Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
journal
Citation preview
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
Download by: [Life Science Library, Academia Sinica] Date: 08 November 2015, At: 06:31
International Journal of Science Education
ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Eliciting and developing junior secondary students'understanding of the nature of science through apeer collaboration instruction in science stories
Ping-Kee Tao
To cite this article: Ping-Kee Tao (2003) Eliciting and developing junior secondarystudents' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instructionin science stories, International Journal of Science Education, 25:2, 147-171, DOI:10.1080/09500690210126748
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126748
Published online: 26 Nov 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 277
View related articles
Citing articles: 22 View citing articles
RESEARCH REPORT
Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’
understanding of the nature of science through a
peer collaboration instruction in science stories
Ping-Kee Tao, Department of Curriculum Studies, The University of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, PR China; e-mail:
This article reports a study to elicit junior secondary students’ understandings of the nature of science(NOS) through a peer collaboration instruction based on science stories specially developed to presentseveral aspects of NOS. The study also investigated how students reacted to the stories and whetherthey were able to extract the aspects of NOS presented in the stories. The results show that manystudents held a serendipitous empiricist view of experimentation and took scientific theories as absolutetruth representing reality. Although the science stories impacted on students in substantial ways and thepeer collaboration setting helped them develop shared understandings, many students changed fromone set of inadequate views of NOS to another rather than to adequate views. This was attributed tostudents interpreting the stories in idiosyncratic ways other than those intended by the instruction andfocusing their attention selectively on certain aspects of the stories that appeared to confirm andreinforce their inadequate views. The implications of the findings are discussed.
Introduction
Understanding the nature of science (NOS) is an important goal of science educa-
tion. This is shown by its centrality in recent science education reform and
national standards documents in the USA (AAAS 1990, 1993, NRC 1996), the
UK (DFE 1995, Millar and Osborne 1998) and other countries. These documents
contend that understanding of NOS is a major component of science literacy, thus
it is worthy of inclusion in the science curriculum.
In Hong Kong, NOS was not included in any school science curricula before
2000, although some aspects were probably implicit in the curricular aims. A
revised Science curriculum for Secondary 1–3 (Year 7–9) (CDC 1998), first imple-
mented in September 2000, took a step forward and included, in its first unit, the
topic ‘What is science?’, which proposed considering the scope and limitations of
science and scientific investigations (including fair test, control of variables, pre-
dictions, hypothesis, inferences and conclusions). Further, one of its six aims is the
development of students’ appreciation and understanding of the evolutionary nat-
ure of scientific knowledge. As continuing curricular renewal efforts, the physics,
chemistry and biology curricula for Secondary 4–5 (Year 10–11), currently under
revision for implementation in 2003, are expected to also place considerable
emphasis on NOS in their aims and contents. This addition of NOS to the science
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09500690210126748
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2003, VOL. 25, NO. 2, 147–171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
curricula in Hong Kong is influenced by and reflects the world trend in science
education.
Teaching NOS early in Secondary 1 (Year 7) presents many challenges.
Teachers are new to the topic and possibly hold views of NOS that are dissonant
with those promoted by the curriculum. New teaching materials have to be devel-
oped that cater for students who, fresh from primary schools, may not know much
science content that can be used to provide the contexts within which NOS can be
taught. Although there have been many overseas studies on students’ understand-
ings of NOS (see review in Lederman 1992), there are virtually no studies based in
the Hong Kong context on which the teaching materials can be based.
One approach to the teaching of NOS in Secondary 1 in the Hong Kong
context is through science stories. This is a historical approach that has been
argued as useful and appropriate by some science educators and researchers (e.g.
Bybee et al. 1991, Solomon et al. 1992). Traditionally, science stories in textbooks,
particularly Hong Kong textbooks, are mostly of the ‘heroic’ type (Milne 1998)
that merely describe how heroes of science single-handedly made discoveries and
inventions through diligence, perseverance and ingenuity without depicting the
ideas that developed and evolved in the process. Such stories will not serve the
current purpose, but there are stories from the history of science that, while they
may still be perceived as ‘heroic stories’, also cover the construction, validation and
refutation of scientific knowledge that would be ideal for teaching NOS. Four such
science stories have been prepared and incorporated in a new textbook for the
revised science curriculum (Tao et al. 2000). Such an approach to teaching
NOS is unique in Hong Kong and not found in any other local textbook.
This article reports a study associated with the trial of a peer collaboration
instruction on NOS based on the science stories in several Secondary 1 classes in
Hong Kong. The study was not intended as an evaluation of the science stories as a
means for fostering students’ understandings of NOS as it was recognized at the
outset that it was unlikely that students would change their views substantially as a
result of the instruction, which was of short duration (five 40-minute lessons).
Rather, the study aimed at eliciting students’ understandings of NOS and inves-
tigating how students reacted to the science stories in the peer collaboration set-
ting. It is hoped that the findings might be useful for informing classroom
practices in the teaching of NOS and the development of suitable instructional
materials.
Nature of science
Aspects of NOS
There is no agreed definition of NOS in the literature other than that it refers to
the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing or the values and beliefs
inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman 1992). Over the
past 40 years, there have been major shifts in emphasis in the way the science
education community has conceptualized NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman
2000) – from equating NOS to science process skills (e.g. observing, hypothesiz-
ing, inferring, interpreting data and designing experiments) in the 1960s, to char-
acterizing scientific knowledge as tentative, replicable, probabilistic, humanistic,
historic and empirical in the 1970s. The 1980s witnessed the inclusion of psycho-
148 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
logical factors, such as the theory-driven nature of observation and the role of
human creativity in developing scientific explanations, as well as social factors
affecting the construction and validation of scientific knowledge.
Not only have conceptions of NOS changed over time, but different aspects of
NOS are also emphasized by different science curricula and science standards
documents, although commonalities do exist. McComas et al. (1998) perused
eight international science standards documents and identified 14 consensus state-
ments on NOS. Drawing on these consensus statements and the NOS research
literature, I prepared a list of seven aspects of NOS that were deemed relevant to
the revised science curriculum and related to the science stories in the instruction
(see table 1). Although the wordings are not exactly the same, the seven aspects
are, in essence, among the 14 consensus statements on NOS identified by
McComas et al. (1998).
As in Moss et al. (2001), the list was prepared as criteria by which students’
conceptions of NOS may be interpreted and analysed, and was not designed as a
model for philosophers of science. Such a model would be far too complex and
inappropriate for the target Junior Secondary students in Hong Kong. As argued
by Matthews, modest goals should be set when teaching about NOS: ‘It is unrea-
listic to expect students or prospective teachers to become competent historians,
sociologists, or philosophers of science’ (1998: 168).
Students’ conceptions of NOS uncovered in this study were interpreted
against the seven aspects in the list. As used in the review articles by Lederman
(1992) and Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000), the term ‘inadequate’ views of
NOS was used to refer to views that are dissonant with those in the list, and
‘adequate’ views was used to refer to views which are consonant or consistent.
One of the aims of the present study was to identify students’ inadequate views of
NOS.
The first draft of the list was given to five science teachers with over 10 years
of teaching experience for comments and endorsement; two of the teachers were
members of the working party responsible for developing the revised science cur-
riculum. The five teachers agreed that, in broad terms, the seven aspects reflected
and were consistent with the spirit of the aims and contents of the curriculum.
After further consultation and discussion, which entailed minor changes in the
wording of the statements, the list was finalized as given in table 1.
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 149
Table 1. Aspects of NOS covered in the science stories instruction.
1. Scientific discoveries are for understanding nature; inventions are for solving problemand changing people’s way of life.
