What Students Say Versus What They Do Regarding Scientific Inquiry

Science Education, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 1–35We teach a course for elementary education undergraduates that gives students an opportunity to conduct open-ended scientific inquiry and pursue their own scientific questions in much the sameway that practicing research scientists do. In this study,we compared what our students say declaratively about the nature of science (NOS) in surveys and interviews with what they do procedurally when engaged in authentic scientific practice. Initially, we were surprised when our students showed very little change on two different validated NOS questionnaires, adhering to seemingly memorized definitions of key NOS vocabulary such as “science” and “experiment.” In contrast, on procedural measures of NOS understanding, students developed a decidedly sophisticated approach to answering scientific questions. Our data suggest that students’ declarative understandings about the NOS are not a reliable measure of students’ ability to engage productively in scientific practices and vice versa. We discuss why this might be and consider the implications of this disconnect on identifying the best approach to NOS instruction and on future science education research

Teaching Robust Argumentation Informed by the Nature of Science to Support Social Justice. Experiences from Two Projects in Lower Secondary Schools in Norway

Under embargo until: 2022-09-09This chapter suggests a set of design principles for science curricula that will enable students to produce evidence-based arguments expressing views related to their own interests. It is based on the assumption that the ability to construct evidence-based arguments strengthens students’ ability to promote their own views in the interest of social justice. This is of special importance for students not enculturated into such argumentation through their upbringing. To promote one’s own views in a debate means to critique others’ arguments, and especially to ensure one’s own arguments are resistent to criticism. Insight into the nature of science includes insights in how to construct sound arguments based on facts and research results. The discussion of design principles is based on an analysis of two science projects in two lower secondary schools in Norway (Grade 8). In the first project, students produced scientific claims based on evidence from their own practical experiments. In the second project, the students developed and applied a method for estimating energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The students used their findings to construct arguments related to local transport plans. The analysis focuses on challenges and successes in scaffolding students at different competence levels to successfully produce evidence-based arguments.acceptedVersio

Dynamic framing in the communication of scientific research: texts and interactions

The fields of science education and science communication share the overarching goal of helping non-experts and non-members of the professional science community develop knowledge of the content and processes of scientific research. However, the specific audiences, methods, and aims employed in the two fields have evolved quite differently and as a result, the two fields rarely share findings and theory. Despite this lack of crosstalk, one theoretical construct—framing—has shown substantial analytic power for researchers in both fields. Specifically, both fields have productively made use of the fact that when people approach situations or texts in the world, they do so with a sense of “what is going on here” that guides their actions and sense-making in that situation. In this article, we examine the dynamics of how interactions between scientists, reporters, members of the general public, and various texts give rise to in-the-moment frames that shape each actors interpretation of scientific research. In doing so we couple science communication literature's focus on framings within and across texts with science education's focus on dynamic framing in interactions. We present a case study that follows a single piece of scientific research from scientist to reporter to the general public. Through semi-structured clinical interviews, video-based observation, and qualitative content analysis, we demonstrate that changes in science knowledge as it moves along the pathways of science communication are the aggregate result of dynamic moment-to-moment framings dispersed over people and interactions. The complexity and nuance of the story presented here have implications for how each field—science communication and science education—conceptualizes the process by which the public comes to knowledge of science