This article was downloaded by: [Boston University]On: 13 May 2013, At: 06:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

What Third-Grade Students of DifferingAbility Levels Learn about Nature ofScience after a Year of InstructionValarie Akerson a , Vanashri Nargund-Joshi a , Ingrid Weiland b ,Khemmawadee Pongsanon a & Banu Avsar aa Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University,Bloomington, IN, USAb Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education,University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USAPublished online: 11 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Valarie Akerson , Vanashri Nargund-Joshi , Ingrid Weiland , KhemmawadeePongsanon & Banu Avsar (2013): What Third-Grade Students of Differing Ability Levels Learnabout Nature of Science after a Year of Instruction, International Journal of Science Education,DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.761365

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.761365

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

What Third-Grade Students of

Differing Ability Levels Learn about

Nature of Science after a Year

of Instruction

Valarie Akersona∗, Vanashri Nargund-Joshia,Ingrid Weilandb, Khemmawadee Pongsanona and Banu Avsara

aDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN,

USA; bDepartment of Early Childhood and Elementary Education, University of

Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

This study explored third-grade elementary students’ conceptions of nature of science (NOS) over

the course of an entire school year as they participated in explicit-reflective science instruction. The

Views of NOS-D (VNOS-D) was administered pre instruction, during mid-school year, and at the

end of the school year to track growth in understanding over time. The Young Children’s Views of

Science was used to describe how students conversed about NOS among themselves. All science

lessons were videotaped, student work collected, and a researcher log was maintained. Data were

analyzed by a team of researchers who sorted the students into low-, medium-, and high-

achieving levels of NOS understandings based on VNOS-D scores and classwork. Three

representative students were selected as case studies to provide an in-depth picture of how

instruction worked differentially and how understandings changed for the three levels of students.

Three different learning trajectories were developed from the data describing the differences

among understandings for the low-, medium-, and high-achieving students. The low-achieving

student could discuss NOS ideas, the medium-achieving student discussed and wrote about NOS

ideas, the high-achieving student discussed, wrote, and raised questions about NOS ideas.

Keywords: Nature of science; Elementary students; Differing ability

Nature of science (NOS) is considered a critical component of scientific literacy for

all students (Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber, 2008). Understanding NOS is

International Journal of Science Education, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.761365

∗Corresponding author. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University, 201 North

Rose Avenue, Bloomington 47405, IN, USA. Email: vakerson@indiana.edu

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

essential for understanding content and processes of science. It helps one to develop

informed decision-making abilities for a student and it also helps students to learn

science subject matter. Thus, teaching NOS to elementary as well as secondary-

level students is essential. Developing students’ understanding of NOS in early

grades should help them develop better conceptual understanding of NOS as well

as science content in later grades (Akerson, Buck, Donnelly, Nargund-Joshi, &

Weiland, 2011a).

Studies have shown that elementary students do not naturally develop adequate

understandings of NOS as a result of inquiry instruction (Akerson & Abd-El-

Khalick, 2005). However, elementary teachers can positively influence their students’

views of NOS with appropriate instruction such as making NOS connections within

science instruction throughout the elementary grades (Smith, Maclin, Houghton, &

Hennessey, 2000). It is also evident that if different aspects of NOS are discussed

explicitly within the context of science or in a non-contextualized form, students

develop understandings of these ideas. It seems that we may underestimate the learn-

ing capabilities of students, and if they actually received NOS instruction they can

learn the concepts. Akerson et al. (2011a) argue for including NOS in science instruc-

tion from the early grades to provide students with a foundation for learning about

science as well as NOS, predicting that students who begin learning NOS at early

ages will have a better understanding of the science content they learn and develop

better scientific literacy in terms of being consumers and producers of scientific

knowledge over time. Indeed, high expectations for young children in terms of devel-

oping content knowledge about NOS are recommended for students. In addition,

explicit-reflective NOS instruction has been found to improve NOS conceptions for

learners as young as kindergarten (Akerson & Donnelly, 2010). Explicit-reflective

NOS instruction includes drawing learners’ attention to NOS aspects either through

activities and discussions that are embedded in science content (contextualized in

content) or as stand-alone activities and discussions that are targeted at introducing

NOS elements to students prior to embedding in content (decontextualized from

content).