2. Science and its methods cannot give answers to all questions.3 Scientists usually work in collaboration and one scientist’s work is often followed up by
other scientists.4. Scientists carry out experiments to test their ideas, hypotheses and theories.5. Careful and systematic study is not enough; scientists need to be creative and
imaginative.6. Scientific theories are created by scientists to explain and predict phenomena; they do
not necessarily represent reality.7. Scientific knowledge, while durable, has a tentative character.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
Research on NOS
NOS has been the subject of extensive research for more than 40 years, but
numerous studies have consistently shown that teachers and students possess
inadequate understandings of NOS (Lederman 1992). This would suggest that
past curricular/instructional efforts in NOS or science teacher education in this
area have not been effective. However, the issue is in fact very complex. Research
has shown that the development of adequate understanding of NOS is dependent
on the interplay of a range of curricular, teacher and contextual variables – three
variables that have been the successive and overlapping foci of research on NOS
(Lederman 1992, McComas 1998).
The early research on NOS was concerned with curricular variables and
focused on the development, implementation and assessment of NOS curricula/
instruction. There were two general approaches: the implicit approach, which util-
ized science process-skills instruction or engagement in science-based enquiry
activities, and the explicit approach, which used instructions geared to specific
aspects of NOS and/or developed from history and philosophy of science (Abd-
El-Khalick and Lederman 2000). Later studies focused on the teacher variable as
more studies have emerged suggesting that student learning was influenced by
teachers’ understandings, interests, attitudes and classroom activities (e.g. Merill
and Butts 1969). Studies have also shown that many teachers held inadequate
conceptions of NOS. For example, it was found that many teachers believe that
scientific knowledge is not tentative (Pomeroy 1993) and some hold a positivistic
view of science (Lederman 1992).
More recent research suggests that teachers could possess adequate under-
standings of NOS, but their teaching of NOS may still be ineffective due to a
range of factors such as institutional and curriculum constraints, teachers’ inten-
tions, experiences and competence (Lederman 1992, McComas 1998). Thus,
teachers’ understandings of NOS can be regarded only as necessary but not suffi-
cient conditions for fostering students’ understandings of NOS. This proposition
initiated the third focus of research on NOS, the contextual variables that are
conducive to the teaching and learning of NOS.
However, very few studies have investigated the process by which students
develop understandings of NOS during instruction. The present study hopes to
begin to address this gap in the research. It analyses students’ peer interactions
while they work in dyads during the instruction to make inferences about whether
and how they develop understandings of NOS during the process.
Eliciting students’ understandings of NOS
Traditionally, students’ and teachers’ understandings of NOS have been assessed
by standardized paper-and-pencil tests containing multiple-choice or Likert scale
items that cover different aspects of NOS. In a critical review, Lederman et al.
(1998) question the validity of much of the NOS research that utilized these
instruments on the grounds that the instruments were interpreted in a biased
manner and some instruments appeared to be poorly constructed. They also cite
discrepancies between the interpretations of students’ written responses and their
responses during interviews that some studies found (e.g. Lederman and O’Malley
1990). As a way forward, they call for more qualitative, open-ended approaches to
150 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
assessment of individuals’ understandings of NOS, suggesting that traditional
instruments, if used, should be complemented by other, qualitative research meth-
odologies, such as classroom observation and interviews. This recommendation is
consistent with the current shift of educational research towards more qualitative
methods.
Towards the end of the 1980s, studies using qualitative methods began to
emerge. For example, Carey et al. (1989) implemented a NOS instruction to a
grade 7 class and conducted clinical interviews to assess students’ understandings
of the nature of scientific knowledge and enquiry before and after the instruction.
Solomon et al. (1992) carried out classroom action research that monitored
students’ learning about NOS using specially developed course materials
(Solomon 1991). They used a variety of methodologies, including classroom obser-
vation, free-writing responses, interviews and questionnaires. The questionnaire
developed was later used in a follow-up study (Solomon et al. 1994) and in a
national survey (Solomon et al. 1996). Driver et al. (1996) conducted clinical
interviews that probed students’ ‘images of science’. These and other qualitative
studies yielded rich and in-depth information on students’ understandings of
NOS.
While interviews can be very useful for probing students’ understandings of
NOS (or any other conception), getting students to complete tasks and discuss
questions in small groups is an alternative strategy that may also be useful.
Students’ views can often be uncovered from these conversational interactions.
In interview situations, the relationship between the interviewer (researcher or
teacher) and the interviewee (student) is ‘asymmetrical’ in status and authority.
The students interviewed may be reticent or may respond in ways that they per-
ceive as acceptable to, or expected of them by, the interviewer. On the other hand,
in a peer collaboration situation, the collaborating students’ relationship can be less
‘asymmetrical’ and they tend to be more forthcoming with their views and argu-
ments that often emerge spontaneously during the discussion without having to be
probed directly. Of course, peer collaboration does not always work. Students
sometimes withdraw from one another to work independently, sometimes one
student assumes a more dominant role, and there are complex small group
dynamics at work that may adversely affect the joint activity (Damon and
Phelps 1989). However, my own research experience has shown that this strategy
generally works well (Tao 1999, Tao and Gunstone 1999). It appears that given
interesting materials and the right stimuli, students can often engage in extensive
discussion when working in collaboration. The present study set students to work
collaboratively in dyads to elicit their understandings of NOS through analysing
the audio-recorded peer interactions.
Peer collaboration
Peer collaboration is not just a strategy for probing students’ understandings. It is
a peer learning approach that has been shown to be effective (Damon 1984). Peer
collaboration involves two or more students working together on a task that neither
could do prior to the collaborative engagement. It differs from co-operative learn-
ing in that students work jointly on the task all the time rather than individually on
separate components of the task. Damon and Phelps (1989) argue that peer colla-
boration can help develop a supportive environment that encourages students to
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
experiment with and test new ideas and, thereby, critically re-examine their own
ideas. They assert that the engagement of peer collaboration is ‘rich in mutual
discovery, reciprocal feedback, and frequent sharing of ideas’ (1989: 13).
Crook (1994) contends that in peer collaboration, for the sake of the joint
activity, students have to verbalize and make public their ideas to each other
and this helps them to clarify their conceptions. Students sometimes disagree
with each other. To resolve the conflict, they have to justify and clarify their
positions, and this can force them to reflect on and review their ideas. When
working together, students can complement and build on each other’s ideas and
incrementally co-construct shared understanding. Thus, according to Crook
(1994), peer collaboration offers three cognitive benefits: articulation, conflict
and co-construction.
The present study adopted a peer collaboration strategy for the NOS instruc-
tion. One of its aims was to investigate whether and how students develop under-
standings of NOS through articulation of their ideas and engagement in conflict
and co-construction of shared ideas.
Science as narrative story
Since the late 1980s there has been considerable interest in the notion of science as
a narrative human story – that every piece of scientific knowledge, and the way it
has been constructed and validated, is associated with a human story in which
there are actors and events as the plot to account for that knowledge is pursued.
Such a description of science is best illustrated in, for example, the story of the
discovery of the structure of DNA (Watson 1968), which is one of the great
achievements of science in our time. The story is not only interesting and fascinat-
ing but can also help us gain a rich understanding of how scientific research is
carried out.
‘Science as narrative story’ has useful applications in pedagogy. Martin and
Brouwer (1991) claim that narrative is a useful and powerful form of expression
that is often neglected in science education. They argue that:
the narrative mode is essential to a science education that values the belief thatstudents must have a personal engagement with the ideas they are to learn. Storiesare our natural means of sharing in the lives of others and of more fully exploringmeaning in our own. Through stories students may more successfully begin to see thesubtle dimensions of science and of understanding the ways in which science, culture,and worldview interact. (1991: 708).
