimile thereof

(i.e., explicit-reflective), there is some indication that these approaches may, though not

as efficaciously, impact students’ conceptions (Abd-El-Khalick, 1998).

As previously stated, contradictory responses or those providing partial evidence

of understandings of a specific aspect were given a label of mixed, those wholly

incongruent with a particular aspect were deemed naïve, while those that were

incomprehensible are label as unclear. Examples of informed and more naïve views of

each particular aspect of NOS and SI targeted in the current investigation can be found in

Appendix C and Appendix E, respectively.

To quantify the inclusion of each aspect, and the potential connections between

them, each instance was given a “score” derived from (a) the frequency of inclusion, (b)

the level of understanding (i.e., naïve, mixed, informed) communicated, and (c) whether

the inclusion was explicit or explicit-reflective.

 165

In specific, each inclusion was scored as a “0”, “1”, or “2” for level of

understanding for naïve, mixed, and informed, respectively. If this inclusion was

qualified as explicit-reflective, as opposed to explicit, the score was doubled. Thus, if a

teacher included the idea that scientific knowledge is “tentative” four times in their

practice, two times that were informed (once allowing for explicit reflection), and two

times that presented mixed conceptions, they would “receive” a score of “8” for

“tentative” as shown below:

Informed Informed Mixed Mixed

2 + 2*2 + 1 + 1 = 8

In addition, for the aspect of “tentative”, this teacher would, most likely, be labeled as

communicating informed conceptions of this particular aspect of NOS. It should be

noted, though, that those qualification of informed, mixed, and naive were informed by

holistically considering the particular details of each inclusion, most notably for whether

those inclusions labeled mixed were simply partial or contradictory in their conception.

Specific to the diagram’s “architecture”, the outline surrounding each aspect

evidenced in a teacher’s classroom practice knowledge structure diagram served to

represent their understanding of each, as communicated in their practice, while the

relative size of each was indicative of the aforementioned “score.” Lastly, it should be

noted that the relative orientation of the included aspects in the diagram is not intended

nor meant to imply any relationship to teachers’ classroom practice.

Post-Classroom Observation Interviews

Knowledge Structures for NOS and SI. At the conclusion of the semester, and

following the completion of the inductively generated knowledge structures, teachers’

 166

were interviewed regarding their VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS. First, teachers were

provided with the results of their KS4NS and asked if there was anything about it that

they would like to change. If so, respondents were allowed to change their diagrams, and

were prompted about the reasons for these changes. The main purpose of this component

of the investigation was to accurately discern participants’ organization structure for the

15 targeted concepts of NOS and SI, and for any other aspects they deemed worthy for

inclusion. Once completed, a teacher’s KS4NS diagram served as a referent for a highly

structured interview that sought to fully explicate their knowledge structure for NOS and

SI, which these diagrams, in and of themselves, did not necessarily communicate.

During the interview, teachers were first asked specifically why they chose to

connect the two constructs, NOS and SI, or as the case was, kept the two separate. Next,

they were asked to explain each of the concepts included in their diagram and their

rationale for including it. A description of each connection made between two or more

concepts was then examined, including clarification to elucidate both the nature of the

connection and its directionality. Teachers were further prompted to identify and explain

any hierarchical relationships represented on their drawings, and point out the presence of

any broader thematic elements. Furthermore, teachers were asked whether there were any

additional terms and/or concepts that they considered but had not included, their reasons

for not including them, and how they felt they related to what was shown on the KS4NS

diagram. Lastly, participants were asked to comment on how confident they were in their

representation, and how likely they would be to represent NOS and SI like this if asked

again.
 167

The researcher paid strict attention to this interview protocol, with each KS4NS

interview examined for consistency within the sample. Notable deviation that could

potentially bias inferences drawn from teachers’ KS4NS diagrams was presented in the

results and limitations sections.

From the original KS4NS diagram and, more importantly, the subsequent

interview focusing on teachers’ representations of NOS and SI, the researcher generated

both a diagram and a profile of teachers’ espoused views. This was done similar to those

structures inductively generated for each teacher, but in this instance utilized the original

teacher-constructed diagram along with interview data (i.e., audio and researcher notes)

to inform its construction. This process, in effect, was an “up-dating” of teachers’ KS4NS

diagrams from data gleaned during the interview, and was further validated with each

teacher (i.e., member-check).

It was believed that by generating these knowledge structures without specific

knowledge of teachers’ general understandings of NOS and SI, and the various targeted

aspects comprising each, that the possibility of researcher bias affecting the accuracy of

either was greatly reduced.

Teachers were then provided with the results of their knowledge structures for

NOS and SI as inferred from their classroom practice. As mentioned previously, the

perceived congruence between knowledge structures generated from classroom

observations data and those generated from other classroom artifacts helped guide a

portion of this interview. Teachers were prompted to comment on their perceptions of the

results, regarding inclusion of specific aspects, the exclusion of others, and other related

characteristics of note. This member check was undertaken as a potential means for
 168

informing and validating claims made regarding the congruence between views espoused

by each teacher and those evident in their practice. It was also hoped that this process

would help decrease the potential for bias, as the researcher had to both inductively

generate teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI and interview teachers about

their KS4NS diagrams.

VNOS and VASI Results. Teachers were interviewed regarding their responses

on the VNOS and VASI instruments to better elucidate their understandings. In addition,

this afforded the researcher an opportunity to clarify any responses that are unclear, and

for teachers to comment on how well the views expressed on the VNOS and VASI were

representative of their own views, and what, if anything, they wanted to change about

either questionnaire. Secondly, teachers were prompted to explain how congruent they

felt the results of these two questionnaires (the VNOS and VASI) were with their KS4NS

Questionnaire. Teachers will be afforded the opportunity to again modify their KS4NS in

any way of their choosing, and were asked to explicate their rationale for doing so. In

addition, teachers were prompted to reflect on their perception of the consonance

between the various instruments.

It should be noted that for half of the sample of teachers the aforementioned end-

of-study interview protocol were reversed. These teachers first examined their VNOS and

VASI questionnaires, followed by the interview centering on their KS4NS. It is hoped

that this counter-balancing, per se, in the sequencing with which questionnaires are

explicated helped the researcher identify evidence of any bias or influencing of one

instrument on the other.

 169

Lastly, during or at the conclusion of the interviews focusing on the VNOS,

VASI, and KS4NS teachers were asked (if they had not offered significant information)

about how constrained they felt by their curriculum and the pressures related to it. This is

in accordance with research that has indicated that such pressures oftentimes have an

adverse effect on the inclusion of NOS and SI into classroom instruction (Abell & Roth,

1992; Lederman, 1999, among others)

Data Summary

In summary, at the conclusion of classroom observations and teacher interviews

data for analysis included: (a) participants’ VNOS and VASI questionnaires; (b)

researcher-developed knowledge structures for each participant derived from classroom

observations and other artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, work sheets, assessments); (c) teacher-

generated NOS and SI knowledge structures for each participant; and (d) interview

transcripts for each group of teachers. Interview transcripts were generated regarding

(d.1) teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI; (d.2) the examination of teachers’

VNOS and VASI questionnaires; (d.3) comparisons between teachers’ VNOS/VASI and

teacher-generated knowledge structures for NOS and SI; and (d.4) comparing knowledge

structures inferred from classroom practice to teacher generated knowledge structures.

It should be noted that any of the aforementioned data sources that included audio

recordings and coordinated field made use of the Livescribe® pen, which made possible

the temporal linking of researcher notes and audio recordings.

 170

Triangulation of Data Sets

The specific details regarding the various data sources and their subsequent

analysis are summarized in what follows.

Data analysis and triangulation of data sources were used to answer the following

primary and secondary research questions:

1. How congruent are teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI with
those communicated in their classroom practice?

2. How consistent are teachers’ views of NOS and SI as evidenced on

traditional instruments, in this case the VNOS and VOSI respectively, with
their views as expressed in their knowledge structures for NOS and SI?

The first question sought to discern the translation of teachers’ espoused knowledge

structures with those evidenced in their classroom practice. This required the researcher

to inductively generate teachers’ knowledge structures through the analysis classroom

observation data and other related sources. Teachers’ knowledge structures were first

developed through a continuous (i.e., lesson by lesson) analysis of classroom observation

audio and related field notes. Specifically the researcher identified instances where the

teacher included targeted aspects of NOS and SI, evidence of connections between

aspects, or other indications of related “structures” organizing these concepts.

Independent of the structures generated from classroom observation data, the

research generated each teachers’ knowledge structure for NOS and SI through data from

other sources (e.g., lesson plans, worksheets, pre- and post-lesson meetings, and

assessments). The results of this process allowed the researcher to confirm or contradict

the findings generated from classroom observation data alone. It should again be noted

that the researcher completed the aforementioned analysis of observational data without
 171

any knowledge of, and thus free from the influence of, teachers’ diagrammed knowledge

structures.

Prior to beginning instruction for the fall semester, each teacher had completed a

KS4NS questionnaire as a means for assisting in the elucidation their knowledge

structures for NOS and SI. Following completion of the analysis of classroom data (i.e.,

observations and other related artifacts) teachers’ were interviewed regarding their

KS4NS diagrams, which, in part, focused on the connections represented between aspects

of NOS and SI, while also attempting to elucidate other structures present. From the data

gleaned during this interview, the researcher “updated” teachers’ KS4NS diagrams

accordingly, and met again with teachers to validate these results.

The degree of congruence between a teacher’s diagrammed knowledge structures

and that generated inductively from their classroom practice served as an objective

measure of the influence of these structures on NOS and SI related classroom practices.

To answer the second research question, teachers’ diagrammed knowledge

structures were compared with their results from the VNOS D+ and VASI questionnaires.

For the latter, the researcher generated a profile for each teacher prior to and following an

interview serving to better explicate teacher’s views of the aspects targeted on each, and

the degree to which connections are made within and between NOS and SI aspects. These

profiles are similar in quality to the knowledge structure for NOS and SI detailed above,

but also included data evidenced in the questionnaire and related follow-up interview. A

comparison was made between the results of the VNOS and VASI questionnaires and

diagrammed knowledge structures, with a focus on accuracy of conceptions, connections

between aspects, and the overall integrative nature of teachers’ views of NOS and SI.
 172

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

Six certified physics teachers, all of whom had either (a) received their secondary

teaching certificate as an undergraduate or post-baccalaureate or (b) completed their

Master’s of Science Education degree in the Math and Science Education Department at

the university that the research was affiliated with were recruited for participation. It

should be noted that these programs emphasize NOS and SI both in specific coursework

and as an overarching, thematic instructional emphasis. This was deemed essential in

ensuring that participants not only held mostly informed views of NOS and SI, but also

possessed the requisite pedagogical skill-set to include NOS and SI in their classroom

practice.

Of the six teachers initially contacted, one declined to participate, while another,

after agreeing to participate and numerous observations were completed, was informed

by his human resource department that he was not allowed to have an external researcher

present in his classroom on any occasion. While a larger sample size was desired, this

current investigation was somewhat constrained by the necessity of locating willing

participants from the aforementioned programs that taught either physics or physical

science, and affirmed that they did indeed include NOS and SI in their typical classroom

practice.

Before proceeding it should be noted that pseudonyms will be used to protect the

identities of the participants and their respective school districts.

 173

The four participants, two male and two female, ranged in experience from six

years to fourteen years, and taught in both parochial and public schools of varying sizes,

and in both urban and suburban school districts. For instance, Tari was employed by a

parochial, selective, college-preparatory high school of less than 800 students in an

affluent western suburb, which carried a tuition cost of over $10,000. Though of similar

enrollment, Vince, by contrast, worked at an urban public school with a limited budget

for laboratory equipment, and tight restriction on teachers’ photocopying “allotment.”

Cathy and Mark, the other two participants, both taught at schools serving similar sized

communities, and were roughly comparable socio-economically, with each enrolling

more than 2000 students. Mark’s school was situated in a near-western suburb of a large

city, while Cathy’s was almost 50 miles from this same city’s center. All participant

teachers had multiple assignments (i.e., “preps”) within the science department, with

Cathy being the only teacher to have more than two. Additional demographic details for

each teacher will be further examined in the following sections.

Once initial contact was made with the participating teachers and all requirements

of the Institutional Review Board were met, each teacher was again reminded of the

general focus of the study, NOS and SI, and was emailed a copy of the various

questionnaires (i.e., Views of Nature of Science, Views About Scientific Inquiry, and the

KS4NS) to complete prior to the beginning of their school year. Teachers were further

cautioned not to share the contents of these questionnaires with the researcher and, once

completed, to store them safely until the completion of classroom observations, at which

time an interview would be scheduled to discuss them.

 174

To reiterate, classroom observations were intended to take place about once every

five to seven instructional days, but this schedule was ultimately determined by each

teacher, as they were responsible for notifying the researcher of any “good days to see

NOS and SI”, or their perceptions thereof. Nevertheless, 42 classroom observations were

made, covering a total instructional time of over 2,420 minutes. Cathy was observed 11

times for approximately 935 minutes, Vince was observed 12 times for approximately

600 minutes, for Mark, 10 observations were made for a total time of 445 minutes, while

Tari was observed on 9 occasions for 450 minutes of total class time. The variance in

both frequency and total classroom observation time is due in part to the decision to cease

data collection for a teacher when it was believed that a saturation point had been reached

regarding the construction of the subject matter knowledge structures. This was typically

exemplified by a predictable pattern of inclusion for certain aspects of NOS and SI in a

teacher’s classroom practice.

In total, 93 pages of field notes were generated, along with approximately 850

minutes of “targeted” (i.e., directly related to NOS and SI) audio. It should be noted that

these field notes and the related audio focused primarily on the inclusion of NOS and SI

in teachers’ classroom practice. As such, and except for the collection of data related to

developing profiles for each teacher, this did not necessitate recording each class period

in its entirety; thus the discrepancy between total observation time and the amount of

audio gleaned from these sessions.

In addition to classroom observations, all related artifacts were collected,

including lesson plans, various assessments, and a variety of worksheets or similar

handouts resulting in approximately 140 pages of materials. Copies of student textbooks

 175

were also examined for the inclusions of NOS and SI in any readings or related

assignments, though none was evident.

Once all classroom observation data were analyzed, an interview was conducted

with each participant focusing mainly on further explicating their completed

questionnaires, in addition to reviewing their demographic information. These typically

lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Following completion of a profile for each teacher’s

conceptions of NOS and SI and their “volunteered” subject matter knowledge structures

for NOS and SI, a final interview was conducted where the results of this analysis was

verified by each participants, while data related to their perceptions of these results were

ascertained. Prior to this any questions regarding participants’ responses to the

demographic questionnaire were clarified.

The aforementioned data allowed for the generation of four cases, one for each of

the four participants. These case studies will be presented in five sections. The first will

provide an overview of the teacher’s educational and professional background, while the

second will describe their current “school setting” and teaching assignment. These two

sections will be informed by the demographic questionnaire each teacher was asked to

complete, through anecdotal data collected during the course of classroom observation,

and also in the final interviews will be included when appropriate.

Details regarding each teacher’s typical classroom practice will be offered in the

third section. This section will seek to create a profile derived from a qualitative analysis

of classroom observation data along with related artifacts. The fourth section will provide

specific details of the inclusion of NOS and SI in their classroom practice, and describe

each teachers subject matter knowledge structure for NOS and SI. This section will
 176

outline the conceptions of NOS and SI communicated by each teacher in their classroom

practice, and how these conceptions appear to be structured (i.e., subject matter

knowledge structure), as inferred by the researcher.

The results of analyzing the data gleaned from the three questionnaires and the

related interview will be detailed in the fifth section. This, similar to section four, will

provide both an overview of each teacher’s conception of NOS and SI along with a

profile of their subject matter knowledge structure for NOS and SI.

Each case study will conclude with a summary section, providing not only an

overview for each teacher, but also seeking to answer the primary and secondary research

question on a case-by-case basis. The questions are as follows:

1. How congruent are teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI with
those communicated in their classroom practice?

2. How consistent are teachers’ views of NOS and SI as evidenced on

traditional instruments, in this case the VNOS and VOSI respectively, with
their views as expressed in their knowledge structures for NOS and SI?

In general, the summary proceeding each case study will compare the conceptions

of NOS and SI inferred from each teacher’s classroom practice and those elucidated on

the KS4NS questionnaire, in addition to offering an analysis of any differences between a

teacher’s conceptions of NOS and SI discerned from the VNOS and VASI questionnaires

versus those gleaned from the KS4NS questionnaire.

The final chapter will seek to answer the primary and secondary research question

across the four case studies, examine patterns and contrasts therein, and also explore the

implications of these results for science teacher education.

 177

Case #1: Vince

Academic and Professional Background. Vince is a physics teacher with over

13 years experience teaching high school physics. The majority of this experience has

come in the urban public schools of a major Midwestern city, in what most teachers

would term, at best, moderately challenging inner-city environments.

A social science major in college, who also completed coursework in chemistry,

physics, and aviation, Vince received his teacher certification soon after completing his

undergraduate studies. Following that he earned his subject specific certification in

physics. Over the last decade he had also completed his master’s of science degree in

science education degree and his K-12 school administrator’s certification coursework.

Vince estimated that he had completed approximately 24 credit hours in physics content

courses, and approximately 36 credit hours in science education or closely related

coursework.

In addition, Vince had been instrumental in helping organize and deliver the

physics component of a major professional development effort that sought to turn around

the science achievement in some of the aforementioned city’s poorest performing

schools. It was in this role that the researcher formed a working relationship with Vince.

As the lead facilitator of the (typically) bi-monthly physics teachers’ professional

development Vince was typically tasked with presenting upcoming physics model lessons

to the teachers at these “turn-around” schools. In this role Vince had appeared extremely

comfortable and energized, sharing his veritable “treasure trove” of equipment,

demonstrations, props, and the like with other physics teachers. He would often arrive to

these professional development days with his car overflowing with equipment and over
 178

the course of the day try, almost manically, to get to all that he had brought to share with

the other teachers.

It should be noted that this professional development, delivered as part of a multi-

million dollar grant, included a complete overhaul of participant schools science

curriculum. Schools were free to select from three universities to partner with to guide

these efforts. For Vince, who was hired to assist with this, the curriculum he was charged

with delivering, and in assisting teachers with implementing, included NOS and SI as

overarching curricular and instructional emphases. Furthermore, the “model lessons” that

Vince helped co-author also included NOS and SI in their instructional objectives and

assessment. Thus, as part of his role as professional development facilitator, Vince was

expected to not only share his expertise of best-practice for inquiry-based physics

instruction, but also for improving teachers’ and students’ conceptions of NOS and SI.

Moreover, as part of his coursework for his Master’s degree, Vince had completed a class

focusing on NOS and SI, while the program, in general, emphasized NOS and SI as

overarching thematic instructional elements.

When asked to describe which if any of his educational and/or professional

experiences impacted his current classroom practice, Vince spoke of his time delivering

professional development as the most influential, “especially the facilitation and practice

of guided inquiry lab experiences” (V.DQ, 3). He continued, by stating that

By leading PD (professional development) sessions, I focused on the process of

planning and guiding a lab experience for teachers that they would bring back to their
own students. I thought carefully about how to identify key components of the lesson
to teachers so they could be better facilitators of learning; as a result, I reflected upon
and strengthened my own practices. (V.DQ, 3)
 179

The current school year represented Vince’s 14th as a classroom teacher, his tenth

teaching physics, and his third teaching this specific integrated physics and chemistry

class. In addition to having taught traditional physics classes along with advanced

placement physics, Vince had also taught a variety of math classes at the high school

level.

When asked to identify any experiences that he believed impacted his current

classroom practice, Vince offered the following:

I feel that my experiences have been duly impacted/influenced by planning

curriculum to offer inquiry experiences on a periodic basis so that the students see
what the point of the lesson is in a tangible way. Learning is doing, and the more
they do, the more they learn (hopefully). (V.DQ, 6)

The experience Vince had gained in his Master’s of science classes, its related NOS and

SI coursework, and the time spent in professional development that contained NOS and

SI as an overarching emphasis were all identified as positively experiences that Vince

contended “[had] impacted/influenced me in a profound way because I [had to] reflect

upon my practices as a teacher in this regard” (V.DQ, 8).

School. The aforementioned professional development had come to a close and

Vince was now in his third year teaching at Coburn High School, after previous stints at

two other urban, public schools.

A school of approximately 1,000 students on the far west-southwest boundary of

the city limits, Coburn was housed in a traditional four story school building that was

adjacent to a former monastery. While the classrooms at Coburn could be qualified as

“typical”, the most notable physical feature of this school were the extremely narrow

hallways where, during passing periods, it was difficult for students to walk two-across as

they attempted to access their lockers for their next class.

 180

The student population at Coburn was almost entirely from the surrounding

neighborhood, almost all Hispanic (93%), though a few students did take advantage of

the open enrollment policy in the city. These students were easy to spot, Vince pointed

out, as they were typically the few non-Hispanic students you might notice walking the

halls. Almost all (95%) of the students at Coburn were from low-income households.

Regarding academic preparation, 22% of the students had met all of the standards from

the last state assessment, while only 5% were gauged as being “college-ready.”

Vince mentioned that he enjoyed Coburn, which he described simply as “a

neighborhood school with a college prep program”, much more so than his previous job,

due in no small part to the “better student clientele”, and also now that he was working in

the same building as his wife, he remarked that he could certainly see himself working to

retirement in this locale.

Coburn High School was under the leadership of a first year principal, and three

weeks into class had also been affected by a week and half teacher strike. While the

latter had little impact on the instruction, other than pushing the school calendar further

into June, the influence of the former was evident in some of the perceptible

disorganization during the first few weeks of observations, and noted by Vince and his

colleagues. In specific, it seemed that a lack of familiarity with student scheduling, in

Vince’s opinion, left the first week or so of classes in “complete chaos.” Common during

this time were widely varying class sizes, a total lack of attention to prerequisite course

requirements, and students remaining completely unregistered for classes for days.

In addition, over the course of observations, it became evident that there did not

appear to be a consistently enforced school rule regarding music devices, phones, or a

 181

tardy policy to note. Vince noted that the enforcement of these transgressions was left up

to the individual teacher, and that most teachers did not expect or assume administrative

support for these more minor matters.

When asked to comment on the influence that the current administration may

have on his classroom practice, Vince unhesitatingly responded that “[m]y administration

has an unmistakably positive impact. My principal is a good listener and a pragmatic

leader” (V.DQ, 9). Regarding his science department chair, he offered a similarly ringing

endorsement concerning her positive impact on his overall positive feelings regarding

working at Coburn.

The science curriculum at Coburn was also noteworthy, with ninth grade students

taking earth and space science, followed by a sophomore year with one semester of

physics and one of chemistry, and culminating in a full year of junior biology. Vince

favored this approach sharing that he “like[d] the idea of giving 10th graders the

opportunity to learn the fundamental principles that underlie all of their future

coursework in science, biology in particular” (V.DQ, 13).

When asked to further reflect on the freedom he had to “teach how and what he

wants”, Vince commented that

I appreciate the latitude that my principal had given me with regard to curriculum
planning. I believe that good planning leads to positive results, and so I have
refined my curriculum as necessary. I believe that my principal accedes to me in
curricular matters as a matter of course. While I may not have chosen my
curriculum initially, I believe that we can find a way for us to help our students
meet the standards set forth in a meaningful manner so that they can find success.
(V.DQ, 14)

The fall semester of 2012 was Vince’s third time teaching in this system. He, by his own

admission, felt like he was finally getting a grasp on how to best condense what he had
 182

usually done in a full year class (i.e., two semesters) down to half of that time. But,

nevertheless, he said that it was still a struggle to move so quickly at times, through

material that he typically explored in much more depth.

Vince’s students were a heterogeneous sampling of the sophomores as at Coburn

with a few older students who had failed to pass physics included in the mix. These

students, in Vince’s opinion were, in general, “compliant and motivated to a moderate

extent, while in need of further motivation to achieve excellence” (V.DQ, 11)

Vince said that, in general, the classes he had this year were about the same as

those in previous years, but that he had, after three years, learned what was reasonable to

expect regarding in-class and out-of-class expectations. He felt that, much like last year,

there were a handful of students that would enthusiastically sign up for Advanced

Placement (AP) physics their senior year and would, for the most part, find this current

course less than challenging. Unfortunately, Vince noted, many of his college-ready

students would not attend college, with most of those that did attend never graduating,

choosing instead to seek immediate employment to help contribute financially to their

families. Vince commented that this was indicative of the intense importance placed on

family in this community. Unfortunately, he continued, many of these students

immediate and extended families did not place great importance on higher education, if

they do decide to enroll in college, do not support their sons or daughters moving out of

their care to seek an advanced degree.

When asked to provide a general overview of his philosophy of teaching, Vince

stated that “[s]tudents learn by doing, and they believe what they see. If they do not
 183

believe it, it makes no sense to them and no learning occurs” (V.DQ, 15). This “learning

by doing” was further emphasized in his overall motivation to teach physics:

I like to facilitate learning the physical principles that govern the functioning of
matter and energy. I think that it is meaningful to explore that mathematical
knowledge that underlies these principles. When students uncover knowledge
through experiential learning, I know that my methods have had an
impact/influence. (V.DQ, 18)

Class. This year, Vince and his colleague, an experienced chemistry teacher who

was also assigned to the integrated chemistry and physics class, decided to both teach

physics simultaneously in the fall, and then both teach chemistry during the spring. This

was the chemistry teacher’s first time teaching physics, and spring semester would

likewise be Vince’s first time teaching chemistry. He said that he felt this to be a more

beneficial arrangement, as “…the kids already know who I am [and] what I expect…I

don’t have to start over teaching them my rules and what I expect…” (V.PC, 2), and, in

general, this meant he didn’t have to waste time and, in his opinion, could get down to

teaching chemistry right away. For his part, Vince said he was doing the best he could to

assist this teacher in her first attempt teaching physics, and they were altering days of

instruction to share laboratory equipment, which provided her the opportunity to see the

activities done by him first “live” if she so desired, before trying them herself. In

addition, he was sharing all of his ancillary materials with her, as he was expecting the

same when he undertook his first attempt at teaching chemistry in the spring semester.

Vince’s classroom was at the end of the long, narrow halls of Coburn, on the third

floor. With 14 or so two-seater tables arranged around the room, there was typically very

little additional space to maneuver. On one side wall was a series of dry-erase boards,

while the opposite wall was jam-packed with file cabinets full of worksheets (copying is
 184

tightly restricted at Coburn, Vince shared) and an eclectic mix of materials. These

included recently used lab equipments on an assortment of carts, bins overflowing with

various demonstrations, stacks of recently distributed worksheets, and random student

projects from semesters past. His desk, with almost every available square inch covered

by a computer, a printer, and a smattering of papers and equipment, looked much the

same. The front dry-erase boards, like those on the sides, were covered in reminders,

notes, “do now” questions, and assignments from each of Vince’s classes and represented

a variety of previous class sessions.

Regarding available resources, Vince said he utilized his personal wealth of

accumulated laboratory equipment, as Coburn had little “stockpiled” prior to his arrival.

For textbooks, he used a combination of Conceptual Physics by Hewitt, and a workbook

developed by a local university as part of their own school turnaround efforts during the

aforementioned large-scale school improvement grant. This latter resource was one Vince

was not familiar with previously, and that he had decided to “try out” the previous

semester, “looking for any way to help support and improve what I am already doing”.

While a bit nuanced, he felt that he now had a pretty good idea of how to best incorporate

this new workbook with both his previous materials and the Hewitt text.

Classroom Practice. Each class session that was observed started with a “Do

Now” question related, it seemed, either to a previous assignment or investigation, or that

was intended to help prepare students for an upcoming activity, usually through a reading

assignment. The time dedicated to these questions varied, seemingly as a function of the

students’ ability to get to class on time, which was much more of an issue for the classes

conducted around the lunch periods than those earlier in the school day. Students were
 185

instructed and/or reminded to complete each of these “Do Now” questions in their class

binders, which were checked periodically throughout the semester, and were given a

stamp for completion each day. Of note, was that Vince, with the exception of the reading

activities, never explicitly went over or provided the answers for these questions, nor

explicitly referenced them latter in the class period.

When Vince introduced a new concept or idea, he typically did so by going over

his well-produced PowerPoint slides that were projected on screen at the front of the

class. Students were required to take notes on these and place them accordingly in their

physics’ binders. In general, those observed could be roughly categorized as highly

teacher-centered as there tended to be minimal discussion or student involvement, save

for some choral response answers to Vince’s general questions.

For each investigation observed, students had to complete either a worksheet from

the aforementioned workbook or utilize one of the worksheets Vince co-authored during

his role facilitating professional development. Both of these though, as Vince noted, were

oftentimes abridged to save on the number of copies needed. Of particular interest, at

least for the sample of materials collected for this current investigation, was that Vince

had chosen to remove the particular objectives and/or “up/front” references to NOS and

SI from these handouts.

The observed investigations were always completed cooperatively, with students

most typically working with peers located in their relative vicinity, though Vince did do

some ability grouping during one of the observations. With one exception, each student

was required to complete the provided worksheet, in addition to a more formal lab write-

up. The latter of these followed a four-part structure wherein students had to convey the
 186

guiding question, the procedure of the investigation, the data they collected, and then,

lastly, concluded their write-up with a “Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (C-E-R)” section.

In general, the investigations that were observed in Vince’s classes tended to be of

the confirmatory nature, usually following instruction on the targeted topic or concepts,

as opposed to at the beginning of the instructional sequence. In general, the “answer” to

the guiding question of these investigations should have, or at least could have, been

known to his students. In one notable exception, Vince attempted to let students discover

the relationship between the intensity of light and the distance from its source but,

surprisingly, in the minutes before students began the investigation, revealed to them

what they should find. In another instance, Vince had students measure the height and

velocity of a steel ball as it traversed a particular path, hoping to use this as a reference

for a related discussion on potential and kinetic energy. There was very little intentional

variation in the ways the students could answer the guiding questions, though, and little

explicit attention paid to the guiding question before, during and after the investigation,

for that matter.

Much like the “Do Now” questions, the debriefing of this investigation, and most

investigations did not occupy a place of seeming importance in Vince’s instructional

practice; most frequently, students completed their lab reports and placed them in their

binders. These were then graded every two or three weeks or so. This system of using

physics binders, Vince shared, was both a means of helping students stays organized, and

also of helping eliminate the time that he needed to spend on a daily basis grading and

passing back papers.

 187

Assessment in Vince’s class consisted of the contents of the physics binders,

including various homework assignments, do-now activities, laboratory worksheets, and

formal lab reports. In addition, students did take periodic tests, which were usually

multiple-choice to, in Vince’s opinion, better prepare them for their high-stakes

standardized tests.

Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. The data used to

infer Vince’s classroom subject matter knowledge for NOS and SI were collected from

12 classroom observations, covering 590 minutes of instructional time. From these

observations, 22 pages of field notes were taken, with approximately 155 minutes of

audio related specifically to NOS and SI instruction. An assortment of related

instructional materials were also collected, the majority of which were worksheets related

to the variety of investigations undertaken during the observation period. While some of

these were taken directly from the supplemental materials provided with the textbook, the

majority were of Vince’s, at least partial, creation. In addition, a lab report template and a

guide to physics problem solving were among others materials obtained.

The third observation provided the most NOS- and SI-related instruction, with 27

minutes of audio collected. Six other observation days (1, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 11) produced

at least ten minutes of related audio, three observations provided less than ten minutes (2,

6, and 10), while the fifth observation provided approximately five minutes of audio

related to explicit NOS and SI instruction. A summary of the instructional time spent

addressing NOS- and SI-related instructional objectives, the specific physics subject

matter being addressed, and a brief description of the activities students were involved in

is provided in Table 1.
 188

Table 1

Overview of Classroom Observations for Vince.

NOS & SI
Observation Time Subject Matter Description

1 16:27 Scientific Inquiry – Pendulum Debriefing an

investigation

2 5:34 Introduction to Waves Debriefing an

investigation

3 19:53 Standing Waves Debriefing an

investigation

4 26:51 Introduction to Light Lecture and PowerPoint

5 5:22 Types of Lenses Discussion

6 3:57 Kinematics – Speed & Velocity Debriefing an

investigation

7 14:29 Kinematics – Velocity Pre-investigation

discussion

8 8:00 Claim–Evidence–Reasoning Lecture and activity

9 13:56 Kinematics – Acceleration; Free Debriefing an

Fall investigation

10 9:55 Kinematics – Law of Gravitation Pre-investigation

discussion

11 14:34 Kinematics – Motion Graphs Pre-investigation

discussion

12 19:10 Dynamics – Kinetic and Potential Debriefing an

Energy investigation; Lecture and
PowerPoint

Note: NOS & SI Time is an approximate measure of the instructional time dedicated by the
teacher to NOS- and SI-related instructional objectives.

Most frequent in Vince’s classroom practice were references to the distinction

between data and evidence, which was evidenced on 13 separate occasions over six
 189

different class periods. This was a continuing emphasis of Vince’s as students, when

writing up the results from various investigations, were required to explicitly include a

“Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (C-E-R)” section. As such, Vince, on multiple occasions,

made a concerted effort to ensure that his students were able to do so successfully,

dedicating portions of five class periods to this goal. This was most frequently done as a

guided-practice activity, of sorts, as students had usually collected their data, and Vince

helped guide them through the construction of these three (i.e., C-E-R) components of

their formal lab write-ups.

The second classroom observation provided evidence of this emphasis, when

Vince stressed to his students that they must be sure to include their results, error

analysis, and conclusion in their evidence and claim sections, respectively. Having

detected student difficulty with this requirement, Vince tried again to explain what was

meant by evidence, telling them that “evidence is the data you collected…when you

summarize the data that's how you turn it into evidence” (V.CO, 3.1.1), and later that

“summarize[ing] the data is how you turn it into evidence” (V.CO, 3.1.4).

To address students’ difficulties making claims, Vince provided them with a

template to do so successfully, telling them to structure their claims in a “the effect of

_____ on _____ is….” (V.CO, 3.1.2) format, and then follow this with their evidence for

this statement. While students worked, Vince circulated to help students with this task

and was heard reiterating that “when you use the data to make a claim that is when it is

evidence…” (V.CO, 3.1.5).

A similar emphasis was evidenced at the completion of the first four weeks of the

semester, and following receipt of students’ quarter grade report. For this activity, Vince
 190

had his students complete a C-E-R activity using their class grade. To assist students,

Vince had created a slide containing the following:

C: what you can claim about your 1st quarter performance.

E: what evidence you can give to support this claim.
R: what reasoning you can use to support this claim.

During this activity Vince made statements similar to those observed in the

aforementioned class, though it was not until the last observation day that any explicit

reference to the “reasoning” component of the C-E-R template was witnessed. Here,

Vince worked to help his students write up their results using this format, following a

recently completed investigation related to the law of the conservation of energy. First, he

employed his students to come up with a claim using the term “energy transformation”,

to explain what happened or what evidence they had in support of this claim, and lastly,

to tell why this claim was reasonable using the terms “potential energy” and “kinetic

energy.”

Through Vince’s efforts to ensure that his students were proficient in applying the

C-E-R framework to their laboratory reports, an informed conception of the difference

between data and evidence was communicated in his classroom practice, as was, the

necessity of conclusions being consistent with the data that were collected. Furthermore,

this emphasis also provided a partially informed view of the necessity of conclusions

being explicitly linked to the data that were collected. During these C-E-R “sessions” an

emphasis was rarely placed on the necessity of these conclusions also being informed by

currently accepted scientific knowledge. This linking of claims to the data collected and

also prior knowledge was evidenced, though, on one occasions. Vince, in answering a

question about what to include in a conclusion section of a lab report, stated that “when
 191

you write about our conclusions, these are what we found, what we are looking for, [and]

what we expect from past results…” (V.CO, 2.1.1-2). No clear demarcation was ever

made, though, between the conclusion of a single investigation and the more broad

explanation that this conclusion may seek to inform.

While only noted on one occasion, Vince did, during one C-E-R focused activity,

remind students that “claim, evidence, and reasoning must start with and be related to the

guiding question…[since] this is where our investigation begins” (V.CO, 9.1.2). This was

the only explicit reference to scientific investigations beginning with a question, though

each investigation that was observed did have a “guiding question”.

The distinction between observation and inference was also evident in Vince’s

classroom practice, though it was only observed in one segment during the fourth

observation, consisting of five related statements. Here, Vince, during the last 15 minutes

of class and following a quiz, began work on a new instructional unit on “light and

color”. In his presentation he had shown students a simplistic model of an atom, asking

them if they knew the constituent particles that comprised it. He then began explaining

how scientists, in spite of their difficulties in actually seeing an electron, have used their

behavior to discern their existence: “…again, you might wonder, if you can't see them

how do we know they exists?...we can see what they do…they give off light” (V.CO,

4.1.1.2). Feeling that students were still not fully grasping this idea, he reiterated that

with electrons, like many scientific phenomena, “we look at the result of their

behaviors…we can't see them directly” (V.CO, 4.1.1.3).

As questions were shouted out by the class, Vince seemed to feel pressure to

continue his presentation, with the class about to conclude. As such, when a student
 192

asked about the shape of an electron, Vince responded that scientists simply assume that

they are round. Similarly, a student then questioned how we knew that an electron carried

a negative charge, to which he responded that they are simply the opposite of the charge

on a protons, though the name, negative or positive, was arbitrary.

