Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
ABSTRACT: Nature of science refers to the processes of scientific activity and the social and cultural premises involved in the
creation of scientific knowledge. Having an informed view of nature of science is important in the development of scientifically
literate citizens. However, students often come to the classroom with misconceptions about nature of science. The activity model of
inquiry is a theoretically grounded and empirically derived model of scientific inquiry and could be used as a thinking frame to help
students develop more informed views of nature of science. This paper reports work on how to implement this model in the general
chemistry classroom, and on how undergraduate students’ views of scientific inquiry shift. Implementation includes having students
reflect on how current topics in science and their own lab work compare to the activity model of inquiry. Students are asked to
respond to essay prompts and a pre- and postquestionnaire designed to assess naïve and informed views of nature of science.
Findings show student responses to essay prompts and questionnaires and how they shifted in their views of nature of science.
KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Public Understanding/Outreach, Communication/Writing, Inquiry-Based/
Discovery Learning, Misconceptions/Discrepant Events, Applications of Chemistry, Learning Theories
formulating the question activities can be used to teach the (VNOS-C) developed by Lederman et al.12 The purpose of this
cultural component. Observing, and carrying out the study, can questionnaire is to assess students’ understanding of scientific
be used to illustrate how science is empirically based as well as a practice and aspects of NOS rather than content knowledge. On
way to show that scientists can carry out a study in more ways the first day of class, students were told that there are no correct
than just through experiments. Examining the results, and answers to the questions and as long as they attempt to answer
reflecting on the findings, are places to teach the differences the questions, they would receive full credit on the problems.
between observations and inferences. The aspect of subjectivity Additionally, if they did not know how to answer a question, to
can be taught using almost every single activity. Creativity is receive full credit, they needed to explain why they did not know.
inherent in the model because a person needs to choose his or her They were told not to leave it blank or just say, “I don’t know”.
own path. The tentative NOS can be taught by showing that The instructor provided students with feedback that included
there is no end to the model. prompts to further their thinking.
Although all aspects of NOS are important, students will have To assess the changes, if any, in students’ views of NOS, this
trouble recognizing the cultural, empirical, creative, subjective, questionnaire was given again on the last day of the semester. In
theory-laden and tentative nature of science if they hold a an attempt to prevent studying for the questionnaire, students
traditional linear model view of the scientific method. This were never told they would take this assessment again. Once
particular intervention aims at examining how the activity model again, students were told that there were no incorrect answers
of inquiry impacts students’ initial concepts of scientific method. and that they would receive full credit by simply answering the
questions. This time, however, students were told that they could
’ USING THE ACTIVITY MODEL OF INQUIRY IN not simply say that they did not know the answer; they needed to
INSTRUCTION ABOUT NOS actually attempt to answer the question.
The first writing assignment was given on the second day of
The flexibility and data-based nature of Harwood’s activity
class and was due one week later. The assignment had students
model of inquiry25 suggests it is a good thinking frame to use to
respond to the prompt: “Describe how scientific knowledge is
develop students’ understanding of the actual NOS as described
created. Do all scientists follow the same approach?” The intent
in the work of Lederman.13 In particular, the lack of a linear
of this writing assignment was to further assess students’ view of a
structure, the focus on inquiry processes, and the inclusion of
single, universal scientific method. The other intent was to
societal and cultural factors mean that scientific methods are
determine how students understood the creation of scientific
presented by the activity model of inquiry as variable, open-
knowledge and how the different aspects of NOS contributed to
ended activities. Thus, inclusion of the activity model of inquiry
the creation of a particular piece of scientific knowledge.
within a college general chemistry program was undertaken and
The second and third writing assignments required the
has been done multiple times. This particular paper focuses on
students to interact with the activity model of inquiry and real-
one implementation that also included adaptation of laboratory
life scenarios. The second writing assignment asked students to
work to provide students with their own experience of inquiry in
look for components of the model in an actual example of science
science as part of their learning.
by analyzing a news or journal article (in chemistry, biology, or
Classroom Context physics). For the article that students chose individually, they
This project took place within a first-semester general chem- were to find at least 10 examples of how the science in the article
istry course at an urban community college in the summer fits with the components of the model. Students were not to use
session where the first author was the instructor. The course any component more than twice, so they should have used at
had 18 students enrolled, and was structured around lecture, least five different components. In addition, they were to explain
group activities, laboratory experiments, and quizzes and exams. how the specific example of their article fits the component
Many of the labs were verification labs, yet two labs were created within the model and show how that example then linked to the
to include an inquiry component. In addition, writing-to-learn next component that they cited. Lastly, they needed to compare
strategies were used. Writing has been shown to be an effective and contrast their news article findings using the activity model of
means in promoting conceptual change6,27,28 and metacogni- inquiry with the scientific method discussed in their textbook.31
tion.29 Writing is a useful tool for the writer to clarify his or her This writing assignment was used to introduce students to
knowledge, organize the ideas to be written, and reflect on the science outside the classroom and to provide a more authentic
learning experience.30 Assignments relevant to NOS were a setting that fits the activity model of inquiry.