They go on to assert that stories are particularly useful for teaching about NOS:
A problem with the formal, expository delivery of philosophy of science topics is thatit presupposes that the student already holds considerable knowledge of science andphilosophy. Yet the kernel of many of the ideas about the epistemology of science canbe communicated – at least tacitly – through story and anecdote. (1991: 713)
The Salters Advanced Chemistry course in the UK (Burton 1994) is one of the
science courses that embrace the notion of ‘science as narrative story’. Its student
book is entitled Chemical Storylines and each of its major topics is presented in
story form. Through the stories, the underlying conceptual chemistry is presented
in a context that gives it depth of meaning and coherence. This, it is argued, is
much more effective than presenting the same concepts in the traditional abstract,
152 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
context-free ways which many students find difficult. Legitimation of the notion
of ‘science as narrative’ was recently given in Beyond 2000: Science Education for
the Future (Millar and Osborne 1998), a visionary report on the future of science
education in the UK, which recommends ‘that scientific knowledge can best be
presented in the curriculum as a number of key explanatory stories’ (1998: 14).
Since ‘science as narrative story’ is receiving such attention, it is useful to
investigate how students react to science stories. However, it appears that there
have not been many studies in this area except in, for example, Solomon’s work
(Solomon et al. 1992, 1994, 1996). The present study aims to begin to address this
gap.
The science stories
Four science stories were prepared for teaching the aspects of NOS listed in table
1. The first three stories were adapted from instructional materials developed by
Solomon (1991), which have been used extensively in the UK for the teaching of
NOS in the national science curriculum. The stories were chosen so that students
could learn about the aspect of NOS presented in them without the need to under-
stand difficult science concepts and principles. These stories, subsequently pub-
lished in Tao et al. (2000), take the form of cartoons in order to arouse interest and
aid comprehension. The cartoons are accompanied by very brief text description
so as to impose the least language demand on the Secondary 1 students.
In the instruction, the stories are preceded by an introduction that addresses
the difference between scientific discoveries and inventions and the scope and
limitations of science. The stories adopt an explicit approach to developing
NOS instructional materials (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000). They are
briefly described below:
The story of penicillin
This story describes Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of the bacteria-
killing chemical, penicillin, in 1928. His work was followed up by Florey and
Chain who produced the first penicillin drug in 1943. The three were awarded a
Nobel Prize in 1945. The story aims to show that (a) some scientific discoveries
started with a chance observation, but the scientists involved had ‘sharp eyes’ that
led them to a new pursuit; and (b) work by one scientist is often followed up by
others, which is how scientific knowledge is built up.
The story of smallpox
This is the story of Dr Jenner’s discovery of the use of cowpox for the prevention
of smallpox in the 18th century. Dr Jenner observed that milkmaids who had
contracted cowpox were immune from smallpox. He formed a hypothesis based
on this and carried out experiments to test it. He first injected cowpox pus and
then smallpox pus into a boy and found that the boy did not subsequently contract
smallpox. The story aims to show that, in general, scientific investigation consists
of several stages: making observation, asking questions, forming hypothesis, car-
rying out experiment and drawing conclusion.
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
It was noted that this story raises a serious ethical issue with regard to the use
of human subjects for medical research. Nevertheless, a decision was made to use
the story since (a) it neatly depicts the stages of scientific investigation, and (b) it is
worth bringing students’ attention to such an ethical issue. As it turns out, the data
show that nearly all dyads in the focus class considered and discussed at some
length the ethical issue when they studied the story.
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
This story describes how Newton got the insight from the falling apple and related
it to the earth’s force of gravity on the moon in developing the Law of Universal
Gravitation. Newton saw the parallel between the fall of the apple and the circular
motion of the moon round the earth, which was a very creative act. The story aims
to show that scientists are creative and imaginative and that the criteria for accept-
ing scientific knowledge is through testing its explanatory and predictive power –
the Law of Universal Gravitation can explain/predict the motion of moon, other
heavenly bodies, the space shuttle, etc.
The cure of stomach ulcers
This is the story of Barry Marshall’s discovery in 1983 that a stomach ulcer is
caused by bacteria and not due to stress, which causes excessive secretion of acid in
the stomach. To test his hypothesis, Marshall, unable to find enough patients to do
experiment on, drank a mixture containing the bacteria and got a stomach ulcer.
He then used an antibiotic to cure himself. The story aims to show that:
. theories are not facts or truth but are explanations that can be replaced if
found to be dissonant with evidence – the ‘stress theory’ was replaced by the
‘bacteria theory’ because the latter led to successful treatment of ulcer;
. scientists must keep an open mind – Marshall examined ulcer tissues under
the microscope for bacteria whereas other scientists did not bother to do so
because they believed that bacteria could not survive in the acidic environ-
ment of the stomach.
First drafts of the stories (text and cartoons) were given to 10 Secondary 1 students
to read, after which they were asked to recount the stories and to tell what ‘lessons’
they had learned from them. The students were randomly selected from a
Secondary 1 class in a school whose student intake was of average ability according
to the Secondary School Places Allocation Scheme. It was found that, in general,
the students had no particular problems in understanding the stories although the
‘lessons’ that they claimed to have learned from the stories differed slightly.
The stories were then considered by the same five science teacher who
endorsed the aspects of NOS in table 1. The teachers were first asked individually
which aspects of NOS were covered by the stories and then discussed their views
together. At first, the teachers had some slight disagreement but, after some dis-
cussion, they came to a consensus view, as shown in table 2.
Research questions
The study addresses the following research questions:
154 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
(1) What are students’ understandings of and arguments for NOS?
(2) How do students react to the stories? Can they extract the aspects of
NOS presented in the science stories?
(3) How do students, working in small groups, develop shared understand-
ings of NOS?
Methods
Subjects
A convenient sample of four Secondary 1 classes (150 students) from a boys’ school
in Hong Kong took part in the study. The school’s student intake has long been of
high ability. The same teacher taught all four classes. In one class, designated as
the focus class (36 students), all the lessons were video-recorded and students’ peer
interactions while working in dyads were audio-recorded. I was present in the
focus class for all lessons, making observations and taking field notes. The teacher
was a former student who enrolled in my MEd course, ‘History and Philosophy of
Science and Science Education’. He was keen to teach the NOS which he did not
have the opportunity to do so previously. The school authority welcomed the
study since it gave the teacher the opportunity to practise an innovation (teaching
NOS through science stories) that would be implemented in the following aca-
demic year, which was five months away. In a recent education reform document,
the Curriculum Development Council (CDC) called on teachers to adopt a wider
range of instructional strategies, including peer collaboration, rather than solely
relying on the prevalent ‘teacher-talk, student-listen’ approach (CDC 2000). The
teacher and the school authority were happy to try out the peer collaboration
strategy adopted in the study.
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 155
Table 2. Aspects of NOS covered by the instruction and the pre-/post-test.
Aspects of NOS Instruction Pre-/post test
1. Scientific discoveries are for understanding Introduction Question 1nature; inventions are for solving problem andchanging people’s way of life
2. Science and its methods cannot give answers to Introductionall questions
3. Scientists usually work in collaboration and one Story 1scientist’s work is often followed up by otherscientists
4. Scientists carry out experiments to test their Stories 2, 3 and 4 Questions 1 and 2ideas, hypotheses and theories
5. Careful and systematic study is not enough, Stories 2, 3 and 4scientists need to be creative
6. Scientific theories are created by scientists to Stories 2, 3 and 4 Questions 3 and 4explain and predict phenomena; they do notnecessarily represent reality
7. Scientific knowledge, while durable, has a Story 4tentative character
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
The instruction
The instruction was planned as follows. It consisted of five lessons (two double
and one single), each lasting 40 minutes:
Lessons 1 and 2: pre-test, introduction, stories 1 and 2
Lessons 3 and 4: stories 3 and 4, and post-test
Lesson 5: Feedback on tests
Students first worked in dyads on the pre-test, which was aimed at eliciting their
views about NOS. The dyads then read the stories together, answered some ques-
tions and discussed what ‘lessons’ they had learnt from the stories. Finally, the
dyads worked on the post-test which was designed to investigate whether the
dyads’ views of NOS uncovered in the pre-test underwent any change as a result
of the instruction. Students were not given any specific training on collaboration
but were asked to try their best to discuss the tests and the stories, which most of
them did rather well and at length. In lessons 1–4, the teacher purposely did not
actively teach or draw students’ attention to the various aspects of NOS in the
stories; students were left to find out about the theme of the stories for themselves
in their collaborative engagements. The feedback lesson was conducted as a whole-
class discussion of the questions in the tests. The schedule was very tight, but it
was not possible to extend it because the classes had a set curriculum to complete
for the end-of-year examination.