This specific segment of Vince’s classroom practice, while a concrete example of

how scientists may make inferences from their observations, was characterized as

partially explicit, as it did not include any reference to other examples of this occurring in

science, nor to how this is typically done by scientists, in general, or in their class, in

specific. Furthermore, this was the only observed instance where this distinction

evidenced itself in Vince’s classroom practice.

The importance of the procedure of the investigation being appropriate for

answering the guiding question was an aspect of scientific inquiry that surfaced on three

occasions. First, during a portion of class dedicated to introducing students to the

requirements and expectations of a formal lab write-up, Vince talked about the necessity

of including the guiding question, since “"the guiding question..guides the

investigation…it guides what you do" (V.CO, 1.1.1). Later, during an investigation into

factors that impact the motion of a rolling object, Vince brought up this connection two

additional times. This activity afforded students the opportunity to develop their own

procedure, using the materials available, to answer the guiding question “What affects the

motion of a rolling object”. To this end, Vince cautioned his students at the onset to

ensure that “the procedure must be ok for answering your question” (V.CO, 7.1.4) and

that they should “change whatever variable [they] can to answer [the] guiding question”
 193

(V.CO, 7.1.5). Interestingly, though, the guiding question was never explicitly addressed

in class.

While clear during this observation, these were the only time the connection

between question and procedure was made explicit and, unfortunately, it was not clear on

two occasions how the actual investigations the students were asked to complete were

appropriate for answering the guiding question.

On one occasion Vince tried to help students see the difficulty in investigating

certain phenomena, and why different methods of inquiry were necessary. Students were

engaged in an investigation seeking to uncover the relationship between the intensity of

light and the distance one moves from the source. Vince had provided the actual

relationship prior to the investigation, though some students were confused about why

they were now investigating light when they had been previously talking about Newton’s

Universal Law of Gravitation. In talking about the connection between the actual

investigation and the topic of gravity he explained: "we cannot manipulate

gravity…would have to go up to the…satellites to do that…but we can observe a similar

isotropic phenomena - light, which is also an inverse squared law phenomena." (V.CO,

10.1.2). While he later shared with students how he thought it was important that students

should know that scientists needed to investigate different phenomena differently at

times, he had, unfortunately, not provided a clear example with which to illustrate this

characteristic of scientific inquiry to his students, as what was undertaken was another

instance of experimental design, with no mention of more correlational techniques often

employed in astronomy, for example.

 194

The idea that that scientific knowledge, while durable, changes in the face of new

evidence or the reinterpretation of existing evidence was brought up once in Vince’s

classroom practice. While reviewing some class notes on the concept of “momentum”, he

mentioned, rather unclearly, that oftentimes how scientists view things changes. He

provided no clear examples of this occurrence, asking his students rhetorically that “Do

things change in science?” Is anything perfect in the real world? No, nothing is perfect”

(V.CO, 12.1.2).

The only additional inferences that can be drawn about Vince’s subject matter

knowledge structure beyond the 15 targeted aspects of NOS and SI, were a handful of

instances where he emphasized that, when doing an experiment, it is essential to only

change one variable at a time.

Lastly, it should be noted that Vince did not always accurately use the term

“experiment”. While he at times called what students were doing “investigations” he just

as frequently, and seemingly without concern for their methodology, referred to them as

“experiments.”

Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI. In only 3 of the 30

observed instance where NOS and SI was included in Vince’s classroom practice was

this material presented in a way that encouraged student involvement. Most frequently,

Vince simply told students about these aspects, or reminded them what certain words or

phrases meant. On only two occasions were more than a single statement made regarding

an aspect of NOS and SI, once regarding the difference between observation and

inference, and once for the distinction between data and evidence.
 195

To his benefit, though, the aspects of NOS and SI that did infuse Vince’s

classroom practice were, most typically in the case of the C-E-R format, tied to the

investigations students had completed. Furthermore, students were required to submit

their finished lab reports containing this information as part of formal assessment for the

course.

Figure 1 represents Vince’s knowledge structure for NOS and SI as

communicated in his classroom practice.

Tentative (1)

Observation – Inference (15)

Begins w/ ?? (3)

Informed
Mult. Methods (2)

Mixed

Data v. Evidence (28)

Naive

Conclusions-Data (10)
Additional
Aspect
Fair Test (2)

Figure 1. Vince’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. Each
instance of a connection is shown, with font size adjusted as a function of the “inclusion
score” shown in parentheses.

KS4NS Questionnaire Results. For the opening prompt of the KS4NS

questionnaire, asking respondents to consider the essential concepts and/or terms

comprising nature of science and scientific inquiry, Vince responded that he knew NOS

and SI to include:

 How scientists do their jobs.

 196

 How we know that something is a fact depends on multiple observers.

 That all science starts with a question, and that questions lead to more
questions.
 That inquiry is guided by the questions that are asked.
 Creative solutions are needed for difficult questions.
 That theories eventually graduate and become laws (just kidding).
(V.KS4NS, 1)

The diagram that Vince included with his KS4NS questionnaire is provided in Figure 2.

Cycle of Inquiry
(or, Jane get me off this crazy thing)

Prior Research

Guiding Question

Creative Input Investigation

Conclusions
Using Reasoning

Feedback Evidence Data

From Others Based on Data Collection

Figure 2. Vince’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. This is the
diagram Vince provided on his KS4NS questionnaire.

When asked whether this diagram represented both NOS and SI on a single

diagram, he answered

Yeah, but it doesn’t have too much nature of science. Other than…[examining
diagram]...you know, yeah, I guess it is more inquiry. Nature of science, though,
 197

is obviously integral to it, but this represents more how science is done, or its
cycle. (V. KS4NS, 1.I)

Vince also provided some insight into the specific title of his diagram, Cycle of Inquiry

(or Jane get me off this crazy thing), and how it related to the contents therein, offering

this explanation:

Well, I mean, obviously, it’s a…sometimes it seems like you will never finish. I
guess that is kind of the idea, that you don't. You keep going based upon new
information that you get. I guess that is probably the hardest thing to get across to
the kids. They need repetition, I believe, they need repetition with the very idea
that people begin to investigate (based) on what we have and what our question is.
It is never...finished, or everything is solved. I guess that is probably the intention
behind it. (V.KS4NS, 2.I)

Vince was then asked about the representation of “prior research” as the apparent starting

point in this cycle. To this he answered:

You know, you have to start somewhere. The guiding questions can be formed by
what you know about the subject, so, if it appropriate and/or necessary to do prior
research, you are going to have to do something. I am thinking in terms of my
classroom and my students, they are going to have to know something…(in
general) if there is prior research, it is appropriate for it to inform questions that
you then ask of the subject matter after being informed by this (research).
(V.KS4NS, 3.I)

In response to the frequency of references to his classroom practice and his students,

Vince was asked to what degree the construction of this diagram was guided by his

classroom practice. To this he responded, “I guess I assumed the intent, I kind of put

things in the lens of what I do in the classroom, because that is what I am most familiar

with” (V.KS4NS, 3b.I).

In continuing to traverse Vince’s cyclical diagram, he was then prompted to talk

about what was meant by the inclusion of “guiding question” in his diagram, and how

this idea related to his representation as a whole:

 198

The guiding question is going to…need to be answered. I always tell kids that if
they do not know what to write for a conclusion they should answer the guiding
question. That is why it is a cycle, if they are answering the guiding question in
their conclusion at least they were paying attention to the form (of the
investigation), and maybe even be able to get an answer and another question.
(V.KS4NS, 4.I)

Vince paused, and then spoke of something very simple yet effective he liked to share

with his students to help emphasize this point, in the form of two questions: “Why ask a

question if you are not going to get an answer?” and “How can you find the answers if

you do not have a question?” (V.KS4NS, 4.I). He continued, wanting to be sure he

conveyed his overarching intent of including this connection between prior research and

the guiding question in his diagram

This (prior research) is appropriate in some venues but not others. Some activities
lend themselves more to some of these. Basically I want the kids to be set up for
being able to do future research either in my class or another class in high school
or college. (V.KS4NS, 6.I)

To further emphasize this, Vince spoke of his current enrollment in an analytical

chemistry class, and how this had reinforced his conception of the cyclical nature of

scientific inquiry, specifically that

The nature of everything I do in this advanced chemistry class…is the same as

what you do in a basic chemistry class. So, if the kids can understand the
basics...if you think about it, it is easy (for them) to understand what they are
doing, the basic idea of (the subject matter), if they understand the cycle of
inquiry. If they don't understand (that) you need to filter out the noise by knowing
what the noise is, to basically control for all of the variables, if you do not
understand the basic principles (then) it is going to be a mystery. (V.KS4NS,
7a.I)

In further emphasis of the need to understand the cycle of inquiry as a means for

facilitating the learning of these “basic ideas”, Vince also felt that without this

understanding
 199

It is the black box theory, you will not understand “why”. You put it in a black
box and out come the answers, without any critical thinking. The specific steps
(of the inquiry cycle) may change, but the basic process never changes. So you
have that common language…so really it is a cultural experience, that common
bond between people that understand science…they can go forth and go do
science. (V.KS4NS, 7b.I)

Regarding the meaning Vince had ascribed to the term “investigation,” he explained that

this was a reference to what activity was being undertaken, which in physics was

generally guided by the form “what is the relation of something on something”

(V.KS4NS, 8.I). He continued by emphasizing that it was essential for this guiding

question, and the relationship it was attempting to describe, to inform the specifics of the

investigation, specifically regarding the equipment needed, what variables were going to

be controlled for, and how many trials were going to done.

In general, the question guided the inquiry to be undertaken, though Vince

confessed that in the classroom it was indeed more guided inquiry, than the open inquiry

that he had described in his diagram. This process would inevitably lead to “data

collection” which, in this cycle, just referred to the “natural” need for data and how this

data “would become evidence when you make sense out of it” (V.KS4NS, 9.I).

From here Vince directed his comments to the specific path in the cycle leading to

“feedback from others”, to which he commented that it “involves the need to inform

conclusions by understanding other ways of looking at (the data), whether it is by looking

at a passage in the text, a lecture or discussion, or talking to (someone)” (V.KS4NS,

10.I). He continued, referencing how this lack of feedback oftentimes plays out in his

own practice regarding his students, specifically that “so many times they put down some

answers, and are not really far off, but they have no idea what it is because they read it
 200

out of a book. If you are not talking about the answers, your brain is not plugged in”

(V.KS4NS, 10b.I).

Vince was then asked what he meant by the idea of “creative input” and how it fit

into this cycle. He felt that

the creative input could be how the experiment is going to be redesigned, why it is
going to be redesigned, was the answer sufficient to answer the guiding question.
In general, someone else has to look at that; this feedback is part of the creative
process. (KS4NS, 11.I).

Vince contended that this feedback from others and the guiding question, served to

inform the creation of another guiding question, strongly based on previous results, that

in turn leads to another experiment. Relating this to his typical classroom practice, Vince

felt that what he was describing was highly idealized and did not always mesh with the

realities of typical school science. This was alright, in Vince’s opinion, because

(students) are not going to remember any facts...the human brain is not made to
remember a bunch of facts. The important thing is this process, and to be able to
do science, and be able to get into it...see how this (cycle) goes. If they can see
physics and chemistry being common sense, that this is just the way it is, how else
would it or could it be? (V.KS4NS, 13.I)

Continuing on to what he intended by the concept of “conclusions using reasoning”,

Vince shared that this represented the fact that there should be an answer to the guiding

question and that there should be support for why these answers are reasonable. The

evidence for this would, in Vince’s opinion, “be graphs, error analysis, other information

and so forth” (V.KS4NS, 14.I). These conclusions would, much like “creative input,”

lead to the generation of new guiding questions, or a reexamination of the current

question.

In response to Vince’s frequent referrals to his students, what he wants them to

understand, and what inquiry “looks like” in his classroom practice, he was asked
 201

whether this representation of nature of science and scientific inquiry was similar to the

work of scientists or, put another way, was representative of how science is done. Vince

responded that

I (previously) mentioned common sense, and I truly believe that it is common

sense…that it is…you investigate something by controlling for everything except
one variable, so you are testing a specific question. It is common sense that you
answer the question that you asked, so sure I would say that this applies to any
scientific situation, and that I guess the important thing about emphasizing this to
students is that it is how science is done. So by kind of realizing that it is
universal, than it itself should be of greater truth. If you take a scientific approach
you can get results that you can count on. (V.KS4NS, 15.I)

After stating that the diagram he presented was not in need of any further modification or

revision, Vince was asked about the emphasis on scientific inquiry in his diagram, where,

by contrast, there was little overt attention to nature of science. To this he responded:

I would say certain aspects of NOS are easy to integrate, theory and law, for
example, because (in) physics we are talking about laws, we are talking about a
relationship between one thing and another, which is basically a law in physics,
while theories are explanations behind those laws. I probably haven't done as
much of the explicit instruction in that regard; all we do is laws. The tentative
nature, I mean that is kind of where the inquiry overlaps with the nature of science
in that (it) goes back to the beginning…goes back and starts over and doesn't end.
So in essence tentativeness is there because you can't say for sure, you can't prove
anything. (V.KS4NS, 16.I)

Regarding scientific inquiry and what Vince specifically tried to provide his students, he

did confess that most of the investigations done in his class were overly prescriptive or

“cookbook labs.” This, Vince felt, was due to the “whole gotta-get-through-the-

curriculum thing” (V.KS4NS, 20.I). In addition, to allow things to be “more inquiry-

based and to have (students) have time to actually do something” he didn’t talk about a

variety of topics that were, for all intensive purposes, “part of the cannon of physics, the

litany of physics topics” but were excluded from his curriculum to facilitate this goal

(V.KS4NS, 20.I).
 202

Translation of Knowledge Structures into Classroom Practice. At the level of

the concepts included in Vince’s two subject matter knowledge structures (i.e., classroom

practice versus KS4NS), there is moderate congruity.

While there was not an explicit statement during Vince’s KS4NS interview

regarding the empirical-basis for scientific knowledge, Vince did provide examples that

reflected this. In his classroom practice, there was no evidence of explicit attention of

how science only dealt with observations made with the five senses, in contrast to other

ways of knowing, for example.

Vince, in explicating his KS4NS diagram, spoke of how tentativeness was at the

very foundation of the cycle of inquiry. Inquiry, in Vince’s view, was anytime you

answer a question and end up with new questions,” and as a result “you can't ever say for

sure, you can't prove anything” (V.KS4NS, 16.I). In his classroom practice, Vince did

make one reference to how, in science, nothing can ever be known for sure and also how

“nothing is perfect” in the real world (V. CO, 12.1.2). Thus, the inclusion of tentativeness

while present was weak in both knowledge structures.

Vince talked during the course of one observation about the distinction between

observations and inferences, specifically regarding electrons and how scientists

determined their properties by “look(ing) at the result of their behaviors…because (they)

can't see them directly” (V.CO, 4.1.1.3). This distinction, though, was not explicitly

included in his KS4NS interview. This was not the case for the role of creativity in the

development of scientific knowledge, which was described by Vince in the KS4NS

interview, and included specifically in his diagram as “creative input.” The role of

creativity, though, was not present in the classroom observation data collected.
 203

For the three remaining aspects of NOS targeted in the current study, namely

“theories and laws,” “socially culturally embedded,” and “subjectivity,” no explicit

instances were identified in Vince’s KS4NS interview nor were any present in his

classroom practice.

The idea that science begins with a question was communicated strongly in

Vince’s discussion regarding his KS4NS diagram, and was also present, though not as

strongly, in his classroom practice, where adherence to an experiment’s guiding question

was the manner in which it was most commonly referenced. That the methodology

employed for an investigation must be tightly aligned with this guiding question, while

absent from Vince’s classroom practice, was stressed during the KS4NS interview,

namely that “typically, in physics, (the question) would be ‘What is the relation of

something on something?’ and, if that's the guiding question, then the investigation has to

be informed by this” (V.KS4NS, 8.I).

Strongly communicated in both Vince’s classroom practice and in his

diagrammed knowledge structure for NOS and SI was the distinction between data and

evidence. For example, during the third observation Vince reminded his students that

“evidence is the data you collected…when you summarize the data that's how you turn it

into evidence” (V.CO, 3.1.1) and latter that “when you attempt to give meaning to your

data that is what evidence is…” (V.CO, 9.1.1). In discussing what he meant by the phrase

“evidence based on data” in his KS4NS diagram, he simply stated “you need data, which

would then become evidence when you make sense out of it” (V.KS4NS, 9.I).

The emphasis on Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (C-E-R) also included explicit

references to the necessity of conclusions being consistent with the data collected. In
 204

practice, this was most notable when Vince emphasized students’ claims, or what they

were giving as the answer to the guiding question, had to be supported by evidence in

conjunction with the data that was collected. This was similarly present in Vince’s

KS4NS knowledge structure, where he spoke of the need for students to always provide

sufficient evidence in support of any conclusion being forwarded, in that

(it) should answer the guiding question, and they should give reasons why the
guiding question, why they provided the answer that they did to the guiding
question. The evidence would be graphs, and it would be nice to do error analysis
and so forth. (V. KS4NS, 14.I).

The influence of methodology on results was referenced by Vince in his KS4NS

interview, where he talked about the adverse impact of not knowing that “you need to

filter out the noise by knowing what the noise is, to basically control for all of the

variables” (V.KS4NS, 7.I), though he did not speak of more specific methodological

variations and how these, when used to answer the same question, may subsequently lead

offer varying evidence. This emphasis was similarly absent in Vince’s classroom

practice.

There was no evidence for the inclusion of the remaining two aspects of SI

(namely, “same method does not imply same results” and “explanations are a

combination of data collected and what is known) in either of Vince’s NOS and SI

knowledge structures. Lastly, none of the connections described in Vince’s Cycle of

Inquiry diagram were explicitly included in his classroom practice.

As such, there appears to be a limited translation of Vince’s knowledge structure

for NOS and SI into his classroom practice.

VNOS and VASI Questionnaire Results. Vince’s view of science provided on

the initial prompts on the VNOS Questionnaire provided some initial insight into his
 205

views of the process of science, namely that it involves the answering of questions in a

“systematic, repeatable manner”. Furthermore, this “process addresses the questions

asked, and procedures are formed to be appropriate for the question at hand.” Lastly, he

felt this process was cyclical as, in addition to generating scientific knowledge, “more

questions are raised, and…more research is proposed to answer these new questions”

(V.VNOS, 1).

In Vince’ view it is the “testable question” that initially differentiates science

from other disciplines, as does “agreement between competent observers.” He continues

by expressing his belief that “subjectivity is part of any human endeavor, but scientists

work to mitigate the effects of subjectivity, while artists or philosophers savor the

subjective disagreements” (V.VNOS, 2).

Regarding the possibility of changes in what is accepted as scientific knowledge,

Vince felt strongly that “scientific knowledge is tentative and subject to further revision.

Scientists revise their theories when new evidence becomes available, and this happens

continually” (V.VNOS, 3). As an example, Vince spoke of Galileo’s discovery of the

moons of Jupiter as providing evidence in support of the Copernican model of the solar

system. The position was further supported by his discussion of how scientists know that

dinosaurs actually existed, to which he explained “evidence collected over many decades

has supported previous theories, and even when previous theories are rejected, agreement

about the fundamental aspects of the research done in diverse settings can be found”

(V.VNOS, 4a). Vince continued to discuss changes to accepted theories in science,

specifically regarding the disagreement in what actually caused the dinosaurs extinction,

which he felt
 206

occur when more evidence is needed to support one claim or another, and as
scientists continue to do their work, the gap between viewpoints diminishes. The
extinction of the dinosaurs illustrates this point well, as theories have been revised
over the years, resulting in a convergence of opinions. The fact that disagreements
persist highlights the need for continued study. (V.VNOS, 3c).

This convergence is viewed as a function of “providing more evidence as a result of

continued research”, and helps even the most stubborn scientists to “come around

eventually” (V.VNOS, 3d).

Regarding the certainty or strength with which scientists hold their claims about

the existence of the dinosaurs, Vince felt that

Scientists have reasonable certainty with regard to size, mobility, diet, and other
aspects of their appearance that can be supported by fossil evidence. Scientists are
far less certain about aspects that are much more difficult to provide evidence for.
(V.VNOS, 4b).

What is noteworthy in Vince’s response is the absence of specific reference to the

possibility that, in spite of a “diminishing gap between viewpoints” as a function of

additional data collection, scientists may simply view the same data in different ways.

Vince’s conception of a scientific model as being a tool, albeit one that

approximates reality, is expressed through his response regarding the certainty of both

weather models and those of the Earth’s interior. To the former, he spoke of

“uncertainty”, “random error [being] compounded exponentially over time”, and that

“predictions based on models of complex systems are necessarily less certain as the time

interval increases” (V.VNOS, 5). Regarding the inside of the Earth, Vince felt that for

many of these models “different layers are given different colors, thicknesses, or patterns

to highlight their differences” (V.VNOS, 6).

Vince contended that science is indeed an imaginative and creative process,

stating that “scientists use their creativity in all aspects of their work. Scientific study is a
 207

creative endeavor, and scientists must be creative in order to solve problems and answer

questions in a novel way” (V.VNOS, 7). As an example, he spoke of a project that

involved using a balloon-mounted telescope over Antarctica to provide information not

easily gleaned from Earth-based and satellite telescopes.

To the definitions of, and distinctions between scientific theories and scientific

laws, Vince offered the following:

A law is a rule or relationship between variables, such as Newton’s Law of

Universal Gravitation. Laws do not provide explanations. A theory provides the
explanation behind the observed relationship, and is revised more frequently
because it is more nuanced and detailed. The theory of gravitational attraction is
revised as the understanding of fundamental particles changes, but Newton’s
Laws still hold under most circumstances. (V.VNOS, 8)

In addition to mentioning laws and more frequently theories do indeed change, like the

theory of gravitational attraction, Vince also provided an example of how the discovery

of the Higgs boson has increased our overall understanding of mass, “which in turn

changes our understanding of the nature of gravity and the theories that attempt to explain

it” (V.VNOS, 9).

Regarding the potential interaction between science, society, and cultural values,

Vince was of the opinion that there was indeed a relationship most notably

because all scientists are members of a cultural group, so there is a diversity of

viewpoints available for consideration. This in turn can positively impact the
research. By the same token, the scientists must attempt to control for cultural
bias when it occurs. (V.VNOS, 10).

Evident in Vince’s responses to the initial prompts on the VASI Questionnaire was his

belief that science is typically concerned with establishing relationships between

variables by, at times controlling variables and through collecting data to answer a

particular question (V.VASI, 1a, b). To the point of scientific questions, Vince felt
 208

strongly that “All science starts with a question, because without questions, no answers

can be found” (V.VASI, 2). The means for answering these questions can certainly, in

Vince’s opinion, follow different methods since “scientific investigations are guided by

the questions asked” (V.VASI, 1c). This idea that the methodology must be appropriate

for answering the question was evidenced in various other responses on the

questionnaire. As examples of these varying methodologies, he discussed the very

systematic investigation of cyclist Lance Armstrong, contrasted with the work of

other scientists (who) have discovered exoplanets, and they couldn’t control for
presence of a planet, because you can’t simply control the universe. Astronomers
had to examine the stellar data and come up with ways to show the indication of
the presence of a planet in other ways. (V.VASI, 1c).

When asked to comment on whether scientists answering the same question with the

same methodology would necessarily arrive at the same results, Vince believed that this

would not be the case, since the manner in which the data were interpreted could

influence the conclusions drawn. In support, he again referenced the Lance Armstrong

scandal, stating that

For example, as the evidence against Lance Armstrong had a one in a million
chance of being due to chance, most people would say that he certainly used
banned substances. However, someone else could say that we can’t prove his guilt
by this data, as there still exists a chance that he is innocent. (V.VASI, 3a)

Regarding the influence of using different methods to answer identical questions, Vince

felt that “variations are compounded when different procedures are followed. Scientists

attempt to control for external variables, but no experiment can control for all instances

of random error” (V.VASI, 3b).

When asked whether data and evidence indeed refer to different concepts, Vince’s

responded that
 209

Data is collected by scientists in various forms, but does not tell a story or offer an
explanation by itself. As scientists, we turn data into evidence by offering
interpretations to support or refute a claim in order to address the guiding
question. (V.VASI, 4).

The aforementioned answer, in conjunction with other data presented above provides

evidence that Vince appears to make a connection between a conclusion and the data that

is required in support of it.

When coming up with explanations, Vince feels that it is essential for scientists to

consider “empirical observations, and [to] look at data through the lens of prior

information and knowledge in order to interpret and explain the data appropriately”

(V.VASI, 7b).

Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the Questionnaires. A

comparison of Vince’s conceptions of NOS and SI as evidenced in the VNOS and VASI

questionnaires versus those communicated during the explication of the KS4NS

questionnaire is provided in Table 2.

 210

Table 2

Vince’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on the VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS
Questionnaires, and in Classroom Practice.

Questionnaires
Classroom
VNOS/VASI KS4NS Congruencea
Practice
Empirically-Based Informed Informed Yes No Evidence
Tentative Mixed Mixed Yes Mixed
Nature of Science

Observation & Inference Informed No Evidence - Informed

Creativity Informed Mixed No No Evidence

Theories & Law Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Social-Cultural Mixed No Evidence - No Evidence
Subjective Mixed No Evidence - No Evidence

Begins w/ Question Informed Informed Yes Informed

Multiple Methods Informed Mixed No Naïve
Scientific Inquiry

Same Method ≠ Same Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Method Influences Results Informed Mixed No No Evidence

Data ≠ Evidence Informed Informed Yes Informed

Method Aligned with Question Informed Informed Yes No Evidence
Conclusion Consistent with Data Informed Informed Yes Informed
Explanation = Data & Previous Informed No Evidence - No Evidence
a
Congruence refers to the agreement between the results of the VNOS/VASI and those from the KS4NS

Case #2 Tari

Academic and Professional Background. Tari was beginning her third year as a

certified physics teacher, having spent four years prior to this as a science teacher at a

small, parochial middle school. Ridgewood Academy, where Tari now shared the physics

teaching responsibilities with one other teacher, was a located in an affluent western

suburb of a major Midwestern city, and was home to approximately 13,000 residents.
 211

Tari had completed her doctorate in applied physics and spent time in one of the

country’s largest national research laboratories upon her graduation, but found the

environment “less than friendly” for a female scientist, and sought a job that would

provide her not only an improvement on general working conditions, but also more

flexibility raising her family, in general. Her husband was a noted professor of physics at

the same university where Tari, after concluding her short career as a professional

research physics, completed her teacher certification program. This program, as it has

been noted, was one where nature of science and scientific inquiry were emphasized as

overarching thematic elements in all components of the teacher preparation program. It

was also during her pursuit of the M.A.T. degree that she worked as a middle school

science teacher prior to receiving state licensure.

School. Ridgewood Academy was located a mile off the town’s main street, a

downtown tightly packed with an eclectic assortment of original shops and restaurants,

with a handful of more familiar chain stores represented as well. The school building

accommodated approximately 800 students and was positioned on one-third of a large

rectangular tract of land, adjacent to a retirement community operated by the same church

with which the school is affiliated. A modern yet modest brick building, Ridgewood

housed classes on four floors, with an attached gymnasium and chapel, along with a

newly refurbished second floor library.

The majority of science classrooms, Tari’s included, had student work tables that

served both as typical-use desks and also where laboratory work was completed. These

classrooms comfortably sat the 20 to 25 students enrolled in most classes, though the
 212

logistics of completing investigations requiring electrical outlets did make the work

environment somewhat crowded at times.

All students at Ridgewood, prior to enrolling as freshmen, had passed an 8th grade

entrance exam. Graduates, almost without exception, went on to attend four-year colleges

or universities. Tuition at Ridgewood exceeded $10,000 a year and, once enrolled,

students were required to wear the traditional uniform of many parochial schools, with

girls in plaid skirts, knee high socks and school dress shirt, while boys donned similar

shirts and khaki pants.

On occasion, classes at Ridgewood started with a prayer or invocation of some

type, though unusually, and irrespective of the uniforms, the school would appear to be

like any other small to mid-sized, upper-middle class high school. This, Tari shared, was

much like the school environment at her first job, a small parochial middle school.

Furthermore, like that job, discipline at Ridgewood was rarely ever an issue, centering

mainly on grades slipping below the high expectation of students’ parents and not on

more traditional disruptive behavioral issues. Tari confirmed that the expectation of the

administration, faculty, parents and students was that all of Ridgewood’s students would

attend four-year universities upon their graduation, and this was emphasized frequently

by the administration.

The science curriculum at Ridgewood took a “physics first” approach, with

freshman completing physics, followed by chemistry, and then junior-year biology.

Seniors were free to choose from a variety of advanced placement courses, one of which,

Advanced Placement (AP) Physics, was taught for the first time by Tari. While Tari

voiced her support for physics occupying the initial position of the high school science
 213

sequence, she said she struggled at times to teach certain concepts without the math with

which she was so familiar through her own experiences learning physics.

Class. Tari shared classrooms with another science teacher for both her freshman

physics and her AP physics classes. Each of these were situated with a teacher workspace

in the front of the room (computer, workbench, desk), and 14 or so tables to

accommodate a pair of students, with the remaining 15 feet or so in the back providing

space for an additional table or two, some storage shelves, and a variety of bins for

students to pick up or turn in their assignments. A pair of dry-erase boards was positioned

at the front of the room, with an additional one located about halfway along one, heavily

windowed, side wall. It was here that reminders, summaries of student grades from recent

quizzes, tests, or lab reports were posted, along with the objectives for the upcoming

lesson – written typically as questions.

Hewitt’s Conceptual Physics was the textbook for this class, as is the case with

many physics-first curricula, though it appeared that all of the worksheets, lab materials,

and assessments were either created or at least modified by Tari.

Classroom Practice. Tari typically began class by referring to a list of guiding

questions written on the side board, except when appearing to respond to the need for

remediation or review as indicated by an assessment or assignment graded the previous

evening. On these occasions, the questions were referenced at the conclusion of these

activities.

On many occasions Tari seemed a bit “out of sorts” due to the transition

incumbent on two teachers sharing a classroom, and the logistics of preparing for this

during a five-minute passing period. In addition, she did, on occasion, make it point to
 214

indicate her anxiety when she was trying an investigation or activity for the first time,

going so far as even asking for the researcher’s input at the lesson’s conclusion.

Generally, she approached each lesson with considerable energy and marked enthusiasm,

and appeared to try almost tirelessly to make sure her students were similarly engaged.

When presenting or reviewing material, Tari’s practice could be considered more

teacher-centered, though she did always try to get her students asking or answering

questions, and was not afraid to plead with them to tell her when they were confused. The

result of these efforts was, in part, usually a front board jammed packed equations,

diagrams, definitions, and other “information”, reflecting the aforementioned excitement

more so than a careful consideration of organization or neatness.

Most laboratory investigations were positioned at the beginning of a new chapter

or unit, as a means for helping students elucidate the relationship between various

specified variables. With the mathematical limitations of this type of class and the

textbook being used, these were, as could be expected, sometimes more qualitative than

quantitative. Nevertheless, Tari usually provided specific instructions on the data that

needed to be collected for the more mathematical of these endeavors.

Students were required to submit laboratory write-ups for the majority of the

investigations in her class, with a handful of these only requiring them to complete a

worksheet provided to guide their efforts. In addition, students kept a science journal that

contained their notes and other assignments of the class.

Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. For Tari, data

collection included nine classroom observation covering 450 minutes of instruction.

From this, over 193 minutes of NOS/SI-related audio was collected, linked with 21 pages
 215

of field notes. In addition, classroom materials containing explicit references to NOS

and/or SI were collected, which for Tari consisted entirely of handouts she provided to

students during their laboratory activities or similar investigations.

The second and sixth observation provided the most related audio, with over 44

minutes and 33 minutes being culled from these observations, respectively. The first

observation provided approximately 20 minutes of NOS- and SI-related audio, while four

other observations (#3, #5, #7, and #8) provided at least 10 minutes, with the last

observation providing just over nine minutes of audio. An approximate summary of time

spent addressing NOS- and SI-related instructional objectives, in addition to the physics

content being taught and a brief description of included activities is provided in Table 3.

Evidenced on nine occasions during the first observation, and two other times

later in the semester, an emphasis on the use of creativity in science was clearly present

in Tari’s classroom practice. At the beginning of the semester, Tari tasked her students to

develop a paper airplane with the goal of achieving the furthest flight distance. She

prefaced this activity by asking students if they thought about creativity when they

thought about science. When most answered affirmatively, she probed further for

examples. In response to one student, who spoke of needing creativity to even know what

to do as a scientist, Tari responded that certainly, “you have to use your imagination to

decide how you are even going to go about doing an investigation” (T.CO, 1.1.1.2). To

another student she emphatically agreed that “when things are invented, that’s creative”,

and that clearly how scientists and engineers have to do their work is a very creative

process. In reference to the aforementioned airplane design task, she commented that

students were creative when they designed their different planes and later, during the
 216

competition, exclaimed that “I love the creativity you used when creating these planes”

(T.CO, 1.2.1).

Table 3

Overview of Classroom Observations for Tari.

NOS & SI
Observation Time Subject Matter Description

1 20:24 Fair Test; Controlling for Variables Design competition

2 44:31 Sound Pre-investigation

discussion

3 10:20 Light – Color Pre-investigation

discussion

4 30:20 Light – Reflection Lecture and notes

5 19:33 Kinematics – Position v. Time Pre-investigation

graphs discussion

6 33:02 Kinematics – Free Fall Debriefing an

investigation

7 13:42 Kinematics – Projectile Motion Pre-investigation

discussion

8 12:54 Dynamics – Kinetic Energy Pre-investigation

discussion

9 9:37 Dynamics – Kinetic and Potential Debriefing an

Energy investigation

Note: NOS & SI Time is an approximate measure of the instructional time dedicated by the
teacher to NOS- and SI-related instructional objectives.

On two other occasions of note, science as a creative endeavor was brought up

regarding the process of deciding how to go about investigating a phenomenon. To this

point, she first shared that there is “no exact right way to do an investigation...you have to

use your creativity to get a answer” (T.CO, 5.1.1), and later, with some students still
 217

struggling to determine their methodology, commented that there is “no[t] one correct

way…there are wrong and right ways…be creative” (T.CO, 5.1.3).

This emphasis on multiple ways of going about doing an investigation was

evidenced seven other times across four other class periods. While she did on five

occasions, including those above, make general pronouncements of the fact that there was

no set way of doing any investigation, on two occasions she did talk more specifically

about the overarching aim within this freedom. First, speaking about the need to be

creative cautioned that while there “[are] many ways to go about a procedure, you must

keep all of the independent variables the same expect for one being tested” (T.CO, 1.3.2).

Similarly, during the last observation, she first reminded students that, regarding how

they measured the velocity of marble rolling down an incline, "[they] could put the

photogate any way [they]'d like at the top, middle, bottom - there is no one set way of

doing a scientific investigation, lab, activity…" (T.CO, 9.1.1). Later, as she noticed a

group going about their investigation differently and asked the class, “Does it matter that

this group has a different set-up than this group? No…there are more than one way to do

a scientific investigation - as long as you take multiple trials and keep everything the

same…” (T.CO, 9.2.1).

It should be noted that over the course of classroom observations there was no

evidence of Tari discussing with students how creativity is involved in the later-stages of

the inquiry process (e.g., data collection, data analysis, developing explanations, theory-

building, etc.).

Regarding the inclusion of the difference between scientific theories and scientific

laws, Tari touched on this during the fourth classroom observation. For this class period
 218

students were discussing the law of reflection. As one of her guiding questions she asked

“What is a scientific law?” As she implored her students to take some notes on this

question, she put three main bullet points on the board:

 A law generalizes many observations,

 If something is a law no exceptions have been found, and

 Laws don’t explain ‘why’.

She then briefly read each of these, telling students that what they were going to

investigate during this day’s lesson was the law of reflection, and that this law, like all

scientific laws, served the purpose of generalizing many observations, was true, but did

not explain why light behaved as it did. Lastly, she added that laws are often used to

build new knowledge.

Once the investigation was completed, and students had discovered the

relationship between the incident and reflected angle, Tari reiterated that “there have

been no exceptions found to the law of reflections…anytime we observe this, this holds

true” (T.CO, 4.2.1).

It should be noted that no reference was made to scientific theories, or how these

were different than scientific laws, even in simply providing an explanation of “why.”

This was also the only time that scientific laws were evidenced in Tari’s classroom

practice.

As previously referenced, during the first observation, Tari’s students were tasked

with creating an airplane, out of a restricted amount of supplies, with the goal of

maximizing the flight distance. This task was left somewhat unclear, Tari shared prior to

the class, so she could capitalize on the opportunity to talk about the importance of
 219

having a clear question to answer, and in being clear about what was going to be

measured, and what variables were going to be controlled. As she and her students talked

about how they were going to define “farthest”, she emphasized the importance of

scientists knowing exactly what question they are trying to answer when they planned an

investigation, or “what they are going to test...just like you need to know exactly what

you are trying to figure out…" (T.CO, 1.2.3).

Tari emphasized this again, during a demonstration related to sound and how it

travels. As she was setting up an apparatus that would provide evidence that there is no

sound in a vacuum, she asked her students "Why do people even do investigations?

