Production of a Science Documentary and its Usefulness in … · Production of a Science Documentary and its Usefulness in Teaching the Nature of Science: Indirect Experience of How

Production of a Science Documentary and its Usefulnessin Teaching the Nature of Science: Indirect Experienceof How Science Works

Sun Young Kim • Sang Wook Yi • Eun Hee Cho

Published online: 3 July 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In this study, we produced a documentary which portrays scientists at work and

critically evaluated the use of this film as a teaching tool to help students develop an

understanding of the nature of science. The documentary, ‘‘Life as a Scientist: People in

Love with Caenorhabditis elegans, a Soil Nematode’’ encompasses the entire process of a

scientific investigation by exploring the everyday life of a particular group of scientists.

We explored the effectiveness of this documentary in teaching the nature of science by

examining the epistemological views of college students toward science before and after

viewing. In addition, we collected written responses from the students where they

described which aspect of the nature of science they learned from the documentary. The

scores of epistemological views toward science increased between the pretest and the

posttest (p \ 0.01) with the most significant increase being in their views of the role of

social negotiation. In the written responses, approximately half of the students suggested

that they had learned more about the role which cooperation and collaboration play in the

development of scientific knowledge by watching the documentary. The documentary

overall provides a valuable instructional context so that students are able to discuss and

reflect on various aspects of nature of science within authentic scientific research.

1 Introduction

Because we live in a world significantly influenced by science and technology, it is

beneficial for the public to have an understanding of science and scientific methodology in

S. Y. Kim � E. H. Cho (&)Department of Biology Education, Chosun University, Kwangju 501-759, Koreae-mail: [email protected]

S. Y. Kime-mail: [email protected]

S. W. YiDepartment of Philosophy, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Koreae-mail: [email protected]

123

Sci & Educ (2014) 23:1197–1216DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9614-5

order to make informed decisions concerning science-related issues. The American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS 1990) is quoted as saying:

Education has no higher purpose than preparing people to lead personally fulfilling and responsiblelives. For its part, science education—meaning education in science, mathematics, and technology—should help students to develop the understandings and habits of mind they need to become com-passionate human beings able to think for themselves and to face life head on. It should equip themalso to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open,decent, and vital (p. v).

For the purpose of equipping citizens to live in an era highly influenced by science and

technology, current science education reform efforts have emphasized the development of

sophisticated views on the nature of science as a key element of scientific literacy (AAAS

1990; Bell et al. 2003). This can as well be applied to the science education at universities.

Especially at the tertiary level, science education for the future citizens should differ from

that for the future scientists. The science courses offered for the next generation of citizens

should focus more on enhancing ‘scientific literacy’ rather than on providing the ‘facts’ of

science (Osborne 2007). In this study we targeted students in the science courses in

General Education Curriculum at a university.

Scientific literacy is synonymous with a public understanding of science and reflects the

changing and growing level of scientific understanding among the adult population

(DeBoer 2000). The concept of scientific literacy is subject to interpretation, but is defined

by Laugksch (2000) as learned, competent, and being able to function minimally as

consumers and citizens. To be learned is to be aware of the existing body of knowledge and

the ways of thinking in the natural sciences. To be competent reflects a knowledge of

science, including the ability to read science-related newspaper articles, to solve practical

problems related to food, health, and shelter, and to think critically and independently in

order to deal with evidence and logical arguments. And finally, to function minimally in

society means that scientifically literate individuals make informed decisions for them-

selves and others. DeBoer (2000) expands these roles into nine themes of scientific liter-

acy: teaching and learning about science as a cultural force in the modern world;

preparation for the world of work; teaching and learning about science that has direct

application to everyday living; teaching students to be informed citizens; learning about

science as a particular way of examining the natural world; understanding reports and

discussions of science that appear in the popular media; learning about science for its

aesthetic appeal; preparing citizens who are sympathetic to science; and understanding the

nature and importance of technology and the relationship between technology and science.

Miller (1983) likewise contends that components of scientific literacy include an under-

standing of: the norms and methods of science (the nature of science); key scientific terms

and concepts (scientific content knowledge); and the impact of science and technology on

society. Science taught in school focuses mainly on the second component, scientific

content knowledge, covering particular content through the use of textbooks (DeBoer

2000).

An examination of the previous studies of scientific literacy revealed that understanding

of the nature of science is one of major elements in achieving a high level of scientific

literacy. With this understanding, citizens in contemporary societies are able to appreciate

the nature of scientific knowledge, interpret the meaning of new scientific claims, and

further participate in decisions of policy, recognizing both the power that scientific

knowledge can potentially bring to decision making and the limits of scientific knowledge

(Sandoval 2005).

1198 S. Y. Kim et al.

123

The importance of nature of science (NOS) education can be seen from a more context-

specific perspective as well. In many economically fast-growing countries such as South

Korea, science is closely related to technology in ordinary citizens’ minds. Naturally,

science is often conceptualized as the unavoidable consequences of steadfast method-

following activities, which then provides grounds for making convenient artifacts by

engineers. In this context, it is hard for students and citizens to appreciate the importance

of asking ‘right’ scientific questions, the contingencies in scientists’ decisions in research,

the historical and cultural dimension of scientific knowledge, the significance of collab-

orative creativity. A proper understanding of NOS in this context will help general public

obtain more ‘realistic’ and therefore more enriched views of scientific knowledge and

scientific research in their society, and become better prepared for participating in social

decision-making process as regards science.

2 Epistemological Themes of Science

The nature of science refers to ‘‘the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing,

or the values and beliefs of scientific knowledge and its development’’ (Lederman 1992,

p. 331). Epistemology of science describes ‘‘the nature of scientific knowledge, including

the sources of such knowledge, its truth value, scientifically appropriate warrants, and so

forth’’ (Sandoval 2005). Lederman et al. (2002) suggests seven aspects of the nature of

science: empirical nature of scientific knowledge, inference and theoretical entities in

science, nature of scientific theory, scientific theories and laws, creativity in science,

subjectivity in science, social and cultural influences. Sandoval (2005) similarly suggests

four broad epistemological themes: scientific knowledge is constructed; scientific methods

are diverse; there are different forms of scientific knowledge; and scientific knowledge is

tentative.