For logistical reasons, the instruction was implemented near the end of the
school year, rather than the beginning, as stipulated in the revised Science cur-
riculum. The class that was still on the old science curriculum had earlier studied
the particulate theory of matter.
Pre-/post-test
The pre- and post-test are identical and were adopted from the questionnaire in
Solomon et al. (1996). The questionnaire was chosen because it is short, the
questions are worded in simple language and they relate to students’ everyday
life and school science. Only the first four questions were used; the remaining
two questions, deemed as not covered by the instruction, were left out. The test
(table 3) consists of four multiple-choice questions and focuses only on the purpose
of experiment and the status and role of theory. Question 1 asks if scientists do
experiments to make new discoveries, to try out explanations or to invent some-
thing useful. Question 2 asks if scientists know what they expect to happen before
doing an experiment. Question 3 is on the role and status of scientific theory –
whether a theory is for making prediction or explanation, or is a fact proven by
many experiments. Question 4 refers to the particulate theory of matter and asks if
scientists formulate such a theory because they can ‘see the particles under the
microscope’, or they have ‘proved by experiments that particles exist’, or they can
‘explain what happens by imagining how particles move.’
The four questions in the test do not cover all seven aspects of NOS; only
aspects 1, 4 and 6 are covered (see table 2). However, rather than finding or
developing questions that covered the remaining aspects, it was decided to settle
for the use of these four questions. The aspects of NOS on experiment and theory
assessed are deemed to be of crucial importance.
156 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
The tests served two purposes. First, they provided ancillary quantitative data
on students’ understandings of NOS for all four classes. Second, the questions in
the test formed the foci of within-dyad discussion from which students’ views of
NOS could be elicited and triangulated with their written answers to the questions
in the tests. The pre-test peer interactions helped uncover students’ pre-instruc-
tion views whilst the post-test peer interactions shed light on any changes in
students’ views and their justifications for the change. Students were asked to
draw on the science stories when justifying their answers to the questions in the
post-test.
Interviews
Two months after the instruction, individual interviews were conducted for half of
the students in the focus class (18 students, nine dyads) to find out their views on
the science stories and probe more deeply into their understandings of NOS eli-
cited by the pre- and post-tests. The nine dyads were randomly selected from
among those who showed improvement, deterioration and no change from pre-
to post-test, with three dyads in each category.
Data collection and analysis
The following data were collected for analysis:
(1) students’ completed test scripts (for all four classes);
(2) transcripts of students’ peer interactions while working in dyads on the
tests and science stories (for focus class only);
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 157
Table 3. Pre- and post-test.
What do you know about science?
Q1 Why do you think scientists do experiments?(a) To make new discoveries?(b) *To try out their explanations for why things happen?(c) To make something which will help people?
Q2 Do you think scientists know what they expect to happen before they do the experiment?(a) *Yes(b) No(c) Don’t know
Q3 What is a scientific theory? Is it(a) *an idea about what will happen(b) *an explanation about how things happen, or(c) a fact which has been proved by many experiments?
Q4 Scientists think of all matter – solids, liquids and gases – as being made up from tinyparticles. Is this because(a) scientists can see the particles under their microscopes(b) scientists have proved by experiments that particles exists, or(c) *scientists can explain what happens by imagining how particles move?
*Answers showing adequate views of NOS concerning the purpose of experiment and the status androle of theory.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
(3) field notes, supplemented by videotapes of the lessons (for focus class);
(4) transcript of classroom discourse of the feedback lesson (for focus class);
(5) transcripts of student interviews (for selected students in the focus class).
Of these data, students’ peer interactions (item 2) formed the primary source of
data whilst the others were ancillary data for triangulation purposes.
The study adopted an interpretive approach (Erickson 1986) with data collec-
tion and analysis guided by the research questions. For the four classes, percentage
responses to each option of the questions in the pre-/post-test were worked out.
For the focus class, transcripts of students’ peer interactions of each dyad were
studied to identify their views of and arguments for NOS at the pre- and post-test.
Students’ views were checked against their answers in the tests for discrepancy, if
any. Students’ views uncovered at the pre-test were compared with those at the
post-test and the changes were categorized into (a) change from inadequate to
adequate views, (b) change from adequate to inadequate views, (c) change from
one set of inadequate views to another set, and (d) no change. Students’ views
uncovered at the post-test were also compared with those at the post-instruction
interviews. As it turned out, while many students changed their views from pre- to
post-test as a result of studying the stories, their views at the interviews were
almost entirely the same as (but more elaborate and articulate than) those at the
post-test. The interview data were, therefore, very useful for triangulating
students’ views developed during the instruction.
When examining data for each dyad in the focus class, tentative assertions
were generated. A systematic search of the data corpus for all 18 dyads was then
conducted to look for evidence that would confirm or refute the tentative asser-
tions. Subsequently, some of the assertions were abandoned or modified and new
ones were generated. The fieldwork also helped generate tentative assertions.
During the lessons, the teacher and I circulated among the dyads to listen to
their discussion and to answer any query they might have. It soon became appar-
ent that after students had read the stories, they only picked up one or two aspects
or features of the stories in their discussion. This helped generate a tentative
assertion that was then tested against the peer interactions for all dyads. It is
hoped that this process of testing tentative assertions against data together with
the description of the ‘natural history of inquiry’ (Erickson 1986) would help
improve the credibility of the results.
Results
Students’ views of NOS prior to and after instruction
Figure 1 gives students’ percentage responses to each option of the questions in the
pre- and post-test for all four Secondary 1 classes. As expected, the results show
that many students held inadequate views of NOS in regard to the purpose of
experiment and status and role of scientific theory in the pre-test, and showed only
marginal improvement in the post-test subsequent to the NOS instruction.
In Question 1 of the pre-test, it was a pleasant surprise that the majority of
dyads (60%) chose to try out ‘explanations’ as the purpose of experiment; the
other options ‘new discoveries’ and ‘inventions’ accounted for 17% and 23%
respectively. However, in the post-test, ‘explanations’ dropped slightly to 51%,
158 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
‘new discoveries’ increased to 28% and ‘inventions’ decreased to 21%. This shows
that some students interpreted the science stories more as depicting new scientific
discoveries than delineating the process of discovery in which scientists test their
hypotheses (explanations) by experiments. These students were treating the
science stories merely as ‘heroic’ stories (Milne 1998), which was not the intention
of the instruction.
In Question 2 of the pre-test, 95% of dyads agreed that ‘scientists do not know
what they expect to happen before they do the experiment’ (the ‘no’ and ‘don’t
know’ options which many students took as the same); only 5% of students chose
the ‘yes’ option. Thus, very few students realized that scientists formulate and test
hypotheses by experiment, hence they have some expectation of the results prior to
the experiment. Such a ‘shot-in-the-dark’ attitude of the students towards experi-
mental investigation is referred to as ‘serendipitous empiricism’ by Solomon et al.