Right, because they are curious about something…” (T.CO, 2.1.1). During the following

observation Tari was again speaking of the importance of knowing what exactly it is that

is being investigated, this in reference to the guiding question for the investigation. She

then directed students’ attention to what she had written on the board: “Investigations

always begin with a question” (T.CO, 3.B.1). To this, as had been done during the first

observation, she talked about how scientists needed to know exactly what they were

trying to find out and that they have to always keep in mind the question they are asking

as they go about their investigation.

During the aforementioned plane construction activity, Tari also tried to convey to

her students how a scientist’s subjectivity may influence the development of scientific

knowledge. As she was surveying the different approaches to designing an airplane

represented by her students, she asked them to consider why there were so many different

types of planes, and why everyone had a different idea about what the “best plane”

looked like. She then told them that “when you decided on a design, your past history,
 220

whatever your forming or background, whatever your experiences…[these] influenced

your decision…" (T.CO, 1.2.1).

This idea of subjectivity, though it was never labeled as such, surfaced again as

Tari was circulating throughout the class, as students worked on a color and light mixing

investigation during the third observation. As Tari was assisting a pair of students, she

was overheard asking them “Why do you think that?” While the students’ answers were

not audible, she then asked the entire class for their attention and told them: “you need to

remember, when you are doing an investigation, you are not open [to anything]…you are

always expecting something, and this can affect your results” (T.CO, 3.2.3).

Lastly, during the sixth observation, students were asked to come up with their

own methodology for determining where a ball, traveling down a ramp placed on a lab

table, would strike the ground. After reminding students that there were many ways of

doing any scientific investigation, she shared that, certainly, they should expect to see

their classmates doing things differently than they might, because "different experiences

influence all of our views. These views are not wrong though..." (T.CO, 6.1.2).

Regarding the empirical basis for scientific knowledge, Tari touched on this twice

during the sixth observation. Students had been taking notes on some fundamental

formulas for one-dimensional kinematics, and Tari had designed an investigation for

them related to these. Prior to the observation, she had shared with the researcher her

preference, at times, to structure certain chapters like this so students “can see where all

of these formulas come from. During the introduction to the investigation, she told her

students that what they were about to do would allow them, in her words, to “do a lab

to...turn a [formula] into real life” (T.CO, 6.1.1). To do so, they would “need to come up
 221

with [their] own data to verify the relationship…[I am] not going to give you a word

problem…we’re going to do it for real” (T.CO, 6.1.3).

Certain patterns also became evident in Tari’s classroom practice, outside of the

15 targeted aspects of NOS and SI. One of most prominent was Tari’s emphasis on the

concept of a “fair test” when doing scientific investigations. During the first classroom

observation, Tari’s objective was to teach students about some of the basic elements of

any investigation. To this end, she had two questions on the board: “What makes a good

investigation?” and “What is a fair test?” As class began, she told her students that

knowing the answer to these questions was essential if they were going to do their work

like scientists. She then proceeded to emphasize that it was extremely important when

doing any investigation to keep everything identical except for what it is they are trying

to measure. This, Tari said, is “the rule we have to follow, the fair test…keep everything

the same… and that over the course of the class this rule is what I am going to emphasize

during each investigation” (T.CO, 1.2.2).

Tari held true to this promise on observation six, when, as she was going over the

procedure for investigating the speed of a rolling marble, emphatically told her students

“what is the cardinal rule of investigations!? Do it the same way!” (T.CO, 6.1.5). This

was similarly emphasized during the seventh observation, when, in response to her

students’ troubles in designing their own means for predicting where a rolling marble

would land, proclaimed, “What is the cardinal rule of investigations!? What is a really,

really big deal when you do an experiment? Keep everything the same except [the] one

thing that you are measuring” (T.CO, 7.1.1).

 222

During the first classroom observation Tari emphasized the difference between

independent and dependent variables, categorizing the former as those “that are

manipulated, versus those that we are measuring the change in” (T.CO, 1.1). She also

emphasized the need to perform multiple trials to get “as accurate results as we possibly

can…more trials means more accuracy” (T.CO, 7.1.1) and also “told’ her students that

“why is it important to do many trials…? Right, because we could have had some bad

data collection…” (T.CO, 7.1.2).

Lastly, Tari did emphasize that data in science are not always numbers, that

observations are data, and that even when “data was not numerical, but we still drew

conclusions from it” (T.CO, 2.1-4).

Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI. Tari’s inclusion of

NOS and SI, and the aforementioned “related” aspects, occurred approximately 50 times

over the observation period, and tended to be done in more teacher-centered ways. This

more transmissional-mode of instruction was evidenced on 42 of these occasions. When

involving students (n = 8), most times, this consisted of a single question or prompt that

was then answered or corroborated by Tari.

Most typically the inclusion of NOS and SI in Tari’s classroom practice did not

involve sustained discourse, though on one occasion, when discussing creativity, a chain

of six “statements’ were made concerning this aspect, and latter, when covering theories

and laws, six related statements were chained together. Concerning some of the ancillary

aspects included in Tari’s practice, she also included a sustained dialogue concerning

independent and dependent variables, and also regarding scientific data.

 223

Figure 3 summarizes Tari’s classroom practice knowledge structure for NOS and

SI as inferred from her classroom practice.

Empirically-Based (6)

Subjectivity (5)

Creativity (25)
Multiple Methods (19)

Theory v. Law (36)

Begins w/ Question (7) Informed

Fair Test (7) Mixed

Trials (2)
Naive
Ind/Dep (5)

Data (4) Additional

Aspect

Figure 3. Tari’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. Each instance
of a connection is shown, with font size adjusted as a function of the “inclusion score”
shown in parentheses.

KS4NS Questionnaire Results. When asked, on the questionnaire and prior to

the interview, to comment on the essential ideas and/or concepts comprising NOS Tari

answered as follows:

the ideas behind the nature of science would include the idea that science requires
creativity. It requires observation, which leads to inference and speculation from
the perspective of the viewer. Concrete information can be obtained by
investigation and though many objective conclusions can be made, overall
generalizations from many investigations may lead to inferences that are affected
by the investigators. (T.KS4NS, 1)

Regarding scientific inquiry, she commented that

The ideas behind scientific inquiry foremost include that there is no one correct
way to perform an investigation. All investigations start with a question, goal, or
 224

purpose, but then there may be many different ways to arrive at a conclusion.
Alternatively, it is also possible for different groups to perform the same set of
procedures and not necessarily reproduce the same results. Many different sets of
data can then be brought together and compared. Any conclusions and
interpretations must be consistent with the data. (T.KS4NS, 1)

Tari included a diagram to represent her conception of NOS and SI, which “attempted to

bring the two together in a picture” (T.KS4NS, 2.I) that can be found in Figure 4. When

prompted regarding the inclusion of both NOS and SI on the same diagram Tari

responded that she felt they “just kind of (go) hand-in-hand” and that “inquiry…well by

nature...the whole inquiry thing is…what ideally you would do if you were trying to find

out something about a particular area, while NOS is just pretty much the playing field

that you are dealing with” (T.KS4NS, 2.I).

In discussing her diagram, Tari felt that science inevitably begins with a question,

goal, or purpose, or the “three different ways to get to the investigation”, as signified by

the three arrows in the diagram. When ask to further clarify this response, she explained

that regarding the “three different ways”,

I think that investigations may start out differently…so, you may you know have
a branch do something (or) have a specific purpose for an investigation, or you
may really be hoping to prove something so that is like something like a goal, or
you maybe have just come upon something or read something and you are curious
about it so that is where the question comes from, and that is where it all starts, I
believe. (T.KS4NS, 3.I)

When asked to clarify what she meant by “investigation” she stated that by this she meant

“the experiment...the investigation…the whatever-you-want-to-label-it-as…the

study…whatever you are studying or trying to find out”.

 225

Question
Goal
Purpose

Creativity Investigation

Observation

Subjectivity
Cultural
Investigator
Influences
Past Experiences

Inference

Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion

Figure 4. Tari’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. This is the diagram
that Tari included on her KS4NS questionnaire.

Consistent with her response to the first prompt on the KS4NS questionnaire, Tari

again stressed the critical role that creativity plays in the scientific process, here in

reference to her diagram:

I tried remembering the different…the various parts of NOS and inquiry, and I
thought creativity was probably the most important thing here because you have
to be deciding what you want to do and how you want to do it, to do that you
have to be creative. (T.KS4NS, 3.I)
 226

Tari then explained the connection between “Investigation” and the “Investigator”, which

in her diagram was labeled “Observation”, specifically that

so as you are doing your investigation you are taking data you're making a lot of
observations, so I kind of had that (Observation) leading to the investigator, which
is the next step, and so, I was kind of thinking where..with an investigation you
are going to get some hard numbers and are going to be observing things...your
observations, not that they are not concrete they may be...they may be a little
more loose than the numbers you are taking. (T.KS4NS, 4.I)

She continued that the investigator will then have to examine both the observations and

the “hard numbers” to come up with some sort of conclusion. This, though, is a process

that is influenced by a researcher’s subjectivity, their past experiences, and certain

cultural influences or, in general, “…what the investigator studied in the past, what his

main background (is) what the subject likes…” and whether they are in a field of work

that is influenced by society, like environmental science, for example, “as opposed to

straightforward physics investigation on quarks or something like that”.

Continuing with the role that subjectivity may play in influencing the investigator,

Tari referenced her dissertation work utilizing Scanning Tunnel Microscopy (STM),

sharing that

even when I was doing my STM (scanning tunnel microscopy) research, it

seemed like some things you relied on more, like some things some components
you feel were more reliable in your investigation (and) you tend to believe them
more or put more weight in them because you see it time and time again.
(T.KS4NS, 5.I)

When asked to clarify what she meant by certain aspects or components of her research

being more reliable she offered the following:

you know the limitations of your…of your instruments that you use…so like
when I was...um taking data I could see the noise level say on the oscilloscope,
so…I would...so if it was really noisy I wasn't about to trust that data as much as
if I got a nice clean signal because it all depended on the tip and whether there
was any crud on the sample, so you would make observations while you were
 227

obtaining the data and see whether this was going to be good or this was going to
be bad... (T.KS4NS, 5b.I)

This, she felt, fell into the category of an investigator’s “past experience” and their

“subjectivity.” She further clarified “past experience” by contrasting how she may view a

particular set of data, from her physics background, versus someone who was operating

with a background in biology. She summarized the impact of these three influents (i.e.,

subjectivity, past experiences, and cultural influences) in the following response

regarding the concept of an “inference”

so the investigator takes into the observations the data and is either…knowing or
unknowingly influenced by subjectivity, past experiences, or cultural
experiences…and an inference is made and a conclusion comes from the
inference. (T.KS4NS, 6.I)

This conclusion, Tari continued, “could come from the investigator…that person or it

could come from other people looking at the data, and hopefully that will lead to the

same conclusion...and that is where progress can be made” (T.KS4NS, 6.I). This

progress, she continued, means

that you, that you feel that you actually maybe it possible to prove something, that
you feel you have data that correlates with something else, you actually feel like
you discovered something whether it is a trend whether it is the fact that this type
of instrument cannot (or) is not very good at measuring what we are looking
for...whether it is a negative or a positive result...an inferences can be to lead to a
conclusion that you can trust, or at least (you can) back up and defend it from
other people or other scientists who were questioning it. (T.KS4NS, 6.I)

When asked about any changes or modification she would make to her representation,

Tari felt that the inclusion of numerical data under the connecting arrow labeled

“observation” would be more accurate, and representative of her previous comments

regarding hard numbers and observations resulting from the investigation. Lastly, she felt

that the result of the investigators’ inferences should be multiple possible conclusions
 228

(“that you came up with or can conclude a couple different things that may not

necessarily be the same”), though on her diagram she only labeled them as a single

conclusion.

Translation of Knowledge Structures into Classroom Practice. At the level of

the concepts included in Tari’s two subject matter knowledge structures (i.e., classroom

practice versus KS4NS), there is considerable congruity.

That scientific investigations begin with a question was a component of Tari’s

classroom practice on three occasions, where she both told her students that “scientific

investigations always begin with a question” (T.CO, 1.3.B1) and that they must, when

working on an investigation be sure to always consider the question to make sure what

they are testing is correct (T.CO, 1.1.2.3). In discussing her perception of the “beginning”

of the investigatory process, Tari contended that the idea of science always beginning

with a question was not necessarily always the case. More accurately, in addition to

beginning with a question, other times an overarching goal (“want to prove something”)

or purpose may drive the scientific process.

That there is no single way to perform a scientific investigation was also evident

in both subject matter knowledge structures. In her classroom practice, Tari emphasized

that while the goal was to get as accurate data as possible, there was “no exact right way

to do an investigation…you have to use your creativity to get an answer (T.CO, 1.5.1.1).

This emphasis on multiple methods was tempered, however, by an emphasis on more

experimental-design consideration, namely the manipulation and controlling of variables,

evidenced in such statements as “(there are) many ways to go about a procedure, but you

must keep all of the independent variables the same expect for (the) one being tested”
 229

(T.CO, 1.1.3.2). This idea of a “fair test” was evidenced on numerous occasions in Tari’s

classroom practice, but was not similarly communicated in her knowledge structure for

NOS and SI, typically described as follows: “what is the cardinal rule of investigations!?

What is a really, really big deal when you do an experiment? Keep everything the same

except [the] one thing that you are measuring” (T.CO, 1.7.1).

A perceptible message in Tari’s classroom practice was an emphasis on the role

of creativity in the work of scientists, and that “you have to use your imagination to

decide how you are even going to go about doing an investigation” (T.CO, 1.1.2), for

example. This importance was likewise conveyed as Tari described the rationale behind

the construction of her subject matter knowledge structure for nature of science and

scientific inquiry. To this point, she summarized the necessity of creativity by stating that

“creativity was probably the most important thing (shown on the diagram) because you

have to be deciding what you want to do and how you want to do it” (T.KS4NS, 1). This

connection, between the multiple methods for answering a particular question, and the

creativity it often requires, was the only perceptible connection evidenced in Tari’s NOS

and SI related classroom practice between targeted aspects.

In speaking about scientific data, Tari made sure that her students were aware

that, in science, “data is not always numbers”, that “observations are data” also, and that

conclusions can be drawn from both types (T.CO, 1.2.1.2-1.4). This was true, for the

most part, when Tari discussed how the “investigator” must combine observations with

the numerical data collected to arrive at an inference and eventually a conclusion. The

role of observation, though, was not necessarily communicate by Tari as a type of data

that could “stand alone”, as she stated that when doing any investigation, “you are going
 230

to get some hard numbers and are going to be observing things. Your observations, not

that they are not concrete they may be, (but) they may be a little more loose than the

numbers you are taking” (T.KS4NS, 2I).

The role of subjectivity, past experiences, and various cultural influences was

strongly communicated during the explication of Tari’s subject matter knowledge

structure diagram, where she strongly believed that a researcher’s subjectivity, their past

experiences, and certain cultural influences or, in general, “…what the investigator

studied in the past, what his main background (is), what the subject likes…” would

invariable impact the inferences drawn from their data. In her classroom practice, this

subjectivity was communicated as being a result of personal experiences. This was

evident when students were left to develop their own methodology for researching a

particular question, to which she told them “when you decided on a design your past

history, whatever your forming, whatever your experiences, (these) influenced your

decision…" (T.CO, 1.1.2.1). The influence of expectation on a scientist’s “behavior”

during an investigation was also stressed on another occasion, though the more general

influence of how scientists are influenced by their “training” and by the influence that

culture and society exerts, which Tari discussed in her KS4NS interview, did not

evidence itself in classroom practice.

The difference between the observations and data collected during an

investigation and the inferences drawn from them, while a strong component of Tari’s

knowledge structure for NOS and SI, was only evident in classroom practice through

occasional references to “coming up with a conclusion”, for example. While consistent

with her KS4NS diagram and interview, there was a perceptible absence both of the
 231

concept of an inference in Tari’s classroom practice and regarding the role that other

members of the scientific community may play in the conclusions drawn from a

scientists’ inferences, as neither were evidenced in the data collected concerning Tari

NOS and SI classroom practice.

Lastly, the role of and distinction between scientific theories and scientific laws

was the strongest component of NOS and SI to evidence itself in Tari’s classroom

practice, but went unmentioned in her explication of her knowledge structure for NOS

and SI.

In summary, it appears there was limited translation of Tari’s subject matter

knowledge structure for NOS and SI into her classroom practice. The majority of

concepts appear to be consistent across the two structures, but her classroom practice did

not evidence the considerable connections Tari communicated as representative of the

various aspects of NOS and SI.

VNOS and VASI Questionnaire Results. Tari’s understand of the empirical

basis of scientific knowledge was expressed, for example, in her belief that science “is

the study of nature, how it works, and why, by observation and experimentation…”

(T.VNOS, 1), and that science “relies on data to support conclusions; [f]aith is not

involved in science” (T.VNOS, 2), this in response to the first two VNOS prompts.

Regarding the tendency for scientific knowledge to change, Tari cites the role of

technology in providing

better and better data…[that] allows scientific investigations to measure things

that were much too difficult previously, in many cases. For example, little was
known about light. As time went on, scientists went from one idea of light to
another. Once technology was developed enough, the wave nature and particle
nature of light could be established. This was not the case in [the] early years. (T,
VNOS, 3).
 232

In addition, when discussing the degree of certainty in scientists’ depiction of the

dinosaur, Tari responded that while there is considerable evidence for their existence, a

scientist can never be completely certain of their findings. When attempting to convince a

fellow scientists in the efficacy of their theory of extinction, she felt that scientists

would need to get data that was not vague that was numerical data…like carbon
dating or something like that. They would need to be convincing and be able to
answer any questions or doubts that any scientists would have…they would need
to be able support their answers with evidence that is hard to that that would be
hard to refute. (T.VNOS 4d)

Tari provided evidence for her conception of the role that scientists’ individual theoretical

commitments and other personal influents may have on the development of scientific

knowledge, when she explained that “different scientists due to their different

backgrounds of study and interest, may take the same data and interpret it differently”

(T.VNOS, 4c).

She also contended that scientific models, like those used to predict the weather,

are based on probability models, as “scientists cannot account for every single variable

that might affect the weather…as slight temperature increase may affect patterns

differently” (T.VNOS, 5). Lastly, she explained that scientific theories “can be changed,

depending on how weak or strong it is in the first place. How the planets revolved (or

supposedly did not revolve) around the Sun, is an example” (T.VNOS, 9).

The multiple references and explanations regarding scientific models provided the

strongest evidence for discerning Tari’s conception of the difference between, and role

of, observations and inferences. This is particularly true as she discussed the model of the

interior of the Earth, and whether it is an exact representation, to which she replied: “this

[model] is a simplification of the layers so that we can get an idea of the makeup of the
 233

inside of the Earth. Models are not exact replicas. Their job is to give the viewer an idea

of the basic features of something” (T.VNOS, 6). In addition, the aforementioned

discussion on weather-models provided insight into her understanding that these models

are probabilistic and attempt to simplify the multitude of observable, influential variables

to help scientists infer and predict. Her description of how two scientists may interpret

the same data in different ways was also consistent with these examples.

Regarding science as a creative human endeavor, Tari felt strongly that “scientists

definitely use their imaginations and creativity because experiments rarely work the first

time. You always must think about how you can make it work, which requires a lot of

creativity and imagination” (T.VNOS, 7). Furthermore,

[scientists] have to use their creativity when designing the experiment. They have
to consider different parameters, costs, timing, and probable things that could go
wrong. In order to minimize the bad things, or to get "unstuck", creativity is
needed. In short, when designing or developing procedures, or making a process
more efficient, creativity is needed. (T.VNOS, 7)

Regarding scientific theories and scientific laws, Tari contended that a “law is a statement

based on observations. It makes no attempt to explain. A theory is an explanation based

on these observations.” She continued that, in her view, a theory attempts to be more

descriptive while a law uses descriptions to try and come up with a pattern, “though

theories do not become laws nor do laws ever become theories” (VNOS, 8). As

previously mention, when regarding the durability of a scientific theory, Tari was of the

belief that these were certainly capable of being modified based, in part, on their

“strength” (T.VNOS, 9).

In discussing the potential interaction between science, society, and cultural

values, Tari explained that

 234

[t]here is much overlap between science, society, and culture. Science is funded;
this brings into the picture much politics which is influenced by society and
cultural lines. Research, such as cloning, is very controversial. Research
supporting global warming is viewed differently by different groups, even if ‘the
numbers’ are the same. (T.VNOS, 10)

Tari provided evidence in favor of a more experimentally-grounded view of scientific

inquiry, as evidenced by her response to the first series of VNOS prompts. She contended

that using observations to come to a conclusion about the relationship between beak size

and food type is acceptable, “[a]s long as enough observations were used, meaning many

types of birds in different places, with many different beaks, and different food sources

were studied, then it is scientific” (T.VASI, 1.a). The investigation described is, in Tari’s

view, an experiment as “[t]he observations are the data” (T.VASI, 1.b).

Regarding the multiple methods that can guide a scientific investigation, Tari

pointed out the variety of technological “tools” that can be utilized to this end, stating that

“[t]here are many different ways to look at and study things. Superconductors can be

studied using scanning tunneling microscopes, SQUIDS, tunneling methods, and X-ray

diffraction measurements. Each tell[s] a different story” (T.VASI, 1.c).

That scientific investigations begin with a question, Tari seemed unsure, and was

of the opinion that that this may be true at times, but these investigations may also be

initiated by other means, since at times “[s]omeone could be studying one aspect, or even

just observing something, and they could get curious about an aspect and decide to

investigate. They could also jump right into an investigation with a direct question in

mind” (T.VASI, 2).

In proposing that that scientists attempting to answer the same question and

following the same procedures may get different conclusions, Tari believed that “each
 235

[scientists] may have their own biases and look at the data differently or with a different

perspective. This could lead to different conclusions” (T.VASI, 3a). This idea of the role

that subjectivity plays in the “meaning” ascribed to data was also communicated previous

when Tari who, in response to a prompt on the VNOS questionnaire, responded that

“different scientists due to their different backgrounds of study and interest, may take the

same data and interpret it differently” (T.VNOS, 4c). Tari, when asked to consider a case

where scientists were using different procedures to answer the same question, contended

that they may, as a result of these varying methodologies, arrive at different conclusions.

Or, by contrast, “scientists that are looking into a ‘problem’ using different ways of

measuring or collecting data can certainly come up with the same conclusions. It is these

collaborations that involve a variety of measurements that make scientific papers

stronger” (T.VASI, 3b).

Regarding data and evidence, it is not clear that Tari makes a distinction between

the two. She, in talking about what makes science distinct from other ways of knowing,

stated that “science attempts to quantify its data or evidence, it relies on data to help

support its conclusions, and that scientists interpret the data they collect” (T.VNOS, 2).

Furthermore, she talked about the “evidence” used by scientists to support their belief in

the age of the universe. In contrast to these potentially differing concepts of data versus

evidence, she commented that “I don’t think there is a difference. They are both used to

prove something” (T.VASI, 4).When asked to elaborate further, she added that

[e]vidence and data are the same in the respect that they both give indications
and/or observations that help to answer the questions at hand. Perhaps you are
using the info to prove a hypothesis, or just simply give some supporting evidence
to back up or refute a hypothesis or theory that is proposed. (T.VASI, 4, F).
 236

In commenting on the alignment between question and methodology, a clear picture of

Tari’s conception is not currently afforded by her response to the VASI. When asked to

comment on two varying methodologies for a given question, she felt that one was

preferred because it was more useful in the long run, though she did not specifically

reference the necessary connection between question asked and methodology.

A clear conception of Tari’s view of the connection between the data collected

and the conclusions drawn from those data is drawn from Tari’s previous comments

(T.VASI, 4, F) where she talked about how data can be used to support a proposed

theory, or to prove something, and also when she commented about how science “relies

on data to help support its conclusions” (T.VNOS, 2).

The consideration of prior knowledge when developing scientific explanations

was referred to by Tari when talked about how that scientists must consider a variety of

factors in conjunction with the data, in this case dinosaur bones, such as what is known

about “the climate, environment, food sources, and competition when deciding on a

possible structure” for the dinosaur’s skeleton (T.VASI, 7).

Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the Questionnaires. Table

4 provides a summary of Tari’s conceptions of the 15 targeted aspects of NOS and SI as

evidenced on the VNOS and VASI questionnaires and through the explication of her

responses and diagramming on the KS4NS questionnaire.

In summary, Tari expressed congruent conceptions across the two questionnaires

for (a) science as empirically-based, (b) the distinction between observation and

inference, (c) science as a creative human endeavor, (d) science as unavoidably

influenced by personal experiences and theoretical commitments (i.e., subjectivity), (e)

 237

that science begins with a question, (f) there is no single scientific method, and (g) that

conclusions must be consistent with the data that is collected.

Discrepancies were noted for Tari’s conception of the (bidirectional) influence of

society and culture on science, and for the distinction between data and evidence. There

was a lack of evidence on the KS4NS to inform a comparison of the following aspects of

NOS and SI: (a) that scientific knowledge is tentative, (b) the definition and distinction

between scientific theories and scientific laws, (c) that scientists performing the same

procedures may not arrive at the same conclusions, (d) the procedures influence results,

and (e) that explanations must take into account both data collected and what is known.
 238

Table 4

Tari’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on the VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS
Questionnaires, and in Classroom Practice.

Questionnaires
Classroom
VNOS/VASI KS4NS Congruencea
Practice
Empirically-Based Informed Informed Yes Informed
Tentative Mixed No Evidence - No Evidence
Nature of Science

Observation & Inference Informed Informed Yes No Evidence

Creativity Mixed Mixed Yes Mixed

Theories & Law Informed No Evidence - Mixed

Social-Cultural Mixed No Evidence - No Evidence
Subjective Informed Informed Yes Informed

Begins w/ Question Informed Informed Yes Informed

Multiple Methods Mixed Mixed Yes Informed
Scientific Inquiry

Same Method ≠ Same Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Method Influences Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Data ≠ Evidence Mixed Informed No No Evidence

Method Aligned with Question No Evidence No Evidence - No Evidence
Conclusion Consistent with Data Informed Informed Yes No Evidence
Explanation = Data & Previous Informed No Evidence - No Evidence
a
Congruence refers to the agreement between the results of the VNOS/VASI and those from the KS4NS

Case #3: Mark

Academic and Professional Background. Originally a psychology major in

college, Mark followed this degree by completing a bachelor’s degree and certification in

physics. Mark was in his ninth year teaching high school physics at a large school district

in an upper-middle class suburban town of approximately 23,000 students on the urban

fringe of a large Midwestern city. During this time he had completed his Master’s degree
 239

in science education at the university with which the researcher was affiliated, and where

all candidates must complete a course in nature of science and scientific inquiry, and

where both are emphasized as an overarching thematic element throughout the program.

Furthermore, at the time of the current investigation, Mark was also pursuing his

doctorate degree in science education from the same university, where he began a

professional relationship with the researcher. In specific, Mark felt he had completed

approximately 50 credit hours of coursework in physics, and about the same in science

education or related coursework. Regarding any specific influence of this coursework on

his current practice, Mark felt that, first,

The physics courses and the content learned in those courses directly added to my
background and comfort with the content. This greatly helps when trying to
prepare lessons, plan for instruction, to be prepared for unplanned student
questions, and questions that go deeper than planned student instruction. (M.DQ,
3)

The science education courses were also identified as helping Mark to

take the content from the physics courses and discover new ways to get the
content across to students in a less teacher-centered manner (similar to how I was
instructed) and in a more student-centered way. The classes never really gave
specific instruction on how to go about this approach with specific physics lessons
or examples but did go through processes that illustrated how to build lessons in
such a manner. (M.DQ, 3)

Armed with this knowledge and experience, Mark has tried to “build connections

between the skills learned from general student-centered science labs and lessons and the

specific physics lab/lessons” that he used in his classes (M.DQ, 3).

During his time as a classroom physics teacher Mark had also completed various

professional development programs. Among these were (a) a Research Experiences for

Teachers (RET) summer program, (b) an internship at one of the country’s largest

national laboratories for science research, (c) a program dedicated to Physics Modeling,
 240

and (d) a workshop at the Advanced Placement Institute preparing to teach an AP Physics

course. When asked to identify which, if any, of these has impacted his classroom

practice, Mark responded that

The content courses, science education courses, AP institute, and modeling

courses have all shaped my current practice. I have taken ideas and strategies
from each of these experiences and formed them into my current teaching
practice. Both the latter two experiences provided a great deal of materials to use
for instruction which were used (in close to original form) for the first year, and
have been modified each subsequent year to move to a more student-centered
approach, classroom, and style of instruction. (M.DQ, 6)

When asked about the influence of any NOS and SI specific coursework, he mentioned

that he has tried to incorporate much of this into his practice, and also utilized this

knowledge in much of the additional coursework and professional development

opportunities he has completed. In summary, Mark felt that

The additional coursework then helped expand my ability to look at lessons and
analyze them with better scrutiny for any ability to use or modify and make into
something that I could use in class. I’m sure that age, experience, and exposure to
different teaching styles and strategies have also influenced my teaching and
expanding my skill-set. (M.DQ, 8)

School. Brookville High School occupied a large plot of partially wooded land

just off a busy, and typically, congested four-lane thoroughfare. The school, by

appearance, was relatively new, and featured extremely clean and well-lit common

spaces for students to congregate, and boasted large science classrooms with newly

refurbished lab spaces. Mark shared that, since his arrival, he has never been denied a

request for laboratory equipment and, as such, has amassed an impressive inventory to

enhance his classroom practice. This equipment was housed in an adjacent classroom

belonging to the other physics teacher who, with Mark, covered all of the sections of

“regular” physics, along with various sections at the “honors” level.

 241

The majority of the approximately 2,100 students at Brookville were White, while

approximately 25% are of Hispanic descent, with about equal numbers (approximately

10%) of Black and Asian students; approximately 38% of these students were classified

as coming from low-income households. Regarding academic preparation, about half of

the juniors being considered college-ready, as determined by their performance on the

ACT, and about the same number of students had met all targeted standards on the state-

wide high stakes assessment. When asked to characterize the students at Brookville,

Mark noted that

The students are fairly average overall (see academic section of demographics).
Students in core level will work during class when presenting with something
they consider academically challenging (but not overly so), will work in groups,
independently, etc. Students will often not work at home (complete homework).
Classroom management can be an issue at times, but typically not if expectations
are established and maintained in a consistent manner throughout the course of
the year. (M.DQ, 12)

Brookville was run by an experienced team of administrators, and the behavior of the

student body, both in Mark’s class and during the passing periods, reflected this. Over the

15-weeks of observations, there was not a single transgression of note. Moreover, while it

was not apparent that Mark was strictly enforcing a tardy policy, very few, if any, of his

students were ever late for class, and with few exceptions were always completely

prepared and markedly attentive.

When specifically asked to comment on the influence, if any, of the current

administration on his practice as a teacher, Mark stated that

The administration provides teachers and departments with objectives each

semester/year, but they often do not correlate with my personal motivations or
ideas of best instruction. However, upon review (observation) from any
administrator they do not contradict or have anything negative to say regarding
the practices taking place in my classrooms. Overall, the administration is fairly
 242

neutral. They encourage me to try new things, present new strategies, etc. in
words but do not necessarily encourage me with their actions. (M.CO, 10)

The science curriculum at Brookville was typical of most high schools, with physics

being positioned as a junior-level class for most students, with biology and chemistry

having been completed prior to this, in the freshman and sophomore year respectively.

The biggest change, in Mark’s opinion, was the recent switch in instruction time, from

50-minutes to 45-minutes, as he “had liked the previous schedule and had built many

lessons around said schedule” and that this move “has created trouble with the AP

curriculum in terms of getting enough time to complete daily lessons and with all

laboratory activities” (M.DQ, 14).

When asked about how much freedom he had to “teach what he wants the way he

wants”, Mark responded

Quite a bit. The overall guidelines that the administration is looking for are not
always specific to daily instruction and the department chair encourages the
department to teach the way they want to as most of the department tries to utilize
what they (and the department chair) would consider best practice. (M.DQ, 14)

When asked to elaborate on what these best practices were, and how they fit in with his

philosophy of science teaching, Mark responded as follows:

I feel that teaching should be as much a student centered experience as possible

and try to create that in each unit. Material should be introduced through the use
of a teacher lead demo (Predict-Observe-Explain) or an open-ended lab
investigation through which students are able to form ideas on their own of the
definitions of terms to be introduced in the unit as well as mathematical,
graphical, and written explanations of relationships between variables
investigated during the teacher lead demo or student investigation. Afterward, the
class and teacher can put together (synthesize) the data, definitions, and
relationships between variables to form a clear picture and understanding for all
students. (M.DQ, 16)

He continued, emphasizing that

 243

This begins a unit which then gets expanded through additional, typically more
cognitively involved, demos and smaller investigations. Additional problem sets
are attempted individually and in small groups to foster collaborative working
groups and throughout the entire unit, students are doing the majority of the
explanations and talking through of their ideas. (M.DQ, 16)

Class. Mark’s classroom was the last on the left, at the end of an extremely open,

modern hallway in the science-wing, located on the third-floor of Brookville High. With

a large lab table at the front of the classroom, along with a teacher work space, Mark’s

classroom comfortably sat 26 students. The remaining 60% of so of the large rectangular

room was dedicated to a large and recently updated lab space in the back half of the

classroom. Student desks were pushed together in pairs, with seats being modified on

about three or four different occasions over the course of the observation. Reminders and

current assignments usually filled parts of the outermost three dry erase boards at the

front of Mark’s classroom, while the lab space at the back of the room was either

completely free of equipment or prepared for the current days, or a recent, investigation.

Mark, it became clear, was nothing if not well-prepared and extremely organized. As far

as “decoration”, an assortment of science related cartoons and similar clippings covered

the majority of space on Mark’s walls.

Regarding support materials, Mark used Glencoe’s Physics for a portion of his

traditional problem solving homework assignments, though most of the remaining

worksheets and laboratory supplements appeared to be of his own creation, or at least a

result of his modification.

Classroom Practice. Without exception, Mark, prior to the start of each class

session, had a bulleted list of the upcoming schedule for the day written on the front

board, with reminders for upcoming assignments or assessments. He almost always

 244

began class immediately following the ringing of the bell to signal the end of passing

period, and did so in a tone markedly quieter than that used by the typical student. The

effect quickly quieted the class, with any “outliers” being made aware of the need to

cease any ancillary conversations immediately. Business-like yet extremely calm, Mark

seemed markedly at-ease during all observations, and would, at the conclusion of each

observation, offer a “come back anytime” and seemed to genuinely mean it, apparently

unfettered by an observer’s presence in his class.

Irrespective of the undertaking and the content to be covered, Mark relied heavily

on questioning in his classroom practice, along with utilizing the paired set-up of his

classroom. Partners were expected to work cooperatively at times to craft an answer to

one of Mark’s queries, or to assist each other when necessary. Mark, typically, would

call on one pair of students, ask for their input, require that another pair of students assess

the former’s answer, and then ask a third pair if they agreed or disagreed. This was done

almost effortlessly, and seemed to be extremely effective at keeping the students

engaged. Even when students were in their laboratory groups, Mark could be overheard

employing the same questioning techniques in these more intimate settings to seemingly

much the same effect.

Typically, Mark would utilize the front dry-erase board when the goal was to

quickly review or preview an upcoming assignment or activity, choosing to project from

his digital notepad/laptop if the activity was more “in-depth.” Students, with one notable

exception, rarely took notes formally, as they tended to be either previewing or reviewing

an investigation, or going over an assignment. Content was typically addressed as part of

the investigatory process, or with a follow-up, though closely related, activity.

 245

Students were required to follow a fairly regimented lab report format for each

investigation and, as will be detailed in much of what follows, were asked to pay specific

attention to the guiding question, and how their data were used to graphically and

mathematically provide support for its “answer.” Other than this, students were assessed

in a manner typical of most physics classes, grades on worksheets, quizzes, lab reports,

and more formal tests, for example. These assessments, it should be noted, appeared to be

almost entirely of Mark’s construction, and were shared with his colleague who, it was

assumed, had less experience than he teaching physics.

Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. Mark’s classroom

practice subject matter knowledge structures was developed through data collected over

ten classroom observation covering 445 minutes of instruction-time. Over the course of

these observations, approximately 256 minutes of audio related to NOS and SI was

collected, along with 22 pages of coordinated field notes. In addition, a variety of related

artifacts containing explicit references to NOS and/or SI were collected, including

various worksheets, a supplement to the notes provided on nature of science, an article

used to help elicit students’ understanding of NOS, and an example of the template Vince

required for students’ lab reports, among others.

The first three observations resulted in over 40 minutes of related audio, with the

fourth and tenth observation providing thirty and thirty-seven minutes of audio. Three

other observations (5, 6, and 8) resulted in over ten minutes of audio, while the seventh

and ninth provided approximately eight and two minutes, respectively. Table 5

summarizes the approximate time spent addressing NOS- and SI-related instructional
 246

objectives, the physics subject matter being addressed, and a brief description of

classroom activities for each observation.

Table 5

Overview of Classroom Observations for Mark.