Despite a broad consensus about the importance of teaching the nature of science in the

classroom (McComas et al. 1998), questions remain about which elements should be

included. Osborne et al. (2003) asked, ‘‘What should be taught to school students about the

nature of science?’’ in a Delphi study of 23 acknowledged experts (e.g., science educators;

scientists, historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science; experts engaged in the

public understanding of science; and expert science teachers). The empirically determined

points of agreement from the expert community are summarized in the following nine

themes:

• Scientific method and critical testing: Science uses the experimental method to test

ideas. The outcome of a single experiment is rarely sufficient to establish a knowledge

claim.

• Creativity: Science is an activity that involves as much creativity and imagination as

other human activities; scientists are passionate and involved humans whose work

relies on inspiration and imagination.

• Historical development of scientific knowledge: Teaching the history of science has the

potential of facilitating an appreciation of developments in science, as well as the ways

and extent to which such developments have been affected by the demands and

expectations of society at different points in history.

• Science and questioning: An important aspect of the work of a scientist is the continual

and cyclical process of asking questions and seeking answers, which then acknowl-

edges that scientific work is a communal and competitive activity.

Production of a Science Documentary 1199

123

• Diversity of scientific thinking: Science uses a range of methods and approaches and

there is no one scientific method or approach.

• Analysis and interpretation of data: Students should be taught that the practice of

science involves skillful analysis and interpretation of data. It is possible for scientists

to legitimately come to different interpretations of the same data, therefore to disagree.

• Science and certainty: Current scientific knowledge is the best we have but may be

subject to change in the future, given new evidence or new interpretations of old

evidence.

• Hypothesis and prediction: Scientists develop hypotheses and predictions about natural

phenomena.

• Cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge: Scientists

work together as a community.

These elements resonate the common core themes seen in a number of recent science

curriculum reform documents in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

(McComas and Olson 1998). Therefore, there is now substantial agreement about the

elements of NOS that should to be taught in science classes.

3 Teaching Approaches for NOS

Although NOS is emphasized as a crucial element of scientific literacy, numerous studies

have shown that both students and teachers possess naı̈ve views about the NOS (Lederman

and O’Malley 1990; Zeidler and Lederman 1989) and efforts have been made to improve

adequate understandings of these topics (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998; Akerson et al.

2000; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). Approaches to teaching the NOS are categorized

as either implicit or explicit (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000). The implicit approach

contends that engagement in inquiry-based activities and scientific research skills improves

student understanding of the NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Khishfe and Abd-

El-Khalick 2002). Clough (2006) further suggests that implicit experiences (e.g., prede-

termined laboratory activities, textbook descriptions of facts) cause mistaken notions of the

NOS. The explicit approach maintains that opportunities for reflection, discussion, and

journal writing are necessary for developing informed views of the NOS (Abd-El-Khalick

and Lederman 2000). These same authors contend that the explicit approach is more

effective than the implicit approach in enhancing contemporary views of the NOS.

Clough (2006) emphasizes the importance of instruction that allows students to reex-

amine their ideas within the context of historical or contemporary examples. This type of

explicit and contextualized NOS instruction is directly related to scientific research. In

contrast, decontextualized NOS instruction employs activities (e.g., puzzle-solving activ-

ities, black-box activities) that serve as analogies to authentic science so that students learn

about particular NOS issues. Explicit decontextualized NOS instruction does not allow

students to compare their perceptions of science with what takes place in the research

laboratory (Clough 2006).

Our study draws particular attention to the context of scientists working within their

laboratories. We did not provide any intervention except a writing activity after watching

the documentary. Students were asked to write their own thought about science (e.g., the

process of development of scientific knowledge, the characteristics of scientific knowledge,

scientists) based on the episodes of documentary after watching the documentary The

writing activity provides students with an opportunity of reflection (Wibel 1991). By


123

considering this context, students are able to reflect on their own ideas of the NOS with

knowledge of how scientific investigations really take place.

Unfortunately, students seldom have the opportunity to experience authentic laboratory

research. Two previous studies explored the benefits of providing students with such an

opportunity. Bell et al. (2003) provided an 8-week apprenticeship program to tenth and

eleventh graders in which students participated in research design, data collection, and data

analysis within a laboratory. After this apprenticeship, however, students showed little

change in their views of the NOS and of scientific inquiry. For example, most students

thought that a scientific investigation involves only a single approach, and they did not

recognize that further questions might arise. The authors conceded that, due to time

constraints, the apprenticeship program did not teach all aspects of scientific inquiry.

Furthermore, interviews with the mentors revealed that most of them focused on applied

skills and techniques meaning that, even though these high-achieving students were

engaged in a wide range of experimentation, their views of the NOS and of scientific

inquiry were underdeveloped.

In a similar study, Schwartz et al. (2004) provided pre-service teachers with a research

internship program that included journal writing and seminars. Throughout the 10-week

program, interns spent an average of 5 h per week in a research setting where their

activities were rated as low inquiry, moderate inquiry or high inquiry. Low inquiry

activities included following predetermined procedures and did not include critical deci-

sion making. In contrast, high inquiry experiences included designing and conducting an

investigation allowing for personal decision making. Among the 13 participants, eight

students experienced a low level of inquiry and only one experienced a high level of

inquiry. Therefore, most of the students did not experience all of the aspects of scientific

research. Both the Bell et al. (2003) and Schwartz et al. (2004) studies conclude that it is

not realistic to expect students to experience a whole process of scientific research due to

time limitation (Bell et al., an 8-week of science apprenticeship program; Schwartz et al.,

an average of 5 h per week for the 10 weeks) as well as due to the level of their

involvement into the scientific research.

The results of these studies partially justify our efforts here to produce a half an hour

documentary which conveys an entire process of a scientific endeavor. The project itself

took almost 8 years from its conception to its completion. The documentary showed what

caught the researchers attention at the beginning, how they established research questions

and methodology, how they struggled to overcome hurdles, how they collaborated and

competed with other scientists, what they have learned through the research, and what

would be the next steps following a successful project. This would provide students with an

indirect laboratory experience so they can learn more about the authentic process of

research within the limited time allowable in the classroom.

4 Purpose of the Research

Our goal was to produce a scientific documentary, ‘‘Life as a Scientist: People in Love with

Caenorhabditis elegans, a Soil Nematode’’, and further to evaluate the usefulness of the

film as an instructional tool to teach the NOS. The aim of the documentary was to

demonstrate how scientists work in the research setting (e.g., laboratory), how they

establish research questions, how they define success, how they put forth research meth-

odology, and how they communicate results with other scientists.


123

In order to evaluate the use of the documentary as a teaching tool for the purpose of

developing students’ understanding of the NOS, the following research questions guided

the second half of this study:

1. How do the scientific epistemological views of students change after watching the

documentary?