(1992).
In Question 3 of the pre-test, the same percentage of students (48%) chose, for
the role of theory, the options of an ‘explanation’ about how things happen and a
‘fact’ proven by many experiments; only 4% (three dyads) agreed that a theory was
for making ‘prediction’. Thus, many students viewed scientific knowledge as fact
and absolute truth that was not subject to change. Although many students held
that theories are for giving explanation, few realized that theories are also for
making predictions.
In Question 4 of the pre-test, a large majority of students (75%) thought that
scientists propose the particulate theory of matter because they have ‘proved by
experiments that particles exist’, and 9% argued that it was because ‘they can see
the particles under the microscope’; only 12% maintained that this was because
scientists can explain what happens by ‘imagining how particles move’. Thus, the
majority of students held the realist view of scientific theory and only a small
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 159
Pre-/Post-tests results[N = 75 dyads (15 students)]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 2 3 4
Questions
% R
esp
on
ses
Pre-testPost-test
(a) (a) (a) (a)(b) (b) (b)(c) (c) (c)(b) (c)
Figure 1. Percentage responses to each option of the questions in the pre-and post-test.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
minority subscribed to the instrumentalist view, that theories are accepted as long
as they function properly and are consonant with evidence.
In summary, most students maintained that scientists carried out experiments
to try out explanations (test ideas and hypotheses) but very few realized that as
such scientists had some expectation of what might happen before the experiment.
They held the serendipitous empiricist view that carrying out experiments care-
fully and systematically would result in unexpected results by chance. Many
students thought that a scientific theory was a fact proven by many experiments.
Thus, they equated scientific theory to absolute truth that was not subject to
change. Also, many students did not subscribe to the instrumentalist view that a
theory was an idea created by scientists to give explanation and to make prediction,
and so did not necessarily have to represent reality. Subsequent to the instruction,
students only showed marginal improvement in their understanding of NOS.
What then were the arguments, if any, that students gave in support of their
views of NOS? How did students react to the science stories? How did they
develop understanding of NOS, if at all, through interacting with the science
stories and with each other? To address these questions, the rich qualitative
data, collected from the focus class, of students’ peer interactions, the classroom
discourse and the individual student interviews were analysed.
Students’ arguments in support of their views of NOS
Students’ typical arguments in support of their choice of each of the options – (a),
(b) or (c) – of the four questions in the pre-/post-test are presented below. Note
that the arguments for the adequate views (‘correct’ answers) came from only a
minority of students – they are nevertheless important in showing what students
were capable of in justifying their views. In the following, the arguments are
identified by the dyad or student and the occasion (pre-/test, post-test, or inter-
view). The two students in a dyad are referred to as A and B and student A in dyad
10, for example, is referred to as 10A. In the excerpts of peer interactions, argu-
ments from an individual student in a dyad are attributed to the dyad since in all
cases the dyads subsequently arrived at a shared view. Since students only showed
marginal improvement from pre- to post-test, the instruction served more to elicit
students’ views of NOS than to changing them. Thus, it makes little point in
setting out students’ pre- and post-instructional arguments separately in the
following.
Pre-/post-test Question 1 – purpose of experiment
Option (a) – ‘new discoveries’. Some dyads drew on the science stories that they
perceived as merely presenting new scientific discoveries rather than delineating
the process of discoveries, in particular, the testing of hypotheses (explanations) by
experiments: ‘Because they want to make discoveries. . . . For example, the anti-
biotics for curing stomach ulcer’ (dyad 9, post-test).
Option (b) – ‘explanation’. Some dyads used the method of elimination and
argued that in scientific research explanation should precede invention: ‘You
have to find out the explanation for why things happen before you can predict
. . . then use the result to invent things that can help people’ (dyad 11, pre-test).
160 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
Option (c) – ‘invention’. Some dyads argued that even if experiments were for
trying out explanation’, ultimately it was for inventing something useful to man-
kind. These dyads held a utilitarian view of science. For example, dyad 13 had the
following exchanges at the post-test:
B: May be some scientists appear to want to make . . .
A: Like b, to try out their explanations for why things happen.
B: Yes, but actually that’s to help people because you use this to make
inventions. (Dyad 13, post-test)
Pre-/post-test Question 2 – whether scientists know what to expect to
happen before the experiment
Option (a) – ‘yes’. Very few dyads maintained that scientists knew what to expect
to happen before the experiment. Those who did showed understanding that
experiments were for testing hypotheses: ‘Because before they do experiments,
they should have hypothesized the result already’ (dyad 15, post-test). Some
dyads offered arguments drawn from the science stories:
Because they have a general idea in mind before they do the experiment to test if theiridea is correct or not. . . . Like the story of stomach ulcer, he (Marshall) predicted theresult should be like this before he did the experiment to check if he was correct ornot. (Student 9A, interview)
Options (b) and (c) – ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’. A large majority of the dyads chose
these two options that they interpreted as the same. The following is a typical
argument: ‘If they [scientists] know [the results], they won’t have to do the experi-
ment’ (dyad 10, pre-test). A few dyads maintained that whether or not scientists
had some ideas about the results prior to the experiment was case-dependent.
They drew on the science stories to support either view:
Like universal gravitation, Newton calculated the things he didn’t know and discov-ered universal gravitation. Another, like the story of smallpox, Dr Jenner had con-firmed in the beginning that . . . people who had had cowpox before wouldn’t catchsmallpox, this had been proven true. So to sum up, I think that before scientists doexperiments, sometimes they don’t know, sometimes they know. [Dyad 4, post-test]
Pre-/post-test Question 3 – role of scientific theory
Option (a) – ‘prediction’. Very few dyads thought that a theory was for making
predictions. Those who did acquired the idea from the science stories:
It’s an idea about what will happen because we just read Newton’s story that ascientific theory can explain happenings and predict things, so we think that answer(a) should be correct. (Dyad 11, post-test)
Option (b) – ‘explanation’. Many dyads offered arguments for ‘explanation’ drawn
from the science stories:
I think that scientific theory is an explanation about how things happen. Like thestory of Newton, he saw an apple fall to the ground but questioned why the appledidn’t rise up. He discovered the law of universal gravitation. . . . Hmm, on the otherhand, Newton also discovered that the moon rotated around the earth. Because there’sa force in space, this makes the moon rotates around the earth. (Dyad 4, post-test)
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 161
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
Some dyads argued that before scientists could make predictions they had to
give explanations first:
It’s an explanation about how things happen because you need to know how to explain. . . you predict after you have an explanation. So, we should explain how thingshappen first. (Dyad 5, post-test)
Option (c) – ‘fact’. Many dyads argued that many experiments had to be carried
out before a theory could be established: ‘Because you need to do a lot of experi-
ments before you have an idea and then get a scientific theory to finalize the idea,
so our answer is (c)’ (dyad 4, pre-test).
Pre-/post-test Question 4 – realist vs. instrumentalist view of scientific
theory
Option (a) – ‘can see particles’ (realist view). Very few dyads chose this option.
Those who did equated seeing the particles under the microscope as a proof of the
existence of particles: ‘I think that seeing the particles under the microscope can
prove immediately that they (the particles) exist’ (dyad 15, pre-test).
Option (b) – ‘prove by experiment that particles exist’ (realist view). Many dyads
held the realist view arguing that scientists needed to prove that particles existed
before they could put forward the particulate theory of matter: ‘Because they must
prove that particle exist before they can make a claim that solid, liquid and gas are
made up of tiny particles’ (student 9B, interview). Some dyads chose this option by
eliminating option (c) saying that ‘imagining’ had no status in scientific reasoning:
If they don’t know that particles exist, then how can they make the assumptions.Answer (c) is incorrect because that’s only by imagination, there’s no real evidence.They must do experiments to prove (that particles exist). (Student 15B, interview)
Other dyads drew on the experiments that they had done earlier:
Because we did an experiment before. He (The teacher) put something inside . . . [Theparticles] have space and can move . . . He drew a diagram and showed that there is nospace [for particles] to move around in solids. There is a little space between particlesin a liquid and particles in gas are free to move around. (Student 10B, interview)
This student confused the models of solid, liquid and gas presented by the teacher
with reality.