NOS & SI
Observation Time Subject Matter Description

1 42:48 Nature of Science Lecture, discussion, and

related activity

2 44:50 Experimental Design Lecture, discussion, and

related investigation

3 41:59 Experimental Design Debriefing an investigation

4 30:17 Kinematics – Position v. Time Debriefing an investigation;

Graphs Pre-investigation discussion

5 17:11 Kinematics – Position v. Time Debriefing an investigation

Graphs

6 12:58 Kinematics – Velocity v. Time Pre-investigation discussion

Graphs

7 8:35 Kinematics – Position v. Time Debriefing an investigation

Graphs for Accelerated Motion

8 17:27 Kinematics – Projectile Motion Pre-investigation discussion;

demonstration

9 2:17 Dynamics – Free-Body Lecture, discussion, and

Diagrams related activity

10 37:21 Dynamics – Momentum Pre-investigation discussion;

demonstration

Note: NOS & SI Time is an approximate measure of the instructional time dedicated by the
teacher to NOS- and SI-related instructional objectives.
 247

Almost the entirety of all observed instances of NOS in Mark’s classroom

practice was evidenced during the first observation where Mark’s instruction objective

was to provide students with an introduction to aspects of nature of science. To this end,

he had developed a series of PowerPoint slides and an accompanying handout covering

seven aspects of NOS, titled “7 Main Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge”. These

included, in Mark’s words: empirically based, tentative, creative (creativity), subjective

(subjectivity), observational, inferential, and socially and culturally influenced. Though

Mark had prefaced this lesson by saying they were going to talk about seven aspects of

NOS, which would usually include the definitions of and distinction between scientific

theories and laws he, instead, had listed observation and inferences as two separate

aspects. When asked about this latter, he shared that instead of including it as part of this

particular lesson he liked to use a “black box” activity where students can collected data

to infer the relationship between various variables (i.e., develop a facsimile of a scientific

law) and must do likewise to come up with a defendable explanation for this relationship

and what they are observing (i.e., develop a scientific theory).

As a segue to providing this overview of NOS, Mark had assigned his students a

reading on the debate regarding Pluto’s “demotion” to a dwarf planet, which not only

provided information pertinent to this specific astronomical issue, but also regarding

scientific definitions and their tentativeness, in general. As Mark surveyed the students

regarding their definition of a planet, he commented that most people tended to think that

scientific definitions are agreed upon by all scientists. To the contrary, and as this article

exemplified, scientists often have difficulty agreeing not only on these definitions, but

also on their application. Mark assured them, though that “words are created to describe
 248

something in science and they evolve and are changing... [this is] a very natural process

that these definitions change” (M.CO, 1.1.2).

This ever-evolving language, he said, was related to the nature of science or “the

nature of scientific knowledge…the common language of science” (M.CO, 1.1.3). This

common language, he emphasized “was not better or worse than other types of

knowledge” (M.CO, 1.1.4). It was, though, empirically-based, which, he told them,

means that “knowledge or information is gained through knowledge or observation or

experience…it is dependent on evidence that is observable by your senses” (M.CO,

1.2.1.2). This was congruent with what was provided both on the slides presented and

handout given to students. Furthermore, Mark explained how this empirical-basis of

science is different than faith, belief, or religion, though science and religion, unlike what

most people perceive, are “not 180-degree competing camps…just that this other belief

system [religion] does not have to be based upon things such as evidence and

observation…[it]could be a belief…[it] could be based on experiential experiences”

(M.CO, 1.2.1.3.).

Mark and his students then discussed how scientific knowledge is based on, or

more strongly “dependent on”, evidence, and how that evidence is based on observations

using our five senses. This evidence, he said, is in contrast to that based on beliefs,

because in science, this evidence is based “something that all people that can make an

observation would agree on…not based on a belief” (M.CO, 1.2.1.7).

He then continued his presentation with a look at the tentative nature of NOS,

referencing the aforementioned article on Pluto, telling students that this type of change is

typical in science, as scientific knowledge “is not final…is not fully worked out” and
 249

“not agreed upon, can change, [and] is open to change” (M.CO, 1.2.2.1-2). Furthermore,

“if something is not worked out, if something is not agreed upon, if something is not

under terms that are final…it can possibly still change” (M.CO, 1.2.2.3). He emphasized

that scientific knowledge’s ability to change, though, is not a weakness, it is “a positive

thing” that strengthens and improves the quality of this knowledge. On the accompanying

PowerPoint slide and related worksheet, Mark included the following example to help

illustrate “tentativeness”:

The first week of school, your school schedule is tentative. Your schedule is
subject to the possibility of change. (M.CO, 1.3.P).

The role of creativity in the development of scientific knowledge was then discussed. To

this he shared: “for scientists, com[ing] up with new investigations is creative, coming up

with a procedure is creative, making lab equipment is creative….it’s all creative”, and

furthermore, “people think that science is very strict discipline and it can be…and people

think of art as being very creative…but you use [creativity] as much in art as you do in

science” (M.CO, 1.2.3.1-2). The “definition” he provided was that creativity “was a

mental process involving the discovery of new ideas or concepts (or new associations of

existing ideas or concepts) driven by the process of either conscious or unconscious

insight” (M.CO, W.1.1). As an example, Mark talked briefly about the Mars Lander, and

how its development was an extremely creative process, different from art, but creative

nonetheless, particularly regarding the creation and engineering of the specific and highly

technical equipment needed to accomplish this goal.

Next, Mark talked briefly about subjectivity and its influence of the development

of scientific knowledge, and, in general, how “science is open to many points of view”

(M.CO, 1.2.4.1). He told his students that, like a scientist’s, their background experiences
 250

played an unavoidable role in their work and, as the result of this, when they do anything

it “ties into your personal history and your world view. Your experiences have an impact

and influence how you view the world” (M.CO, 1.2.4.2), as it does for all scientists. This

personal history, this world view, these experiences, he continued, “changes one’s lens”

(M.CO, 1.2.4.3).

The definition of subjectivity provided on the accompanying slides and worksheet

was that subjectivity is a “judgment based on individual personal impressions and

feelings and opinions rather than external fact” and also refers to “a person’s perspective

or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires” (M.CO, W.1.1).

To the last two aspects of NOS, Mark cautioned his students that “these last two

are a little weird”, most notably the final one (i.e., socially-culturally influenced). He then

asked them if they knew the difference between an observation and an inference. The

first student gave her definition of an observation, which he clarified by saying that “Yes,

you use your senses to make an observation. You can then use the observation to do

what?" (M.CO, 1.2.5.1). A second student responded: “Make conclusions…inferences

are conclusions from observations.” To this, he warned her by saying that an outcome or

conclusion can be reached after an observation is made “may be a bit strong” and that an

“inference is more of a best guess based on the observations” (M.CO, 1.2.5.4). To

illustrate this point, he talked about a recently completed data-modeling activity where a

portion of the class had fit a straight line to the data, while others had fit a curve to same

data set. “We all had made the same observation, had the same data, but did not make

the same inferences…our best guesses were different” (M.CO, 1.2.5.6). He then shared a

common experience where, as a very tall man, many people assumed, or “made the
 251

inference from this observation” that he must play basketball (M.CO, 1.2.5.7). As such,

inferences are not, he again cautioned, necessarily true and are not as strong as what is

commonly thought of as a conclusion.

In conclusion of the discussion about observations and inferences, Mark provided

a definition of observations as “using all sense to gather information” while inferences

were explained as “a person’s perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and

desires” or “assumptions based on an observation” (M.CO, W.1.1).

For the final aspect to be covered during this class, specifically how science

influences and is influenced by social and cultural factors, Mark told his students how the

development of scientific knowledge is impacted when groups of scientists all share a

common set of norms and values, and how scientists living in different parts of the world,

like the Congo, for example, would bring “different stuff” to the development process

than typical American scientists. Furthermore, he continued, “there is a reference that

people share that impacts how they see the world…[they all] bring different information

to the table” (M.CO, 1.2.6.3).

This aspect of science, he warned, is often confused with subjectivity, so he

clarified that “social cultural is how a society of people may share a common view point

that influences their work, [while] subjectivity is how individual experiences may

influence the way an individual sees the world” (M.CO, 1.2.6.5). As an example of this

social-cultural influence, Mark drew the students’ attention to a paragraph from the Pluto

article that talked about students having to take down and replace the posters of the solar

system hanging on their dorm room walls, stating that students from other countries, who

don’t have this American conception of a dorm-room, may not understand that reference.
 252

Lastly, he defined “socially and culturally influenced” as the “control or manipulation by

something or someone; affected by groups, norms, values, etc.” (M.CO, W.1.1).

As a guided-practice activity stemming from this discussion of six aspects of

NOS, Mark had his students re-examine the article about the “demotion” of Pluto, and try

to identify at least four examples or characteristics of NOS. To get them started, the class

read the first couple of paragraphs, and was asked to provide any examples. When none

were forthcoming, Mark stated that the idea of “seeing storms of Saturn” was a great

example of the distinction between an observation and an inference, stating that “we have

the ability to make observations on these planets and can now draw inferences about what

is going on based on our observations” (M.CO, 1.3.1.5), though we cannot actually “see”

or experience these storms as we would on earth. To conclude, Mark provided an

example of the empirical basis for scientific knowledge, stating that the continual “make

observations, make inferences, and repeat process” was typical of the way that scientific

knowledge is generated (M.CO, 1.3.1.6).

The role and influence of creativity on the development of scientific knowledge

was evidenced in the third observation. Mark, in talking about the importance of making

sure the data collected supported the conclusion that were being drawn, spoke of how this

process of “how you draw your conclusions from your data, how you evaluate this, takes

creativity” (M.CO, 3.1.3). Furthermore, he also alluded to the role that subjectivity often

plays in this process of drawing conclusions from data, saying that during this process

“you may have a different line of best fit…this conclusion section is where it gets

personal for what you are concluding regarding the lab" (M.CO, 3.1.2), though he did not
 253

specifically related this process to that which is typical of the work of scientists, or

science, in general.

Other than a few “off-the-cuff” references to the need to collect data in science to

establish or verify various mathematical relationships between variables, these were the

only explicit in-class references to NOS. It should be noted, though, that Mark did expect

students to include references to pertinent aspects of NOS as part of any formal lab report

that was submitted. Furthermore, he was the only teacher to include NOS on any formal,

summative assessment.

A handful of explicit references were made to aspects of scientific inquiry over

the course of the ten classroom observations. As previously mentioned, Mark did speak

of the importance of connecting the data collected to the conclusions that were being

drawn, and emphasized on occasion that there was always many ways to go about a

scientific investigation, though he never explicitly spoke of different methodological

models, just more of how to “operate” (i.e., take different approaches) within an already

determined one.

An extremely strong theme in Mark’s classroom practice not directly related to

the 15 aspects of NOS and SI targeted in the current study was that of mathematically

modeling. For example, during the second observation, as students were completing an

activity reviewing independent and dependent variables, and the idea of a hypothesis,

Mark was talking about a related graphing activity, and how the ability to come with

equations to describe the data allows for the making of generalizations, and is “what

scientists do” (M.CO, 2.2.1). Later, as they completed the best-fit line for a particular

data set, he spoke of one of the overarching goals for his class and of physics in general,
 254

stating that this was “to graphically and mathematically model the relationships, or

TGAMMTR, between certain variables” (M.CO, 2.3.3.4), important because this has

“predictive power” (M.CO, 2.3.3.5). In conclusion, he also talked about how increasing

the data that is collected can often play a role in developing more accurate models, and

reduce the error inherent in this process.

In the fourth observation, Mark was again stressing this idea of TGAMMTR,

telling students that this graphical and mathematical modeling was “why labs are

important - we can use our results to make predictions…” (M.CO, 4.1.1). To this point he

talked about how this prediction, this model “carries weight, and that they [could] predict

an outcome value for each datum point” (M.CO, 4.1.2), and, that as a result of this

prediction, they “did not need to make any more observations…you can predict based on

your results…” (M.CO, 4.1.3). These predictions, though, were influenced by the how

these data were collected, as Mark reminded his students that the confidence placed in a

scientist’s results is a function of how they went about conducting the investigation

(M.CO, 4.1.6).

He later spoke of how the same data may result in two different mathematical

representations, and how this does not mean one of them is “wrong” but could be

influenced by how each group went about their investigation. Mark did not, though, make

any explicit reference to how this process is indicative of the general work of scientists.

The power of these mathematical models to predict was further emphasized in

observation six and seven, where Mark reminded students not only of this, but that there

was “always room to improve on a model” and that “if [a] relationship is not perfect,

there always is a way to model it better or differently” (M.CO, 7.1.2).

 255

Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI. Of the 84 occasions

where NOS and SI or a closely related aspect was included in his practice, 23 of these

were those that required explicit student involvement, typically through questioning.

Thirty-one of these, it should be noted, were for the inclusion of prevalent aspects

independent of the fifteen targeted specifically in this investigation.

In addition, 48 of the instances occurred during 12 instructional segments, as they

were part of a typically sustained dialogue. For example, on two occasions, a sequence of

seven references to a single aspect was evidenced, once for the empirical-basis for

scientific knowledge, and secondly for the distinction between observations and

inferences. Similar sustained dialogue was observed for tentativeness (n = 4), creativity

(n = 5), again for observation and inference (n = 4), and for socially and culturally

embedded (n = 4). In addition, sustained dialogue was evidenced concerning fair tests (n

= 2), independent and dependent variables (n = 5), scientific hypotheses (n = 4), and

mathematical modeling (n = 3, 2, and 3).

Figure 5 represents Mark’s knowledge structure for NOS and SI as inferred from

classroom practice data.

KS4NS Questionnaire Results. When asked about the essential ideas and

concepts that comprise NOS and SI, Mark offered the following:

NOS can be broken down into characteristics describing scientific knowledge

(specifically) and thus how scientific knowledge is unique to other forms of
knowledge and other forms of knowing (anecdotal, word of mouth, family
histories, religious beliefs, etc) There is no judgment expressed by the
characteristics stating that scientific knowledge and understanding is any
better/worse than any other form of knowledge/way of knowing. Characteristics
of NOS include: tentativeness, showing how the knowledge is open to change
with the acquisition of new information; creativity; NOS is formed through
observations made and the inferences drawn from said observations; NOS is
grounded in scientific theory and law, theory here is a more rigorous definition
 256

than typically associated with the general public; a major (and defining)
characteristic is that NOS must be empirically based. (M.KS4NS, 1.1)

General - NOS (10)

Empirically Based (36)

Tentative (11) Subjective (14) Social-Cultural (10)

Observation – Inference (32)

Creativity (16) Conclusion-Data (8)

Multiple Methods (2)

Question- Methods (1)

Informed

Design (3) Math Model (8) Mixed

Fair Test (2) Predict (5)

Naive
Ind/Dep (6) Trials (2)
Additional
Hypothesis (4) Aspect

Control (1)

Figure 5. Mark’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. Each
instance of a connection is shown, with font size adjusted as a function of the “inclusion
score” shown in parentheses.

He continued with his view of SI, namely that

Scientific Inquiry is a way of doing (skill set) as much as it is a way of thinking.

SI is characterized by an open-endedness in conclusion and process. SI requires
unique ideas, thoughts, and methodology to solve a problem. Every step is guided
by the problem asked or directed toward finding evidence for/against the problem
(question). (M.KS4NS, 1.2)

Mark’s diagram he constructed to represent NOS and SI is provided in Fig. 6.

 257

When asked about the inclusion of NOS and SI on the same diagram, Mark

explained that

I tend to feel like the two of them go together very well as from what I have set up
here that…some type of guided inquiry is going to….some type of inquiry is
going to set up your question or your problem, the question that you want to
research in any way, shape or form... (M.KS4NS, 2.1)

Question / Problem Guided By SI

Limited By:

Empirical Nature

Observations

Testability

Inferences

Challenges to

Creativity
(Internal / External)

Scientific Understanding

Tentative

Figure 6. Mark’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. This is the diagram
that Mark included on his KS4NS questionnaire.
 258

Mark continued, explaining how scientific questions or problems were different from

other types and how there were certain limitations placed on what you can investigate

with this process:

some of the things or ways you may go about researching it, since it would be a
scientifically based question, it's different than historical, or art, or philosophical
questions...since it is a scientifically based (and) not just open to anything, you
can't just pursue anything. (M.KS4NS, 2.2)

He then contrasted science with other ways of knowing, stating that science

is not based on a belief system, so it is limited by its empirical nature that you
would use to address the problem or the question as you are investigating it,
which also limits the observations you could make, so again it removes some type
of belief structure from (this process). (M.KS4NS, 2.3a)

The empirical basis of science was intertwined with, and essential to, the idea of

testability and repeatability, in Mark’s opinion. Furthermore, since science “[could] not

be based on a belief system or anything that you could not have as a repeatable

investigation or experiment…in some way it has to be verified and the verifiable (part)

means it has to be testable and repeatable” (M.KS4NS, 2.3b).

In continuing to talk about various components of his diagram, Mark continued

by discussing how a scientists draws inferences from his/her work, which many times

challenge their preconceptions, and in turn lead to more questions:

you draw an inferences from your original question, the process you follow, the
observations you made, but then the inferences might...you might have an
expectation of what to get, so these inferences you are drawing have challenged
those expectation you have. You may have no expectations for what you are
expected to get so then you end up being challenged to look at what you have
because you have no basis of what to expect, so you make some sort of opinion of
this from scratch. Whatever inference you are making from that data set, you are
going to be challenged in some way either because you have some expectation or
not. (M.KS4NS, 2.4)

When asked about the origin of these “expectations” Mark was of the opinion that
 259

they could have been something at the very beginning...to the question or what it
is that you are investigating, or as you are going along with the process of setting
up the experiment, making observation, (and) collecting your data you might start
to form expectations of what you are looking for at the end...that might be
reinforced or contradicted by the inferences you start to draw and the analysis you
make. (M.KS4NS, 2.5)

When Mark continued in discussing his diagram, he stopped to make something clear that

he was uncertain was accurately depicted, namely the role of creativity. To this point, he

spoke of the role of human creativity and imagination as permeating every component of

the scientific practice:

creativity and imagination are used everywhere in the process, basically

everything is creative. I am addressing it now but it has been in the process the
whole. The creativity was for the question you had to start off with, why you had
to start off, how you designed it, how you were going to investigate it, which
observations you were interested in actually pursuing and investigating, how you
would interpret them, how you would set up a testable and repeatable procedure,
(and) the inferences you draw are all based on your creativity and your
imagination... (M.KS4NS, 2.6)

Mark then spoke of the various internal and external aspects that influence one’s work,

and specifically, in his view, their creativity, stating that

the political and religious...that... for your creativity it is based on or biased by

those all of those things as well; what or why you have a certain viewpoint or why
you have a certain creativity or why you have a certain lens to it. (M.KS4NS,
2.7a)

He continued rather emphatically, concerned that he had not made himself clear enough:

I tend to feel like for the “internal” part of creativity, it is how you get influenced,
just in like your own personal nature, are you being influenced by things…the
things that influence you on an “external” nature you just internalize and those
become part of who you are and your creativity, but they come from an external
source to begin with. If you want to separate them out, a dogma or a religious or
in terms of an agenda or politics, vastly agreed upon in terms of a body or a set of
norms, versus something that you, specifically you can write down, what this
means to you and your own personal norm, your own personal bias, your own
personal everything, which leads to your own personal creativity. (M.KS4NS,
2.7b)
 260

Mark believed that the goal of this “process” was to come to some type of scientific

understanding, as labeled in his diagram. This process culminated in an understanding

“that could be…a theory or a model that you could use to help yourself address, speak of,

discuss, what your understandings are…”. When prompted to explain his use of the two

phrases “theory” and “model” both in his explanation and his accompanying diagram,

Mark explained that

they both are an explanation for me…it’s just typically what I would use, like, this
is just my easy way to separate it out. I would use a theory as a written or verbal
theory and my model is typically a graphical or pictorial explanation, in general
they are both explanations of what we understand. (M.KS4NS, 2.9)

In finishing his initial discussion of his NOS and SI diagram, Mark spoke of the how the

scientific understanding gained from this process was not a “final answer” and was

tentative in nature, which could in turn lead to other questions or investigations. When

asked to talk about this idea of tentativeness in more detail, Mark reiterated the idea of a

scientist making challenges to the inferences they are drawing from their work

you've got those challenges to your inferences that are going on at some point
because what you are finding is going to reinforce, support, contrast, contradict
what you started off with. Either way you could at some point have additional
questions about what is going on, or time goes by and you are going to address
that same data set through a different view point. So things might change due to a
number of factors (like) technology, you coming with additional knowledge, (or)
people looking at it with a different viewpoint and bringing that information to
you. Whatever that is that can lead to some changes about your understanding of
your theory or your model, and if so, you can come back to that same question
or...it may branch off into a side question, that leads to a different question or
problem that starts the whole process over again. (M.KS4NS, 2.10)

Lastly, when asked if there were any other concepts or ideas that he would like to add to

his representation, or ways in which he would like to modify the existing one, Mark

spoke of the idea that science necessarily begins with a question of problem. This, in part,

was related to the somewhat linear progression represented in Mark’s diagram, and his
 261

concern that this did not necessarily accurately represent the way that science was done.

To this he offered the following:

the lack of a question doesn't mean that the process wouldn't start, the process
could start through (an) observation. I do not think that it has to be a linear
progression that is guided or starts with a question every time just due to the fact
that observations are random things. You can have it be an investigation even if it
does not start with a question because, for example, after observation are made it
(might) spark interest in a question, a question isn't present to everyone. It might
have to do with an observation. There is just a natural progression from an
observation being made to a spark of curiosity that led to a question that started
the whole process beginning again. (M.KS4NS, 3a)

When asked to provide some additional insight into the way that this comment fit in with

his diagrammatic representation, Mark continued, noting that

it doesn't have to begin at the top and go down, it is not a linear progression in any
way. You are probably not [referencing his diagram] going to jump into
challenges to your inferences, but you can absolutely start with something like a
question, or observations, or someone presenting their scientific understanding to
you, and then you looking at it and questioning it and getting something from that.
So there are many pathways that you can insert yourself into this process,
probably with a question, problem, observations, someone else's testable
procedures, or someone else's explanation of their scientific understanding.
(M.KS4NS, 3b)

Translation of Knowledge Structures into Classroom Practice. When asked

to describe the essential components of NOS and SI in his KS4NS, Mark contended that

“scientific knowledge is unique to other forms of knowledge and other forms of

knowing…[t]here is no judgment expressed by the characteristics stating that scientific

knowledge and understanding is any better/worse than any other form of knowledge/way

of knowing” (M.KS4NS, 1.1). This idea the science is a different way of knowing and

not in competition with other faith-based ways of knowing was also present in Mark’s

classroom practice.
 262

That the development of scientific knowledge is a product of human imagination

and creativity was emphasized strongly by Mark in his knowledge structure for NOS and

SI, described as being “used everywhere in the process, basically everything (represented

on this diagram) is creative.” This similarly emphasized in his classroom practice, where

he ensured students that “for scientists (to) come up with new investigations is creative,

coming up with a procedure is creative, making lab equipment is creative….it’s all

creative” (M.CO, 2.1.2.3.1). This point was further emphasized as Mark spoke of the

difficulty, at times, in deciding how to analyze data, and to fit a particular model to it, a

process he assured his students, was a very creative one indeed.

Specific to science, in Mark’s opinion, was its empirical-base, meaning that

science was not only based on, and limited by, the observation that can be made, but

furthermore, that science “[could] not be based on a belief system or anything that you

could not have as a repeatable investigation or experiment…in some way it has to be

verified and the verifiable (part) means it has to be testable and repeatable” (M.KS4NS,

2.3b). This message was similarly communicated in Mark’s classroom practice, where

he described empirically-based as having to do with the idea that “knowledge or

information is gained through knowledge or observation or experience…it is dependent

on evidence that is observable by your senses” (M.CO, 1.2.1.2) and it is not based on

belief. The idea of repeatability was not prominent, though, in Mark’s classroom practice.

The distinction between observation and inference was clearly communicated in

both Mark’s knowledge structure for NOS and SI and in his classroom practice. In the

former, he spoke at length not only regarding the drawing of inferences from data, but in

how a scientist’s past experiences, expectations, and even religious and political influents
 263

are all impactful. This is most notably evidenced in the how they influence a scientist’s

creativity. In his classroom practice, Mark not only dedicated considerable time to

differentiate between observations and inferences, but also spoke of how these “internal

and external” forces “tie into your personal history and your world view…your

experiences have an impact and influence on how you view the world” (CO, 1.2.4.2).

Moreover, Mark also made it a point to emphasize the distinction between subjectivity

and the role that society has in influencing the knowledge that is developed. This was

done, it should be noted, with less explicit attention to the role that these influences

specifically play on a scientist’s creativity. While appearing to be consistent with Mark’s

explanation (in his KS4NS questionnaire) of the “internal” and “external” forces

impacting a scientist’s work, these two types of influents were described more congruent

with what is typically considered subjectivity, as opposed to social-cultural.

Scientific understanding, as expressed through both theories and various models,

was, in Mark’s view, the intended end-product of scientific inquiry. These two results

(i.e., theories and models) were both categorized as explanations of a different type, the

former written or verbal, the latter graphical or pictorial. This emphasis on developing

explanation of the latter type was also present in Mark’s classroom practice, where he

emphasized to students that the overarching goal of a scientific investigation is “to

graphically and mathematically model the relationships (between variables)…” (M.CO,

2.3.3.4). The idea, though, that a scientific theory was a type of explanation, was not

present in the classroom practice data collected for Mark, nor was the distinction between

theories and laws present in either (classroom practice or KS4NS questionnaire) subject

matter knowledge structure.

 264

To the idea that what is consider “scientific understanding” can and does change,

Mark felt that this change could be attributed to “ a number of factors (like) technology,

you coming with additional knowledge, (or) people looking at it with a different

viewpoint and bringing that information to (the scientist)” (KS4NS). A similar

conception was evidenced in Mark’s classroom practice, where he talked about how

scientific knowledge is not agreed upon, can change, is open to change, but that “change

in this case is not a negative thing, it is a positive thing” (M.CO, 1.2.2.4).

In summary, it appeared that Mark’s subject matter knowledge structure for

nature of science and scientific inquiry evidenced a limited translation into his classroom

practice. While there was marked consistency between the concepts explicated during the

KS4NS interview and his classroom practice, the connection between these were not as

consistently and strongly evidenced.

VNOS and VASI Questionnaire Results. In response to the first two prompts

on the VNOS questionnaire, Mark, in part, spoke of science not only as a

“way/process/method of studying to gain information about some aspect of the universe

(nature)” (M.VNOS, 1). Science as a “body of knowledge and understanding” lies in

contrast to other disciplines in that it “has certain guidelines that must be followed with

respect to methods of investigation and discovery” (M.VNOS, 2), the main one being the

that these investigations are “repeatable by others using similar technology and

methodology” (M.VNOS, 2). This, in Mark’s view, makes science unlike disciplines like

art, history, and philosophy.

 265

When ask to consider whether the information gleaned from the processes Mark

referred to in the first two questions, he was certain that this knowledge did indeed

change in the future, stating that

the question is not if scientific knowledge will/may change in the future as

scientific knowledge has already shown/demonstrated the capacity and ability to
change as new information is learned so that the best explanation and deepest
level of understanding can be gained from the information at hand. (M.VNOS, 2f)

To illustrate his point, Mark provide myriad examples of this, including

our understanding of the shape of Earth, our understanding of the location of

Earth within the solar system, the (location of the) solar system within the
universe, our understanding of electric charge, our understanding of gravity, (our)
understanding of evolutionary change; and (our) understanding of Earth’s interior.
(M.VNOS, 3)

He later when asked of the possibility that scientific theories could also change, he

replied that

Yes, since theories are just the best, most refined model (tool) that helps to
explain a specific phenomenon as more information is learned about that
phenomenon the theory will either be provided with additional support or have to
be refined to account for any conflicting evidence. Atomic theory has changed
from the model of an atom as an indivisible piece of matter to the Plum pudding
model, to the Bohr model, to the electron cloud model, etc. as additional
information is learned through advances in technology and such. (M.VNOS, 9)

Regarding the certainty with which scientists hold their beliefs about the way dinosaurs

looked, Mark said he believed they were quite confident, owing in part to the various

sources of information they were able to consider

that scientists would say that they have a very good understanding of what
dinosaurs looked like based upon a set of data including fossil record, (the)
appearances, understanding, (and) information of what current animals look like;
and even relationships between temperature and conditions and animal’s body
characteristics. (M.VNOS, 4b)

In Mark’s view, though, this understanding was not necessarily agreed upon by all

members of the scientific community or, put another way, there was certain some easily
 266

explainable differences in the way scientists viewed this evidence regarding the

extinction of the dinosaurs, this was due to the fact that

every scientist (group) has the same information, but every scientist (group) is
able to view that information in their own way which can lead to different
outcomes/conclusions about the same data set. Each scientist (group) approaches
the data through their own personal background, bias, expectations, background
knowledge base, etc. (M.VNOS, 4c)

Moreover, Mark felt that these personal biases and beliefs were a strong impediment to

change, particularly in light of disagreements between scientists, or the influence of

competing or contradictory theories. While it is possible to convince the scientific

community of the shortcomings of a theory people, in Mark’s view, “will still cling to

past beliefs even when presented with rationale arguments to the contrary, but it is a good

start” (M.VNOS, 4d).

Models, in specific those related to the inside of the Earth were, in Mark’s view,

not supposed to be, nor can they be, exact representations of how the inside of the Earth

looks. In general, “based upon data collected such a seismic wave times and velocities

from various earthquakes over a number of years. I do feel that the model does a very

good job of representing (1) that different layers within the Earth are present and (2) the

approximate sizes of the different layers” (M.VNOS, 6). This idea was further

communicated in Mark’s comment regarding weather modeling and the lack of certainty

in these representations, in that “[this] model (like any model) will make certain

approximations from the data set collected and the approximations will have inherent

error” (M.VNOS, 5b).

Scientific theories, as described by Mark, were different than scientific laws, in

that “scientific theories serve as models or useful tools which can be utilized to help
 267

explain scientific phenomena and explain why the phenomena occur; whereas scientific

laws are used to describe what will occur but that is all” (M.VNOS, 8). Mark provided, in

support of this, the contrast between the Universal Law of Gravitation and the Theory of

Evolution.

Mark also spoke very strongly of role that creativity plays in almost every facet of

generating scientific knowledge through these investigations, specifically that

Scientists follow a procedure, an empirically based process, when conducting an

investigation/experiment but the procedure itself had to come from somewhere
and that in and of itself (the design of an experiment) is creative and requires
imagination, the process of data analysis in the interpretation of trends requires
some level of creativity and imagination, the method by which results are reported
is not standardized and thus open to some level of creativity… (M.VNOS, 7).

Lastly, Mark provided his view that there is indeed an interaction of science, society, and

cultural values. To this, Mark contended that

society and cultural values help shape an individual’s imagination and creativity
which directly affect the individual’s decisions re: what to investigate, how to
interpret results, etc. Societal norms influence which types of research get funded
and thus which research gets supported and pursued by scientists. For example,
in the U.S. there are restrictions on stem cell research due in large part to societal,
religious, ethical, political, and cultural norms within the U.S. (M.VNOS, 10)

As was the case with his responses to the VNOS questionnaire, Mark began his VASI by

again emphasizing the need for scientific investigations to be repeatable. He commented

that the investigation in the first question of the VASI was indeed scientific because

observations (data) was collected and conclusions drawn from said observations.
The process of examining different birds’ beak shapes and sizes could be repeated
by others and hopefully (a) similar grouping would be found, but at least the
process could be repeated by others. A process is used to collect data and to
potentially answer a question. (M.VASI, 1a).

Mark maintained that because of this repeatability he would consider what was done to

be an experiment, and “mostly because a process was used that can be repeated by others
 268

regardless of the outcomes and conclusions drawn by someone else the process would be

the same” (M.VASI, 1b).

Regarding the methods that scientists may employ to investigate particular

questions, Mark felt that there was indeed variation, but was challenged to come up with

specific examples, finally settling with the example of scientists examining magnetic

fields. This, he specified, was done “through the use of magnets and compass needle

deflection (which could then be used as an approximation of magnetic field strength) and

simply using a magnetic field sensor” (M.VASI, 1c). What was most important, though,

was that “[b]oth would use a repeatable process but different equipment, with different

methods, different uncertainties of measurement, and then a different analysis of the data,

etc.” (M.VASI, 1c); again stressing the need for repeatability.

When asked about whether scientific investigation began with a question, Mark

felt that this was not necessarily the case in all scientific investigation. In referencing the

investigation in the first question of the VASI, Mark commented that “the investigation

began through a simple observation and the observation lead to a natural question, but it

was not the question that started the process, the initial observation did so” (M.VASI, 2).

The influence of subjectivity on the process of a scientific investigation was

outlined by Mark as he commented on whether two scientists attempting to answer the

same question and following the same procedure could arrive at different conclusions. To

this he answered

Possibly, but not necessarily as each scientist then has to analyze the data and the
process of data analysis is not standardized in that each scientists’ background,
biases, expectations, resources, cultural, societal, religious norms will potentially
influence how the data is interpreted. (M.VASI, 3a).
 269

When scientists investigated the same question with different methodologies, Mark felt

that the variation in these procedures would evidence itself in the a variation in the

conclusion arrived at, stating that

the different procedures adds a great deal of difference between investigations and
even more than the previous example when scientists were following the same
procedure which is then also compounded by the all of the differences in data
analysis. (M.VASI, 3b).

The necessity of ensuring that the methodology of a particular investigation is appropriate

for the question being answered was evidenced by Mark, as he spoke of the need of

“addressing the question at hand” and reaching a conclusion to that question. It was

likewise clear that Mark felt that a scientific conclusion must be consistent with the data

that is collected, to which he added that even though the conclusion he chose best fit the

data, it “is not exact because all of the points would not fall on a single, linear, negative

regression line” (M.VASI, 6).

For the last question on the VASI, which attempts to explicate respondent’s

understanding that scientific explanation must take into account the data collected in

addition to previous knowledge, Mark commented that the scientists would need to

consider “the anatomy and physiology of known animals” (M.VASI, 7a), in addition to

applying reasoning related to this corpus of knowledge. He concluded that to reach their

conclusions “[s]cientists use their understanding of modern technology, current events,

laws, and theories to help explain past events for which the only record that might remain

would be fossil record” (M.VASI, 7b).

While Mark admitted that data and evidence are frequently used synonymously,

he did make the following distinction between the two, specifically that “data is collected

as the answer to a question that is not known, so conclusions are drawn from the data;
 270

and then evidence is data applied with a specific intent which is either to support or

contradict a conclusion” (M.VASI, 4).

Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the Questionnaires. A

comparison of the conceptions of NOS and SI communicated in the two sets of

questionnaires is provided in Table 6. Consistency was noted across the following eight

aspects: (a) the empirical basis of scientific knowledge, (b) scientific knowledge is

tentative, (c) the distinction between observations and inferences, (d) the role of

creativity, (e) the role and distinction between scientific theories and scientific laws, (f)

subjectivity as an unavoidable influence on scientific knowledge, (g) that investigations

begin with a question, and (h) that methodology is determined by its appropriateness in

answering the question asked. In addition, on both sets of questionnaires Mark spoke of

the need of scientific investigations to be repeatable and testable.

There was only one notable discrepancy between the two sets of questionnaires,

which was evidenced for the socially and culturally embedded nature of science.

Insufficient evidence was offered by the KS4NS for arriving at a conclusion regarding

Mark’s conception across six of the targeted aspects. This was the case for (a) multiple

methods (i.e., no single scientific method), (b) scientists performing the same procedures

to answer the same question may not arrive at the same conclusions, (c) investigatory

procedures influence the results, (d) data is not the same as evidence, (e) the methodology

is determined by its appropriateness for answering the question asked, (f) conclusions

must be consistent with the data collected, and (g) explanation are a combination of the

data collected and what is previous known.

 271

Table 6

Mark’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on the VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS
Questionnaires, and in Classroom Practice.

Questionnaires
Classroom
VNOS/VASI KS4NS Congruence
Practice
Empirically-Based Informed Informed Yes Informed
Tentative Mixed Mixed Yes Mixed
Nature of Science

Observation & Inference Informed Informed Yes Informed

Creativity Informed Informed Yes Informed

Theories & Law Informed Informed Yes No Evidence

Social-Cultural Mixed Informed No Informed
Subjective Informed Informed Yes Informed

Begins w/ Question Informed Informed Yes No Evidence

Multiple Methods Informed No Evidence - Informed
Scientific Inquiry

Same Method ≠ Same Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Method Influences Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Data ≠ Evidence Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Method Aligned with Question Informed Informed Yes Informed
Conclusion Consistent with Data Informed No Evidence - No Evidence
Explanation = Data & Previous Informed No Evidence - No Evidence
a
Congruence refers to the agreement between the results of the VNOS/VASI and those from the KS4NS

Case #4: Cathy

Academic and Professional Background. Cathy was beginning her sixth year as

a physics teacher, the last five spent at Roberts High School, where she shared the

physics teaching responsibility with two veteran teachers of over two decades. At Roberts

she had taught a variety of physics classes, along with physical science, and a Principles

of Engineering class. A physics education major in college, and a summa cum laude
 272

graduate, Cathy was a laboratory teaching assistant during her undergraduate studies.

More recently she had completed her Master’s degree in Science Education at the

university where the researcher was affiliated. This degree program, as previously

mentioned, included requisite coursework in nature of science and scientific inquiry. A

National Board Certified teacher, Cathy also was a Physics Teaching Resource Agent for

the American Association of Physics Teachers, had trained in modeling methods of

physics instruction, previously worked developing curriculum for a local learning center,

and had taught physical science for an in-district program offering science education

courses for middle school teachers in conjunction with a large state university. In

addition, she was a teaching fellow for a GK-12 NSF grant, which also involved her in

the development of curricula with a variety of K-12 teachers, their 12 schools, and over

1300 students.