2. Which aspects of the nature of science do students observe within the documentary?

5 Research Methodology

5.1 Production of the Documentary

The first draft of the storyboard was developed by two of the authors and the nictation

research team of the Laboratory of Genetics and Development at Seoul National University

(P.I. Professor Junho Lee) and was revised by a script writer. A professional filming crew

interviewed the researchers and produced the film which then, after the final editing,

resulted in a 30 min documentary titled ‘‘Life as a Scientist: People in Love with

C. elegans, a Soil Nematode’’.

5.2 Evaluation of Usefulness of Documentary as an Instructional Tool for NOS

5.2.1 Participants and Context of the Study

A total of 163 college students (122 men, 41 women) from a private university in Korea

participated in this study. The university has 22 colleges, 95 departments, and 16 schools of

graduate studies. The enrollment at the time of this study was about 36,900 students

including 10,000 graduate students. The full-time teaching faculty consisted of 1,120

professors. The participants came from the two General Education Curriculum (GEC)

courses titled ‘‘Imagination, Science and Technology’’ and ‘‘Scientists and Engineers at

Work with the World’’ (both 2 credit hours). The majors of participants were quite diverse,

including students from humanities, social sciences, natural science, engineering, and

education.

5.2.2 Instrument and Data Analyses

5.2.2.1 Scientific Epistemological Views (SEVs) Before and After Viewing the Documen-

tary In order to track the changes in students’ views toward science after watching the

documentary, an instrument for assessing scientific epistemological views (SEVs) devel-

oped by Tsai and Liu (2005) was used. This instrument consisted of 19 items on a five-

point Likert scale and included five subscales: the role of social negotiation on science

(SN), the invented and creative reality of science (IC), the theory-laden exploration of

science (TL), the cultural impact on science (CU), and the changing and tentative features

of science (CT). The major features of each subscale are represented in Table 1 as

described in Tsai and Liu (2005). This instrument was administered as a pretest prior to

viewing the documentary and then again as a posttest. The Cronbach alpha (coefficient for

internal consistency) for this instrument was 0.642, which is similar to the value reported

by Tsai and Liu (a = 0.67). The t test was utilized to compare score differences before and

after watching the documentary to determine statistical significance.


123

5.2.2.2 The Open-Ended Questionnaire on Aspects of NOS Embedded in the Documen-

tary After watching the documentary, the students were asked to write about the elements

of the NOS they had observed in the documentary. Data were analyzed by categorizing the

student responses into nine predetermined themes (Osborne et al. 2003). Osborne’s nine

themes drawn by a Delphi study of the expert community encapsulate key ideas about the

nature of science. Each of the student responses was then rated independently by two

individuals. Seventy-nine percent of the ratings agreed, and assessments that did not agree

were resolved through discussion between raters.

6 Results

6.1 The Documentary, ‘‘Life as a Scientist: People in Love with Caenorhabditis

elegans, a Soil Nematode’’

The documentary ‘‘Life as a Scientist: People in Love with C. elegans, a Soil Nematode’’

(running time, 30 min) focuses on research into the nictation of a tiny worm, C. elegans

(Lee et al. 2012). The film is available at YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=MXkQzBkqvOI&list=PL3Jzk_rP9Eq2NQUp8TXZ12ThKVrw8FHac). Nictation is a

behavior of the worm that it stands on its tail and waves its head in all directions. When it

faces with harsh conditions such as food depletion, hot temperature, or high population, the

worm enters the dauer state, and it is during this stage that shows a behavior known as

nictation. C. elegans is a model animal that has been studied extensively, particularly for

questions of neurobiology and development. More than half of the genes in this worm have

homologs in humans, making studies of C. elegans relevant to human applications.

For the documentary, research on nictation was chosen as an example of a scientific

process for several reasons. Since nictation is a peculiar behavior in that it appears to waste

energy through aimless dancing when the worm is on the verge of death, the behavior

alone may well raise students’ curiosity about the research subject. In addition, the

Table 1 Description of subscales of SEVs (Tsai and Liu 2005)

Subscale Description Item examples

SN The role of socialnegotiation onscience

The development of science relies oncommunication and negotiationsamong scientists

New scientific knowledge acquires itscredibility through its acceptance bymany scientists in the field

IC The invented andcreative realityof science

Whether students understand thatscientific reality is invented rather thandiscovered

Scientists’ intuition plays an importantrole in the development of science

TL The theory-ladenexploration ofscience

The idea that scientists’ personalassumptions, values, and researchagendas may influence the scientificexplorations they conduct

Scientists’ research activities will beaffected by their existing theories

CU The culturalimpact onscience

The cultural-dependent nature of thedevelopment of scientific knowledge

Different cultural groups have differentways of gaining knowledge aboutnature.

CT The changing andtentativefeatures ofscience

The conceptual change of scientificprogression: scientific knowledge isalways changing

Contemporary scientific knowledgeprovides tentative explanations fornatural phenomena.


123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXkQzBkqvOI&list=PL3Jzk_rP9Eq2NQUp8TXZ12ThKVrw8FHac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXkQzBkqvOI&list=PL3Jzk_rP9Eq2NQUp8TXZ12ThKVrw8FHac

nictation can be monitored through a microscope; hence here in the documentary one can

actually watch the behavior on the screen. This would help students to keep focused on the

research process and easily to follow the footsteps of the researchers.

Secondly, we could find as many important and fundamental aspects of science embedded

in the nictation research as a single scientific project could deliver. This is the main reason that

we decided to produce a documentary based on this research. Although provided indirectly,

students can experience the entire research process from the beginning until the end in an

authentic laboratory situation. In a synopsis, aspects of the research process were interwoven

with the everyday life of four scientists who carried out the work. In the meanwhile, we aimed

to incorporate concepts of the NOS as much as the story tells about the NOS.

Described below are examples of how the documentary presents the nine epistemo-

logical themes of science as outlined by Osborne et al. (2003). The production of the film

was motivated primarily to show the ‘realities’ of research life at graduate schools to

undergraduates, and was not strictly based on Osborne et al. (2003)’s NOS themes, We

wanted to capture how research topics are selected, how ‘breakthroughs’ are made and how

the teamwork is crucial in the knowledge-making at the lab. Naturally, most of Osborne

et al. (2003)’s themes are incorporated in the film although we did not work our storyboard

following point by point of their items. Still we were able to identify the corresponding

elements to each of the nine themes in our documentary.