Option (c) – ‘imagine how particles move’ (instrumentalist view). The few dyads
who chose this option focus on the function of theories for giving explanation:
When they [scientists] know how particles move, they’ll know how it happens and notthat they have proved by experiments that particles exist. When you have proved byexperiments that they [particles] exist, you can’t explain what happens to particles.Agree? There’s nothing special about seeing the particles, so it’s [the answer is] (c).(Dyad 5, post-test)
Other dyads drew on the role of creativity and imagination in scientific discoveries
presented in the science stories:
162 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
Because . . . er . . . I guess . . . like the story of Newton again, creativity and imaginationwere used to find out these solid, liquid, and gas particles . . . that was throughimagination. Then, experiments were conducted to test the idea. So, the answershould be (c). (Dyad 12, post-test)
It can be seen from the above excerpts that many of the dyads’ arguments were
rather articulate and sophisticated even if they were for supporting their inade-
quate views of NOS. These arguments were sound and reasonable from the
students’ perspectives. A minority of dyads were capable of giving sensible argu-
ments in support of their adequate views, with some referring to their prior knowl-
edge but many drawing on the science stories.
The role of the science stories
There is no doubt that the science stories had considerable impact on the students.
Most dyads held lengthy discussion on the stories during the instruction and drew
on them for justifications for their views at the post-test. At the interview con-
ducted two months after the instruction, many students could recall details of the
stories. They also claimed that they enjoyed the science stories and had learned
much from them. The following is a typical response: ‘Hmm, . . . just like these
questions [in the test]. I didn’t understand them before but from these four science
stories, I have learned . . . I have a better idea now’ (student 11B, interview).
The data show that the science stories can have several effects on students:
(1) confirm and reinforce their adequate views of NOS;
(2) confirm and reinforce their inadequate views;
(3) change their views of NOS, with (2) being more prevalent than (1) and
(3).
Examples of each case are given below.
Confirm and reinforce students’ adequate views of NOS. At the pre-test, dyad 4 was
one of the few dyads who held that scientists had some ideas of the results prior to
the experiment (Question 2) as shown by the following excerpt: ‘We think ‘yes’
because there are something they (scientists) are not sure of, so they do experi-
ments to certify the truth’ (dyad 4, Question 2, pre-test). At interview, student 4A
drew on three of the stories to support his views. (Student 4B responded in similar
ways but was less articulate):
Like, for example, the case of smallpox, he (Dr Jenner) expected the result thatcowpox vaccine would prevent smallpox. He needed to do experiment to provethis. . . . But for ‘no’, penicillin is an example for that because the scientists acciden-tally discovered penicillin. . . . For the stomach ulcer story, he (Marshall) did theexperiment on himself and predicted that the medicine would cure his stomachulcer. This explanation is similar to the story of smallpox, so most of them . . . Ithink most of the scientists know what to expect to happen before they do the experi-ment. (Student 4A, interview)
These students used the science stories to confirm their adequate view of NOS.
Confirm and reinforce students’ inadequate views of NOS. At the pre-test, dyad 7
maintained that a theory was a fact proven by many experiment without giving any
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 163
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
justification. At the post-test, they drew on the science stories for arguments in
support of their inadequate views:
I think (c) is the answer because it (a theory) has been proved by many experiments. . . just like the Australian doctor (Marshall). He used himself in the experiment inorder to obtain a new theory. In the case of Newton, he had done a lot of experiments(calculations) and his results were the same as the observations made by the astron-omers, so he got a scientific theory. So I think it’s (c). (Dyad 7, Question 3, post-test)
At the interview, student 7B reiterated his views by again drawing on the science
stories. (Student 7A gave a similar response):
Because if it hasn’t been proved by many experiment, how can it become a theory.Just like Newton . . . if he hadn’t proved by experiments then how did he know if he’scorrect or not. He couldn’t just guess that he’s correct. . . . It must be proved byexperiments if it’s correct or not. (Student 7B, interview)
These students held an entrenched view that theories are facts proven by many
experiments. They interpreted the science stories in ways that appeared to confirm
such inadequate view.
Another example is from dyad 4 who argued that scientists do experiments to
make new discoveries (Q1) at the post-test by drawing on the story of the stomach
ulcer:
I think they want to make new discoveries. Like the story of antibiotic (stomachulcer), if he (Marshall) hadn’t discovered the antibiotic to cure ulcer, many peoplewould have died. So scientists do experiments because they want to make newdiscoveries. (Dyad 4, post-test)
This dyad had focused their attention on the discovery of an antibiotic for treating
stomach ulcer rather than the investigation of the cause (explanation) of the dis-
ease, the testing of the bacteria theory by experiment and the subsequent rejection
of the stress theory as was originally intended by the story. They had attended to
an aspect of the story that appeared to confirm their inadequate views.
Change students’ views of NOS. The following is an example of students changing
their inadequate views of NOS to adequate views. For Question 4 in the pre-test,
dyad 12 held that scientists developed the particulate nature of matter because they
‘have proved by experiments that particles exist’ but did not give any justification.
At the post-test, they changed their answer to ‘scientists can explain what happens
by imagining how particles move’. The two students had the following exchanges:
A: Because I think, like Newton again, creativity and imagination were used to findout these solid, liquid and gas particles . . . that was through imagination. Thenexperiments were conducted to explain [the idea].
B: Should be (c) because they, the scientists, . . . they discovered that the smoke grain[in the smoke cell] moves because the air particles move, so the answer is (c). (Dyad12, Q4, post-test)
Student A drew on the story of Newton’s law of universal gravitation in which
creativity and imagination played an important role in the development of the law.
Student B referred to the Brownian motion (smoke cell) experiment that they did
earlier. In this experiment, the random zigzag motion of a smoke grain, observed
under the microscope, was explained as due to the bombardments by air particles
(invisible under the microscope) around it.
164 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
On the other hand, the science stories could lead to regression from adequate
to inadequate views. For Question 3 in the pre-test, dyad 9 claimed that a theory
was an explanation of certain phenomenon: ‘It’s [A theory is] an explanation about
why things happen . . . like the moon eclipse’ (dyad 9, Q3, pre-test). At the post-
test, they changed to ‘a fact proved by many experiments’ citing Newton’s many
experiments (calculations) that led him to his law of universal gravitation: ‘It’s a
fact which has been proved by many experiments. . . . like, for example, Newton
proposed the law of universal gravitation, it’s a fact which has been proved by
many experiments’ (dyad 9, Q3, post-test). This dyad had focused on the many
calculations that Newton did to enable him to arrive at his law rather than the role
of creativity and imagination that led him to propose the law, as was intended by
the story.
In summary, the science stories had considerable impact on students, but they
could lead to adequate as well as inadequate views of NOS. Many students inter-
preted the science stories in idiosyncratic ways and/or focused their attention on
certain aspects of the stories that appear to confirm their inadequate views. This
was possibly the reason why students showed only marginal improvement from
pre- to post-test.
The role of peer interactions
Most of the 18 dyads in the focus class had rather lengthy discussion on the
questions in the pre-/post-test, some giving arguments in support of their views
with others simply expressing their opinions without giving any justification.
There were instances of conflict and co-construction that led to the development
of adequate as well as inadequate views of NOS. Some examples are given below.