In summary, she concluded that she had completed over 40 credit hours in physics

subject matter, 33 credit hours in science education coursework, and another 22 credit

hours in physics education in specific.

Cathy was not only a member of a variety of educational organizations, but had

also been active in various professional organizations, not only as the author or co-author

of four publications, but also as a presenter of speeches, papers and workshops at over 30

national, state, and local conferences. In addition, she was awarded the Illinois Science

Teacher Association’s new teacher of the year award.

It was also noteworthy that Cathy’s father was not only a university professor of

physics but, over the course of his career, also became interested in nature of science and

had published various articles in professional journals to this end.

 273

In speaking about the influence of her educational experiences Cathy identified

facets of each “phase” in her education that influenced her current classroom practice:

All of these have had a significant impact on my teaching. My undergraduate

coursework focused my philosophy of teaching through inquiry, my graduate
coursework helped me to integrate nature of science more explicitly, and my extra
in-district courses have helped me to differentiate and provide feedback more
effectively. (C.DQ.3)

In addition, she spoke specifically of the impact that her workshop experiences with

Modeling Methods for Instruction had on her use of scientific inquiry and that, beyond

any influence that her Master’s program had on her incorporation of nature of science,

she also liked to read “scientific literature during the summers, especially with regard to

the history of science” (C.DQ.7). Teaching and assessing students’ understanding

through both scientific inquiry and differentiated instruction were two areas in which

Cathy felt she had recently developed professionally, owing to her experiences with the

range of students from those with special needs to the most gifted learners at Roberts

High School.

School. Roberts High School was located just off the main street that ran through

a town of approximately 18,000 people, and sat on a large wooded plot of land. A

sprawling rectangular building typical of many schools constructed in the 1960’s, the

majority of the classrooms were located on a main floor, with a small percentage being

located in the lower-level and a second story. Roberts was located about 50 miles north of

a major Midwestern metropolitan area, and bore little resemblance to the other

communities in the current investigation, looking more like any other typical, mid-sized

Midwestern town.

The science classrooms at Roberts appeared varied in their arrangement, with

some reflecting more typical arrangements with desks in the front and lab tables and
 274

storage in the back. Others, Cathy’s included, were large, almost square-shaped

classrooms with tables accommodating pairs of students, but with little dedicated space

for any type of typical laboratory work. While the space in Cathy’s classroom was

usually ample during all types of activities, when these required electrical outlets, the

space did get somewhat congested.

The approximately 2000 students at Roberts were a markedly homogeneous

group, almost entirely Caucasian and exemplary of middle class, middle-America. Cathy

described the student population at Roberts as “white-collar, suburban; middle- to upper

middle- class; and about 85% white and 15% Hispanic. Continuing she shared that of

these

Most are college-bound and want to get good grades to get into good schools.
Parents are very supportive of the school, but are not overtly “helicopter parents.”
Most students are involved in some kind of extracurricular, and everyone, from
performers to athletes are expected to excel academically as well as athletically.
(C.DQ, 12)

For the students in her physics classes in general, she felt that

Because my students aren’t in AP Physics (also a first year course), most of my

students want to become professionals, but not directly deal with physics (many
want to go into medical sciences, business, etc.) So, my students are not always
passionate about physics, but they will do whatever they need to do in order to
learn the content to get a good grade. (C.DQ,13)

From what could be inferred of the school culture from the behavior of its students, both

in class and during passing periods, Roberts appeared a positive, nurturing place, with not

one incident, conversation, or interaction that could be negatively characterized over the

observation period. Furthermore, during Cathy’s “experimentation” with various

cooperative learning activities and grouping strategies the students appeared to deal with

these new experiences extremely well, and required minimal coaxing and “external

pressure” from their teacher.

 275

Cathy spoke very positively about the administration at Roberts regarding their

influence on her work as a teacher:

My administration recognizes teachers as the professionals that we are, and we

are given great liberty to do what we feel is best for student learning. Our
evaluations are very holistic, and require us to demonstrate real aspects of good
teaching inquiry, differentiation, feedback, standards-based assessments,
metacognition, etc. I feel supported when I seek to be creative as a teacher.
(C.DQ, 10)

The same sentiments were expressed when asked about the science department

chairperson:

Again, I feel fully supported. My only real restrictions as a teacher include the
content that I must cover by the end of the semester. Although we are asked to be
somewhat consistent in how we evaluate students, we are encouraged to
differentiate based on our own strengths and our students’ differences. (C.DQ, 11)

Regarding her impression of instructional freedom, she continued that

I can effectively teach whatever I want so long as my students are prepared to

take the district-wide common assessment, although this data doesn’t yet figure
into evaluations of any kind. I can teach however I want so long as I can match
my instruction to my learning targets. (C.DQ, 15)

When asked to explain her general approach to science teaching Cathy offered the

following:

Inquiry is the most important skill, for two reasons: one, so that students can build
their understanding while identify and confronting misconceptions and two, so
that students can learn the thinking and problem-solving skills inherent in inquiry
processes. I try to avoid “lecture” as much as possible, and avoid allowing myself,
the textbook, or any particular resource to be the purveyor of information.
Ultimately, I’d like every student to know physics through their own study of the
world, as opposed to having students believe what I say about it. (C.DQ, 16)

Moreover, she shared that she loved teaching physics because:

I can’t think of any subject which is quite as relevant in the everyday world as is
physics. I can’t think of any subject matter that can be taught in such a variety of
ways, from mathematical problems, to modeling, to sketching/drawing, to
graphing, to physically manipulating materials. Physics is often viewed as “hard”
by so many people, but I like to help my students to see that there are common,
unifying threads in physics and in the world. Furthermore, I like to help students
 276

see that physics is the heart of the problems and solutions in the world global
warming, nuclear warfare, energy, etc. I passionately believe that an
understanding of physics gives future generations the power to resolve or at least
intelligently discuss these ideas. (C.DQ.17)

Class. The science curriculum at Roberts offered four distinct tracks. Two

“traditional” tracks that positioned physics as a senior-year elective, taken after students

have completed earth science, biology, and either chemistry or physical science. The

standard “college prep” tracks were more traditional with physics as a junior-level

course, followed by freshman biology and sophomore chemistry. The “honors” science

track allowed students to take honors physics or AP physics during their junior year. As

such, Cathy’s students in her honors physics classes were almost all juniors, though some

seniors, who had most typically performed poorly during their junior year, were also

enrolled.

In speaking of the physics curriculum at Roberts, Cathy commented that

the curriculum has not changed/evolved since I have been here. The first semester
is very packed (Motion, Forces, Waves, Optics), and the second semester allows
for more time (Electricity and a return to mechanics (Energy, Momentum,
Circular Motion)). The curriculum is set up in this way to allow for teachers to
share materials, so we aren’t all teaching the same topics at the same time, but
also because it is convenient for our trip to Six Flags in May a silly way to plan
the curriculum, in my opinion, but it ends up being ok. I love teaching the variety,
but there is not enough time in the first semester [for] teaching optics well.
(C.DQ, 14)

Cathy’s classroom was a rectangular, almost square space, with a pair of dry-erase boards

located on the front wall, along with a pull-down projector screen. On the back wall were

various storage cabinets, along with a fairly narrow counter top and equally-spaced

electrical outlet. One side-wall had an assortment of bulletin boards used to post past

student projects, interesting science articles, and a space dedicated to reminders and the

guiding question(s) for the day’s lesson. All of the brick walls of Cathy’s low ceilinged
 277

classroom were adorned with student paintings, various physics formulae, while others

were representations of prominent physics phenomena. In addition, the results of past

projects in the form of balsa wood bridges hung down from the exposed pipes of the

ceiling.

There was no textbook for Cathy’s class, at least not one that she chose to use,

and all materials observed and/or collected were all, too some degree, of Cathy’s making

or, at least, modification. In addition, Cathy constructed a class webpage and other on-

line resources utilized by students to submit certain assignments, for Cathy to post

reading material or similar supplemental work, some of which was in an “extra credit”

capacity.

Classroom Practice. Prior to the start of each class period, Cathy would

typically have a bulleted list of the day’s activities posted, along with the students’

seating assignment for the day. These were denoted by the name of a famous scientist

(e.g., Newton, Aristotle, and Einstein), as it became evident that she liked students to

experience working with an assortment of their classmates. This emphasis on cooperative

learning was evident regardless of the activities scheduled for the day, but most notably

for those that required more explicit group interaction. On the days when Cathy was

observed during the first period of the day, she would invariably encourage her students

to vocally join her reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and then would begin by going over

the schedule for the class and then posing, when the time was right, the guiding question.

Cathy always appeared to be extremely comfortable in front of her students,

taking an energetic and often inquisitive tone with them, oftentimes imploring them to

“think like a scientist” or to wonder at the marvel of science. One other constant that
 278

permeated her classroom practice was her emphasis on questioning and on having

students, whenever possible, socially construct knowledge. She would pose specific

queries, have her students discuss them with their table-partner, and then volley

additional questions around the room, often asking students to assess each others’

answers, where appropriate. Cathy would, at times, and out of necessity, take more

teacher-centered approaches, mainly when engaged in more typical physics problem-

solving, or when presenting new information, though certainly less frequent for the latter.

Her emphasis on student engagement, though, rarely wavered.

In general, Cathy’s classroom practice varied widely, and almost seemed to cover

the entire gamut of instructional techniques and strategies – from lectures, discussions,

cooperative learning activities, to the use of literature, videos and film clips, and

including both traditional “labs” and computer-based simulations, the assortment was

certainly noteworthy.

Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. Data collection to

inform the development of Cathy’s inferred subject matter knowledge structure for NOS

and SI included observations of 11 class periods covering 935 minutes of instruction, as

the majority of the observations occurred during double-periods of 90 minutes. From this,

over 253 minutes of NOS- and SI-related audio were recorded, in addition to 30 pages of

coordinated field notes. Furthermore, approximately 25 pages of related artifacts

containing explicit references to NOS and/or SI were collected, including Cathy’s lesson

plan notes, a pre-assessment, various student worksheets, and a board game and puzzle

pieces she had created.

 279

The eighth observation provided a little over 45 minutes of audio, while the first

three observations provided over 30 minutes each. Observations five and six each

provided approximately 20 minutes of related audio, while four others (4, 7, 10, and 11)

provided at least ten minutes. Observation nine was the only observation that did not

provide at least ten minutes of audio, offering only six minutes. A summary of the

approximate time spent addressing instructional objectives related to NOS and SI, the

physics content covered during each observation, along with a general description of

included activities is provided in Table 7.

Prior to the bell ringing for the start of the first observation, Cathy shared a pre-

test, of sorts, that she had developed titled “Nature of Science and Science Inquiry.” This

survey consisted of 19 multiple-choice questions, columns to record a pre- and post-test

scores, another for students to note any reflections on each item, and lastly a Likert-scale

measure (i.e., a student self-assessment) of how prepared students felt regarding the

content of each question. This survey included questions pertaining to: hypotheses,

theories, laws, predictions, investigations and experiments, best-fitting lines to data,

scientific statements, tentativeness of scientific conclusions, evidence, truth and certainty,

and accuracy and predictability. In addition, she had provided the worksheet students had

filled out after completing a “Mechanics Stations Lab” activity, where they made

observation and developed questions related to a variety of physics phenomena. The

“analysis questions” for this activity included questions that required students to come up

with “working definitions” of the following terms: prediction, hypothesis, experiment,

theory, evidence, and data. In addition, she asked her students to consider not only how

physics might be different from the other sciences, but how science in general, was
 280

different “from other ways of knowing such as art, religion, philosophy, math, or social

studies” (C.W, 1.1).

Table 7

Overview of Classroom Observations for Cathy.

NOS & SI
Observation Time Subject Matter Description

1 38:36 Nature of Science (NOS) NOS activity and related

discussion

2 31:14 Nature of Science (NOS) NOS activity and related

discussion

3 31:48 Physics – General Discussion, movie-clips,

and related-activity

4 14:41 Kinematics – Position v. Time and Lecture, discussion, and

Velocity v. Time graphs related activity

5 20:46 Kinematics – Free Fall Discussion, and related

activity

6 21:13 Nature of Science (NOS) NOS activity and related

discussion

7 17:05 Kinematics – Projectile Motion; Activity and discussion;

Radioactive Fallout reading and discussion

8 45:08 Dynamics – Forces Pre-investigation

discussion and debriefing

9 6:47 Dynamics – Forces in 2-D Activity and discussion

10 16:12 Dynamics – Newton’s 2nd Law Investigation and related

debriefing

11 12:07 Sound Video, discussion, and

investigation

Note: NOS & SI Time is an approximate measure of the instructional time dedicated by the
teacher to NOS- and SI-related instructional objectives.
 281

At the beginning of the first observation, Cathy informed her students that they

were going to be taking part in an activity involving UPC codes. She then asked them if

they were familiar with ability of many smart-phones to obtain information about a

product just by scanning its UPC code. The activity she had developed provided students

with the bar codes for a variety of breakfast cereals. Students were instructed to write

down “as many rules as possible that UPC codes must follow” (C.CO, 1) based on these

examples. After allowing students to work for approximately five minutes, Cathy asked

students to share their observations, though did not comment on the accuracy of them.

For the next component of the activity, student were told to take their initial “rules”

regarding UPC codes and apply them to three new codes, predicting what type of cereal

they represented. As students shared their efforts regarding this second task, and

discrepancies resulted, Cathy shared how she had eventually come to the correct answer.

She debriefed this activity by telling her students that what they had just done was

like the work of scientists, in that they had made a rule about some data, applied it to

other data and, much like scientists, found out that they are wrong. This activity, and the

rest of the class period, Cathy informed them, “[was] all about defining some nature of

science terms” (C.CO, 1.1.1a). She then asked them if they had an idea what the word

“nature” in nature of science referred to, and after no one offered an acceptable

definition, she shared that in this case “it is about the characteristics…it is about what

science is like” (C.CO, 1.1.1b). Furthermore, she cautioned, that “a lot of people get very

confused about science, a lot of people get very angry about science…” (C.CO, 1.1.1.2)

but that she would try to help them understand more about science, its nature, and what it

can and cannot answer. As an example, she talked about how there is a common
 282

perception that most scientists are atheists but they should remember that “science only

answers some questions, it doesn’t address all of the questions out there” (C.CO, 1.1.3);

as such, in her opinion, it was important that students understand the nature of science.

In reference to the UPC-activity, she asked the class “if this activity was doing

science, if instead of doing UPC we were studying something in nature, would what we

have done have been an investigation or an experiment” (C.CO, 1.1.3)? When no

acceptable answers were offered, she rephrased the question, asking only if they knew

what an experiment was. Over the course of discussing students’ ideas, she pointed out

that she liked the idea of scientists “testing something out” and that “finding an answer to

a question…was something that scientists do most of the time, (they) try to organize the

world” (C.CO, 1.1.1.5).

In summarizing the difference between an observation and an inference, she

pointed out that an investigation “means you are not messing with the world, you’re just

looking at, just seeing how things are…not really testing anything” (C.CO, 1.1.6.1). As

an example, she referenced Jane Goodall who observed gorillas and saw what they ate,

and did not “mess with them.” An experiment, by contrast, would have involved Goodall

testing the animals to see, for example, what type of food they might choose when

presented with a variety of options. She then asked the class how they would classify the

UPC-code activity, to which they correctly responded “an investigation.” She asked the

students to jot down the difference between the two, as they would be responsible for this

on a later assignment. She forewarned them that physics, at this level, tended to be more

about experiments than about investigations.

 283

From this Cathy transitioned into a discussion of how the UPC-activity modeled

science as being “empirically-based”, which represented another question from the UPC-

activity worksheet. After soliciting ideas about the definition of empirical, she shared that

the term “empirical” meant that “[we] have got some evidence…that we can observe the

world and make some conclusions about it…we are not just pulling these answers out of

our back-ends” (C.CO, 1.1.7.2). Furthermore, “empirically-based means it is based on

data, it is based on observations, it is based on evidence” (C.CO, 1.1.7.3).

The last question on the worksheet asked students about how the activity modeled

science as being tentative. After providing an example of something tentative, in this case

the date of the next test, she shared how science, like this date, is tentative and subject to

change. To this she added that “sometimes people like to think that once something is

scientific is included in a textbook, that’s it it’s never going to change”, but, to the

contrary, “science is tentative…it can change, there is not a final answer. Rules are

broken” (C.CO, 1.1.8.3). She then referenced examples from the UPC-example of how

students’ ideas about the “rule” for UPC-codes changed as they collected more

information.

For the final 40 minutes of the first observation, Cathy assisted her students in

filling out a “Nature of Science and Science Inquiry” concept map sheet. This format

(i.e., the concept map) was something she was observed using throughout data collection

period, seemingly for each instructional unit. On this occasion she began under the

heading on “Nature of Science” with “Empirically-Based.” She wrote that “science is

based on observations, inferences, collected data, and evidence” (C.CO, 1.2.1.1). As an

example she talked about St. Thomas of Aquinas had pondered “how many angels could
 284

dance on the head of a pin” but that this was not an empirically-based questioned. By

contrast, science “need[s] some kind of evidence, we have to see it, we have to hear it, we

have to taste it, we have to touch it, we have to smell it, or we have to…see evidence of

these things” (C.CO, 1.2.1.2).

Secondly, she reviewed that the fact that science, and scientific knowledge, was

“tentative”, or that “science can change due to new information…or new interpretations”,

and while it “seems like a no-brainer…this is not the way people talk about science”

(C.CO, 1.2.1.3). She then asked her students why they though it is important to know

that science can change. She asked them to consider

how the atom evolved. People used to think that the atom was just…little balls,
like little spheres, then they thought it was little solar systems, and now they know
there are various orbitals. If people thought science didn’t change…people would
even consider looking for electrons or Higgs bosons… (C.CO, 1.2.3.3).

In addition, “another reason is that scientists often give information that we think is true,

that we think we are interpreting correctly, but that is harmful” (C.CO, 1.2.3.4). To this

point, she first talked about how radon water used to be a popular “energy drink”, but that

we now know that this can be very harmful. This was followed that up with an anecdote

about her mother-in-law and some of her specific medical choices involving treatments

for a variety of maladies, one of which involved a magnetologist. Regarding this, Cathy

commented that she “doesn't realize that sometimes science is wrong…or that scientists

are not ethical in their work…” (C.CO, 1.1.8.2a) and that in light of this “we all need to

be very critical involving science issues” (C.CO, 1.1.8.2a).

In summary of this discussion, she told her students that the reason she teachers

physics “number one, I do not want you to get ripped off, and I do not want you to die”
 285

(C.CO, 1) and told a story about how some scientifically illiterate cultures have some

very dangerous beliefs regarding science.

Under the heading of “Science Inquiry” on the concept map worksheet, Cathy

reviewed the difference between an investigation and an experiment. To the former, she

wrote that when scientists do an investigation they “observe the world, analyze data, and

draw conclusions” (C.CO, 1.3.1.1). With experiments, by contrast, they “define what

they want to study, choose one variable to change and one to observe, hold all other

variables constant, and analyze data and draw conclusions” (C.CO, 1.3.2.4). Following

this, she asked her students for examples of specific instances when only an investigation

can be done as opposed to a true experiment. In the discussion that followed, Cathy

referenced various examples from social science research, some disease-related research,

and stated this was true for most of the work that is done in astronomy. She then pointed

out that while many questions certainly lent themselves to more experimental designs,

many people falsely equate all scientific practice with “the scientific method.” But, while

“we can do experiments in physics, and most experiments do follow a particular method,

I am not teaching one method only…” (C.CO, 1.3.1.3).

In conclusion of the NOS and SI instruction from the first observation, Cathy had

her students graph a given data set and then attempt to fit a curve to best represent them.

She told them, that in relation to the construction of the graphs: “in science, one of the

things that scientists generally do…whenever we find out a rule that applies, we assume

that this rule applies everywhere in the universe” (C.CO, 1.4.1). Furthermore, concerning

the idea of collecting data, coming up with an appropriate graph, and from it deriving an

equation, she told them resoundingly “this is how scientists do it” (C.CO, 1.4.2).
 286

For the second observation, after some time spent finishing up an activity started

the previous day, Cathy told her students that they were going to play a mystery board

game. For the game, she passed out a board on which the six pieces would move. The

pieces had a letter and number of their face, with the lightly shaded ones starting with a

“P”, the darker ones with a “G”. The board consisted of 16 numbered main squares, along

with some additional shaded squares and triangles along the perimeter. She was not,

though, going to tell them how to play, but would eventually provide them with some

“sample moves from an actual game.” This script informed students as to what piece

moved to what numbered square, after starting from their respective “home” squares. The

worksheet that accompanied this activity asked students about the laws that governed the

movement of the pieces, to “develop a hypothesis to explain how [they] think the game

should be played, and to write a prediction that could be tested to see if their hypothesis

was valid. Lastly, there was the following statement: “After lots of predictions and testing

of hypotheses, our understanding of the game might develop into a full-fledged theory.”

After providing students with a brief overview of the activity, Cathy asked them

about their first impressions of the game. She asked the students about any of the

assumptions they were able to make regarding the playing of the game based on games

they had previously played. After students provided some of theirs, she asked them to

turn the paper over to the series of scripted moves. But before telling them what these

represented or what they were going to do to complete this assignment, she read the

following quote from famous physicist Richard Feynman:

What do we mean by “understanding something?” We can imagine that this

complicated array of moving things which constitutes 'the world' is something like
a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game.
We do not know what the rules of the game are: all we are allowed to do is to
 287

watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough we may eventually catch
on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental
physics. Even if we knew every rule, however, we might not be able to
understand why a particular move is made in the game, merely because it is too
complicated. (C.CO, 2)

She then asked the students to work through the script of moves and try to develop their

own theories, laws, hypotheses, or related predictions that they could make.

A discussion of how the game was like, or different, from science followed. Cathy

agreed with one student in that the activity required them to observe and make various

hypotheses or, in other words, that it was empirically-based. When no other answers were

forthcoming, she asked if they felt there was anything about the game that was tentative.

To one student’s affirmative answer, she summarized that “once we initially thought…of

an initial rule, we probably changed (it) once we saw more of the moves of how to play

the game” and that “like this…science, by definition, is a work in progress” (C.CO,

2.1.4).

Once Cathy appeared satisfied with students’ ability to see how the game modeled

the empirically-based nature of science, and also the tentativeness of scientific

knowledge, she returned back to the “Nature of Science and Science Inquiry” concept

map sheet. Under the general heading of “Science Inquiry” and then “Investigations and

Experiments”, Cathy had left space to include the definition of a hypothesis, law, and a

theory, telling students that these terms were very important because they were frequently

misunderstood, most notably theory. For the term “hypothesis”, she talked about how

sometimes it is presented as an if-then statement, but that this was, for her taste, too much

like a prediction. Instead, regarding hypothesis, she gave a definition of “a possible

explanation for a phenomenon” (C.CO, 2.2.1.1). For an example, she referenced Aristotle
 288

and his belief that there is a natural state for physical objects, and also Einstein’s early

hypothesis regarding gravity. Each of these, she continued, was a possible explanation

that had not been tested or well-supported.

Cathy then asked if anyone could provide an example of a law. She commented

that a scientific law was, as a student stated, related to a theory, but that the idea of

“proof” the student had introduced in her answer was a bit trickier. To this, she explained

that there is no way to prove something, as accounting for all possible instances of a

phenomenon at all places in the universe is impossible. Continuing, she spoke of how

“there is no proof in science”, and that only one example is needed to disprove

something, but every instance, or “an infinite number of examples,” must be true to prove

it. Referencing the philosopher Karl Popper, she continued, reiterating that “there is no

proof in science…we can only disprove [it],” but that a scientific law was as close to

proof as you could get in science (C.CO, 2.2.3.1).

The formal definition Cathy provided was that a law “is a description of how the

world behaves, of how the universe behaves” which comes in two ways, either “words”

or it is defined mathematically, through an equation or a graph (C.CO, 2.2.3.3). A theory,

by contrast, was explained as “a combination of laws and hypotheses that have been

tested many times, but never proven” (C.CO, 2.2.4.1). She added an asterisk next to

definition of theory, to emphasize the fact that people did not typically know that it is the

strongest of the three (i.e., hypothesis, law, and theory). For example, many people tend

to think of the theory of evolution as “wish-washy” but, she assured them, a “theory is a

very strong word” (C.CO, 2.2.4.2).

 289

Lastly, she commented on how different student pairs had gone about reading the

script of moves differently, but no one had done so “against” the typical (i.e., English)

rules of reading. Asking them, “Do you think that our culture may play a rule in

influencing how we interpret the data”, Cathy answered that this was an example of

science being socially and culturally embedded, meaning that “scientists interpret data

based on their society and their culture” (C.CO, 2.2.5.2).

Cathy prefaced the third observation by telling her class that while the next few

days would be filled with “a bunch of labs”, today the focus was going to on

“understanding the foundations of physics.” This understanding would specifically target

the work of Aristotle and Galileo, and how the work of the latter ushered in a markedly

different chapter in the study of physics. To help illuminate these differences, Cathy

distributed a reading entitled “Galileo Drops Aristotle”, and an accompanying worksheet

where students were required to come up with three differences and one similarity

between the two scientists. One difference Cathy offered, was that Aristotle, in general, "

didn't do a lot of experiments, he just looked, came up with a lot of principles and wrote a

lot...” (C.CO, 3.1.1.2).

Once students had read and discussed the article with their partner, and put at

least one similarity or difference on the front board, Cathy queried the groups as to

whether Aristotle and Galileo had actually lived in different universes. When students

answered resoundingly “no”, she asked them “Why would one scientists look at the

world and another scientist look at the world and come up with entirely different things”

(C.CO, 3.1.2.2)?” She then went through the assortment of answers written on the front

board, in support of this point, using these to further prompt students as to why these two
 290

scientists may have had such differing views of the same universe. In response to one

student’s answer about the two scientists living in different time periods, Cathy

considered one student’s response, commenting that “maybe as we live longer scientists

do indeed get smarter regarding science” (C.CO, 3.1.2.5).

When no other answers were forthcoming, she talked about the comparison

between Aristotle’s Greek society and its values and beliefs, and Galileo’s life in Europe

during the Renaissance Period, mainly regarding “how people thought about things.”

Moreover, in Galileo’s Italy the Church, or more specifically the Pope exerted substantial

control over what people practiced and believed, and “in addition, they had some

personal and individual things about them that made them think about things differently”

(C.CO, 3.1.2.3). This idea, of the role that the society played on these scientists’ views,

was an example of how science is socially and culturally embedded, while their own

experiences and set of biases is what is commonly called subjectivity.

To this point, Cathy showed them a video clip about Galileo, for which students

had to come up with two examples of how the scientist’s views were influenced by his

society and culture, and also two examples of how his unique beliefs and experiences

influenced his work. Specifically, she implored them to “find two things about Galileo

that may have made him more interested in experimentation than Aristotle" (C.CO,

3.13.6). This video was, for the most part, a historical look at the life of Galileo, with

Cathy choosing a portion that related to some of the unique experiences in his formative,

schooling years.

One of these influences, Cathy shared, was that Galileo wanted to be a priest, and

though he eventually also got into trouble with the Catholic Church for placing the sun at
 291

the center of the solar system, the Jesuit curriculum influenced his interest in astronomy,

as it was a required component of their highly prescribed curriculum. This influence of

the church on the academic curriculum was an example of the social and cultural

influence on Galileo’s work. Galileo’s personal interest in becoming a priest, by contrast,

was confirmed as an example of how Galileo’s own personal interests may have

influenced his work in science. Furthermore, his love of medicine, and the use of the

pendulum as a timing device also were also examples of how this personal experience,

influenced him much differently than what Aristotle would have personally experienced

over his lifetime.

Cathy then added “subjectivity” and “social and culturally embedded” to the

“Nature of Science and Science Inquiry” concept map sheet. To the former, she warned

her students to

be careful with what [I] means by that…I do not mean that all scientists are
intending to be bias, but that personal experiences and sometimes biases influence
scientists’ work…although scientists generally try to eliminate these biases.
Sometimes biases are good things, sometimes personal experiences help make
progress in science. (C.CO, 3.2.1.2 -1.5)

Cathy then read the story “Seven Blind Mice” to the class, asking them, at the story’s

conclusion how it displayed the subjectivity often found in science. In general, Cathy

implored them to remember that, like the mice in this story, every scientist has a different

experience that influences how they view certain phenomenon, and how they view the

world. In “the real world” scientists often work out their differing opinions through the

peer-review process, in either journals or conferences, for example, but this type of

disagreement found in the story is not foreign to the practices of scientists.

 292

The fourth observation included an activity that required students to match

various qualitative, kinematic graphs (e.g., position vs. time, velocity vs. time, and

acceleration vs. time) with their appropriate written description. While not an activity

intended to explicitly target NOS and SI, Cathy did make some general comments about

how this cooperative activity was like the work that scientists do, in that it is essential

that they communicate with each other while they “try to organize a body of

knowledge…and one with many ways to explain that information” (C.CO, 4.1.1.1-2).

Furthermore, she tried to emphasize to her students that this communication was

necessary because there “is no right answer”, there are “many ways to explain these

things”, and “in science there is no grandiose answer key” (C.CO, 4.1.1.3-5).

The instructional objectives for the fourth observation centered mainly on

reviewing the concepts of precision and accuracy, and also continuing to improve

students’ understandings of position-, velocity-, and acceleration-time graphs. After a

more traditional teacher-centered segment covering the fundamentals of accuracy and

precisions, Cathy transitioned into an activity where students had to determine their

reaction time by calculating the time elapsed between a ruler being released by one group

member and subsequently being caught by another. While the intent was to provide a

context for discussing accuracy and precision, Cathy also used it as an opportunity to talk

about the inherent “messiness” in science, stating that it was “important when we do

scientific inquiry to know that everything won't always be perfect” (C.CO, 5.1.1). In

addition, she spoke of how the use of various technologies could aid in the both the

precision and the accuracy of the work of scientists, changing accepted values of certain
 293

constants. She did not, though, make any further explicit connection to how the tentative

nature of scientific knowledge is, in part, a function of technological advances.

Lastly, after viewing a film clip and solving some related problems related to the

movie Apollo 13, Cathy, in talking about the challenges faced by the Apollo crew on their

mission to the moon, referenced the Space Shuttle disaster. After sharing her own

experience watching the Space Shuttle’s tragic re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere

decades later, Cathy again spoke of the importance of communication and critical

discourse in science. She said that this (the space shuttle) was an deadly example of

“group think in science…because of scientists’ group think…where the scientists did not

have any debate, or arguments…no peer review, so things did not get improved” (C.CO,

5.1.3).

For the sixth observation, following a brief preview of an upcoming exam, Cathy

told her students that today they were going to play the game “Eleusis.” She had shared,

prior to the start of this class, that this was her first time including this in the current

instructional unit, but hoped it would help drive home some of the ideas they had been

discussing regarding the nature of science. As she had been doing for the previous two

observations, Cathy used a creative way of grouping students for this activity, a function,

she had shared, of a course she was currently taking on cooperative learning strategies.

The actual game of Eleusis was developed by Robert Abbott and written about in

the “Mathematical Games” column of Scientific American first in 1959, and again in

1977. In general, it is a multi-player card game where players attempt to “discover”

inductively a rule (e.g., alternating black and red cards, only even red cards, etc.) chosen

by one of the players, the “Rulemaker”, for correctly playing cards. Once a player thinks
 294

that s/he has determined the rule, they then declare a “discovery” and are charged with

assessing the subsequent plays by the other players, to the critique of the Rulemaker. The

game is intended to provide a player-as-scientist experience and this, in addition to

developing critical thinking skills, was why Cathy had chosen to include it at this point in

her curriculum. To this point, as the learning target for this lesson, Cathy had written on

the board: “Explain how the game Eleusis is like science” (C.CO, B.1.1). The majority of

the class period involved explaining and then playing the game, while the debriefing of

the activity, though, focused explicitly on the learning target. Cathy began simply by

asking for volunteers to answer the question of how the game was like science. The first

two student responses included “that there are patterns in science” and “that we are

looking for explanations in science.” To the latter, Cathy added that “we are looking for

explanations or descriptions of those patterns…we are looking for laws to explain how

they are and what they are” (C.CO, 6.1.1.3). A third student commented on the idea that

they were “trying to find the way the world works”, to which Cathy added “there is some

kind of objective truth up there that we are trying to get to.” (C.CO, 6.1.1.4). In addition,

Cathy talked about how students were observed getting frustrated when their classmates

made discoveries before they did, when they knew the pattern but had to wait for their

turn. This “losing out” on getting the credit was common in science, Cathy said, that in

general “whoever gets to it first gets…credit…money…the Nobel Prize” (C.CO, 6.1.2.1).

Furthermore, the person that “gets this recognition, like the Nobel Prize, gets to take a

little bit of the honor and glory of the work of what all of the peons did…those that did

the work before them” (C.CO, 6.1.2.2).

 295

She then explicitly asked whether there was any subjectivity or social-cultural

embeddness of influence in the Eleusis game, specifically “was there anything about the

cards we were using that influenced how you played the game?” Students pointed out that

their familiarity with a typical deck of cards (e.g., four suits, how many number and face

cards, order of the cards) certainly affected their ability to discern the pattern and even

what they were looking for regarding possible patterns. Lastly, Cathy asked them to share

their opinions about why “in science, would a person want to do a ‘no play’, versus

playing a card that they are not sure of whether it is right?” The “no play”, it should be

noted, refers to a player not playing any card when they feel they do not have a card that

fits the current pattern. She then asked whether getting incorrect data was helpful, to

which students responded with a resounding “yes”, since it helped, as much as the correct

data, to establish a pattern, or more specifically, whether the one they were considering

was correct. She then spoke of how certain scientists may at times attempt to hide their

data from their colleagues so they would not “steal” their discovery.

Observation seven, which yielded no explicit references to NOS and SI, was

notable for one exclusion. After completing an investigation involving two-dimensional

motion, students were given a booklet (Risks and Hazards, FEMA) depicting the impact

of an atomic bomb dropped on various locations, based on typical weather patterns and

the jet stream. The main objective was to provide an additional context and real-world

application of projectiles and vectors. From this, Cathy transitioned into a discussion of

the two atom bombs dropped in Japan during World War II. Through the discussion of

the reasons for the bomb’s development, and why the U.S. felt it was important to drop it,

there was no explicit mention of how the importance placed on this project help drive the
 296

development of scientific knowledge. This is further noteworthy because this example

was used in the course Cathy took during her master’s degree program. Thus, while she

provided an extremely accurate historical portrait of what was transpiring scientifically

during this era, no explicit tie-in to the impact that society often has on the development

of scientific knowledge was attempted. Cathy did tell her students that later on in the

week they were going to watch the movie “Barefoot Again”, a powerful portrayal of the

horrors that occurred when the bomb was actually dropped, and the unbelievable struggle

of those who survived its aftermath.

Observation eight included an investigation into the relationship between the

normal force and the (kinetic) frictional force acting on a block. During the previewing of

this lab, Cathy was quick to point out that “like this activity, the data that scientists

collect are never perfect[due to] equipment issues or human error” (C.CO, 8.1.2) and, in

light of this, it was best to collect as many data points as possible or feasible. As students

were first developing their own procedures for investigating factors that relate to the

friction on a tire, Cathy reminded them to be sure to clearly provide “evidence for your

claims…including data, which means numbers, I need measurements, and some kind of

evidence…I need an explanation that makes meaning out of these numbers” (C.CO,

8.1.3). This point was reiterated at the end of the class, where she implored them to not

only present their data, but also their evidence, or “the words making meaning out of

those numbers”, and to do so with respect to the goal of this investigation (C.CO, 8.1.3).

Observations nine and ten, it should be noted, did not reveal any explicit

connections to the fifteen targeted aspects of NOS and SI.

 297

The final observation positioned Cathy and her students in the middle of an

instructional unit on waves and sound. For the first quarter of the class period, Cathy had

created a worksheet with some practice problems covering standing waves and also the

Doppler Effect. After working through a few of them together and assigning the rest as

homework, Cathy queued up a short video titled “Why Mosquitoes Buzz in People’s

Ears” taken from a book of the same name. The story is a folk tale developed to explain

why mosquitoes seem to so frequently fly around peoples’ ears. As her students watched

this video, she asked them to consider “what aspects of science does this story have”,

“what aspects of this story are not scientific”, and why, in general, people tend to tell

these types of stories. To the last point, she referenced how common these types of folk-

tales were to so many cultures, providing an example of a native American story relating

the killing of a great bear to the changing color of the autumn leaves.

When she asked why people may have come up with these stories, some students

thought that it was because these peoples were not smart enough to come up more

scientific explanation, while another felt that it was because these were occurrences that

could not be understood outside of imploring “more divine means.” In general, the class

concluded that these types of myths were just one way, different than science, to create

explanations for certain phenomena.