6.1.1 Scientific Method and Critical Testing

6.1.1.1 Careful Experiments are Carried Out to Test Hypotheses The researchers

hypothesized that nictation might allow C. elegans to catch rides on fruit flies as a dispersal

strategy. To test this idea, they examined whether or not nictation played a role in the

ability to be relocated by fruit flies. In one scenario, the experimental group contained

nictating dauers and fruit flies while the control groups contained non-dauers and fruit flies.

It was observed that only dauers that were nictating were transported to a new plate

containing their food, E. coli, in the presence of fruit flies. This controlled experiment

provided evidence that the hypothesis could be correct.

6.1.1.2 Experimental Breakthroughs Depend upon New Technology Although nictation

behavior was interesting and had been observed for a long time, it was difficult to study

because there were no methods available to measure this behavior in a systematic way. In

the documentary, the research team describes how they developed successful new methods

and were then able to ask new questions. The first method they developed was the use of

gauze to encourage nictation, which allowed the researchers to observe nictating worms at

a population level. They subsequently developed ‘‘micro-dirt chips’’ that allowed them to

monitor individual nictating worms. These studies demonstrated how quantitative mea-

surements contribute to scientific knowledge and provided an example of how scientific

breakthroughs depend upon the availability of technology.

6.1.1.3 A single Experiment is Not Sufficient The scientists in the documentary describe

how, after extensive literature searches, experimentation, and discussion, they were able to

conclude that the neurotransmitter acetylcholine was involved in C. elegans nictation.

They were then able to put forth another set of hypotheses and predictions. If nictation

behavior occurs when acetylcholine is made in a particular neuron, then a worm missing

that neuron should not be able to nictate and, furthermore, the ability to nictate should be


123

restored if that particular neuron is restored. A series of experiments to test this hypothesis

were carried out using techniques such as mutant analyses, rescue experiments, and genetic

engineering to delete and restore specific neurons. Seemingly endless experimentation,

literature searches and discussions lead the researchers to the following conclusion: worms

nictated if acetylcholine was made in a neuron called IL2. When they used genetic

engineering to construct a worm lacking the IL2 neuron, nictation was greatly reduced, and

once the IL2 neuron was restored in the mutant, nictation was also restored. The hypothesis

was supported by extensive experimental evidence and concluded to be correct.

6.1.2 Creativity

6.1.2.1 Passion and Involvement Beget Creativity Researchers have a passion for their

work and for their experimental animals. This was very well represented in the words of

the graduate students in the film: ‘‘It was so cool when I first saw worms nictate, and the

fact that you can study this in genetic and neurobiological ways really added to my

fascination.’’ ‘‘I don’t remember a particular event as being the best moment, but I think it

felt the best when a small idea of mine turned out to be true.’’ ‘‘I think it’s the excitement

of being one of the first people in the entire universe to take a look at this. That excitement

and exhilaration is something that only scientists can feel.’’ This passion carries the sci-

entists through the many tedious and difficult days that are inevitably part of research.

6.1.2.2 Creativity of Management is Important in Scientific Research One of the

important messages we wanted the film to convey to students is that science is not a field

reserved for geniuses; rather, scientific knowledge has been developed by ordinary people

who have combined thoughtful creativity with a passion for nature. An interviewee at the

end of the film said, ‘‘A scientist should work on original research, and the research results

should be reliable and solid, and finally the research should be interesting to fellow

scientists. To get those kinds of results, you need to juggle your limited resources, limited

manpower, and limited time, and put together your ideas and inspirations as well as factors

that occur by chance.’’

6.1.3 Historical Development of Scientific Knowledge

6.1.3.1 History Plays an Important Role in Development of Scientific Knowledge The

idea of worms hitchhiking on insects did not arise out of thin air. It reflects an idea

proposed by Charles Darwin about 150 years ago called ‘‘the dispersal of life’’. In The

Origin of Species, Darwin describes how some freshwater snails cling to the feet of ducks

in order to move to new locations. Similarly, the researchers in the documentary propose

that nictation is a dispersal strategy of soil nematodes in nature, serving as an important

means for survival and propagation in harsh environments. Even though Charles Darwin

first reported hitchhiking behavior as a means for dispersal, the nictation research team was

the first to describe a cellular mechanism for such a behavior.

6.1.3.2 Science is a Human Endeavor Personal experience often influences the choice of

a research theme. One of the graduate students, Daehan Lee, relayed a story about hearing

a lecture about C. elegans by a Nobel Laureate at a science festival in his junior year of

middle school and the positive impression this had on him. Dr. Junho Lee, on the other

hand, deliberately chose C. elegans, thinking that he would be able to use this model


123

system to work on development or the nervous system at a world-class level. Dr. Lee began

his work on C. elegans exploring the anesthetic effects of ethanol. It was explained in the

narration as a fitting topic for a person who enjoys drinking beer with his colleagues.

When research is at a standstill, each scientist has his or her own way of dealing with

the challenge; they might be seen jumping rope on the roof, walking around campus,

writing or reading a leisure book. Dr. Junho Lee chooses to talk with students or play

tennis. Diverting their attention from science helps them come up with fresh ideas and

renew their enthusiasm for research. The scientists eventually return to the lab after

spending time away. As is often true in science, patience and persistence pays off.

6.1.4 Science and Questioning

6.1.4.1 Science is a Sequential Series of Questions Nictation is a peculiar behavior in

that it appears to waste energy. Therefore, the behavior alone may well elicit questions

from students such as: ‘‘Why do the worms have nictation behavior?’’ ‘‘How do they

nictate?’’ The documentary demonstrates that similar questions led the scientists to initiate

their research on nictation. In the documentary, it is also clearly demonstrated that even

though the researchers published many papers, there were still many more questions to be

answered. This is reflected in the closing remarks of the three graduate students featured in

the film: ‘‘The paper on nictation was published, but that just means that the research is

starting out, so I have a lot to work on in the future.’’ ‘‘I’m interested in not just one neuron

but in how neuro-networks result in behavior, so that’s what I’ve been focusing on

recently.’’ ‘‘I’m still kicking it around with the worms, as always. I’ve been looking at how

nictation developed and evolved.’’

6.1.4.2 How and Why Questions in Biology Biology can be divided into two separate

fields, functional biology and evolutionary biology, which differ in that functional biolo-

gists tend to ask ‘‘how’’ questions and evolutionary biologists tend to ask ‘‘why’’ questions

(Myer 1961). In the nictation research, however, scientists raised both types of questions.