This study explored the kinds of NOS conceptions third-grade students developed

as a result of explicit-reflective NOS instruction that took place in a regular classroom

over an entire school year. The following research questions guided our study:

(a) What NOS conceptions can third graders develop after a full year of participating

in explicit-reflective NOS instruction?

(b) How do students of different achievement levels develop NOS conceptions, and

how might these development trajectories differ?

To answer our research questions, we explored the influence of our instruction on

NOS conceptions held by one class of third-grade students, and then chose three

cases to allow us to explore the processes students engaged in when conceptualizing

NOS aspects in students of differing abilities. We chose our cases based on students’

performance on the Views of NOS, Version D2 (VNOS-D2) (Lederman & Khishfe,

2 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

2002) instrument as well as on their overall academic performance. We wanted to

understand how students of different ability levels conceptualize NOS and what

aspects of NOS are easy or difficult for them to understand.

Conceptual Framework

We knew from prior research in informal settings with young children (e.g.

Akerson & Donnelly, 2010) and in traditional classroom settings with older chil-

dren (e.g. Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002) that the explicit-reflective approach

is effective in helping children improve their conceptions of NOS (Khishfe,

2012; Khishfe & Lederman, 2007). We therefore elected to use explicit-reflective

NOS instruction, embedded in the third-grade science content, to teach NOS

aspects. While a review of prior research illustrates that children can indeed

improve their conceptions of NOS given appropriate instruction, we desired to

know what conceptions third-grade students could attain after a full year of

NOS instruction, and also looked at conceptions of low-, medium-, and high-

achieving students to illustrate how such instruction may differentially improve

student conceptions.

Nature of Science

Lederman states ‘NOS refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of

knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowl-

edge’ (Lederman, 2007). Some important aspects of NOS have been advanced in

reform documents including Science for All Americans (American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 1994, especially chapter 1) and the position statement

from National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 2000). These aspects include

that (a) scientific knowledge is both reliable and tentative, (b) no single scientific

method exists, but there are shared characteristics of scientific approaches to

science (e.g. scientific explanations are supported by, and testable against, empirical

observations of the natural world), (c) creativity plays a role in the development of

scientific knowledge, (d) there is a crucial distinction between observations and infer-

ences, (e) though science strives for objectivity, there is always an element of subjec-

tivity (theory-ladeness) and (f) social and cultural contexts play a role in the

development of scientific knowledge. These aspects were the target of the current

project.

Student conceptions of NOS. Exploring how elementary students come to know

NOS has been the target of research for several years, and we are still studying

best practices. Smith et al. (2000) found that students with a teacher who empha-

sized NOS over the course of their elementary science classes improved their NOS

conceptions. However, it remains to be seen the nature of those conceptions for

young children particularly given that most teachers of young children do not

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

teach NOS. In research with teachers (Akerson & Volrich, 2006), we have explored

first graders’ conceptions of NOS as a result of short-term explicit instruction, and

noted that these students improved their understandings of several NOS elements.

We have also found Akerson and Hanuscin (2007) and Akerson and Donnelly

(2010) that elementary students of different grade levels improved their under-

standings of NOS elements through explicit-reflective instruction in intense infor-

mal science settings, and that children as young as five were able to conceptualize

various elements of NOS that are advocated by the NSTA position statement

(NSTA, 2000). Lederman and Lederman (2004) have similarly found that young

children can improve their understandings of NOS aspects as a result of instruc-

tion. Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) found that older elementary students

who participated in explicit-reflective NOS instruction could conceptualize NOS

ideas better than those who participated in scientific inquiry. Dogan and Abd-El-

Khalick (2008) found that even for high-school students and their teachers there

were very few informed views of particular NOS aspects, with these being the

tentative NOS, the relationship between classification schemes and reality,

and the probabilistic nature of scientific knowledge. Lederman (2007) noted

through a review of literature that students do not generally hold informed con-

ceptions of NOS, but are able to obtain better conceptions through appropriate

instruction.