This myth, though, did contain some scientific elements, a point that provided

Cathy an opportunity to talk about how a “scientific statement” was one that was not

necessarily correct, but that had the potential to be disproved. This was accompanied by a

reference to Karl Popper, and a request for additional examples of scientific statements of

questions.
 298

From this discussion, the students were tasked with coming up with a scientific

question that could be answered using a variety of materials and a “Mosquito Card”, a

contraption that, when swung over one’s head by the attached string, created a sound

similar to that of a mosquito. As students shared their results, many exhibited frustration

with their inability to conclusively answer their chosen question. To this Cathy warned

that “when it comes to engineering, failure happens almost 90% of the time”, and “that

with these types of messy experiments…it is difficult to keep one thing constant...dealing

with one variable at a time is tough” (C.CO, 11.2.2).

In summary, she provided “the moral of the story”:

it is really hard to do a really good experiment, it is tough work for scientists, it is

hard to keep track of the individual variables and keep track of what was cause
and effect [because] everything in nature has got relationships associated with it.
And a lot of cutting-edge research is not really complicated…it is just looking at
very specific situation and trying to understand them. A lot of time being a good
scientist just means asking good questions, it is not about the high tech stuff…”
(C.CO, 11.2.4).

Summary of Classroom Practice Related to NOS and SI. There were 122

instances of NOS and SI, or closely related aspects, in Cathy’s classroom practice, with

50 of these involving explicit student interaction. On 21 separate occasions, Cathy

evidenced a sustained dialogue involving these aspects with, for example, a six statement

chain being evidenced for tentativeness, a five statement chain for the general definition

of NOS or what science “is”, along with a variety of shorter chains for subjectivity, social

and culturally embedded, and for theories and laws.

Figure 7 represents Cathy’s classroom practice knowledge structure for NOS and

SI as inferred from classroom practice data.

 299

Empirical (46)

General - NOS (40) Theory v. Law (24)

Subjective (65) Social-Cultural (32)

Tentative (43)
Observation – Inference (8)

Informed
Begins w/ ??? (6)

Mixed
Conc.-Data (3) Data v. Evidence (14)

Naive
Multiple Methods (40)
Additional
Fair Test (1) Aspect

Hypothesis (2)

Figure 7. Cathy’s Classroom Practice Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. Each
instance of a connection is shown, with font size adjusted as a function of the “inclusion
score” shown in parentheses.

KS4NS Questionnaire Results. The diagram Cathy included in her response to

the KS4NS questionnaire is included in Figure 8. This diagram, it should be noted, was

one that was utilized in her classroom practice, most notably in the first unit of study

observed during the current investigation, and included explanations for many of the

concepts included therein.

When asked why she had included both nature of science and scientific inquiry on

the same diagram, Cathy matter-of-factly shared that one, NOS, is about the knowledge
 300

and the other, SI, is about how the specific ways that science is done and knowledge is

developed, so they obviously are closely related (C.KS4NS, 1.1). She continued that, for

her, when she thinks of NOS she means

the processes and the norms of the scientific institution, I guess. I use institution
in sort of a broad sense. There is a certain way that science is done that is
acceptable to at least the western world. So the nature of science means the
things...that there is an influence and a way that we do science and the strength
and the specific constraints on science versus math or other disciplines.
(C.KS4NS, 1.2)

Continuing on with the concepts listed under the heading of “nature of science”, Cathy

was asked to provide any additional insight into the connection of “empirical” to nature

of science beyond the idea that “science is based on observations (things we can directly

sense) and inferences (things we presume based upon logical observations)” (C.KS4NS,

D), offering only that she also felt that words like “evidence”, “data”, and “data analysis”

were all part of the empirical nature of science but, other than that, what she had on the

diagram accurately conveyed her conceptions.

For the notion the scientific knowledge is tentative, Cathy had provided her idea

that “science is ‘durable’, but it can change in light of new information or new

interpretations of old information” (C.KS4NS, D). When asked to elaborate on this

description, she ponder momentarily and then added that

everything is an inference...social inferences, cultural inferences, different

inferences. All of this influences the nature of science. We generally assume that
science that it is very durable, we don't think of science as wishy-washy. While
durable it may not be what we think of it, there is always this part of science that
is never necessarily what we think of it. (C.KS4NS, 2.1)

When asked, Cathy was satisfied with her first description of NOS as socially and

culturally embedded, or that “scientific developments and interpretations are dependent

 301

upon the wants and needs of society (e.g., politics, funding, availability/economy,

religious and cultural views, ethical considerations, etc.)” (C.KS4NS, D).

Nature of Science
&
Scientific Inquiry

Nature of Science Scientific Inquiry Algebra & Graphing

Empirical Investigations Experiments Types of Linear

Graphs Equations

Tentative Law
Hypothesis Parabola y = mx+b
Theory
Socially &
Culturally Hyperbola label x, y

Accuracy
Subjective & Square Root sub “m”
Precision Curve w/ units

Linear/Direct sub “b”

w/ units

write & apply

equation

Figure 8. Cathy’s Diagrammed Knowledge Structure for NOS and SI. This figure was
the diagram that Cathy included on her KS4NS Questionnaire.

In explicating the role of subjectivity in NOS, Cathy had, on her diagram,

expressed this as the idea that “[w]hile most scientists do attempt to be objective,

personal experiences and biases do factor into scientific developments and

interpretations” (C.KS4NS, D). To this, Cathy added that it is essential to remember that
 302

“sometimes scientists are unethical, sometimes there is bias that is unwanted or

sometimes it is bias that is wanted. There is a contribution, a damaging contribution of

this bias that scientists intentionally insert into their work” (C.KS4NS, 2.2).

Regarding scientific inquiry, or “how scientists do what they do”, the main two

headings, or types of inquiries were characterized as “Investigations” and “Experiments”.

When asked to provide additional insight into these two ideas and their representation of

the diagram, Cathy commented that

an experiment is a type of an investigation, so it probably should have (been

labeled) experimental and non-experimental…or observational. I should probably
change it up a little. Non-experimental means you are not messing with the world,
you are just observing, noting the natural change that occurs. Experimental is that
you know…that you are physically and intentionally manipulating the physical
environment to see the cause and effect relationship. (C.KS4NS, 2.3)

When asked to comment on the five steps she outlined under the heading of

“Experiments,” Cathy offered the following explanation:

that is really meant for a single specific experiment, that is not meant not
necessarily for ‘the’ scientific method, let's say, which can be more institutional.
The point I am trying to make is that it does set an appropriate view for a single
kind of activity, it is not appropriate for the institution of science, you need the
review process or the revision process, for example...I do not feel there is a single
scientific method or anything like that, but I feel it is appropriate for a general
outline of experiments in science. (C.KS4NS, 2.4).

Regarding laws, theories, and hypotheses, Cathy had on her diagram noted that a

scientific law is “a rule by which the world abides. Laws are just descriptions for HOW

the world functions.” For a theory, she had written that these are “a potential explanation

for WHY the world functions as it does. Hypotheses are developed in the early stages of

testing and are not well supported”. Scientific theories were, by contrast, viewed as “a

set of laws and hypotheses that describe a natural phenomenon in great detail and (are)
 303

supported by large amounts of evidence; theories are some of the most durable scientific

constructs” (C.KS4NS, D). To this, Cathy felt it important to add that

law, hypothesis, and theory goes more with scientific inquiry than with nature of
science. There is a general process of science…that these hypotheses, (these)
potential explanations that they develop into theories that are more solid and truly
evidenced-based and well-tested explanations about the world, which leads to
predictions which are things that are supposed to happen under specific
considerations. Biologists often use these things called predictive statements,
which can be a hypothesis if the 'if' and 'then' is followed by a possible
explanation, as opposed to turning it into a 'this than that', that is not talking about
a relationship…it is just saying that one thing is happening to qualify another.
Hypotheses, in physics we do not use it as much, since we may not be trying to
offer an explanation...(C.KS4NS, 2.6).

When asked to describe the role of accuracy (“How closely a measurement reflects the

actual value in nature”) and precision (“How consistently the data is measured”) in the

“arena” of scientific inquiry, Cathy emphasized that an understanding of these concepts

is important because sometimes a student will make let's say a graph and the
graph has a small increase, and you realize that…this is really a issue of precision
and not necessarily indicating a relationship. A lot of that comes into play, I think,
with biasing and personal experiences, and analyzing graphs and data. Sometimes
people with different interpretations of data based upon on their experiences with
graphs and sometimes based on their experience working with the range of data,
because a smaller range of data may give an entirely different picture then a much
larger data set. (C.KS4NS, 2.7).

As a third column in her KS4NS diagram Cathy had included “Algebra and Graphing.”

When asked about its inclusion, she commented that this was essential, due in large part,

to a common misconception, regarding the origin of mathematical formulas utilized in

physics, or science, in general. Typically, “they don't see that it comes from

experimentation and observation. They often think it comes out of a book, sometimes it

does (come) from theoretical physics, or unit analysis or things like that” (KS4NS, 2.11).

Furthermore, Cathy emphasized to her students that providing insight into the

process of “how to derive a mathematical model from a graphical model…is the most
 304

important lesson I will ever teach them” (C.KS4NS, 2.12), specifically the idea that “you

could take any system in the entire world practically, you know, and study it and graph it

and get some kind of meaning out of the graph and then make a mathematical

model...that's very powerful. You can then interpolate, extrapolate...” (C.KS4NS, 2.12).

Moreover, she felt that concerning the role of mathematics that

I think number one it comes with the precision. You've got accuracy in dealing
with data, and what the data tell us. The first question to ask is “is it relevant and
what does it tell us?”. Then there is precision and error. With error, what role
does error play into that, it could be how to minimize it, because that, especially
when you are plotting the data, error bars and things like that. (C.KS4NS, 2.14)

She attributed the inclusion of this mathematical component in her KS4NS diagram to

her work during her undergraduate, and also to a workshop she had participated in

involving mathematical modeling in physics, where

[t]he main focus was on mathematical and graphical models since that is so
empowering. That you can take a physical item, manipulate it and get an equation
which it becomes, effectively, that this is kind of how a law develops. They often
tend to be more mathematical equations as description of how the world works,
(though) they don't tell us why, you can use an equation to develop and see how a
family of them all possibly fit together to get more of an explanation. (C.KS4NS,
2.17).

When asked to comment, in general, on the overall organization of her diagram, Cathy

stated that she didn’t have any “real rhyme or reason to it, beyond organizing what was

nature of science and what was more about inquiry and what was the math components”

(C.KS4NS, 3.1), and that what was included are “the things that really matter”. As far as

what she would add, she talked about the idea that scientific investigations begin with a

question.

I think that the idea that in inquiry that all scientists began an investigation with a
question, I think that, that to me that is minimal. It is not nearly as important for
students to know as consumers or as voters. What's important is that they
understand how scientists solve problems and answer questions, that they ask
 305

questions doesn't seem to me super relevant. I guess, I mean I understand that

students should know how to ask appropriate questions, questions that are
testable. That is actually something I should also add on there...is that when it
comes to 'empirical' I often think about...Karl Popper and testability...if you can't
test it, even if it is empirically, than it is not science specific...it's not science.
(C.KS4NS, 3.3).

Translation of Knowledge Structure into Classroom Practice. To the point

expressed in her KS4NS interview that there is a specific and particular “influence and a

way that we do science…(and) specific constraints on science versus math or other

disciplines”, Cathy clearly expressed a similar sentiment on numerous occasions in her

classroom practice, stating that unlike other ways of knowing “science only answers

some questions” (C.CO, 4.1.1.4) and that it is based solely “on observation, collected

data, and evidence’ (C.CO, 4.1.2.1.1). This idea that science relies on information

gleaned from our five senses or, in other words, is empirically-based, was clearly

communicated both in Cathy’s classroom practice and in her description of her

knowledge structure for NOS and SI.

The idea that that “science is ‘durable’, but it can change in light of new

information or new interpretations of old information” was also clearly communicated in

her classroom practice, as indicated by such statement as “science is tentative…people

like to think that what you see in a science textbook is never going to change…” (C.CO,

1.1.8.2) but, by contrast, “science can change based on new evidence or new

interpretation…” (C.CO, 1.2.3.1), among others.

The idea that science is influenced by the “wants and needs of society”, or is

socially-culturally influenced, as expressed in Cathy’s subject matter knowledge structure

was similar present when she described to students how “scientists interpret data based
 306

on their society". In practice, though, Cathy did contrast societal influences with those of

a more individual nature (i.e., subjectivity). In her explicated knowledge structure

socially-culturally embedded was, by contrast, more consistent with subjectivity. This

subjectivity, or the fact that “personal experiences and biases do factor into scientific

developments and interpretations,” was consistently communicated in Cathy’s classroom

practice, where she made it point to remind students that “people also come with their

own set of experiences their own biases…” (C.CO, 4.3.1.3.4). In addition, and as she

expressed in describing her KS4NS diagram (e.g., “sometimes scientists are unethical”),

Cathy similarly made sure her students were aware that “scientists sometimes are not

truthful and may hide or exclude data” (C.CO, 4.6.1.5) because of these biases.

Regarding scientific inquiry, or how scientists do their work, Cathy, both in her

explanation of her NOS and SI knowledge structure and in her classroom practice, felt it

essential to focus on the type main categories of scientific investigations, namely

experimental and non-experimental designs, stating in both cases that “since this is

physics, we tend to deal more” with the latter. Specifically, she differentiated between the

two using the idea of just observing or watching versus getting more involved,

manipulating or “messing with it”.

In terms of the description of and the distinction between scientific theories and

scientific laws, Cathy communicated a consistent message between both subject matter

knowledge structures. In discussing her diagramed knowledge structure she contended

that “[l]aws are just descriptions for HOW the world functions” while for a theory she

stated that these are “a potential explanation for WHY the world functions as it does”

(C.KS4NS, D). In practice, she spoke similarly, only adding that a “law is a description
 307

of how the world behaves…either it comes in words…or [we get] an equation…”

(C.CO, 4.2.3.3.3), while a “theory is a combination of laws and hypotheses that have

been tested many times…but, importantly, never proven” (C.CO, 4.2.2.4.1). Moreover,

she cautioned her students to be aware, though that “theory is a very strong word; it

means it is not wishy-washy…" (C.CO, 4.2.2.4.2). It should be noted that Cathy also

spoke similarly of the definition and the potential role of hypotheses in development of

scientific knowledge.

Accuracy and precision were discussed in some detail by Cathy as being

important concepts in the constructs of NOS and SI. Specifically she believed that the

influence of these coupled with personal biases and experiences impacted the ability to

draw appropriate conclusions from collected data. This was somewhat similar to Cathy’s

emphasis in her classroom practice that students understand that the data they collect is

limited by the procedures they use and also by various aspects of “human error.”

The roll of modeling, or specifically deriving a mathematical model from a

graphical model, while present as a specific instructional activity, a connection was not as

strongly evidenced as it was in Cathy’s explication of her KS4NS diagram.

Cathy discussed in her KS4NS interview that she did not feel that emphasizing all

scientific investigations begin with a question should be an essential component of the

NOS and SI construct. This was consistent with Cathy’s NOS- and SI-related classroom

practice, where she simply implored students to remember that the key is to ask good

questions, and to carefully define what it is they want to investigate. Other than that, there

was no evidence of this emphasis in practice.

 308

In summary, at the level of the included concepts, there was notable consistency

between those explicated in her KS4NS and those that evidenced themselves in their

classroom practice. This was similar to the connections that were made between

concepts, which were, in both cases, not strongly evident.

VNOS and VASI Questionnaire Results. The empirical-basis of scientific

knowledge was clearly communicated by Cathy across numerous questions on the VNOS

questionnaire, as exemplified by her response to the question of “What is Science?”, for

which she responded that science is “[a]n attempt to describe the physical world and it

function through observable evidence” (C.VNOS, 1), and when providing criteria to

delineate science from other disciplines, wherein she stated that it must be empirically-

based (i.e., can be observed) and that it is, at least in theory, testable (C.VNOS, 2).

Regarding her understanding that scientific knowledge does change, Cathy cited

numerous examples from atomic physics, namely how the accepted model of the atom

has evolved over time from “solid balls” to an “orbital model” to “Bohr’s model”, in

addition to scientists’ general understandings of subatomic particle physics, with the

recent discovery of the Higgs Boson given as support for this contention (C.VNOS, 3; 7).

Moreover, she also contended that

Sometimes there is NEW or CONFLICTING information that results in changes

to the current model scientists have. This might come from things such as (1)
expanding the range of data collected, (2) collecting data under different
conditions or processes, or (3) surprise results in experiments that were no
directly intended to test (but that used) the current model. (C.VNOS, 3).

The multiple references to probabilities and “theoretical situations” regarding scientists’

knowledge of both weather patterns and the interior of the earth provided support for

Cathy’s informed view of the difference between observation and inference. To this point
 309

she spoke of how computer weather models “do not exactly replicate the chaotic

environment, and work only with probabilities” (C.VNOS, 5) and how, regarding the

inside of the Earth, that we only have a limited amount of evidence and related theories,

as “[w]e have not directly observed the inside of the Earth” (C.VNOS, 6).

Cathy was of the opinion that scientists are necessarily imaginative and creative in

their work, and that

[p]erhaps the only place in which scientists cannot use their creativity is in the
revision process -- there are standards and reviewer expectations outside of the
scientist's control. Scientists can be creative in the questions they ask, the design
of their experiments, the analysis of the data, the development of their hypotheses,
etc. (C.VNOS, 7).

Regarding the subjective nature of scientific knowledge, Cathy’s explained the numerous

explanations regarding the extinction of the dinosaur as being due to numerous influents:

Scientists might have different background knowledge (an ignorant scientist may
not consider all variables), and scientists may place different emphases on the
effect of each variable (perhaps this goes back to certain biases). Not all scientific
knowledge is held by individuals with the same level of certainty. Even religious
differences might influence one scientist to accept or reject certain theories or
conclusions may by others, causing them to disregard those variables. Also, there
simply may not be enough information to challenge/disprove the hypothesis of
another scientist. Sometimes there are equally viable explanations for data.
(C.VNOS, 4).

Cathy’s understanding of the distinction between scientific theories and scientific laws

was explained as: “Theories are potential explanations that have been well-tested” while

“Laws are descriptors of the world.” To further emphasize this difference, she provided a

summary of the Theory of Gravitation as “All objects with mass exert a force on all other

massive objects in the universe”, with Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity serving as an

example of the relationship between the masses of the objects and their distance of
 310

separation. She continued by commenting on the relationship between theories and laws,

and that specifically one does not “turn into” the other since

[l]aws are descriptors of the world. Theories are explanations (this often includes
descriptions, such as laws, but this goes deeper and is much more all-
encompassing). The only "hierarchy" here is that theories bind together well-
tested hypotheses (explanations), laws, and grounded knowledge about the topic.
(C.VNOS, 8).

Regarding the socially and culturally embedded nature of scientific knowledge, Cathy

provided an example of how during the Cold War there, because of competition between

the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. there were “lots of technological advancements and space

exploration” and as a result of this increased attention to science more university students

choose science as their major area of study. A second example of the influence of

economic recession on the scientific community is also offered. To this, Cathy spoke of

how there are “fewer NSF funds [and] monies are limited for fetal stem cells depending

on the government” (C.VNOS, 10).

The results of the VASI provide evidence for Cathy’s understanding of the

distinction between experimental and observational methodologies in science. She

considered the investigation into bird’s beaks and their diet, described in question one of

VASI, as being scientific as the investigator “is able to observe these differences, collect

data and make inferences. He is able to make predictions and hypothesize about the

relationships” (C.VASI, 1a.). This investigation, in Cathy’s opinion, was not an

experiment since “he is not interfering/manipulating the world in any way. He was

simply analyzing observation” (C.VASI, 1b.). This contrast between experiments and

observational investigations was used as an example of two different scientific methods

that both “can be empirical and tested, at least in theory” (C.VASI, 1c.).
 311

Cathy was not of the opinion that all scientific investigation necessarily begin

with a question, feeling that “[m]any investigations begin with an accident, or are

tangential to the question that was initially asked” (C.VASI, 2).

Regarding scientists asking the same question and following the same procedure,

Cathy did not feel that they would necessarily come to the same conclusion, as “[t]here

may be environmental factors not considered that can influence the results or scientists

interpretations may be different” (C.VASI, 3).

The idea of scientists’ differing interpretations provided support for her

understanding of the difference between data and evidence and for the distinction

between observation and inference, along with some potential insight into her belief of

the role of subjectivity in the development of scientific knowledge. The distinction

between data and evidence was explained by Cathy as the former being “raw categorical

or numerical or descriptive information” while the latter “are the perceived relationship

among the data” (C.VASI, 4).

This idea that the methods employed by scientists impacted the subsequent results

was supported by her response to scientists attempting to answer the same question in

differing ways. For this, she felt that they would not necessarily come to the same

conclusion as the differing “scientific procedures may test different aspects of the same

phenomena, or each scientists may only see different ranges of data, leading to different

conclusions” (C.VASI, 3b).

The necessity of inquiry procedures being guided by the question being asked was

evidenced by Cathy on question five of the VASI, where she answered that Team A had,

by virtue of their methodology “actually answered their question about the differences
 312

between brands” (C.VASI, 5), while Team B’s was appropriate for a different question

concerning road surface type, as opposed to tire brands.

That the conclusions of a scientific investigation must be consistent with the data

collected, Cathy cited the data offered in question six as providing evidence for the

conclusion the plants grow taller with less sunlight.

Regarding scientific explanations, Cathy provided ample evidence of her

understanding that previous understandings must come to bear on current data, which she

calls “Prior Information – what we have seen in the past”, specifically, that “we have

probably seen many other animals with bigger thigh bones than arm bones” and also

“Related Information – what we see to be most common in our world” along with other

“General Concerns”, namely that “physically, it makes sense that an animal’s center of

gravity be over the thicker bones” (C.VASI, 7a, b.).

Comparison of Views of NOS and SI Evidenced on the Questionnaires. A

comparison of Cathy’s conceptions of NOS and SI communicated across the two

questionnaires is provide in Table 8. For Cathy’s responses on the VNOS/VASI and the

KS4NS, consistency was noted across the following eight aspects: (a) the empirical basis

of scientific knowledge, (b) scientific knowledge is tentative, (c) the distinction between

observations and inferences, (d) the role and distinction between scientific theories and

scientific laws, (e) that science is socially and culturally embedded, (f) subjectivity is

unavoidable in the development of scientific knowledge, (g) that investigations begin

with a question, and (h) that there is no single scientific method.

 313

The only discrepancy noted between the questionnaires was for the idea that

scientific explanations are developed from a combination of the data collected and what

is previous known.

Table 8

Cathy’s Views of NOS and SI as Evidenced on the VNOS, VASI, and KS4NS
Questionnaires, and in Classroom Practice.

Questionnaires
Classroom
VNOS/VASI KS4NS Congruence
Practice
Empirically-Based Informed Informed Yes Informed
Tentative Informed Informed Yes Informed
Nature of Science

Observation & Inference Informed Informed Yes Informed

Creativity Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Theories & Law Informed Informed Yes Informed

Social-Cultural Mixed Mixed Yes Mixed
Subjective Informed Informed Yes Informed

Begins w/ Question Informed Informed Yes Informed

Multiple Methods Informed Informed Yes Informed
Scientific Inquiry

Same Method ≠ Same Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Method Influences Results Informed No Evidence - No Evidence

Data ≠ Evidence Informed No Evidence - Informed

Method Aligned with Question Informed No Evidence - No Evidence
Conclusion Consistent with Data Informed No Evidence - Informed
Explanation = Data & Previous Informed Mixed No No Evidence
a
Congruence refers to the agreement between the results of the VNOS/VASI and those from the KS4NS

The KS4NS did not offer enough evidence to make a comparison across the

following six aspects: (a) science involves human imagination and creativity, (b)

scientists performing the same procedures to answer the same question may not arrive at
 314

the same conclusions, (c) investigatory procedures influence the results, (d) data is not

the same as evidence, (e) the methodology is determined by its appropriateness for

answering the question asked, and (f) conclusions must be consistent with the data

collected.

Summary of Cases

In all four cases a limited degree of congruence was evidenced between the

knowledge structures for NOS and SI communicated in participants’ classroom practice

and those explicated through the KS4NS questionnaire and follow-up interview. For all

four teachers there was considerable consistency at the level of the concepts included in

classroom practice and those detailed in their KS4NS. A summary of those aspects of

NOS and SI included in each teachers’ classroom practice is provided in Table 5.

As data represented in Table 5 indicate there was considerable variation between

participants regarding the frequency with which NOS and SI were included in their

practice. Cathy, for example, was responsible for approximately half (71 out 141) of the

total inclusions of NOS evidenced across the four teachers. It should be noted that while

the total observation time for Cathy was approximately twice that of the other

participants, the total NOS- and SI-specific classroom observation data was

approximately equal between Cathy and Mark (253 minutes versus 256 minutes,

respectively). Mark accounted for about a third (42 out of 141) of the instances of NOS

identified, while approximately 16% (22 out of 141) and 4% (6 out of 141) of the

remaining explicit references to NOS are attributable to Tari and Vince, respectively.
 315

Table 9

Summary of Aspects of NOS and SI as Explicitly Evidenced in Teachers’ Classroom

Practice Across Three Categories of Understanding.

Vince Tari Mark Cathy

I M N I M N I M N I M N

Empirically-Based 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 0 13 0 0
Tentative 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 9 0
Nature of Science

Observation & Inference 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 1 3 0

Creativity 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

Theories & Law 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0

Social-Cultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 6 0
Subjective 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 15 4 0

Total for NOS 5 1 0 10 12 0 19 23 0 45 26 0

Begins w/ Question 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Multiple Methods 0 2 4 1 8 0 0 1 0 11 0 0
Scientific Inquiry

Same Method ≠ Same Results 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Method Influences Results 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Data ≠ Evidence 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
Method Aligned with Question 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Conclusion Consistent with Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
Explanation = Data & Previous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals for SI 6 8 5 4 9 0 2 2 0 18 0 0
Totals 11 9 5 14 21 0 21 25 0 63 26 0
Note. Each instance was qualified as Informed (I), Mixed (M), or Naïve (N).

Regarding the inclusion of aspects of scientific inquiry in classroom practice, in

comparison to NOS, explicit references to SI only occurred approximately one-third as

frequently, 141 times for NOS versus 54 times for SI. Vince, with 19 instances, was the

most prodigious in his inclusion of SI across the four teachers, followed closely by Cathy
 316

with 18 explicit references. Tari accounted for 14 of the 54 total references to SI, while

Mark included SI in his classroom practice 4 times.

What was noteworthy for this particular sample regarding classroom practice

focusing on NOS and SI was the almost complete absence of explicit connections

between aspects of NOS and SI. To this point, there were only 14 instances of the linking

of aspects of NOS and/or SI, with only 12 of these 14 being directly related to the aspects

of NOS and SI targeted in the current study. Of these, Tari made two connections

between “theories and laws” and “multiple methods”. For Mark, connections were

explicit between “subjectivity” and “tentativeness”, between “subjectivity” and “socially

and culturally embedded”, and also between “creativity” and “conclusions being

consistent with data collected.” No connections were explicit in Vince’s classroom

practice.
 317

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Introduction

The present investigation sought to answer the following two questions:

1. How congruent are teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI with
those communicated in their classroom practice?

2. How consistent are teachers’ views of NOS and SI as evidenced on

traditional instruments, in this case the VNOS and VOSI respectively, with
their views expressed in their knowledge structures for NOS and SI?

This chapter will attempt to interpret the findings described in Chapter IV in

consideration of the conceptual framework guiding this study and as they specifically

relate to these two questions.

For this discussion, a within case analysis will first be undertaken, followed by an

explication of patterns or generalities that evidenced themselves between participant

teachers. The third section will address the limitations of the current investigation. This is

followed by a discussion of the practical implications of the present study for both

developing and assessing conceptions of nature of science and scientific inquiry, and also

concerning the potentially broader implications in the area of pedagogical content

knowledge. This last section will also include recommendations for future research

informed, at least in part by, the current undertaking.

Discussion – Tends and Patterns within the Cases

Case #1: Vince. Informed by Vince’s background, both developing curricula and

providing professional development in conjunction with a program that strongly

 318

emphasized NOS and SI as overarching themes, the results evidenced in his classroom

practice were surprising. Noteworthy in general, and more so in comparison to the other

teachers participating in the current study, the lack of inclusion of NOS and SI in Vince’s

classroom practice was inconsistent with what might be expected of someone that had

spent considerable time planning for, implementing, and reflecting on model lesson plans

for NOS and SI. These plans, it should be noted, had served as exemplars of how to

infuse classroom practice with NOS and SI to improve students’ conceptions. What is

more, it seemed as though Vince, in possible consideration of his school’s strong

monitoring of copy machine usage, had pared down the materials for these model lessons

to be more “streamlined”, but had chosen to eliminate the explicit references to NOS and

SI, both in the lesson’s objectives and contained on the student worksheets.

It appeared that the translation of Vince’s subject matter knowledge structure for

NOS and SI was primarily hampered by his beliefs about students, in concert with the

pressures of delivering a year’s worth of physics content in one semester. As he had

mentioned during the third observation, “[I] could be doing more inquiry but I am

worried about creating misconceptions…[I am] going to focus mainly on C-E-R (claim-

evidence-reasoning) ” (V.3, PO). While not overly indicative of Vince’s view of his

students, it was apparent from his classroom practice that he was still struggling to

develop an acceptable level of comfort with this new population of students (as this was

his third year at Coburn High), and a class that did not make any differentiation in ability

level. In response to a noteworthy range in the midterm grades of his students, Vince did

try some heterogeneous grouping arrangements to try and potentially capitalize on this
 319

academic diversity in his classes, but more typically assignments were not differentiated

by ability level.

In general, it appeared that Vince worried about his students not being successful,

particularly regarding how this may potentially impact classroom management. This

worry may have served to adversely impact Vince’s confidence in providing more

scientific inquiry in his classroom practice, and certainly on emphasizing understandings

about SI and NOS. As such, and in accordance with these contentions, Vince chose to

work on students’ ability to generate claims, provide evidence in support of these claims,

and exhibit sound reasoning in support of them (i.e., C-E-R). This, Vince shared, was a

skill that students would, to some degree, need to apply if they were to successfully

complete the state-wide high stakes science test. So this emphasis on C-E-R provided an

opportunity for Vince to infuse his practice with a component of NOS and SI, consistent

with the emphasis on these standardized measures of student learning at Coburn.

That being said, it could be argued that the dearth of evidence of NOS and SI in

Vince’s practice was still noteworthy. As a teacher who assisted in providing professional

development that, in part, focused on NOS and SI, it would seem reasonable to expect

Vince to find opportunities to explicitly include NOS and SI, even “on the fly”, as a result

of this experience. The absence of any mention of the empirical-base of scientific

knowledge is a case in point. In addition, he did not discuss the use of creativity by

scientists or, for the most part, how science begins with a question, aspects that are

typically easier for teachers to include in their practice (Lederman, et al., 2012a).

Furthermore, and as Vince emphasized in his KS4NS interview, he had taken

considerable measures to “systematically reduce” what was in the physics curriculum,

 320

choosing to eliminate certain topics in the “physics cannon…choosing for things to be

more inquiry-based and have them have more to time to actually do something” (V.

KS4NS, 20.I). As such, it would appear that if Vince had been observed in a previous

semester, prior to this restructuring, that there may have been even fewer references to

science and how it is done.

Vince’s classroom practice knowledge structure for NOS and SI was, for all

intents and purposes, completely incongruent with the one explicated in his KS4NS

questionnaire and follow-up interview, save for the emphasis on C-E-R. This owning in

no small part to the aforementioned impediments and the potential impact of Vince not

necessarily fully accepting the importance of being explicit about those aspects of “how

science is done” (i.e., SI) that he felt were essential for students to grasp. This inference is

supported by Vince’s frequent remarks about doing inquiry and an emphasis on what he

wanted students to do. These remarks, though, were infrequently couched in the context

of explicitly developing students’ understandings of SI. Though for NOS, and

specifically the definition and distinction between scientific theories and scientific laws,

he did admit that he had not “done as much of the explicit instruction in this (aspect)”

(V.KS4NSm, 16.I). Regarding the inclusion of SI, when further prompted, Vince again

talked specifically about the doing of inquiry, and of the challenge in giving students

opportunities to do inquiry activities and, even more so, to make these opportunities more

open-ended and less teacher-guided.

Concerning his conceptions of NOS and SI as evidenced on the VNOS and VASI

questionnaire respectively, Vince communicated mostly informed conceptions of the 15

aspects targeted in the current study. He did convey only partially informed (i.e., mixed)
 321

conceptions, though, for “tentativeness”, “socially-culturally embedded”, and

“subjectivity.” It should be noted that what Vince expressed regarding these aspects was

not contradictory, but just lacked a completely congruent “definition”, in line with those

provided in Appendix C.

Case #2: Tari. Tari’s classroom practice was also noteworthy for its overall lack

of explicit inclusion of aspects of NOS and SI. While she did teach a specific lesson

whose objectives were centered around explicating the difference between scientific

theories and scientific laws, the majority of remaining instances of NOS and SI consisted

mostly on capitalizing on opportunities (a) to discuss how her students were exhibiting

creativity in their efforts, (b) to discuss periodically how this creativity was oftentimes

evidenced in the decision of how to “do an investigation,” in light of the fact that there is

no one way to do so, and (c) that when deciding on the way to do this investigation it was

essential to “take multiple trials and keep everything the same…” (T.CO, N.13). This

latter emphasis on a “fair trial” did tend to convey an overriding emphasis on more

experimental designs, at the exclusion of other models, though Tari did at times talk

about how some data may be in the form of descriptions or observations and that

scientists cannot always control for certain variables.

Tari, by all appearances, still appeared to be coming to grips with the realities of

teaching physics, as opposed to middle school physical science, and to do so with a

decreased emphasis on mathematically-based problem solving. This became apparent

during the handful of investigations that were preceded by Tari sharing with the

researcher her apprehension about whether what she had planned would indeed work out

the way she intended. In addition, Tari occasionally sought input from the researcher
 322

regarding his impression of the investigations she had just concluded. As such, Tari

appeared to be still developing her fundamental pedagogical content knowledge for

teaching physics. As research indicates, the inclusion of NOS and SI into classroom

practice at this stage of the induction period is often characterized as sporadic, ill-

planned, and at times conveys conceptions less informed than those held by the teacher

(Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998, among others).

As a teacher that had spent about a decade refining her classroom practice prior to

encountering the concepts of NOS and SI formally as part of her teacher certification

program, it may not be surprising that these constructs did not occupy a more central

position in her practice. That she completed her doctoral degree in physics, and did so

without instruction that sought to develop her understandings of certain characteristics of

NOS and SI, may have also left Tari with the impression that NOS and SI were clearly

inferior to concerns about the traditional (in this case, physics) subject matter. This may

have potentially manifested itself in the lack of instructional objectives focused on NOS

or SI over the course of the current investigation.

Tari’s conceptions of NOS and SI, as evidenced in the VNOS and VASI

questionnaires respectively, were qualified as informed, except for five aspects that were

deemed as not conveying fully informed views (i.e., mixed). These were “tentativeness”,

“creativity”, “socially-culturally embedded”, and also “multiple methods” and the

distinction between “data and evidence.” The discrepancy between these conceptions,

how they were communicated on the KS4NS (or not), and how they evidenced

themselves in Tari’s classroom practice (or not) provide some indication that she may

have been a teacher still struggling to come to terms with some of the more nuanced
 323

aspects of these various aspects, both individually and also concerning how to potentially

incorporate them into classroom practice.

Case #3: Mark. Mark was the sole participant who dedicated an entire class

period to systematically addressing NOS, though choosing to only include six of the

seven aspects of NOS targeted in the current investigation in his instructional objectives.

It should be noted, though, that the seventh, “Theories and Laws”, was the focus of a

lesson that was not part of the classroom practice data collected for the current

investigation. This first observation, which consisted mainly of Mark providing a concise

definition of these terms, in addition to orchestrating a whole-class discussion and a

question-and-answer session, also included a component to help emphasize how these

aspects of NOS could be found in typical science articles. This reading activity, wherein

students had to identify salient aspects of NOS represented, was the only NOS-specific

practice that was observed over the course of data collection for Mark. He was, though,

the only teacher to include NOS on a formal assessment, choosing to not only include a

handful of test items related to the information from the first observation, but also

requiring students to identify connections to NOS as part of their formal laboratory

reports. The latter of these assessments, it should be noted, were never discussed during

classroom observation, with Mark choosing to provide feedback on an individual basis.

Regarding the inclusion of SI in his classroom practice, Mark only did so on four

occasions, twice when emphasizing that the conclusions drawn in scientific investigation

must be consistent with and supported by the data collected, and once each when talking

about how all scientific investigations were not all of the same (experimental) design and
 324

also that the methods that are employed need to be tightly aligned with what is being

investigated.

Mark’s classroom practice most typically included an emphasis on graphically

and mathematically modeling data collected during scientific investigations. This

overarching theme did not typically include explicit reference to the 15 targeted aspects

of NOS and SI though, one could argue, did provided substantial opportunities for doing

so. That the Modeling Instruction Program (Hestenes, 2007) views “scientific models

and modeling as the core of scientific knowledge and practices” (p. 4) would appear to

make it a natural facilitator to further infuse classroom practice with explicit NOS and SI

instruction. While an attractive prospect, there is limited research to this end, most

notably regarding the efficacy of including understandings about scientific inquiry in

conjunction with the pedagogical practices espoused by Modeling Instruction advocates.