For the ‘‘how’’ questions, they asked: ‘‘Can we find a way to analyze nictation?’’ ‘‘Do all

C. elegans nictate?’’ ‘‘What causes C. elegans to show nictation behavior?’’ Once they

learned more about how the worms nictate, they began to ask, ‘‘Why do they nictate?’’

‘‘Could it be that the worms are trying to escape from an unfavorable environment with no

food?’’ The fact that the team asked a variety of scientifically significant questions and

found valid answers provides an example of good scientific research.

6.1.5 Diversity of Scientific Thinking

6.1.5.1 Heuristic Approaches and Chances Play a Role in Science Before initiating

nictation, the nematode needs to climb up some sort of support. Initially, nictation was

observed only after the bacterial prey had been depleted and the culture dish had become

contaminated by fungus. Once the worms had climbed up the fungus, they would begin

nictating. The researchers took a heuristic approach to find a more controllable way to

provide this support. They tested a variety of materials including the bristles of a tooth-

brush, small pieces of human hair, broken glass, egg shells, and many other objects, but

nothing worked. As a last resort, a researcher tried the cotton gauze from a first-aid kit and

finally nictation was observed! In the experiment described earlier, only the worms that

climbed up the gauze and nictated were transported by fruit flies to a new plate when either


123

nictating or non-nictating worms were kept with fruit flies in a small toolbox. The gauze

was a material the researchers had added on a whim, but when it actually worked, they

were very excited.

6.1.6 Analysis and Interpretation of Data

6.1.6.1 Healthy Skepticism is a Key Ingredient in Scientific Analysis and Interpretation Sci-

entific knowledge is formulated through a skilled analysis and interpretation of experimental

data (Osborne et al. 2003), therefore it is important for a scientist to be very careful not to

misinterpret or distort the data. When the researchers found that the nematodes were trans-

ported by fruit flies to another place in the experimental setting, they did not rush to the

conclusion that nictation is a dispersal strategy of the worm. Instead, they paused to consider

other possibilities. Perhaps the phenomenon was simply due to the artificial experimental

setting of a small toolbox. The researchers were cautious enough to say that further verifi-

cation was necessary, particularly because this would be the first example of a free-living

worm using an insect for transportation. To follow up, they attempted to observe this behavior

in a natural setting by visiting a greenhouse where worms could be found living on rotting

fruit. The individual fruits were positioned far enough apart that it was unlikely the

small worms could travel from one to the next without assistance. The documentary contains

footage at a microscopic level showing a nictating nematode hitching a ride on an insect. This

observation supported the idea that nictation is a behavior maintained through natural

selection.

6.1.7 Science and Certainty

6.1.7.1 Scientific Research is Not Certain, While Scientific Knowledge Looks Certain Com-

mon conception of science, especially among students comes naturally from their experience

of ‘science’ mostly in the form of their primary and secondary education. Although proper

NOS education is duly emphasized recently, the predominant experience of a typical student

as regards science is through their struggling with difficult math problems (what is the root of

the given second-order equation?) or figuring out the ‘correct’ answer to pre-designed science

questions (what is the terminal speed of a ball rolling down the given slope?). It is no wonder

that students typically believe the meaning of scientific results should be ‘transparent’ to

everybody just as the solution to a pre-designed problem (if properly formulated) is. Also, the

results (or more precisely the meaning of the results) once obtained cannot be changed just as

the solution to a given math problem remains the same all the time. In this particularly sense,

science to them is ‘certain’, that is transparent in its correctness, and therefore unchangeable.

The documentary shows that the ‘making’ of scientific knowledge is not transparent,

and therefore not certain in this particular sense.1 Scientists have to endlessly discuss with

each other in order to find out the exact ‘meaning’ (scientific significance) of an interesting

phenomenon (nictation). They have to figure out its mechanism (how-answer) and

1 The documentary shows that the ‘making’ of scientific knowledge is not done in an algorithmic way,following a pre-given route dictated by the scientific method. Researchers should improvise at every crucialjuncture of their research and make ‘wise’ choices to move forward. That feature of the documentarycaptures what we mean by ‘uncertainty’ of scientific ‘research’. Still, it is important to keep in mind that thescientific ‘knowledge’ obtained from the proper validation process usually by the relevant scientific com-munity is taken to be certain, meaning not arbitrary, despite its historically ‘tentative’ (that is, revisablethrough further research) nature.


123

evolutionary origin (why-answer). Their search for answers is full of failed but quite

reasonable trials, which looked ‘certain’ to take in themselves. Nevertheless, the team

arrived at a satisfactory answer to their questions, and recovered the ‘certainty’ of science

(or more aptly, scientific knowledge), while suggesting the lacunas of their research and

deciding to pursue follow-up questions. In sum, the documentary shows perhaps rather

subtly (see the Sect. 6.2.2) an unfamiliar message to viewers; scientific research is not

certain in the sense that the process is full of contingencies through which scientists have to

make their results transparent and establish the certainty of scientific knowledge.

6.1.8 Hypothesis and Prediction

6.1.8.1 Testable Hypotheses and Predictions are Made Once research questions have

been posed, testable hypotheses are formulated based upon information gleaned from

literature searches and/or initial observations. Knowing that animal movements such as

nictation require transmission of signals between neurons, usually through chemicals

called neurotransmitters, the research team hypothesized that at least one or more neuro-

transmitters are involved in nictation. Furthermore, they predicted that nictation would not

be observed if a mutant worm does not produce a particular neurotransmitter. After testing

a collection of mutant worms, they found that a mutant unable to nictate was defective in

acetylcholine synthesis. They then hypothesized that C. elegans might use nictation to

catch rides on insects, and they predicted that if they put nictating worms and insects

together, they might observe the worms being transported by the insects.

6.1.9 Cooperation and Collaboration in the Development of Scientific Knowledge

6.1.9.1 Scientific Research is Collaborative One of the common myths in science is that

scientists are antisocial geeks who work alone in a dark dungeon (Finson 2002; Haynes

2003; Long and Steinke 1996). The documentary depicts a contrasting, more accurate,

scenario of four scientists working cooperatively to carry out a research project. From the

beginning of the process when initial ideas about the scientific question are formed to the

end of the process when a paper presenting the results is published, they have been

continually talking to each other, working together, troubleshooting for each other, and

finally composing the paper together. In addition, through collaboration with yet another

scientist, Professor Sung-soo Park at Ehwa Women’s University, an expert in the field of

nanotechnology, they were able to develop a method for measuring nictation. This cutting-

edge technology was particularly useful to the project. At the end of the documentary we

see Dr. Junho Lee leave to spend a sabbatical year in Sweden giving viewers a glimpse into

international collaborations, a common occurrence in modern science.