standardized questionnaire given at the beginning and end of The third writing assignment was similar to the second writing
the semester and four course-related writing assignments given assignment, although this time students were asked to analyze
throughout the semester. their own chemistry laboratory work. Initially, the news article
On the second day of instruction, students were introduced to activity was assigned before the students’ lab activity so students
a definition of scientific models and asked to draw their own would see how scientists engage in science first before transfer-
model of what the process of science looked like. The students ring this knowledge to their own lab experience. The lab used for
were then asked to describe their models to the group. After a this writing assignment was a solubility rules lab and was chosen
class discussion about the similarities and differences among the because it had an inquiry component. For the writing assignment,
students’ models, the activity model of inquiry was introduced. students were to write a lab report. Within it, they needed to
The instructor described how the model was developed and include a brief introduction about what the solubility rules are, a
described each of the components. The instructor then gave an procedure paragraph, collected data and analysis, results, and
example of how development of a pharmaceutical follows the conclusion. They then needed to analyze their own lab work and
activity model of inquiry. identify where they executed particular components of the
At the beginning and end of the semester, all students were activity model of inquiry. As before, they needed to compare
given the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire Form-C and contrast their findings using the model with the scientific
1043 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education ARTICLE
’ REFERENCES
(1) Driver, R.; Leach, J.; Millar, R.; Scott, P. Young People’s Images of
Science; Open University Press: Bristol, PA, 1996.
(2) Ibrahim, B.; Buffler, A.; Lubben, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009,
46, 248–264.
(3) Ryder, J.; Leach, J.; Driver, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36 (2),
201–219.
(4) Dewey, J. Science 1910, 31 (787), 121–127.
(5) Rudd, J. A., II; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (12),
1680–1686.
(6) Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. Introduction to the Science Writing
Heuristic. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N. J., Cooper,
M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 2005; pp 140154.
(7) Wink, D. J.; Hwang-Choe, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (3),
396–398.
(8) Wink, D. J. Found. Chem. 2006, 8 (2), 111–151.
(9) American Association for the Advancement of Science Bench-
marks for Science Literacy. Project 2061; Oxford University Press:
New York, 1993.
(10) National Research Council. National Science Education Stan-
dards; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
(11) The use of the phrase “NOS” instead of the phrase “the NOS” is
consistent with Norman Lederman’s reference to there not being a
single definition of NOS and that NOS, itself, is tentative.
(12) Lederman, N. G.; Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Bell, R. L.; Schwartz, R. S.
J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (6), 497–521.
(13) Lederman, N. G. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 3 (2), 1–11.
(14) Khishfe, R.; Abd-El-Khalick, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (7),
551–578.
(15) Schwartz, R. S.; Lederman, N. G.; Crawford, B. A. Sci. Educ.
2004, 88 (4), 610–645.
(16) Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Akerson, V. L. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (5),
785–810.
(17) Khishfe, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45 (4), 470–496.
(18) Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Lederman, N. G. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000,
22 (7), 665–701.
(19) Perkins, D. N. Educ. Leadership 1986, 43 (8), 4–10.
(20) Science Buddies Web Page on Steps of the Scientific Method.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_
method.shtml (accessed Apr 2011).
(21) Rudolph, J. L. Hist. Educ. Q. 2005, 45 (3), 341–376.
(22) Bacon, F. Novum Organum; The Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1623.
(23) Dewey, J. How We Think; D.C. Heath and Co.: Boston, MA,
1910.
(24) Rudolph, J. L. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89 (5), 803–821.
(25) Harwood, W. S. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2004, 33 (7), 29–33.
(26) Harwood, W. S.; Reiff, R.; Phillipson, T. Scientists’ Concep-
tions of Scientific Inquiry: Voices from the Front. In Proceedings of the
Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of
Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC, January 1013, 2002; ED 465632.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED465632.pdf (accessed Apr 2011).
(27) Fellows, N. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 985–1001.
(28) Mason, L.; Boscolo, P. Instructional Sci. 2000, 28 (3), 199–226.
(29) Ruggles Gere, A. Roots in the Sawdust: Writing To Learn across
the Disciplines; National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL,
1985.
(30) Langer, J. A.; Applebee, A. N. How Writing Shapes Thinking: A
Study of Teaching and Learning; National Council of Teachers of English:
Urbana, IL, 1987.
(31) Tro, N. J. Introductory Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Pearson Education,
Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009.
(32) Stevens, K. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (3), 327–328.
(33) Wood, C.; Breyfogle, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (5), 741–748.