Conflict that led to adequate view of NOS. In discussing Question 1 (purpose of
experiment), student 7A drew on Edison’s invention of the electric bulb to support
his view that experiments were for making inventions. Student 7B countered by
arguing that explanation should precede invention, that Edison needed first to
explain why tungsten emitted light when heated by an electric current before he
could use the metal as a lamp filament. Student 7A subsequently agreed with
student 7B. This is an instance of conflict that led to agreement and an adequate
view of NOS:
B: Because . . . to try out their explanations for why things happen, so they know whathappen before and after in order to explain every happening. What do you think?
A: Just like Edison . . . I think it’s [the answer is] (c). Just like Edison, he kept ondoing experiments in order to invent light bulb and tried to serve the best for people.
B: But if he couldn’t explain why did the light bulb ‘burn’ the tungsten, he wouldn’thave invented the light bulb. So, I think it’s (b), to try out their explanations for whythings happen. (Dyad 7, Question 1 pre-test)
Conflict that led to inadequate view of NOS. At the pre-test, the two students in
dyad 5 disagreed on the answer to Question 1. Student B opted for ‘invention’ [(c)]
but student A argued for ‘explanation’ [(b)] saying that explanation should precede
invention. Subsequently, they came to an agreement and put down (b) as the
answer. This was a conflict that first led to adequate views:
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 165
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
B: Why do scientists do experiments? Is it because they want to make something thatwill help people?
A: I don’t think so. It should be (b), to try out their explanations for why thingshappen.
B: But, to make something which will help people (c) is also correct.
A: But you have to prove something, make sure it’s correct and safe. It’s not too lateto invent later after the thing has been proven true. (Dyad 5, Question 1, pre-test)
However, at the post-test, student B switched to answer (a) (‘new discoveries’)
suggesting that discoveries should precede inventions. Initially, student A
expressed dissent but after a short pause gave his endorsement to the answer:
B: Although we previously answered (b), but now we’ll say it’s (a). The reason is thatto make new discoveries in order to have new improvements (inventions), isn’t it?
A: No, . . . OK, so it’s (a). (Dyad 5, Question 1, post-test)
This was a conflict (albeit a weak one) that led to inadequate views. This example
shows how easy it was for students to be persuaded by their partners to shift from
one view to another in a conflict situation in peer collaboration.
Co-construction that led to adequate view of NOS. A good but rare example of the
co-construction of adequate views is from dyad 13 in their discussion of Question 3
(role of scientific theory) in the post-test. In the pre-test, this dyad had chosen
‘explanation’ as the answer but gave no justification. In the post-test, they devel-
oped their argument:
B: We think . . . at first, we put down (c), but then we think the answer is (b) because ascientific theory can be overthrown; it’s not necessarily the truth. Do you rememberthat story of . . .
A: It can be (a) or (b). What do you think?
B: I think it’s an explanation about how things happen.
A: Explanation should come before prediction.
B: Yes . . .
A: There’s explanation before prediction. For example, in the case of Newton, he . . . .
B: But . . . after prediction, a scientific theory is put through for tests by many experi-ments before it’s proven true. . . .
B: Yes, it has been proved by many experiments but it’s not true to say it is a factbecause it’s not certain. Just like all the scientific theories we have now may not beright later.
A: Yes, may be the idea of Newton is incorrect! May be we can invent something new. . . Ha, ha! (Dyad 13, Question 3, post-test)
The two students considered the relative merits of all three options. They first
eliminated option (c) (‘a fact proven by many experiments’), arguing that theories
could be overthrown and so could not be regarded as facts and absolute truth.
They then compared the other two options (‘prediction’ and ‘explanation’) and
decided that a theory was for explanation arguing that explanation should precede
prediction. Finally, they reiterated their views of the tentative nature of scientific
knowledge. During the discussion, the two students built on each other’s ideas and
arrived at a shared understanding that theories were for giving explanations. The
two students contributed more or less equally towards this view.
166 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
Co-construction that led to inadequate view of NOS. The following excerpt shows
how dyad 7, in discussing the same question (Question 3 – role of scientific theory)
in the post-test, shifted their views from accepting all three options as correct to
zeroing in on the option that a theory was ‘a fact proven by many experiments’.
The two students co-constructed an inadequate view:
B: I think that (a), (b) and (c) are all correct. It can be used to predict . . . as we’ve saidbefore . . . we’ve discussed that being able to predict and explain is a scientific theory.So?
A: How about (c)?
B: I think (c) is the correct answer because it has been proved by many experiments,. . . just like the Australian doctor (Marshall). He used himself [as a subject] in theexperiment in order to obtain the bacteria theory. In the case of Newton, he had donea lot of calculations, so that his results were the same as the observation made byastronomers and it became a scientific theory. So, I think it’s (c).
A: I also think it’s (c). It’s the best because prediction and explanations are onlythe basic criteria for a scientific theory. Scientists need to do many experimentsto prove their theories, so I think (c) is the best answer. (Dyad 7, Question 3, post-test)
The two students agreed that the functions of theories are to give explanation and
to make predictions but they maintained that theories needed to be proven by
doing many experiments. They drew on two of the stories to support their
views. Their discussion revealed that in these stories they directed their attention
at the experiments as means for proving the relevant theories rather than at scien-
tists formulating hypotheses/theories as explanations of certain phenomena and
testing these explanations using experiments.
In summary, there were many instances of conflict and co-construction when
students worked collaboratively in dyads during the pre-/post-test but again these
could lead to adequate as well as inadequate views of NOS. Since most students
drew on the science stories for justifications of their views, the way they inter-
preted the science stories was crucial. Students’ peer interactions showed that most
of them were not fully aware of the overall theme of the stories; instead, they
attended to certain aspects that appealed to them and appeared to confirm and
reinforce their inadequate views.
The feedback lesson
Following the instruction, a feedback lesson was arranged during which the
teacher discussed the questions in the pre-/post-test with the class, drawing on
the science stories for justifications of the ‘correct’ answers. There were at times
heated debates when students showed puzzlement and disbelief. This pointed to
the difficulty that students faced in accepting the adequate views of NOS. At the
interview, conducted two months later with half of the class, students’ views of
NOS were mixed, with some showing improvement, some regression and some no
change from their views at the post-test. The feedback lesson was therefore not
very effective in changing students’ views of NOS, which were entrenched and
highly resistant to change.
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 167
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
Interviews
As noted earlier, at the interview conducted two months after the instruction,
students claimed that they enjoyed the science stories and had learned much
from them. In addition, many students could recall details of the stories and a
few had even looked up library books for more details of the stories. When asked to
answer the questions in the pre-/post-test, most students were very articulate and
elaborate and drew on the stories to support their answers. However, students’
views of NOS uncovered at the interview, which may be adequate or inadequate,
were almost entirely the same as the views at the post-test.
Summary of findings
The findings of the study are summarized below. They are presented not as gen-
eralizations, since the sample used was atypical (high ability and well motivated
male students from one school) and the sample size (150 students) was small, but
rather as assertions that warrant further research.
(1) Many students possess entrenched inadequate views of NOS – they held
a serendipitous empiricist view of experimentation and take scientific
theories as absolute truth representing reality.
(2) Students can give articulate and sophisticated arguments to justify their
views of NOS, irrespective of whether these views are adequate or inade-
quate. They draw on their prior knowledge and/or the science stories for
such arguments. Students’ arguments for inadequate views appear to be
sound and reasonable from their perspectives.
(3) The science stories in the NOS instruction influence students in sub-
stantial ways. They can serve to (a) confirm and reinforce students’
adequate views of NOS, (b) confirm and reinforce students’ inadequate
views, or (c) change students’ views, with (b) more prevalent than (a) and
(c).