6.1.9.2 Publishing the Work in a Peer-Reviewed Journal Is a Major Reward to Scientists These

researchers were the first in the world to show that C. elegans nictates to promote survival and

reproduction, and they went on to identify the cellular basis of this behavior, collecting

important clues about which neural networks are involved. The research was published in

Nature Neuroscience, a renowned scientific journal in the field of neuroscience.

6.1.9.3 Scientific Research Is a Social Activity That Naturally Includes Competition Scientists

are happy and productive when they pursue research on topics that interest them; however,


123

difficulties may arise when they discover that other scientists have collected data on the same

topic. The film includes a story about this type of competition. When work on the effects of

ethanol on the nervous system of the worm was published by another team, the head of

research team did not hide his disappointment. He said, ‘‘It was really disappointing that our

research lost the chance to be the leading research in the field, and became reduced to

supporting research. It became a situation where all the hard work that had been put in

wouldn’t be acknowledged as deserved.’’

6.2 A science Documentary as an Instructional Tool for NOS

We assessed whether or not there were any changes in the scientific epistemological views

(SEVs) of college students before and after watching the documentary, ‘‘Life as a Scientist:

People in Love with C. elegans, a Soil Nematode’’. The students were not explicitly taught

about NOS per se during the course. Especially they never heard of (at least in the classes)

sophisticated discussions of NOS of science education literature including Osborne et al.

(2003) or Tsai and Liu (2005). In addition, students were asked to describe any aspects of

the NOS they had observed in the documentary.

6.2.1 Changes of Students’ Scientific Epistemological Views (SEV)

SEV scores for five different subscales were collected and, when taken together, the scores

had increased significantly after watching the documentary (p \ 0.01) (Table 2). Notably,

the scores for social negotiation (SN) were significantly higher in the posttest, suggesting

that these students recognized this particular aspect of science after watching the docu-

mentary. In contrast, the scores for cultural impacts (CU) were significantly lower in the

posttest (p \ 0.05), indicating that the documentary made students think that the devel-

opment of scientific knowledge is culture-independent.

6.2.2 Aspects of NOS in the Documentary as Identified by Students

Students were given an open-ended questionnaire in which they were asked to identify any

aspects of the NOS they had observed embedded in the documentary. Student responses

Table 2 Statistical values of students’ scores of scientific epistemological views

Scale Number of items Pretest (n = 157) Posttest (n = 157) t df p

M SD M SD

SN 6 22.97 2.80 24.69 2.60 -7.863 156 0.000**

IC 4 16.92 2.32 16.89 2.12 0.235 156 0.815

TL 3 11.82 1.77 11.63 1.61 1.190 156 0.236

CU 3 10.36 2.15 9.94 2.14 2.616 156 0.010*

CT 3 12.00 1.90 12.17 1.66 -1.173 156 0.243

Total 19 74.06 5.80 75.31 5.37 -3.088 156 0.002**

SN the role of social negotiation, IC the invented and creative reality of science, TL the theory-ladenexploration of science, CU the cultural impacts on science, CT the changing and tentative features of science

* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01


123

were categorized based on the nine themes of ideas-about-science described previously

(Osborne et al. 2003). Figure 1 shows the percentage of students who mention each theme.

Approximately half of the responses included the theme ‘‘cooperation and collabora-

tion’’. Osborne et al. (2003) defined this theme as: scientific work is a communal and

competitive activity; scientific work is often carried out in groups; new knowledge claims

are to be accepted by the community. Many students had previously envisioned scientists

working alone in the laboratory, but after watching the documentary they realized that

research is a communal activity requiring the continual sharing of ideas and thoughts with

colleagues. Furthermore, some of the students recognized that general approval by the

scientific community is necessary for new knowledge to be accepted. The following are a

few representative responses about ‘‘cooperation and collaboration’’.

I imagined scientists as being lonely. I am familiar with the typical image of scientists wearing awhite gown and studying alone, which is contrasted to the image of people working on social sciencediscussing and debating with their colleagues to share their thoughts. However, after watching thedocumentary, my thoughts changed. I also learned that scientists share their opinion and cooperatewith each other. (B11)

Scientific knowledge is formed by multiple experiments as well as other scientists’ recognition… Thedocumentary showed good examples of it, such as scientists discussing their research every morningor the professor leaving for collaborative research abroad. (A11)

I learned that scientific knowledge is formed only after other scientists in the same field acknowledgethem. The scientists were upset when other research teams published a paper that is same as theirs,and they were very happy when they published a paper. (C30)

The role of creativity and imagination in science was mentioned by 21 % of the stu-

dents. Osborne et al. (2003) defined ‘‘creativity’’ as: science is an activity that involves

creativity and imagination as much as other human activities; scientists are passionate and

involved humans whose work relies on inspiration and imagination. Students recognized

that creative new ideas could come from anyone with a passion for their subject. Some

students noted that creativity might arise from trivial everyday experiences and specifically

mentioned how scientists in the documentary came up with the idea of using gauze from a

first aid kit to quantify the number of nictating worms.

Before I watched the documentary, I thought scientific advancement was achieved by the intuition ofa handful of genius scientists born with brilliant ingenuity and different mindsets. The documentarymade me realize that scientific knowledge is developed through ‘‘persevering research’’ in combi-nation with the patience and creativity of common people. (Y76)

Fig. 1 Percentage of students who describe each NOS theme


123

In order to get satisfactory achievements, scientists need to think about their research fields not onlyin the laboratories but also during their everyday lives. It seems that creative thinking in everyday lifeand the daily deliberations eventually make new scientific outcomes. (A7)

In the documentary, the researchers are full of passion. They do research late at night, and imme-diately prepare for experiments whenever new ideas come up. I think that to successfully performscientific experiments, new ideas and perseverance that concretizes the ideas are necessary, as in thecase where the researcher observed the movement of the worms using gauze. (A38)

In the documentary, scientists tested several possibilities to find the condition that nematodes nictate,and they finally observed the nictation behavior in detail. From this episode, I realized that scientistsneeded the ability to think of new ideas and implement the ideas in concrete experiments. It seemslike a very simple idea, but I am not sure if I would be able to come up with such ideas in the samesituation with the scientists shown in the documentary. (C9)

Using gauze to observe the movements of C. elegans was very interesting. Previously, they failednumerous times using hair. Coming up with the idea to substitute gauze for hair made me realize howmuch creative imagination is essential for scientists. (A4)

Comments encompassing the theme ‘‘science and questioning’’ were mentioned by

19 % of students. These students primarily noted that scientific research begins with

curiosity or questioning.