It could be argued that Mark felt that the emphasis on mathematical modeling

served a purpose much more in accordance with the appropriate preparation of his

students for their subsequent studies after high school, and that it also provided a more

accurate model of how scientists do their work. Furthermore, this emphasis on modeling

would appear to provide a broader context for exploring the use of mathematics in

physics than what is typically afforded by traditional quantitative problem solving. This

focus subsequently allows for the potential development of a more integrative view of the

two disciplines, and their typical interplay in the domain of physics. What is missing

from this practice, though, is any explicit reflection on the characteristics of how this

knowledge is produced (i.e., understandings of scientific inquiry) and how this process
 325

has unavoidable consequences for the knowledge that is inevitably generated as a result

(i.e., nature of science).

But, as has been alluded to previously, the impetus for the merging of NOS and SI

with tenants of Modeling Instruction has not manifested itself in Mark’s practice, nor

should it have necessarily. Research has indicated that one of the most powerful influents

on expert teachers’ regarding their pedagogical decision-making is concern for and

reflection on a lesson’s ability to meet students’ needs (e.g., Westerman, 1992). As such,

it is not surprising that without the inclusion of explicit references to understandings of

NOS and SI on high-stakes assessments that this consolidation has not been realized.

While the emphasis on graphical and mathematical models provides an interesting

context to infuse classroom practice with mathematics, which is a typical impediment for

many students, the inclusion of NOS and SI understandably may not be an equally

important goal.

On the two traditional questionnaires, Mark conveyed fully informed conceptions

of NOS and SI across the 15 aspects, save for partially informed views of “tentativeness”

and “socially-culturally embedded”. Thus, even though he communicated a strong

understanding of the targeted aspects of SI, their inclusion both in his KN4NS

questionnaire diagram and in his classroom practice were markedly limited.

Case #4: Cathy. For all intents and purposes, Cathy appeared to be an exemplar

of someone who has fully committed to infusing her classroom practice with nature of

science. Familiar with the construct even prior to beginning her undergraduate studies, it

is arguable that Cathy has been reflecting on NOS even in advance of learning how to

formally teach physics. This lies in stark contrast to the typical classroom teacher that
 326

receives NOS-instruction (a) as a component of their teacher preparation program,

potentially leaving it lost amidst the oftentimes overwhelming volume of information

with which preservice teachers are inundated, or (b) as part of professional development

or the pursuit of an advanced degree, coming only after years in the classroom.

Cathy was the only participant teacher that utilized stand-alone NOS activities.

That these were of her own design, and not part of the common cannon of NOS- and SI-

related lessons, typically associated with the aforementioned Master’s of Science

Education program, was further noteworthy. In addition, she was also able to find ways

to infuse other more typical physics investigations with explicit references to NOS, or to

creatively restructure them to this end.

One curious absence in Cathy’s classroom practice was the lack of explicit

reference to the role of human imagination and creativity, at times, in all facets of a

scientific investigation. Evidence of an informed conception of this specific aspect was

clearly communicated on the VNOS questionnaire, though no reference was made in the

explication of her KS4NS diagram or interview, nor was it apparent in her classroom

practice.

In contrast to the valuing of NOS in her classroom practice was the dearth of

evidence of explicit references to understandings of SI, most typically regarding their

frequency. While the results of her KS4NS, discussed further below, provide some

evidence of this absence, most notably for scientific investigations beginning with a

question, that other aspects of SI have not resonated more with Cathy is also noteworthy.

This could certainly be attributable to Cathy having a knowledge structure for NOS and

SI in place prior to undertaking her Master’s degree. As such, the impact of this
 327

coursework appears to have been attenuated, and any evidence of explicit references to SI

may have merely been a function of its inherent overlap with nature of science and her

preexisting subject matter knowledge structure.

Evidence for this potential lack of integration of the two constructs is provided, at

least to some degree, by the results of Cathy’s KS4NS questionnaire. While respondents’

knowledge structure diagrams are never considered to necessarily be an accurate

representation of their knowledge structure when considered in isolation, that Cathy’s

was the least interconnected was surprising, particularly in light of her considerable

background related to NOS. It would appear, though, that Cathy’s knowledge structure is

the most representative of the participants regarding her conceptions of the subject matter

(i.e., NOS and SI) for teaching.

To this point, Cathy’s KS4NS questionnaire diagram was also the one that she

used in her class with her students, though the interview did provide a much more

detailed and nuanced view of her conceptions, as could be expected. During the

interview, Cathy tended to speak at considerable depth about how and/or why each

specific topic under the three major headings was important for students to understand,

how it “fit” in that category, and how, in general, it was representative of science. Absent

was any rich description, like those offered for the individual aspects, of how the various

aspects potentially related to each other, both within the three categories and between

them, particularly for NOS and SI.

The lack of connections evidenced both in Cathy’s classroom practice and more

noteworthy in her KS4NS interview speaks to the difficulty of teacher education

programs in developing these views in their teachers. As discussed in further detail in

 328

what follows, when considering NOS and SI as subject matter, even a teacher like Cathy

could be considered to be a subject matter novice in comparison to her understandings

and background in physics content. Furthermore, the NOS and SI coursework that Cathy

completed may have offered considerable insight into specific characteristics of scientific

knowledge and the practices of science, but it is unclear how explicit the instruction was

concerning the connections between these two constructs (i.e., NOS and SI) and

regarding their constituent aspects. Thus, while Cathy had dedicated considerable time

and effort to incorporating NOS and, to a lesser extent, SI in her classroom practice, the

end result was not a highly integrated conception. Furthermore, and as mentioned

previously, it is difficult to identify a causal mechanism for the development of these

views, particularly if they have not been realized to this point by someone as committed

as Cathy.

As communicated through the results of the VNOS and VASI questionnaires,

Cathy evidenced informed conceptions for 14 out of 15 targeted aspects of NOS and SI.

The only exception was a rating of mixed for the socially and culturally embedded nature

of science. To this, Cathy did not clearly describe the influence of science on society, but

did explain how various social and cultural entities play a role in the knowledge that is

produced as a “result of science.”

On the KS4NS, Cathy included the same aspects of NOS, and communicated

congruent understandings, with the exception of “creativity” which was not included.

This was not the case for the eight aspects of scientific inquiry, as only three (“begins

with a question”, “multiple methods”, and “explanations are a combination of data and

previous knowledge) evidenced themselves as part of her knowledge structure for NOS
 329

and SI. Of the remaining five aspects for which there was no evidence of on the KS4NS,

two were explicitly included in Cathy’s classroom practice, namely “the distinction

between data and evidence” and “conclusions must be consistent with data.”

The scarcity of aspects of SI in Cathy’s KS4NS knowledge structure diagram may

be, as previously discussed, due at least in part to the relative newness of understandings

of scientific inquiry in Cathy’s conceptual and even pedagogical repertoire. As such, and

because she appears to have strongly held beliefs about the importance of NOS, how it

should be organized, and how it should be included in her classroom practice, it is not

surprising that developing understandings of SI may not be of paramount instructional

concern.

Summary

The sample of teachers for the current investigation could be characterized as

possessing mostly informed views of NOS, but for whom there was little, if any, explicit

planning for the implementation of NOS in classroom practice nor for its assessment; this

with the exception of Cathy and, for the first observation, Mark. Furthermore, it appears

that instruction focused on developing understandings of NOS and SI took a perceptible

backseat to traditional subject matter, in spite of teachers’ preparation and purported

belief in its value; results similar to those evidenced in previous research (e.g., Bell et al.,

2000). In many cases references to NOS and SI evidenced in classroom practice, while

connected to the work that students were engaged, were nonetheless short-lived and did

not involve sustained interaction.

 330

There was also some indication of retro-fitting NOS or SI into an activity or

instructional sequence without careful consideration of the benefit of doing so, and

independent of any type of explicit assessment. As mentioned, Cathy was also the only

teacher who infused her classroom practice with NOS-specific and NOS-related activities

and lessons from, it should be noted, a variety of sources. Other than Mark, who

dedicated a class to discussing various aspects of NOS and also included the assessment

of NOS and SI in his required laboratory reports, the other teachers in the sample made

no attempts outside those offered within their current curriculum and what could be

assumed to be “typical practice” to address aspects of NOS and SI. This, it should be

noted, was evidenced by the lack of attention paid to NOS and SI as an instructional

objective and for that matter, the dearth of actual connections made between the subject

matter and NOS and SI in this “typical practice.”

While research does indicate that attempts at integrating NOS into science content

(Schwartz & Lederman 2002) first requires the “strong intention and beliefs that NOS (is)

an important topic to include in…teaching” (p. 231), and that teachers must possess a

strong knowledge of subject-matter, whether these factors are influences on the current

sample is unclear. First, teachers in this current investigation professed a valuing of NOS

and SI as beneficial components of their classroom practice. But, as has been discussed

previously (e.g., Bell et al., 2000; Lederman, 1999, among others), if teachers’ intentions

to teach NOS are indeed linked to their classroom practice, the lack of planning and

assessing could indicate that they have not internalized the importance of teaching about

NOS and SI. Second, all teachers, as indicated by both their demographic information
 331

and through data collected during classroom observation, did by all common measures,

have strong subject matter (physics) knowledge.

As mentioned, that understandings of NOS and SI are relegated to a position of

inferiority with respect to traditional subject matter is, as research has indicated (e.g.,

Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Bell et al., 2000; among others), not a novel finding. What is

surprising regarding the current investigation is that this sample of teachers not only

received instruction on NOS and SI from the university with which the researcher was

affiliated, but they were aware of the overarching intent guiding classroom observation

and data collection of the current investigation.

Research has indicated that preservice teachers’ attempts to translate their subject

matter knowledge into classroom practice are oftentimes adversely impacted by their

inexperience with classroom management and general organizational issues (Gess-

Newsome & Lederman, 1993, among others). This lack of experience has been identified

as one reason teachers’ subject matter knowledge structures do not necessarily evidence

themselves in classroom practice. Of interest in the current study is that this sample of

teachers have, by all appearances, developed the general professional acumen and related

skill-set to successfully deal with the corpus of challenges facing the typical classroom

teacher. In spite of this, their subject matter knowledge structures only evidenced a

limited degree of translation into classroom practice. In addition to the infrequency with

which NOS and SI were included in instruction, perceptibly lacking was explicit

communication of the interconnections between aspects of NOS and SI explicated in

teachers’ KS4NS questionnaires. It also appears reasonable to ascribe this lack of

translation to the aforementioned absence of explicit planning for NOS and SI, in general,
 332

and specifically regarding these connections and their relationship to a teacher’s planned

or potential instructional objectives.

But, that may be too simple of an explanation. Researchers (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick

et al., 1998; Lederman, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2004) have contended that integrative

views of NOS and SI, specifically regarding the integration of the two constructs, more

accurately represent a sophisticated epistemology of science. With this in mind, the

current sample of teachers afforded some insight into how difficult it is to develop these

views and, moreover, to develop the pedagogical content knowledge to see them

consistently and efficaciously manifest themselves in classroom practice. When

considering the arduous process of developing more integrated conceptions of traditional

subject matter and subsequently seeing those views evidence themselves during

instruction (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995), it is not surprising that the

teachers’ in the current study would face similar challenges regarding NOS and SI.

To the point of first developing these integrated views, independent of classroom

practice or its consideration, Mark appears, based on the data communicated through his

KS4NS in conjunction with the VNOS and VASI questionnaires, to hold the most

integrated conceptions of the sample. Cathy, while similar to Mark in her overall

understandings of NOS and SI, presented a knowledge structure for NOS and SI less

integrated overall, but more deeply rooted in the teaching of NOS and SI. To this point,

Cathy’s KS4NS was almost identical to one she used in class, both as a referent for

classroom discussion and for an advanced organizer to facilitate student learning. What’s

more, her conception was the most integrated of those evidenced in classroom practice.

While Mark’s classroom practice knowledge structure was consistent at the level of the
 333

included concepts, a more holistic view of how the included aspects were specifically

interconnected in his KS4NS was not evidenced in his classroom practice. These results

are consistent with past research into teachers’ biology subject matter knowledge

structures (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995) whereby the coalescing of

pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge was seen as catalyzing the

translation of a teachers’ knowledge structure into practice.

Furthermore, regarding Cathy and Mark, it appears that finding the opportunity to

include explicit reference to the connections indicated in their KS4NS questionnaire may

have not been of paramount concern in their decision making regarding classroom

practice. Moreover, as research has indicated (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995)

teachers often struggle to conceptualize their subject matter across greater time periods

or, put another way, while they may feel comfortable planning day-to-day, envisioning

how the constituent lesson of a curricular unit may serve to communicate the details of

one’s knowledge structure may not be tenable.

The most noteworthy discrepancy between KS4NS and classroom practice was

demonstrated by Vince, who did appear to have a coherent and connected conception of

NOS and SI, at least regarding the aspects that were included therein. Unfortunately,

Vince seemed inundated by issues related both to general time constraints and in trying to

effectively manage a large group of multi-ability students in a physics class that, similar

to Tari’s, was intended to be more conceptual and qualitative (i.e., included less

mathematics).

For Tari, who had most recently completed her coursework in NOS and SI, the

apparent difficulties in seeing her conceptions of NOS and SI come to fruition in her
 334

practice, may potentially be viewed in a different light. That there was evidence of her

attempting to develop students’ understanding of a handful of aspects of NOS and SI,

albeit from mostly isolated and teacher-centered references, may be indicative of a

teacher experimenting with its inclusion, or realizing how these opportunities manifest

themselves in typical classroom practice.

In general, and related to the dearth of explicit planning and assessment of NOS

and SI with this current sample of teachers, Schwartz and Lederman (2002) contended

that, above all else, teachers must be motivated and have the intent to teach NOS and

position it as a worthwhile instructional objective. It could be argued that with the

exception of Cathy and possibly Mark, the other teachers in this study held a

considerably more muted opinion of the importance of improving their students’

understandings of NOS and SI, which in turn clearly limited the translation of their views

and certainly their subject matter knowledge structures for NOS and SI into practice.

Discussion – Trends and Patterns between the Cases

Consonant, at least to some degree, with the summary offered by Gess-Newsome

and Lederman (1995) regarding the subject matter knowledge structures of their

participant biology teachers, the current sample similarly evidenced knowledge structures

that (a) tended to use terms consistent with those targeted in the teacher preparation or

graduate programs outlined previously, to varying degrees; (b) included connections

between these terms, to varying degrees; (c) failed to included any evidence of

overarching themes within the more foundational components of the content; and (d) in
 335

three of the four cases had not previously thought of structuring the subject matter in the

manner expressed in this study.

First, it should be noted that while teachers tended to use those concepts

undergirding their teacher preparation and graduate coursework in NOS and SI, all

aspects were not included in their related knowledge structures. In addition, there were

other prevalent aspects frequently included beyond those 15 aspects targeted in the

current investigation. For example, Marks’ practice was strongly influenced by the

Modeling Instruction curriculum (e.g., graphically and mathematically modeling data

collected during traditional physics investigation), while for Tari it was a focus on many

of the foundational components of experimental design (independent and dependent

variables, conducting a fair test, multiple trials, etc.). Cathy included an emphasis on

accuracy and precision and the role each plays in the development of scientific

knowledge, in addition to how mathematics fits into this process. Vince, owing in no

small part to the challenges, both real and perceived, regarding his classes and their

students, still made a limited number of references to ensuring a “fair test” was done

during data collection.

Secondly, all participants tended to communicate knowledge structures for NOS

and SI on the KS4NS that were at least moderately connected. The lack of evidence

regarding these relationships in their typical pedagogy regarding NOS and SI would

appear to be grounded, potentially, in the lack of time spent in explicit reflection

regarding NOS and SI classroom practice. As discussed by Gess-Newsome and

Lederman (1995), time to reflect is deemed as the most crucial influent on the
 336

development and translation of teachers’ subject matter knowledge structures into

practice.

Gess-Newsome and Lederman also cite two of their participant teachers’ inability

to distinguish between a subject matter knowledge structure and a subject matter for

teaching knowledge structure. The researchers cite this as providing possible evidence

“that the direct translation of (subject matter structures) into classroom practice may be

function of the tighter coupling of pedagogical knowledge and subject matter knowledge”

(p. 311) as is congruent with Shulman’s (1987) descriptions of pedagogical content

knowledge. The case of Cathy appears to confirm these results.

Specifically, Cathy, during the interview to fully explicate her knowledge

structure for NOS and SI, spoke continually of what she tried to get her students to

understand regarding NOS and SI, and what she tried to emphasize when teaching the

content. Specifically, she appeared to be the only teacher that was attempting to explicitly

transfer her knowledge structure into her classroom practice, at least at the level of the

concepts contained therein.

It should be noted that Vince also provided a knowledge structure for NOS and SI

that, by his own admission, was couched in the context of the classroom. To this point,

the majority of the conversations regarding his KS4NS centered on what he wanted

students to know, how he tried to engage them, and why it was important to do so.

Unfortunately, it appeared that the constraints of time, and potentially other school- and

class-specific challenges impeded the translation of Vince’s knowledge structure into

practice.
 337

Concerning the lack of broader, overarching thematic elements in participants’

knowledge structures for NOS and SI, the lack of subject matter knowledge may be to

blame. In spite of the fact that participant teachers had completed not only specific

coursework in NOS and SI, but also programs that included NOS and SI and its teaching

as an overarching conceptual emphasis, it could be argued that they were, in effect, still

subject matter novices for NOS and SI. When one considers the range of subject matter

experience in physics for this sample of teachers, from typical bachelor’s degree

coursework to, in Tari’s case, a doctorate in physics, the comparison to similar

coursework completed in NOS and SI lies in sharp contrast. Thus, the lack of more

integrated and coherent knowledge structures for NOS and SI may be attributable to this

relative lack of subject matter knowledge, coupled with a lack of explicit reflection on

potential interconnections and overarching elements both within and between aspects of

NOS and SI.

In support of the relative lack of subject matter knowledge of the current sample,

Hashweh (1987) concluded that, in deference to teachers with insufficient content

knowledge, subject matter experts tend to be more efficacious regarding opportunities for

“fruitful transgressions” and in identifying potential student difficulties and

misconceptions, and tend to ask higher-order questions. Within the current sample, there

were very few instances of this type of behavior evidenced in classroom practice, with

the possible exception of Cathy. In most instances, aspects of NOS or SI were included in

classroom practice in very controlled ways, in contrast to the more student-centered

discussions undertaken in Cathy’s classes. This is in accordance with Duffy and

Roehler’s (1987) contention that teachers with more integrated knowledge structures tend
 338

to be more efficient with responsive elaboration, or responding to unforeseen

opportunities to positively impact student learning.

Hashweh (1987) also provided evidence that teachers with more subject matter

knowledge are markedly adept at making modifications to facilitate the inclusion in

practice of broader themes and connections. What additionally resonates from

Hashweh’s work, in consideration of the current sample, is the conclusion that teachers

with more subject matter knowledge have, among others characteristics, “more

knowledge of ways of connecting a specific topic to others entities in the discipline” (p.

33), something that appeared to be very difficult for this sample of teachers. This research

also indicated that as a teacher’s subject matter knowledge increases so too does their

ability to both identify higher-order principles fundamental to their subject matter, and to

represent the interconnections between topics within and peripheral to this content. This

would appear to be corroborated in the cases explicated in the current study, where

teachers exhibited only moderately interconnected knowledge structures for NOS and SI.

In addition to potentially being NOS and SI subject matter novices, Bell and

colleagues (2000) are of the opinion that “nature of science continues to be one of the

most difficult constructs to teach to K-12 students” (p. 177). With that in mind, the lack

of translation of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI into practice is also much

less surprising.

Hauslein and colleagues (1992) also point to the potentially detrimental role

played by certain cross-linkings or connections between concepts. While results indicate

that these may potentially facilitate a certain degree of flexibility in teachers’ patterns of

organization and may have a positive impact on classroom practice, when coupled with a
 339

surface or cursory understanding of the subject matter (for the current study, NOS and

SI), they may instead further impede the translation of these structures into classroom

practice. Thus, while it is typically desirable to develop this more connected conceptions,

the presence of these relationships between aspects of NOS and SI may have adversely

influenced the translations of these specific characteristics (i.e., the connections between

aspects of NOS and SI) of participant teachers’ knowledge structures into classroom

practice.

In reconsideration of the lack of reflection on NOS and SI regarding classroom

practice, it is conjectured that this process, of continually reflecting on and refining one’s

pedagogical skill-set for a certain domain of knowledge or, put another way, developing

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), is driven in part by the pressure most classroom

teachers feel to ensure that their students are successful on summative assessments.

Unfortunately, and much like the absence of NOS and SI in almost all science curricula,

NOS and SI are similarly absent from these assessments and, for that matter, those that

teachers typically include in their day-to-day practice.

Without the external pressure of high stakes assessment, or even the requirement

that they address NOS and SI to prepare students for common school assessment, it

appears that this sample of teachers tended to merely overlay what they had learned,

conceptualized, and internalized regarding NOS and SI onto their typical subject matter

practice. In general, teachers appeared to be incorporating NOS and SI where it best fits

with what they have been, or would be, doing even in its absence, and do not appear to

necessarily adapt or adjust their subject matter to help facilitate the inclusion of specific

aspects of NOS and SI. This could also be attributed to a lack of preparation and
 340

background knowledge regarding the incorporation of specific characteristics (i.e.,

connections between concepts, broader themes) of their knowledge structures for NOS

and SI into classroom practice. As such, teachers are left to simply adapt and adjust what

they know about NOS and SI to fit with their typical practice.

In specific, for Vince, this may explain his frequent emphasis on claim, evidence,

and reasoning (C-E-R), while for Mark, it could be the way certain aspects of NOS and

SI seemed to fit with the modeling pedagogy, and the ease with which NOS could be

incorporated into laboratory reports. In Kari’s case, NOS and SI appeared to be

something that she has not found a way to comfortably include in her practice beyond an

emphasis on creativity. This retrofitting, while true for three of the four participants, was

not the case with Cathy, who appeared to dedicate considerable resources to developing

and implementing lessons that specifically targeted NOS and SI. But, it should be noted

that she only emphasized a few select aspects that she deemed essential in developing her

students’ overall scientific literacy, though these were not assessed in a manner consistent

with the assessment of traditional physics subject matter knowledge.

Of interest, though, was that even for someone who appeared to value NOS and

SI as much as Cathy, she provided less evidence than might be expected of NOS and SI

related instruction in the context of more typical laboratory activities, which would seem

to offer opportunities for discussing NOS and SI with considerably less effort than the

orchestration of a NOS- or SI-specific activity.

An additional finding of note in the current investigation was the fact that teachers

were less likely to include understandings of SI than NOS in their classroom practice.

While only conjecture, it appears that the apparent conceptual connection or overlap
 341

between doing SI and knowing about SI made it less likely that the latter was included

during instruction. NOS, as a more distinct domain of knowledge than (understandings

of) SI, might present a less challenging and more visible option for teachers. This

impediment to including explicit instruction in SI may be further strengthened by a

belief, no matter how strongly held, that students come to understand SI by doing SI (i.e.,

develop these understandings implicitly), consonant with previous research (e.g., Kim et

al., 2005). This apparent limitation, as evidenced by the dearth of instances where

understandings of SI were targeted by participants, may have also impacted the lack of

congruence between the two knowledge structures (i.e., KS4NS and classroom practice)

particularly regarding aspects of SI.

In regard to the second research question that compared respondents conceptions

on the various questionnaires, it appears that in contrast to the VNOS and VASI

questionnaires, that specifically assess respondents’ conceptions across 15 targeted

aspects, the KS4NS provides a more nuanced look at what concepts and connections are

most prevalently held by a respondent. The KS4NS does, in spite of the lack of evidence

for the direct translation of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI into their

classroom practice, appear to provided indication of the concepts that should evidence

themselves during instruction. In effect, it seems to afford a glimpse of what NOS and/or

SI aspects are “on a respondent’s mind” and how they are potentially related. To this

point, the completely open-ended nature of the KS4NS, as opposed to free-response

format (and tightly aligned) VNOS and VOSI questionnaires, seems to provide potential

insight into “what” will be taught, though not necessarily how these concepts will be

connected to others and possibly the general structure of the subject matter.
 342

This result is consistent with Bartos and colleagues’ (in press) examination of

inservice physics teachers, which employed a similar method for elucidating teachers’

knowledge structures, in this case for a specific curricular unit. Similar to the current

investigation, this research provided evidence that, in spite of the variance in the

coherence and connectedness of teachers’ subject matter knowledge structures, the

knowledge structure questionnaire, as was the case in the current investigation, appeared

to provide a reliable facsimile of what concepts teachers included in their classroom

practice. This could be due, at least in part, to the fact that what teachers often represent

on these diagrams are those topics or concepts most prominent in their conceptions of a

particular domain. To this point, the KS4NS might also, similar to Hodson’s (1993)

conclusion regarding teachers’ decisions when using laboratory activities, help identify

the pedagogical decisions that serve to reinforce the ideas and/or concepts that are

perceived as being most important, are essential to “get across to” students, or are most

strongly held. The VNOS and VASI questionnaires, while providing insight into

respondents’ understandings of 15 aspects of NOS and SI deemed foundational in the

quest for scientific literacy, might not offer as individualized and nuanced insight into

NOS and SI for classroom practice as the KS4NS.

Implications and Recommendations for Science Teacher Education

The results of the current investigation have numerous additional implications for

science teacher education, science teachers’ classroom practice, and science education

researchers, while also suggesting areas of further research. It should be noted that certain
 343

areas for further research will be discussed in the context of the limitations of the current

study.

Science Teacher Education. While a paucity of subject matter knowledge was

identified in Hashweh (1987) and Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1993), among others,

as resulting in classroom practices that oftentimes closely mirrored the sequences and

structures in textbooks or preparatory coursework, for NOS and SI no such similar

referent or document exists. As such, teachers are left to attempt to discern the structure

or organization of these concepts independent of any formal curriculum or similar

support. Curriculum materials that make the structure of the discipline explicit, in

addition to providing a variety of instructional materials to facilitate teachers’ efforts to

do likewise, would appear to be beneficial to this end. For NOS and SI in specific,

having subject matter experts, or even those charged with delivering the NOS and SI

curriculum, explicate their own knowledge structures and subsequently use them to

facilitate further reflection might also prove efficacious in developing similar coherent

conceptions in their students.

As such, it appears, in accordance with Gess-Newsome and Lederman’s (1995)

emphasis on the necessity of ensuring that teachers consider their subject matter for

teaching during their preparation, that this must not only happen regarding specific,

targeted aspects of NOS and SI, but also for potential connections between these concepts

and for other broader overarching conceptions. In other words, if we expect teachers to

include more integrated and connected conceptions of NOS and SI in their classroom

practice, their preparatory coursework or similar professional development efforts must

make these structures explicit by allowing sufficient time to reflect. This appears
 344

particularly important regarding how these connections and thematic elements might be

specifically included in classroom practice and mesh with traditional subject matter.

As is the case with current teacher preparation and professional development

efforts targeting NOS and SI, teachers need considerable exposure to model lessons, time

to plan for the inclusion of NOS and SI in their current curriculum, and also must be

supported in their early efforts to take these lessons into the classroom in vivo. This “new

emphasis” must be focused on making the aforementioned connections between aspects

NOS and SI explicit, and the same for potentially overarching themes.

Moreover, and certainly no simple undertaking, the integration of the knowledge

structures for NOS and SI must be considered along with the typical science subject

matter teachers’ are charged with teaching. This would appear to be of considerable

importance, owing in no small part to the dearth of NOS and SI in typical physics

curricula and, for that matter, all subject areas. This absence provides teachers with no

support once removed from their formal NOS and SI coursework or related professional

development. This is particularly concerning regarding the ability of teachers to continue

to cultivate their PCK regarding NOS and SI, and sustain a necessary emphasis on its

inclusion into practice, most notably for more integrated conceptions of these constructs.

Regarding the aforementioned utility of the KS4NS, it would appear that this

questionnaire and follow-up interview might be an effective tool in facilitating this type

of reflection. The implementation of the KS4NS prior to, during, and following explicit

instruction in NOS and SI, that seeks to emphasize potential connections between

constituent aspects, could potentially facilitate a more durable conception of these

constructs. Moreover, this type of reflection in conjunction with explicit attention to

 345

learners’ knowledge structures, may serve to facilitate the translation of these conceptions

into practice.

There is some additional indication that in spite of the best efforts of the teacher

preparation, certification, or advanced degree programs to provide sufficient preparation

toward the development and inclusion in practice of informed conceptions of NOS and

SI, the challenge may be greater than expected. In specific, and as alluded to in previous

research (e.g., Hoz et al., 1990), the act of teaching may lead to a re-conceptualization of

both the subject matter and the pedagogical knowledge acquired during the

aforementioned programs. This may be particularly true when programs do not ask

teachers to consider the overall organization of topics within the domain of NOS and SI

in general, and with respect to their teaching, as identified by Lederman et al. (1994) and

Gess-Newsome and Lederman (1995), among others. In addition, this re-

conceptualization may also explain why certain aspects of NOS and SI targeted in these

teachers’ certification and Master’s degree programs are no longer part of teachers’ NOS

and SI knowledge structures for teaching, as evidenced in the current study.

Classroom Practice. The use of the KS4NS or similar questionnaires would, in

light of this and the myriad studies that have employed similar methodologies (e.g., Gess-

Newsome & Lederman, 1993, 1995; Lederman et al., 1994; Lederman & Latz, 1995),

appear to be a worthwhile inclusion into teachers’ classroom practice, both as a personal

tool to facilitate reflection, but also as a means for examining students’ conceptions of

NOS and SI. The impact of these questionnaires in facilitating the communication of

teachers’ knowledge structures into classroom practice could provide teachers with a
 346

concrete referent to guide their own efforts at planning, implementing and assessing their

classroom practice with regard to their specific conceptions of NOS and SI.

Furthermore, the use of these methodologies for elucidating students’ conceptions

of NOS and SI, and even how these might interact with traditional subject matter, would

also be a worthwhile undertaking, in light on the current results. Most notably, as the

results of the KS4NS appear to provide insight into which concepts are most prominent to

a respondent’s (or are “on their mind”), its potential use in formative assessment is worth

further examination. In conjunction with the VNOS and/or VASI questionnaires, the

KS4NS would provide valuable insight into students’ conceptions of NOS and SI, and

could be used to inform adaptations to classroom practice, potentially related to teachers’

knowledge structures for NOS and SI.

The relevance of teachers’ reflecting on their knowledge structures for NOS and SI

may be of increasing concern with the recent release of the Next Generation Science

Standards (NGSS; Achieve, Inc., 2013). These standards reflect a considerably integrated

conception of scientific knowledge, the practice of scientists and engineers, and other

essential crosscutting concepts (e.g., patterns, structure and function, energy and matter).

Considerable challenges for the classroom teacher appear inevitable, particularly

regarding the fact that NOS and understandings of SI are not as explicit in the NGSS as

may be necessary for successful implementation. In particular, considers this statement

from the NGSS: “The integration of scientific and engineering practices, disciplinary core

ideas, and crosscutting concepts sets the stage for teaching and learning about the nature

of science” (appendix H, p. 2). In light of the well-documented difficulties evidenced for

this sample of teachers in translating their conceptions of NOS and SI into classroom
 347

practice, particularly concerning connections between aspects, the use of the KS4NS as a

reflective tool may be one step to ameliorating potential impediments to communicating

the connections of NOS and SI reflected in the NGSS.

Science Education Research. In terms of assessing respondents’ conceptions of

meaningful connections between aspects of NOS and SI, the results presented here

appear to confirm many researchers’ (e.g., Borda et al., 2009) contentions that concept

mapping or, in this case, a similar methodology, is more efficacious for elucidating

connections or cross-linkings between aspects of NOS and SI. For the current

investigation, it would appear that the dearth of evidence for connections between aspects

of NOS and SI evidenced on the VNOS and VASI questionnaires was contradicted by

those communicated through the KS4NS questionnaire. The KS4NS questionnaire, in

contrast to the VNOS and VASI, did provide a less holistic view of respondents’

conceptions across the 15 aspects of NOS and SI specifically targeted in the current

study.

The current investigation also provided strong evidence against the use of

methodologies for examining subject matter knowledge structures that provide

respondents’ with a list of a priori concepts that they are then charged with organizing in

some preordained manner. The results of these four teachers’ KS4NS questionnaires

indicate that, without exception, they do not hold conceptions of NOS and SI that

necessarily included all of the aspects targeted in the current study. These aspects, it

should be noted, were the same concepts that guided teachers’ coursework in either their

teacher certification program or as part of an advanced degree.

 348

Results of the current investigation indicate that the KS4NS does appear to

provide a more accurate indication of what aspects of NOS and SI are going to present

themselves in teachers’ classroom practice, though this questionnaire does not provide

information on respondents’ understandings across all 15 commonly targeted aspects of

NOS and SI. In an attempt to generate a more complete profile of respondents’

understandings of NOS and SI, and to potentially facilitate reflection on connections

between all of these aspects, future research could investigate the effectiveness of

employing a card sort methodology after the completion of the KS4NS. The sequencing

of these two instruments (the KS4NS and the card sort), and the positioning of the latter,

in part, as a tool to stimulate reflection across these 15 aspects, sidesteps many of the

limitations typically leveled against the use of this type of instrument. In this context, an

examination of the value of including data gleaned from a card sort task utilized in

conjunction with the KS4NS may prove worthwhile for not only gleaning further insight

into respondents’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI, but also in providing more

details regarding the complexities of seeing teachers’ conceptions of NOS and SI

evidenced in instruction.

To the latter point, the use of a card sort task focusing on the 15 aspects of NOS

and SI undergirding the current investigation may also find utility as a reflective tool to

facilitate the inclusion of these aspects and their potential connections in classroom

practice. These tasks, that typically present respondents with a list of a priori terms or

concepts that may have not been present in their knowledge structures, would appear to

also be effective in helping keep aspects of NOS and SI and their connections at the

forefront of respondents’ minds. As such, the use of a card sort task may serve to
 349

facilitate the inclusion of a broad conception of NOS and SI in teachers’ classroom

practice, both at the level of the included concepts and the connections between them.

As was explored in previous research on teachers’ knowledge structures (e.g.,

Bartos et al., in press), the utility of having teachers reflect on their knowledge structures

for NOS and SI before and during classroom practice needs to be explored further.

Research (e.g., Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1993, 1995; Lederman & Latz, 1995;

among others) has indicated that teachers are not necessarily aware of and have not

necessarily considered the structure of their discipline explicitly. With this in mind,

examining the impact of engaging teachers in reflecting on their conceptualizations of

NOS and SI and comparing these to what is typically included in classroom practice may

provide insight into the challenges of communicating more coherent conceptions of these

two constructs.

While certain avenues for further research are intertwined in the discussion of

limitations of the current study that follows, of paramount concern is to ascertain the

influence of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI on student learning,

concerning both NOS and SI and traditional subject matter. For example, do teachers’

that communicate more coherent, connected, and integrated knowledge structures for

NOS and SI positively impact students’ conceptions of NOS and SI to a greater degree

than those with more compartmentalized and isolated structures? In addition, are teachers

that possess knowledge structures that are highly integrated regarding both traditional

subject matter and NOS and SI more efficacious in improving their students

understanding of each domain?

 350

Limitations

Certain influences regarding the specific physics content was included in

classroom practice and the nature of related instruction may have impacted the results of

the current study. Specifically, the interaction of the inclusion of NOS and SI with

classroom practice, subject matter, and pedagogical content knowledge, to name the three

most prominent will be further explicated in what follows. Furthermore, several factors

may have also served to limit the generalizability of the findings from the current study.

These included the representativeness of the participant teachers, the specific conceptions

of nature of science and scientific inquiry guiding data collection, the conception and

derivation of teachers’ subject matter knowledge structures, and the time frame over

which data was collected, among others.

Interaction of Classroom Practice and Opportunities to Explicitly Teach

NOS and SI. In regard to typical classroom practice, instruction in Vince’s classroom

tended to be more teacher-centered when presenting new information, while students

worked in groups in all other situations. Typically, Vince did not engage his students in

sustained, whole-group dialogue or discussions, and seemed to have not developed a

confidence in his students’ ability to handle such an approach. Likewise, he also

expressed an apprehension about engaging his students in more open inquiry, for fear that

the challenge of this more demanding environment might create misconceptions. As

such, most of his investigations were more confirmatory in nature. The results of these

were rarely discussed during class and instead were placed in students’ science

notebooks, where Vince provided individual feedback where appropriate.

 351

Vince’s classroom practice for NOS and SI was consistent with this general

profile. Inclusions of NOS and SI in his instruction were typically sporadic and didactic

in nature, with little student input or sustained dialogue, with the exception of a particular

lesson centered on claims, evidence, and reasoning.

To this point, Vince’s typical instructional methods appear to have adversely

impacted his ability to include more NOS and SI in instruction. For example, an apparent

aversion for whole group discussion would have clearly limited the frequency and degree

with which NOS and SI was discussed during the debriefing of an investigation, for

example. This would lie in direct contrast to the typical classroom practice of Cathy and

Mark, who both appeared to be most comfortable when students were contributing most

of the classroom discourse.