(4) When studying the science stories, many students selectively attend to
certain aspects of the stories that appear to confirm their inadequate
views; they are unaware of the overall theme of the stories as intended
by the instruction.
(5) The peer collaboration setting of the instruction has provided students
with experiences of conflict and co-construction that help them develop
shared understandings of NOS. However, many students interpret the
science stories in idiosyncratic ways other than that intended by the
instruction and subsequently change from one set of inadequate views
of NOS to anther rather than to adequate views.
Discussion
In general, the pattern of the Hong Kong Secondary 1 (Year 7) students’ views of
NOS in the present study is not dissimilar to that of the Year 8 students in the UK
national survey in Solomon et al. (1996). The differences lie in the greater pre-
valence of the inadequate views – many more Hong Kong students hold the ser-
endipitous empiricist view of experiment and take scientific theories as absolute
truth representing reality. This is probably due to the shorter period of study of
168 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
science that the Hong Kong Year 7 students in the sample had undergone. While
such a finding is not unexpected, the concern is whether the NOS instruction
could effect any change to students’ views. The results show that the science
stories influenced students in substantial ways but many students subsequently
changed from one set of inadequate views of NOS to another rather than to
adequate views.
The study shows that the science stories provided useful contexts or instances
for students to offer arguments in support of their views of NOS. Many students
were capable of giving articulate and sophisticated arguments for their adequate as
well as inadequate views. Driver et al. (2000) contend that argumentative practice
is a core activity of scientists in the construction, validation and refutation of
scientific knowledge and hence worthy of incorporation into the science classroom.
However, discourse in the science classroom often tends to be teacher dominated
and students are seldom given the opportunity to discuss and construct arguments
in support or refutation of scientific ideas (Newton et al. 1999). The science stories
in the NOS instruction used in a peer collaboration setting can be one form of such
argument-based pedagogy.
The limited success of the NOS instruction may be attributed to the deep-
rootedness of students’ inadequate views of NOS and the short duration of the
instruction. However, the study shows that this could well be due to the ways
students made sense of the stories that differ from that intended by the instruction.
The science stories have generally been well prepared. They covered specific
aspects of NOS and three of the four stories were adapted from Solomon
(1991), which have been used extensively in schools in the UK and shown to be
effective in bringing about some changes to students’ views of NOS (Solomon
1992). Further, when interviewed, students claimed that they enjoyed the stories
and had learnt much from them. It is argued that the problem arises from
students’ construction of meanings and sense-making of the stories, a finding
consistent with the constructivist view of learning in which students’ prior knowl-
edge plays an important role. Prior to instruction, students possessed certain
inadequate views of NOS. They brought these views to bear upon the science
stories and focused their attention on aspects of the stories that matched these
views. Thus for the majority of students, the stories have served only to confirm
and reinforce their inadequate views. This finding shows the complexity of student
learning in the classroom. The peer collaboration setting did not help the situation
much. As the results show, the conflict and co-construction arising from the col-
laboration could lead to adequate as well as inadequate views of NOS. Without
guidance from the teacher, students tended to make sense of the stories in idiosyn-
cratic ways and attend to aspects of the stories that matched their inadequate views
of NOS. An implication is that in addition to using the peer collaboration strategy,
the teacher should also actively scaffold students’ understandings. The teacher can
do this by holding whole-class discussion after each story during which they query
students’ views and direct their attention at the various aspects of NOS presented
by the story.
The present study was conducted with several Secondary 1 classes using the
old science curriculum in which NOS was not emphasized. With the implementa-
tion of the revised science curriculum in September 2000, a larger scale study is
currently underway to study whether and how students change their views of NOS
subsequent to a year-long instruction that covers the science stories as well as the
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 169
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
teaching of process skills and student investigations. This study takes stock of the
findings of the present study.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was supported by a CRCG Research Grant of
the University of Hong Kong (10203320/13924/10100/323/01). The author is
grateful to the teacher and students who kindly agreed to take part in the study.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1990) Project 2061:Science for all Americans (New York: Oxford University Press).
American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1993) Benchmarks forScience Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press).
Abd-El-Khalick, F. and Lederman, N. G. (2000) Improving science teachers’ conceptionsof nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 22, 665–701.
Burton, G. (1994) Salters Advanced Chemistry (Oxford: Heinemann).Bybee, R., Powell, J., Ellis, J., Giese, J., Parisi, L. and Singleton, L. (1991) Teaching
history and the nature of science in science courses. Science Education, 75, 143–156.Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E. and Unger, C. M. (1989) An experiment is when
you try it and see if it works: a study of grade 7 students’ understanding of theconstruction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11,514–529.
Crook, C. (1994) Computers and the Collaborative Experiences of Learning (London:Routledge).
Curriculum Development Council CDC (1998) Science Syllabus for Secondary 1–3 (HongKong: Curriculum Development Council).
Curriculum Development Council CDC (2000) Learning to Learn: The Way Forward inCurriculum Development (Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council).
Damon, W. (1984) Peer education: the untapped potential. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 5, 331–343.
Damon, W. and Phelps, E. (1989) Critical distinction among three approaches to peereducation. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9–19.
Department for Education DfE (1995) Science in the National Curriculum (London:HMSO).
Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, A. and Scott, P. (1996) Young People’s Images of Science(Buckingham: Open University Press).
Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argu-mentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Erickson, F. (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.),Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn (New York: Macmillan), 119–161.
Lederman, N. G. (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: areview of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. and O’Malley, M. (1990) Students’ perceptions of tentativeness inscience: development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D. and Bell, L. B. (1998) Assessing the nature of science: whatis the nature of our assessment? Science and Education, 7, 595–615.
Martin, B. E. and Brouwer, W. (1991) The sharing of personal science and the narrativeelement in science education. Science Education, 75, 707–722.
Matthews, M. R. (1998) In defence of modest goals when teaching about the nature ofscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 167–174.
McComas, W. F. (1998) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationale and Strategies(Dordrecht: Kluwer).
170 PING-KEE TAO
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P. and Almazroa, H. (1998) The role and character of thenature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
Merill, R. and Butts, D. (1969) Vitalising the role of the teacher. In D. Butts (ed.), Designsfor Progress in Science Education (Washington, DC: National Science TeachersAssociation), 35–42.
Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (eds) (1998) Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future(London: King’s College).
Milne, C. (1998) Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications ofheroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,175–187.
Moss, D. M., Brams, E. D. and Robb, J. (2001) Examining student conceptions of thenature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 771–790.
National Research Council NRC (1996) National Science Education Standards(Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
Newton, P., Driver, R. and Osborne, J. (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogyof school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
Pomeroy, D. (1993) Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: comparisonof the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers.Science Education, 77, 261–278.
Solomon, J. (1991) Exploring the Nature of Science (Glasgow: Blackie).Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L. and McCarthy, S. (1992) Teaching about the nature of
science through history: action research in the classroom. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 29, 409–421.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J. and Scott, L. (1994) Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology.International Journal of Science Education, 16, 361–373.
Solomon, J., Scott, L. and Duveen, J. (1996) Large-scale exploration of pupils’ under-standing of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493–508.
Tao, P. K. (1999) Peer collaboration in solving qualitative physics problems: the role ofcollaborative talk. Research in Science Education, 29, 365–383.
Tao, P. K. and Gunstone, R.F. (1999) Conceptual change in science through collaborativelearning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 39–57.
Tao, P. K., Yung, H. W., Wong, C. K., Or, C. K. and Wong, A. C. K. (2000) LivingScience (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press).
Watson, J. D. (1968) The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structureof DNA (New York: Signet Books).
STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE THROUGH PEER COLLABORATION 171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lif
e Sc
ienc
e L
ibra
ry, A
cade
mia
Sin
ica]
at 0
6:31
08
Nov
embe
r 20
15