Scientific knowledge starts from endless curiosity and questioning. In order to pursue their curiosity,scientists plan new experiments and study using them. Scientists in this documentary continuouslyquestioned to find out why the worm nictates. (B5)

The theme ‘‘diversity of scientific thinking’’ was included in 16 % of the responses. The

theme ‘‘diversity of scientific thinking’’ was defined as: science uses a range of a methods

and approaches; there is no one science method (Osborne et al. 2003). These students

recognized the diverse scientific methods presented throughout the documentary and

understood that there is more than one correct approach to solving a problem.

When scientists started to work in a new area that no one ever worked and therefore no standardmethods were developed, it was quite surprising that they rely on heuristic approaches. (Y9)

I thought scientists would get their results just like we solve a math problem by substituting figuresinto a formula. But it was interesting that they have to go through a myriad of thinking and trials toget a result. (Y11)

Scientific knowledge could be found by chance. In the documentary, one researcher found thesolution while taking a rest. From this episode, I realized that scientific knowledge could be producednot only within the standardized procedures but also by coincidence, as in Archimedes’ ‘‘Eureka!’’moment. (B17)

A similar number of students (15 %) described ‘‘scientific method and critical thinking’’

defined as science uses the experimental methods to test ideas (Osborne et al. 2003).

Students A29 and C13 both mentioned the importance of experimentation and student C24

makes particular note of how laboratory equipment was used to observe a nematode.

Scientific knowledge is obtained by setting up a hypothesis and testing it. It is different from studiesin humanities in that science utilizes experiments. (A29)

Developing scientific knowledge starts from observing a certain phenomenon. Just like the case in thedocumentary where the research started from questioning why the C. elegans dances, scientificresearch is done by observing a phenomenon and figuring out the logical causes for it. Scientificknowledge is created when the most appropriate cause is discovered through numerous experimentsand data accumulation. (C13)

The documentary showed many episodes about a nematode. Scientists first observed the diverse typesof nematodes and then researched each type. They used laboratory equipment such as microscopes to


123

observe worms’ characteristics in detail. I noticed that for the purpose of investigating a certainobject, scientists utilize laboratory equipment. (C24)

Fewer students (12 %) mentioned ‘‘hypothesis and prediction’’ and student D29 spe-

cifically noted the importance of creativity in hypotheses formation.

A lot of research is necessary in order to accumulate scientific knowledge. Such research starts from ahypothesis. The hypothesis decides the direction of a research. Studying a lot may help form areasonable hypothesis, but, for some occasions, I think a lot of knowledge may become an obstacle informing a more creative hypothesis. (D29)

The theme ‘science and certainty’ is defined as current scientific knowledge is the best

we have but may be subject to change in the future (Osborne et al. 2003), and was

mentioned by only 4 % of the students. It is most likely due to the fact that the

‘changeable’ nature of scientific knowledge is difficult to be seen in this episode of a short

period of scientific research on a specific task. We need to also take into account the

possibility that students’ recognition of uncertain nature of scientific research is dispersed

in their responses to the other categories of NOS. It is reasonable to think that the gen-

erality of the theme, ‘science and certainty’ could explain the relative low response from

the students.

Students recognized that scientific knowledge is changeable when there is new evidence

or new interpretations of old evidence. Student A35, for example, reflects that certain

knowledge is generally accepted by the scientific community but could change in light of

new evidence in the future.

Scientific knowledge is developed by other scientists’ acknowledgement. Also scientific knowledgecould be abandoned or revised when new evidence comes up. (A35)

Another 4 % of the responses reflected the theme ‘‘historical development of scientific

knowledge’’, a theme suggesting that science is a human activity influenced by personal

experiences and historical perspectives.

Scientific knowledge starts from the curiosity of human beings. It is formed by the collaboration ofmany researchers who have the same goals. Of course, it is necessary that there are no precedingresearchers on the same subject and that a paper is published and approved by colleagues after theresearch is finalized. The characteristics of scientific knowledge are affected by scientists’ ownthoughts and values because the development of scientific knowledge is made by human beings.(C29)

Finally, a very small percentage (2.45 %) of students recognized that research involves

skillful analysis and interpretation of data. For example, student C20 acknowledged the

expertise required to interpret data.

In the documentary, scientists performed lots of experiments changing the conditions, and interpretedthe data step by step. I was astonished by their ability to interpret data. (C20)

Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that viewing this documentary helped

students develop an understanding of the NOS. In particular, students learned more about

the social aspects of science and recognized that cooperation and collaboration are

important in the development of scientific knowledge.

7 Discussion and Implication

In this study, we developed a documentary titled ‘‘Life as a Scientist: People in Love with

C. elegans, a Soil Nematode’’ for the purpose of providing students with a direct window


123

into the daily lives of scientists. Even though the nature of science describes how science

works and how scientific knowledge is developed (Lederman 1992; Sandoval 2005), few

studies provide an example of authentic scientific research to support these ideas. The

documentary reflected all nine themes included in the Ideas-About-Science by Osborne

et al. (2003) (scientific methods and critical testing; creativity; historical development of

scientific knowledge; science and questioning; diversity of scientific thinking; analysis and

interpretation of data; science and certainty; hypothesis and prediction; cooperation and

collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge). These themes were presented in

the context of an actual scientist’s laboratory to give students a sense of how each can be

applied.

In the classroom, students often learn about scientific inquiry with the guidance of a

teacher. Previous studies have suggested that such directed activities do not help students

develop understanding of the NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Khishfe and

Abd-El-Khalick 2002). Routine, predetermined laboratory activities result in inaccurate

notions about the NOS (Clough 2006). Furthermore, these inaccurate notions are difficult

to change even after further instruction about the NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman

2000; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Clough 2006). Since students rarely have the

opportunity to learn about scientific research firsthand, the documentary allows them an in-

depth look at an actual scientific inquiry through the everyday experiences of four

researchers.

The documentary is especially effective in providing a better understanding of the role

of cooperation and collaboration in scientific research. Both qualitative and quantitative

data represent that this documentary contributes to a better overall understanding of the

role of communication and cooperation. Almost half of students who watched the docu-

mentary noticed in their writings that scientific work is a communal activity where open,

seemingly never-ending discussions and sharing ideas among co-workers are crucial for

productive research, that is, scientific knowledge-making. In addition, our quantitative

results indicate that, among five subscales, the mean scores for the role of social negoti-

ation increased most dramatically (refer back to Table 2).