Like Vince, Tari, while appearing to be more likely to engage her students in a

whole-class discussion, did nevertheless choose a more teacher-centered stance during

instruction than the other two participants. Furthermore, she did not appear to be as

comfortable in the role of facilitator as Cathy and Mark, as evidenced by the overall lack

of any sustained dialogue related to NOS and SI. This, as is similarly conjectured for

Vince, may have likewise limited the inclusion of NOS and SI in her classroom practice,

and impacted the apparent congruence between her classroom practice and KS4NS

knowledge structures. It should be noted that the considerable lack of congruence

between these knowledge structures may also be attributable to the aforementioned

challenges that Vince and Tari were facing in their unique curricula (one-semester

physics and conceptual “physics first”, respectively).

 352

Research has indicated that couching NOS and SI in the context of scientific

inquiry (i.e., the doing of inquiry), and making explicit those connections to salient

aspects of NOS and SI during this process, is effective in impacting learners’ conceptions

(Lederman, 2004; Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). It would also appear to be a

reasonable assumption that engaging in these more authentic scientific practices (i.e., SI),

or reasonable facsimiles thereof, should provide more readily accessible opportunities to

talk about NOS and SI (Kim et al., 2005). Thus the lack of inquiry-instruction in Vince’s

and Tari’s classes, at least in comparison to the other two participants, may have likewise

limited the frequency that NOS and SI were included in their classroom practice, and the

subsequent congruence between their two knowledge structures.

Furthermore, this inferred relationship between a lack of more student-centered,

open-inquiry experiences and the dearth of explicit instances of NOS and SI instruction is

supported, to some degree, by the recommendation set forth in the Framework for K-12

Science Education (NRC, 2011). This particular document emphasizes that “students

cannot comprehend scientific practices, nor fully appreciate the nature of scientific

knowledge itself, without directly experiencing those practices for themselves” (Front

Matter, p. 2). Students in Vince’s and Tari’s classes were less likely, comparatively, to be

provided with the opportunity to engage in “a range of scientific activities and scientific

thinking, including, but not limited to: inquiry and investigation, collection and analysis

of evidence, logical reasoning, and communication and application of information”

consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council (2010, Preparing

Teachers, p. 137). As such, and in summary, it would appear that these teachers general
 353

classroom practices served as a noteworthy moderator of the perceived translation of

teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI into classroom practice.

Interaction of Subject Matter and Opportunities to Explicitly Teach NOS

and SI. In addition to the possible moderating influence of preferred instructional

approach, it is presumed that the specific physics subject matter being taught may have

also impacted the inclusion of NOS and SI in participant teachers’ classroom practice.

While the variety of NOS and SI “stand alone” activities that were incorporated into

teachers’ lessons over the course of this study offer the most controlled environment for

explicitly addressing NOS and SI, opportunities to do likewise within the context of

physics may vary as a function of what concepts are being taught, as has been indicated

in previous research (e.g., Kim et al., 2005). For example, the Universal Law of

Gravitation, Newton’s Laws, and the Law of Reflection would all appear to be topics

lending themselves to a discussion of the definition of a scientific law, its contrast with a

scientific theory, and the relationship between the two, among other salient aspects and

connections.

By contrast, less opportunistic or, for that matter, appealing topics for explicitly

addressing NOS and SI might be those within the domain of kinematics. Lessons

attempting to address position versus time graphs, the kinematic equations, or projectile

motion, are case in point. These topics, more so than those related to electricity and

magnetism, for example, tend to rely less on inference, and not be as impacted (at least at

first blush) by the theoretical commitments or perspectives of the researcher (i.e.,

subjectivity). Moreover, our understanding of electromagnetic theory has in the last

century or so experienced noteworthy changes, in contrast to our general understandings

 354

of forces and motion. Discussing the evolution of our understandings of motion

beginning with Aristotle’s Impetus Theory may not appear as impactful a focus of

discussion as the historical events leading up to Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory. As

such, physics textbooks tend to be more replete with historical vignettes to facilitate

potential connections to NOS and SI. Related to typical physics classroom practice, these

topics in kinematics also typically represent the first opportunities for a teacher to

emphasis and reinforce quantitative problem solving. With this in mind, the instructional

focus oftentimes is on reinforcing these skills and less on addressing potentially salient

aspects of NOS and SI.

To this point, physics curricula are typically organized around building students’

conceptions beginning with an initial emphasis on describing motion (kinematics), to

discerning the causes for that motion (dynamics), before progressing to a typical second

semester that strongly emphasizes electricity, magnetism, and light. The more abstract

nature of many of these topics would appear to offer a markedly different landscape for

addressing NOS and SI.

Within the topics covered by the teachers in the current study, both Mark and

Cathy were observed teaching only traditional first semester physics topics (i.e.,

kinematics, dynamics, sound). The relatively fewer opportunities to address NOS and SI

within these areas was, at least for these two teachers, offset by their use of a variety of

stand-alone NOS and SI activities. Vince and Tari, in contrast, were observed teaching

lessons centered on developing students’ understandings of waves, light, optical lens, in

addition to those within the domains of kinematics and dynamics. As such, some of the

differences in participants’ classroom practice knowledge structures could be attributable

 355

to these variations though, surprisingly, Vince and Tari both evidenced fewer explicit

references to NOS and SI than Mark and Cathy, in spite of having more potential

opportunities to do so.

Interaction of PCK for Teaching Physics with the Teaching and Inclusion of

NOS and SI. The participants in the current study, with the exception of Tari, all share a

common degree of subject matter knowledge in physics, as indicated by their academic

background. They all do not, though, appear to possess the same shared degree of

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching physics. Tari and Vince, owing in no

small part to their new “circumstances” (one-semester physics course and freshman

“physics first”, respectively), appear to be struggling somewhat to present content to

students consonant with their own expectations, as evidenced by their own comments to

this point. Typical instruction in their classrooms was not, for the most part, exemplary

of descriptions of higher levels of PCK. This would include, but is not limited to the

“most useful representation… the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,

explanations, and demonstrations” in addition to “the conceptions and preconceptions

that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).

Classroom practice consistent with this description was less frequent in the case of Vince

and, to a lesser extent, Tari. For these two participants, physics instruction tended to be

more didactic, detailed explanations and the use of analogies less frequent, and both

teachers appeared to be struggling to ascertain the needs of a somewhat unfamiliar group

of students, situated in a new curriculum. Consistent with the findings of Carlsen (1992,

among others), in these classes typical discourse or, more specifically, question-posing,
 356

served to attenuate overall student participation and conversation, effectively limiting

student engagement and discussions related to NOS and SI in the process.

As such, it is not surprising that these two teachers may have also been less

efficient in identifying and capitalizing on opportunities to explicitly address NOS and SI

in their classroom practice, in addition to creating fewer opportunities to do so. This

interaction of PCK for traditional subject matter and teaching about NOS and SI (Kim et

al., 2005; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002) may have also had a similar impact in limiting

the explicit references to NOS and SI in Vince and Tari’s classroom practice, and the

congruence between their knowledge structures for NOS and SI and those evidenced in

their classroom practice.

Generalizability. Participants in the current study were required to have

sufficient classroom experience (at least 5 years), have completed a program where NOS

and SI was an overarching emphasis, and had provided evidence of both holding mostly

informed views of NOS and SI and possessing at least a moderate degree of pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK) for teaching about NOS and SI. Beyond these requisite

characteristics no attempt was made to ensure that these teachers were representative of

the general population of physics teachers, nor that they were representative of teachers

outside of these particular programs who may have also completed similar coursework in

NOS and SI. In addition, as the current study only examined physics teachers’ who met

the aforementioned criteria, no generalization can necessarily be made to other domains

of science (e.g., chemistry, biology, earth science, etc.).

The conceptions of NOS and SI guiding the current investigation also served to

potentially limit the generalizability of the findings herein. While considerable research
 357

has been likewise guided by these seven aspects of NOS and eight aspects of SI, it is

unclear whether other conceptions of NOS and SI, that could include a different

assortment of targeted aspects, may lead to the construction of qualitatively different

knowledge structures. Furthermore, this variation could potentially serve to impact the

translation of these conceptions into classroom practice. Expanding the focus of an

investigation similar to the current one to include a qualitative analysis of other included

aspects of NOS and SI may provide a more accurate measure of the degree to which

teachers’ conceptions of NOS and SI are evidenced in their practice.

Because the current investigation was designed to identify explicit references to

NOS and SI, and to use these instances to identify potential connections between them, it

may have potentially led to knowledge structures that were more integrated than those

actually held and communicated by teachers in their practice. Theoretically, this would be

of marked concern regarding those knowledge structures inferred during instruction, but

the scarcity of these connections evidenced for the current sample makes this

shortcoming less potentially troublesome.

An additional limitation of the current investigation lies in the difficulties,

challenges, and limitations in the construction of any representation of a cognitive

structure. That the nature of the KS4NS questionnaire, particularly regarding the

construction of a two-dimensional, pencil-and-paper diagram, may have been inadequate

for representing the complex nature and interrelatedness of a knowledge structure is

worth noting. As such, participant teachers may have actually held more integrated,

coherent, or multidimensional conceptions of NOS and SI than those elucidated through

the KS4NS questionnaire and related interview.

 358

Nevertheless, this limitation was, it is hoped, attenuated by the related KS4NS

interview where respondents were, to the best of the researchers’ ability, engaged in a

thorough and sustained dialogue regarding these diagrams and what they were intended

to represent. Lastly, it is important to keep in mind the overarching intent in choosing a

methodology centered on an examination of teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and

SI, and that is the well-documented lack of congruence between teachers’ understandings

of NOS and SI, as measured by currently utilized assessments, and their classroom

practice (see Lederman, 2007 for a summary).

Similarly, there is some concern that the nature of the KS4NS questionnaire

results, much like the inferring of classroom practice knowledge structures for

observation data, resulted in overly connected or coherent representations of teachers’

purported conceptions of NOS and SI. As such, the lack of congruence between the

knowledge structures represented through the KS4NS and those communicated in

classroom practice may be more similar than proposed in the current study.

In addition, teachers’ knowledge structures for NOS and SI were generated from

observations conducted during the first semester of the school year, and were additionally

guided by participants notifying the researcher regarding days that were going to include

NOS- and/or SI-related instruction. Though additional classroom artifacts were collected

for lessons that were not observed, when made available by teachers, the classroom

practice knowledge structures generated for the current investigation were a function of

the specific classes that were observed. While there is little indication that a different

sample of classroom observations would lead to a markedly different set of classroom

practice knowledge structures, this still may warrant additional examination.

 359

In addition, data collection that spans the entire physics curriculum may also be

beneficial in potentially providing a more complete representation of teachers’

knowledge structures for NOS and SI. For the current investigation, there was

considerable evidence that, for the most part, teachers were presenting NOS and SI in an

identifiable and predictable range. It was this range, or saturation point, that served as an

indicator to cease data collection. Even so, that data collection did not span the entire

curriculum, nor the entire school year, may have limited the identification of nuances in a

teachers’ knowledge structure, among other shortcomings.

In regard to the second question the current study sought to answer, which

involved a comparison between two traditional questionnaires, the VNOS and VASI, and

the KS4NS, it is important to not lose sight of the intent of the two former questionnaires.

The VNOS and VASI questionnaires were developed to provide a valid and meaningful

assessment of learners’ conceptions of NOS and SI, respectively, specifically across the

15 aspects also targeted in the current study. The KS4NS, is purposely open-ended and

places no limitations on what concepts respondents’ may include to represent NOS and

SI, nor how they connect or, more generally, organize them. This questionnaire may be

providing insight into what was foremost on these teachers’ minds regarding NOS and SI,

but would appear to vary greatly as a function of the depth of reflection on these

constructs. The resulting representations (i.e., KS4NS diagrams), in turn, greatly

impacted the interview that served to fully explicated teachers’ knowledge structures for

NOS and SI, most typically for what aspects of NOS and SI they did or did not include.

A lack of congruence or, for that matter, a lack of evidence between views

expressed on the VNOS and VASI and those communicated in the KS4NS should, to
 360

some degree, not be surprising because of the differing intents of these questionnaires.

While teachers’ classroom practice for NOS and SI provided an interesting context for

examining these differences in conceptions of NOS and SI expressed on the various

questionnaires, taken in and of themselves, they would appear somewhat expected.

 361

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS

 362

All,

Not sure if you remember me, but I am a full-time doctoral student studying under Norm
and Judy Lederman at IIT. I am looking for a handful of physics teachers to participate in
a study for my dissertation.

It is a minimally invasive and non-evaluative procedure that mostly requires you to

simply allow me to observe your classes, though there is a questionnaire and also an
interview at the end of the observation period...though I assure it is minimally invasive.

Please let me know if you would be potentially available for participation during the Fall
semester next year.

Thanks, and I hope all is well and that you are having a smooth end-of-the-year.

Steve

******************************

Stephen A. Bartos

Graduate Research Asst. & PhD Candidate

Math & Science Education Dept. (MSED)
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL
 363

APPENDIX B

VIEWS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE (VNOS) QUESTIONNAIRE, FORM D+

 364

Views of Nature of Science (VNOS D+) Questionnaire

Name: ___________________________________ Date: / /

Instructions

 Please answer each of the following questions. You can use all the space
provided and the backs of the pages to answer a question.

 Some questions have more than one part. Please make sure you write answers
for each part.

 This is not a test and will not be graded. There are no “right” or “wrong”
answers to the following questions. I am only interested in your ideas relating
to the following questions.

1. What is science?

2. What makes science (or a scientific discipline such as physics, biology, etc.)
different from other subject/disciplines (art, history, philosophy, etc.)?

3. Scientists produce scientific knowledge. Do you think this knowledge may

change in the future? Explain your answer and give an example.

4. (a) How do scientists know that dinosaurs really existed? Explain your answer.
(b) How certain are scientists about the way dinosaurs looked? Explain your
answer.

(c) Scientists agree that about 65 millions of years ago the dinosaurs became
extinct (all died away). However, scientists disagree about what caused this to
happen. Why do you think they disagree even though they all have the same
information?

(d) If a scientist wants to persuade other scientists of their theory of dinosaur

extinction, what do they have to do to convince them? Explain your answer.

5. In order to predict the weather, weather persons collect different types of

information. Often they produce computer models of different weather patterns.
(a) Do you think weather persons are certain (sure) about the computer models of
the weather patterns?
 365

(b) Why or why not?

6. The model of the inside of the Earth shows that the Earth is made up of layers
called the crust, upper mantle, mantle, outer core and the inner core. Does the
model of the layers of the Earth exactly represent how the inside of the Earth
looks? Explain your answer.

7. Scientists try to find answers to their questions by doing investigations /

experiments. Do you think that scientists use their imaginations and creativity
when they do these investigations / experiments?
(a) If NO, explain why.
(b) If YES, in what part(s) of their investigations (planning, experimenting,
making observations, analysis of data, interpretation, reporting results, etc.) do
you think they use their imagination and creativity? Give examples if you can.

8. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Illustrate

your answer with an example.

9. After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g., atomic theory, evolution
theory), does the theory ever change? Explain and give an example.

10. Is there a relationship between science, society, and cultural values? If so, how?
If not, why not? Explain and provide examples.
 366

APPENDIX C

EXEMPLARY RESPONSES FOR THE

VIEWS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE (VNOS) QUESTIONNAIRE
 367

Exemplary responses for the seven aspects of nature of science (NOS) targeted by the
Views of Nature of Science (VNOS) questionnaire.

Aspect of Nature of Science More Naïve Views More Informed Views

Empirically Based “Science is concerned with facts. “Much of the development of
We use observed facts to scientific knowledge depends
prove that theories are true.” on observation…[But] I think
what we observe is a function
of convention. I don’t believe
that the goal of science is (or
should be) the accumulation of
observable facts.

Rather . . . science involves

abstraction, one step of
abstraction after another.”

Tentativeness “Compared to philosophy and “Everything in science is

Religion…science demands subject to change with new
definitive …right and wrong evidence and interpretation of
answers.” that evidence. We are never
100% sure about anything
“If you get the same result over and because . . . negative evidence
over and over, then you become will call a theory or law into
sure that your theory is a proven question, and possibly cause a
law, a fact.” modification.”

Creativity “A scientist only uses imagination “Logic plays a large role in the
in collecting data. . . . But there is scientific process, but
no creativity after data collection imagination and creativity are
because the scientist has to be essential for the formulation of
objective.” novel ideas…to explain why
the results were observed.”

Subjectivity “Scientists are very objective “Scientists are human. They

because they have a set of learn and think differently, just
procedures they use to solve their like all people do. They
problems. Artists are more interpret the same data sets
subjective, putting themselves into differently because of the way
their work.” they learn and think, and
because of their prior
knowledge.”

Observation and Inference [regarding the model of the earth No, it’s not exact. Scientists
being an exact representation] take what data they have and
“Yes, it is a result of all the data drawn conclusions based on it
that has been collected, just shown and things like earthquakes and
on a smaller scale” volcanoes. We will probably
never know for sure, but we
may be able to draw different
conclusions based on different
data”
 368

Aspect of Nature of Science More Naïve Views More Informed Views

Theories and Laws “Laws started as theories and “A scientific law describes
eventually became laws after quantitative relationships
repeated and proven between phenomena such as
demonstration.” universal attraction between
objects.
“A scientific law is somewhat set Scientific theories are made of
in stone, proven to be true. A concepts that are in accordance
scientific theory is apt to change with common observation or go
and be proven false at any time.” beyond and propose new
explanatory models for the
world.”

Socially-Culturally Embedded “Science is about the facts and “Of course culture influences
could not be influenced by cultures the ideas in science. It was
and society. Atoms are atoms here more than a 100 years after
in the U.S. and are still atoms in Copernicus that his ideas were
Russia.” considered because religious
beliefs of the church sort of
“Well, the society can sometimes favored the geocentric model.”
not fund some scientific research.
So, in that sense it influences All factors in society and the
science. But scientific knowledge is culture influence the
universal and does not change from acceptance of scientific ideas,
one place to another.” like the theory of evolution was
not accepted in France and
totally endorsed in Germany
for basically national, social,
and also cultural elements.
 369

APPENDIX D

VIEWS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY (VASI) QUESTIONNAIRE

 370

Views about Scientific Inquiry (VASI) Questionnaire

Name:______________________________ Date:__________________

o The following questions are asking for your views related to science and scientific
investigations. There are no right or wrong answers.
o Please answer each of the following questions. You can use all the space provided
to answer a question and continue on the back of the pages if necessary.

1. A person interested in birds looked at hundreds of different types of birds who eat
different types of food. He noticed that birds that eat similar types of food, tended
to have similar shaped beaks. For example, birds that eat hard-shelled nuts have
short, strong beaks, and birds that eat insects have long, slim beaks. He wondered
if the shape of a bird’s beak was related to the type of food the bird eats and he
began to collect data to answer that question. He concluded that there is a
relationship between beak shape and the type of food birds eat.

a. Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Please explain

why or why not.

b. Do you consider this person's investigation to be an experiment? Please

explain why or why not.

c. Do you think that scientific investigations can follow more than one
method?
If no, please explain why there is only one way to conduct a scientific investigation.

 If yes, please describe two investigations that follow different

methods, and explain how the methods differ and how they can
still be considered scientific.

2. Two students are asked if scientific investigations must always begin with a
scientific question. One of the students says “yes” while the other says “no”.
Whom do you agree with and why?

3. (a) If several scientists ask the same question and follow the same procedures to
collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or
why not.
 371

(b) If several scientists ask the same question and follow different procedures to
collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain
why or why not.

4. Please explain if “data” and “evidence” are different from one another.

5. Two teams of scientists are walking to their lab one day and they saw a car pulled
over with a flat tire. They all wondered, “Are certain brands of tires more likely
to get a flat?”

Team A went back to the lab and tested various tires’ performance on one
type of road surfaces.
Team B went back to the lab and tested one tire brand on three types of
road surfaces.

Explain why one team’s procedure is better than the other.

6. The data table below shows the relationship between plant growth in a week and
the number of minutes of light received each day.

Minutes of light each day Plant growth-height (cm per week)

0 25
5 20
10 15
15 5
20 10
25 0

Given these data, explain which one of the following conclusions you agree with
and why.

Please circle one:

a) Plants grow taller with more sunlight.
b) Plants grow taller with less sunlight.
c) The growth of plants is unrelated to sunlight.
Please explain your choice of a, b, or c below:

7. The fossilized bones of a dinosaur have been found by a group of scientists. Two
different arrangements for the skeleton are developed as shown below.

Figure 1 Figure 2
 372

a. Describe at least two reasons why you think most of the scientists agree that
the animal in figure 1 had the best sorting and positioning of the bones?

b. Thinking about your answer to the question above, what types of

information do scientists use to explain their conclusions?
 373

APPENDIX E

EXEMPLARY RESPONSES FOR THE VIEWS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

(VASI) QUESTIONNAIRE
 374

Exemplary responses for the eight aspects of scientific inquiry (SI) targeted by the Views
About Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire.

Aspect of Scientific Inquiry More Naïve Views More Informed Views

Scientific investigations all begin “I agree (that is does not start “Yes (it does start with a
with a question but do not with a question), because question), because in order to
necessarily test a hypothesis scientists don’t always need to know what to investigate you
have a question.” have to have a question asking
you or telling you what to
find.”

There is no single set and sequence “This (investigation is not “Yes (there are multiple
of steps followed in all scientific scientific) because you have to methods) the scientist could (1)
investigations (i.e., there is no have the scientific method: Dissect frogs and observe
single scientific method) purpose, hypothesis, procedure.” internal organs or (2) Grow
plants and change a part of
photosynthesis”

Inquiry procedures are guided by “Team B’s procedure is better “Team A’s procedure is better
the question asked because they show the tires because it matches the
reactions to different types of question.”
roads.” [no link to question]

All scientists performing the same “Yes they would (get the same “No, they won’t necessarily
procedures may not get the same results) because they’re doing the draw the same conclusion
results same thing step by step” because things can be different
indicators to different people
based on their experiences,
they may also collect different
data and data leads to different
conclusions.”

Inquiry procedures can influence “Yes (they would get the same If they are doing different
the results conclusion) because if you have procedures they may get
the same question it must lead to different results.”
the same answer no matter what
the procedures are.”

Research conclusions must be “Plants need water, food and “Plants grow taller with less
consistent with the data collected sunlight to grow.” [in difference sunlight because you can see
to what the data show] on the data table above you see
the more light the less it grow.”

Scientific data are not the same as “They are the same because you “Data is stuff you observe from
scientific evidence collect both.” an experiment; evidence is
organized data making them
support the conclusion.”

Explanations are developed from a “Because it is bigger.” [relying on “I think they use the main
combination of collected data and what seems like common sense] dinosaur structure, their prior
what is already known knowledge of how the dinosaur
looked, (then) fix the dinosaur
like a puzzle.”
 375

APPENDIX F

KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES FOR NATURE OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC

INQUIRY (KS4NS) QUESTIONNAIRE
 376

Knowledge Structures for Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry (KS4NS)

Questionnaire

1. What concepts and/or ideas comprise Nature of Science (NOS) and Scientific
Inquiry (SI)? Please include any and all concepts and/or ideas that you feel
comprise NOS and SI.

2. If you were to make a diagram of these topics for NOS and SI, either separate
or together, what would it look like?

Please construct your diagram(s) on the back of this paper or another paper(s).
Note:
A. There is no expected or required format for the diagramming of
your concepts and/or ideas.
B. You can include any concepts/ideas/phrases/etc. that you’d like
C. You may represent your concepts and/or ideas about NOS and SI
separately or together on the same diagram.

3. Have you ever thought about NOS and SI in this manner before?
Yes No Please describe.
 377

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students'

conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished dissertation. Oregon State
University.

Abd El-Khalick, F. (2006) Pre-service and experienced biology teachers’ global and
specific subject matter structures: implications for conceptions of pedagogical
content knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education 2(1), 1-29.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and
instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-
436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International
perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions
of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of
Science Education, 22, 665-701

Abell, S.K., & Roth, M. (1992) Constraints to teaching elementary science: a case study
of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581-595.

Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Achieve, Inc. Retrieved April
13, 2013 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A

yearlong case study of a fourth grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049.

Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2005). “How should I know what scientists
do—I am just a kid”: Fourth grade students’ conceptions of nature of science.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17, 1-11.

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective

explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Benchmarks for
science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, & Winston.
 378

Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., & Lamb, W. G. (1977). The effect of a science methods
course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 289-294.

Bartos, S.A., Lederman, N.G., & Lederman, J.S. (In Press). Teachers’ reflections on their
subject matter knowledge structures and their influence on classroom practice.
School Science & Mathematics.

Baxter, J.A. & Lederman, N.G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical
content knowledge. In J.A. Baxter & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining
pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science
education (pp. 147-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Bell, R. (1999). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science
and technology based issues. Unpublished dissertation. Oregon State University.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L., Crawford, B., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a
science apprenticeship program on students’ understanding of the nature of
science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5),
487-509.

Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon
one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow up study. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.

Borda, E.J., Burgess, D. J., Plog, C. J., DeKalb, N.C., & Luce, M. M. (2009). Concept
maps as tools for assessing students’ epistemologies of science. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 13(2).

Brickhouse, N., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom
narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29, 471-485.

Brophy, J.E., & Evertson, C.M. (2010). Teaching young children effectively. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 45(1), 5-8.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New
York, NY: Macmillan.

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Bybee, R.W. (1997) Achieving scientific literacy: from purpose to practice. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
 379

Campbell, R.J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R.D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher
effectiveness: A Differentiated model. London: Routledge Falmer.

Carlsen, W. S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on

unfamiliar content. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 15-21.

Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E., Desena, A.T., & Squires, D.A. (1978). Content
structure in science instructional materials and knowledge structure in students’
memories (Report No. LRD-1978/22) Pittsburg, PA: Learning Research and
Development Center, University of Pittsburg.

Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., Desena, A. T., & Squires, D. A. (1981). Structural
representations of students’ knowledge before and after science instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 97-111.

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981) Categorization and representation of

physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science 5(2), 121-152.

Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg
(Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 11-76).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools:

A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-
219.

Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum

implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28(3), 235-250.

Crumb, G.H. (1965). Understanding of science in high school physics. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 3, 246-250.

Denham, C. & Lieberman, A. (1980). Time to learn: A review of the beginning teacher
evaluation study. Washington: National Institute of Education.

Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of
secondary science: research into children’s ideas. London, New York:
Routledge.

Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In K.
Crowley, C. Shunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from
 380

everyday classroom and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associations, Inc.

Duffy, G., & Roehler, L. (1987). Improving classroom reading instruction through the
use of responsive elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 40, 514-521.

Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and knowledge about students
as sources of teacher presentations of the subject-matter. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 29, 1-20.

Flick, L., & Lederman, N. (Eds.) (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem

solving. Review of Educational Research, 54, 636-407.

Kim, B. S., Ko, E. K., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). A Developmental
Continuum of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Nature of Science Instruction.
Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gage, N. L., & Needels, M. C. (1989). Process – product research on teaching: A review
of criticisms. Elementary School Journal, 89, 253-300.

Geeslin, W. E. & Shavelson, R.J. (1975). An exploratory analysis of the representation of

a mathematical structure in students' cognitive structures. American Educational
Research Journal, 12, 21-39.

Gess-Newsome, J. (1992). Biology teachers’ perceptions of subject matter structure and

its relationship to classroom practice. Unpublished dissertation. Oregon State
University.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge
structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long
assessment. Science Education, 77, 25-45.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers’ perceptions of subject

matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32(3), 301-325.

Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N.G. (Eds.) (1999). Examining pedagogical content

knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
 381

Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88-96.

Gorodetsky M., Fisher K.M. & Wyman B. (1994) Generating connections and learning
with SemNet, a tool for constructing knowledge networks. Journal of Science
Education and Technology 3, 137-144.

Gorodetsky, M. and Hoz, R. (1985). Changes in the group cognitive structure of some
chemical equilibrium concepts following a university course in general chemistry.
Science Education, 69(2), 185-199.

Guerra-Ramos, M. T., Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2010). Ideas about the nature of science in
pedagogically relevant contexts: Insights from a situated perspective of primary
teachers’ knowledge. Science Education, 94, 282-307.

Hanuscin, D., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95, 145-
167.

Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and
physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.

Haukoos, G. D., & Penick, J. E. (1985). The effects of classroom climate on college
science students: A replication study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
22(2), 163-168.

Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G., & Cummins, C. L. (1992). Biology content cognitive
structure: From science student to science teacher. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(9), 939-964.

Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.

Hestenes, D. (2007). Notes for a modeling theory of science. Cognition and physics
education. In A.L. Ellermeijer (Ed.), Modelling in Physics and Physics Education.
Retrieved from http://modeling.asu.edu.

Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum

experiences and children’s understanding of science; some preliminary findings.
Interchange, 24(1-2), 41-52.

Homa, D., Rhoads, D., & Chambliss, D. (1979). The Evolution of Conceptual Structure.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(1), 11- 23.

Hoz, R. (1987, April). Dimensions of teachers' knowledge structures and their

identification by concept mapping. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
 382

Hoz, R., Tomer, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). The relations between disciplinary and
pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and
geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 27(10), 973-985.

Ingrasci, H. J. (1981). How to Reach Buyers in Their Psychological 'Comfort Zone.'

Industrial Marketing, 66(7), 60-64.

Jones, M.G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and belief. In Abell, S.K. and
Lederman, N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kagan, D. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: inferences concerning the

Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469.

Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory
activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science
Education, 89(1), 140-165.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus
implicit inquiry oriented instruction on sixth graders views of nature of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education,

84(1), 71-94.

Lederman, J.S., Bartos, S.A, Lederman, N.G., Meyer, D.Z., Antink-Meyer, A., &
Holliday G. (2012, March). Interaction of knowledge and pedagogical decisions
in teaching NOS. Paper presented at the NARST Annual International
Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Lederman, J.S., Lederman, N.G., Bartos, S.A., Bartels, S.L., Antink Meyer, A., &
Schwartz, R. S. (2012). Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Understandings
about Scientific Inquiry – The Views About Scientific Inquiry (VASI)
Questionnaire. Unpublished internal document, Mathematics and Science
Education Department, Illinois Institute of Technology.

Lederman N. G. (1986). Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to changes in

students' conceptions of the nature of science. Science Education, 70, 3-19.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A

review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
 383

Lederman, N. G. (1998, December). The state of science education: Subject matter

without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education [On-Line], 3(2).
Available at http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom

practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.

Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science

instruction. In L. B. Flick and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and
nature of science (pp. 301-317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Abell, S.K. and
Lederman, N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lederman, N.G. (2009). Nature of Science: Essential teacher knowledge. In Collins, A.,
and Gillespie, N. (Eds.), The continuum of secondary science and teacher
preparation: Knowledge, questions, and research recommendations. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities

that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The
nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp.83-126).
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of
Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of
learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39, 497-521.

Lederman, N.G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2012). Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry,
and Socio-Scientific Issues Arising from Genetics: A Pathway to Developing a
Scientifically Literate Citizenry. Science & Education. DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-
9503-3.

Lederman, N., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students’
conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
22(7), 649-662.

Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M.S. (1994). The nature and development
of preservice teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 129-146.
 384

Lederman. N. G., & Latz, M. S. (1995). Knowledge structures in the preservice science
teacher: Sources, development, interactions, and relationships to teaching.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(1), 1-19.

Lederman, N.G., & Lederman, J.S. (2004). Project ICAN: A professional development
project to promote teachers’ and students’ knowledge of nature of science and
scientific enquiry. Proceedings of the 11th Annual SAARMSTE Conference.

Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally? School Science
and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.

Lederman, N.G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in

science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-
239.

Lederman, N.G., Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Bell, R.L. (2001). Preservice
teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: an intervention study.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 135-
160.

Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of
science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71(5),
721-734.

Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J.G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.

Lian, M.W.S. (1998). An investigation into high achiever and low-achiever knowledge
organization and knowledge processing in concept mapping: A case study.
Research in Science Education, 28(3), 337-352.

Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C.M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about
their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37, 275-
292.

Lurigio, A. J., & Carroll, J.S. (1985). Probation Officers' Schemata of Offenders:
Content, Development and Impact on Treatment Decision. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1112-1126.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.
G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct
and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Boston: Kluwer.
 385

Markham, K., Mintzes, J., & Jones, G. (1994). The concept map as a research and
evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31, 91-101.

Mergendoller, J.R. and Sacks, C.H. (1994). Concerning the relationship between
teachers’ theoretical orientations toward reading and their concept maps.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(6), 589-599.

Merle-Johnson, D., Promyod, N., Cheng, Y., & Hanuscin, D. (2011) A self study of the
use of concept mapping to assess learners’ conceptions of NOS. Ahi Evran
University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 223-241.

Merill, R., & Butts, D. (1969). Vitalizing the role of the teacher. In D. Butts (Ed.),
Designs for progress in science education (pp. 35–42). Washington, DC: National
Science Teachers Association.

Michelsen, S. S. (1987, April). Teacher candidates' conceptual change during methods

instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future.
London: Kings College.

Minstrell & VanZee (2000) Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H., (Eds.), (2000). Inquiring into
inquiry learning and teaching in science. American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in

biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-124.

Murphy, G. L., & Wright, J. C. (1984). Changes in Conceptual Structure with Expertise:
Differences Between Real-World Experts and Novices. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10(1), 144-154.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards.

Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education
standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for
sound policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the
United States, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 386

Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W.J., & Lin, Y. (1989). Use of the Ordered-Tree
Technique to Assess Students’ Initial Knowledge and Conceptual Learning.
Teaching of Psychology, 16(4), 182-187.

Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W., Lin, Y., and Tucker, D. (1986). Inferring students’
cognitive structures and their development using the ‘ordered tree technique’.
Journal of Educational Psychology 78,130-140.

Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937-949.

Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about
science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert
community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.

paragraph. (2013). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paragraph

Peters, E.E. (2012). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching
of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science &
Education, 21, 881-898.

Peterson, P. L., & Comeaux, M. A. (1987). Teachers' schemata for classroom events: The
mental scaffolding of teachers' thinking during classroom instruction. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 3(4), 319-331.

Preece, P. F. W. (1976). Mapping Cognitive Structures: A Comparison of Methods.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 1-8.

Putnam, R.T., Lampert, M., & Peterson, P. L. (1990). Alternative perspectives on

knowing mathematics in elementary schools. Review of Research in Education,
16, 57-149.

Ramsey, G., & Howe, R. (1969). An analysis of research on instructional procedures in

secondary school science. The Science Teacher, 36, 62-68.

Riley, J. P., II (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice
teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(5), 373-384.

Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. R., Herrmann, B. A., Conley, M., & Johnson, J. (1988).
Knowledge structures as evidence of the 'personal': Bridging the gap from thought
to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 159-165.
 387

Roehler, L.R., Duffy, G. G., Conley, M., Herrmann, B. A., Johnson, J. & Michelson, S.
(1990). Teachers' knowledge structures: Documenting their development and
their relationship to instruction. Research Series Report No. 192, Institute for
Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Rowell, J. A., & Cawthron, E. R. (1982). Images of Science: An empirical study.

European Journal of Science Education, 4, 79-94.

Rubba, P. & Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary

students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education,
62(4), 449-458.

Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201-220.

Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M., Jr. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and
applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4),
375-388.

Schmid, R. F., & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for
high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78-85.

Schmidt, W. H., C. C. McKnight, and S. A. Raizen. (1997). A Splintered Vision: An

Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J.J. Schwab and P.F.
Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.

Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of
knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. A. (2000). Making connections between
the nature of science and scientific Inquiry: A science research internship for
preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of
science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between
nature of science and science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.

Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G. & Thompson, T. (2001). Teaching “science as inquiry”:
The effects on grade nine students’ views of nature of science and scientific
 388

inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., Khishfe, R., Lederman, J. S., Matthews, L., & Liu, S.
(2002). Explicit/reflective instructional attention to nature of science and
scientific inquiry: Impact on student learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education
of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, N. (2008, March). An Instrument to Assess
Views of Scientific Inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. Paper presented at the
international conference of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching. Baltimore, MD.

Shavelson, R.J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure
and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 63, 225- 234.

Shavelson, R.J. (1974). Some methods for examining content structure and cognitive
structure in instruction. Educational Psychologist, 11, 110-122.

Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts,

judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-
498.

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research,

56, 411-436.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Simon, H.A., & Gilmartin, K. (1973). A Simulation of Memory for Chess Positions.
Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 86-97.

Sorensen, L. L. (1966) Change in critical thinking between students in laboratory-

centered and lecture-demonstration-centered patterns of instruction in high school
biology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
 389

Spears, J., & Zollman, D. (1977). The influence of structured versus unstructured
laboratory on students’ understanding the process of science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 14(1), 33-38.

Sujan, H., Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. (1988). Knowledge structure differences between
more effective and less effective salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 25,
81-86.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Allynand Bacon.

Taylor, J. A., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ conceptions of
scientific evidence: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(8), 721-736.

Thompson, A. G. (1984). The Relationship of Teachers' Conceptions of Mathematics and

Mathematics Teaching to Instructional Practice. Educational Studies in
Mathematics,15, 105-127.

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos,W. (1998). Developing science teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6),
673-695.

Wallace, J.D., & Mintzes, J.J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: exploring
conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1033-
1052.

Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Learning: Alternative

Conceptions. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on Research in Science Teaching
(pp. 177-210). New York: Macmillan.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on Research in Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-327). New
York: Macmillan.

Westerman, D. A. (1992). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of

Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk Theories of “Inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce

the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.

Winitzky, N., Kauchak, D., & Kelly, M. (1994). Measuring teachers' structural
knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(2), 125-139.
 390

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about
scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109-
130.