Kang, Scharmann, and Noh (2005) explored middle- and high-school students’

conceptions of NOS. They found that in some ways older students had better con-

ceptions of NOS, but in other ways older students held more traditional epistemologi-

cal views. They postulated that participation in traditional school science could

negatively influence students’ views of science.

In a study of third-grade students’ conceptions of NOS, Walls (2012) used three

phases of data collection of drawing activities, Views of NOS interviews, and a

photo eliciting activity. Similar to the results of Kang et al. (2005), he found that

most students identified science as connected to the ‘natural world’, and noting pat-

terns of student conceptions of science as ‘experiment’, ‘potions’, ‘inventions’, and

‘discovery’. Regarding what scientists look like, the most dominant characteristic

shared by students were glasses. Other features proposed to be common to scientists

were the wearing of a lab coat, mature in age, white male, intelligent, inventor, disco-

verer, and happy.

Deng, Chen, Tsai, and Chai (2011) conducted a critical review of the literature that

focused on students’ conceptions of NOS. While most research on student con-

ceptions they found published were at the middle school or beyond, they reviewed

105 empirical studies on student NOS views. Through their reviews they found

that, in general, most studies showed positive correlations between students’ views

of NOS and their learning of science content. They also found that students improved

their conceptions of NOS given inquiry oriented science that explicitly taught NOS

embedded in the content. They describe this kind of instruction as ‘content-related

discussion’, or CRD on NOS. This type of instruction was found most effective at

all grade levels.

4 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Strategies for teaching NOS. Common to studies where students made improvements

in NOS conceptions were explicit-reflective activities that connected students’ NOS

understandings to the science content, as well as provided them with specific activities

designed to introduce them to the targeted NOS elements (Lederman, 2007). We

believed that elementary students who were unfamiliar with NOS ideas would need

explicit instruction within their science investigations. Therefore, we intended to

use contextualized NOS instruction that enabled the students to explore NOS

along with their science content (Clough, 2006). Contextualized NOS instruction

would mean that NOS would be connected to the science content students were

learning, and would be explicitly noted through discussion and written reflections.

This contextualized NOS instruction is similar to what Deng et al. (2011) refer to

as CRD. In the current study, contextualized NOS instruction took place as the

first author, who was also the classroom teacher, embedded NOS into the district’s

adopted curriculum, Full Option Science System (FOSS). For example, during the

FOSS unit on Rocks and Minerals the teacher asked students to record observations

and inferences about rocks, so they could infer the kinds of minerals present. Students

were asked to consider how what they already knew influenced their inferences (sub-

jective NOS). Students were asked to reflect on how they were being scientifically

creative, and were directed toward empirical evidence when making claims. Students

were asked to reflect on how their scientific explanations changed over time, and dis-

cussed this as part of the tentative NOS.

Other contextualized strategies that used the inquiry-oriented CRDs included

debriefing the NOS aspects at the conclusion of each scientific inquiry, as well as

having students record their science-content explanations as well as their ways of

knowing (e.g. reflections on NOS) in their science journals each day. The teacher

also used children’s literature as a way of reinforcing science content ideas as well

as NOS ideas. More detail on these strategies can be found in Akerson, Weiland,

Pongsanon, and Nargund-Joshi (2011b). Through this study, we explore how explicit

reflective NOS instruction throughout a school year helps low-, medium-, and high-

achieving students learn NOS aspects.

Adjusting Instruction to Meet Learner Needs

Experienced teachers recognize students as individuals with differing backgrounds,

needs, strengths, and possible learning challenges. Teachers desire to help all their stu-

dents succeed, and adjust their teaching to meet those needs. For example, many tea-

chers have students who are considered English Language Learners (ELL) because

their first language is not English. These teachers seek to find strategies to improve

their students’ language as well as science content (Fathman & Crowther, 2006).

Hands-on investigation can be an impetus to language learning because it encourages

conversation and thinking among groups of students (Saunders, 1992). Therefore, to

meet ELL student needs teachers may include science investigations. Of course, ELL

students are not the only special needs students in a classroom.