The messages of the documentary help students debunk some of the common myths

related to NOS. Students often develop erroneous concepts on science such that scientists

are antisocial figures who work alone in a laboratory all the time, science is a field for just a

handful of geniuses not for ordinary people, and scientific practices are a simple problem

solving routine to find out a single right answer, and so forth. For example, they recognized

that their typical image of a scientist as a lonely figure in a white coat working in a

laboratory surrounded only by numerous equipments is a misconception, perhaps a rem-

nant of a pseudo-image from spectacle science films. By watching documentary, they

realized that scientific progress is normally achieved through countless efforts of these

ordinary researchers, rather than by ingenious ideas of a few extremely talented ones.

Some students were even amused by the facts that sometimes heuristic approaches were

used and chances working in the scientific activity. In sum, we can confirm from students’

qualitative comments that they enjoyed their experience of documentary-viewing in dis-

pelling common but incorrect image of science, and appreciating realistic workings of

scientific knowledge-making.

Furthermore, the analyses of the student’s written responses suggested that all nine

themes from the Ideas-About-Science were gleaned from the documentary. However, three

of the nine NOS themes, including science and certainty, historical development, and

analysis and interpretation of data, were mentioned by less than 5 % of students. These

results indicate that there are limitations to simply watching a documentary, especially for


123

rather abstract topics such as science and certainty, even though we had provided students

with the opportunity to reflect on what they had seen by writing about particular aspects of

the NOS. We cannot help but to accept an obvious fact that just one exposure to the

‘realities’ of scientific life is not enough for viewers to fully digest the intended messages

of the documentary.

We also note that the mean score of cultural impacts on science significantly decreased

after watching the documentary in our quantitative analyses (Table 2). The international

competitions and collaborations are one of the most prominent trends in current scientific

endeavors. In the documentary, the Korean scientists have once competed with an

American research team who was working on the same topic and later they collaborated

with Swedish researchers. The cultural-dependency and the international aspects are

pointing the opposite directions, and this can be partially explained by the fact that the film

appears rather weak in conveying the ‘cultural’ aspects such as described in Tsai and Liu

(2005). The students are likely to pick up the ‘international’ nature of scientific research

rather than the cultural-dependent nature of gaining knowledge about nature through the

documentary.

The documentary-viewing experience can be classified as an implicit approach to teach

NOS, and it is reported in the literature that implicit approach is rarely effective in

influencing students’ views about NOS. We believe that it is significant to have an

‘effective’ implicit method to teach a number of aspects of NOS, excluding a few rather

abstract themes. Our results indicate that the documentary-viewing experience, provided

the documentary is well-designed and depicting faithfully the complex realities of how

science works, can be made even more effective if we supplement this implicit experience

with other explicit methods such as offering a discussion session with help of a guidebook

explaining the ‘hidden’ (that is, not easy to see through in real time) messages of the

documentary.

To be more explicit approach, discussions about each aspect of NOS should be followed

by discursive reflection through writing. Our documentary provides accurate implicit

experiences regarding NOS so that students would likely to develop informed views of

NOS when they have chance to discuss and deliberate on NOS. As Clough (2006) artic-

ulated the importance of contextualized NOS instruction, the documentary provides the

rich context for students to reexamine their exiting ideas within authentic scientific

research. The documentary could be used as a valuable instructional context that important

NOS issues entangle in and draw students’ attention to NOS issues. The explicit approach

such as the opportunities of discussions, journal writing and reflection on episodes of the

documentary will further help students understanding of the NOS.

It is noteworthy that the students’ response we analyzed before should be taken with the

obvious caution to the effect that we examined the result theme by theme while students

obtain their ‘lessons’ from the documentary, presumably in the form of a very complex,

whole experience. In order to get the definite analysis and the useful tips for future

improvement, we had to rely on the ‘analytic’ method as scientists do. But we should

remember that as the analytic method is often limited in understanding complex phe-

nomena, such as documentary-viewing experience. A more comprehensive evaluation

should be helped by looking at the unstructured comments by students as a whole. The

essence we can draw is that student viewers relish their opportunity to see more ‘realistic’

image of scientific research and therefore form more ‘correct’ views of NOS. From stu-

dents’ responses as a whole, we can see that exposing the realistic and complex ‘science in

the making’ can contribute their proper understanding of NOS.


123

In summary, this documentary provides valuable insight into ideas related to the NOS in

the hopes that students will develop informed views on these topics. By presenting a real-

life context and giving students an opportunity to consider these ideas, the documentary

could serve as a valuable instructional tool.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the members of the Laboratory of Genetics and Development atSeoul National University, Harksun Lee, Myung-kyu Choi, Daehan Lee and Junho Lee, for providinginsightful ideas and featuring in the film. We are also thankful to Professor Ho-Yeon Kim for evaluating thedocumentary in the classes of ‘‘Scientists and Engineers at Work with the World’’. This research wassupported by a research fund from Chosun University, 2012.

References

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, 417–437.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature ofscience: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

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 inScience Teaching, 37, 295–317.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a scienceapprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientificinquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations foreffective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15, 463–494.

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and itsrelationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.

Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. SchoolScience and Mathematics, 102, 335–345.

Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature.Public Understanding of Science, 12, 243–253.

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 ScienceTeaching, 39, 551–578.

Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.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.Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & 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., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development,use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.

Lee, H., Choi, M., Lee, D., Kim, H.-S., Hwang, H., Kim, H., et al. (2012). Nictation, a dispersal behavior ofthe nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, is regulated by IL2 neurons. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 107–114.

Long, M., & Steinke, J. (1996). The thrill of everyday science: Images of science and scientists on children’seducational science programmes in the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 101–119.

McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science inscience education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationalesand strategies (pp. 3–39). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standardsdocuments. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales andstrategies (pp. 41–52). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112, 29–48.Myer, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506.


123

Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science& Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘‘Ideas-About-Science’’ shouldbe taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40, 692–720.

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on leaningthrough inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in anauthentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientificinquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

Tsai, C., & Liu, S. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemo-logical views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621–1638.

Wibel, W. H. (1991). Reflection through writing. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 45.Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1989). The effects of teachers’ language on students’ conceptions of the

nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 771–783.


123

Copyright of Science & Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.

Documents

Production of a Science Documentary and its Usefulness in … · Production of a Science Documentary and its Usefulness in Teaching the Nature of Science: Indirect Experience of How