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Learner needs can differ depending on socioeconomic status (SES) as well. For

instance, Ozkal, Tekkaya, Sungur, Cakiroglu, and Cakiroglu (2011) found that

elementary students in lower SES situations differed in their epistemological

beliefs. For example, students in a higher SES family held more tentative conceptions

of science than students in a lower SES family. Students from higher SES families had

more sophisticated epistemological beliefs than students from parents with lower

SES.

Similar to the above study, Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, and Harrison (2004) found that

low SES students had fewer advanced conceptions of scientific epistemology that high

SES students in terms of (1) source of knowledge, (2) certainty (‘right answers’ in

science), (3) development (science being developed and changed), and (4) justifica-

tion (how students justify scientific knowledge). In all cases, higher SES students

demonstrated more advanced epistemological views than low-achieving students.

Indeed, focusing on student diversity presumes that teachers make choices regard-

ing curriculum, teaching strategies, assessment, and school organization that will

affect students differently (Lee & Luyx, 2007). Attention to how these choices influ-

ence students promises to improve all students learning. Even what counts as science

may differ among diverse student groups, and thus a focus on NOS may help connect

diverse groups by engaging them in ideas about science. Learners are unique and have

diverse abilities (McGinnis & Stefanich, 2007). Attention to students who show

special needs as well as those who show special talents regarding learning science

will help teachers in achieving the goal of ‘science for all’ (Fensham, 1985). Felder

and Brent (2005) argue that teachers must understand students’ needs and teach

accordingly. Our focus in the current study is on differing abilities regarding concep-

tualizing NOS aspects to provide insight into instructional methods that can be used

to support all students, as well as insights into which NOS aspects may be more easily

conceptualized.

Method

This study explored the NOS conceptions held by a diverse third-grade class prior to

instruction, at mid-year, and after a school year of explicit-reflective NOS instruction.

Through an exploratory case-study approach, we explored how students with differ-

ent ability levels conceptualized NOS (Yin, 2008). We explored overall NOS con-

ceptions held by all students in the class and three representative cases of high,

medium, and low-achieving students (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2008). Creswell (1996)

recommends that case studies explore cases over time using a variety of data

sources. We collected data from several sources to develop understandings of stu-

dents’ conceptions.

Context

There were 24 students in the third-grade class at a school considered at-risk because

it had failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress for the previous four years. Eighty

6 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

percent of the students in the class received free or reduced lunches. The class itself

was diverse, with five African American and two Latino American students, and

one Native American student, with the remaining students being White. There

were five students identified as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, one of

whose IQ was so low that officials were concerned whether he would be able to

finish school. There were students continually moving in and out of the classroom

as they changed schools usually within the district. From this class, 16 parents

agreed to allow their children to participate in the research study. By the end of the

year, only 10 of the original participants remained in the class, with six having

moved to different schools, so we included those who participated throughout the

entire school year in the final result and it is this group from which we selected our

case-study participants. Therefore, the 10 students who participated in the final inter-

view were also in the original data set. We selected three students from whom to build

case studies of NOS learning over time—one high-, one medium-, and one low-

achieving student. These students remained in the class the whole year, and we ident-

ified them into NOS achievement levels. Tom was our low-achieving student. Though

he was bright, he often missed school due to his mother being ill with cancer. He

claimed to love science and did very well in math. He was from a low socioeconomic

family. We selected him because we had a complete set of data from him from the

school year. Many of the other lower achieving students were transient and were

not in school the whole year. Jerri was our medium-achieving student. She was

from a high socioeconomic family and claimed to hate everything about school,

especially science. Rupert was a Native American student who was enthusiastic

about school. He loved animals and being involved in all school activities. Specific

selection strategies are described in the sections below.

Intervention

Again, we used explicit-reflective NOS instruction because it has previously been found

to be successful in improving learners’ conceptions of NOS. We used a combination of

decontextualized and contextualized NOS (CRD) instruction to connect the NOS

aspects to the science content being taught (Clough, 2006). For example, during a

unit on states of matter, the teacher used contextualized NOS instruction and focused

on concepts of solids and liquids as well as explicitly talked about the role of observation

and inference in distinguishing between solids and liquids, how students were creating

understandings about matter from their collection of data, and how their knowledge

about materials influenced their interpretations of data (subjectivity). Following each

science lesson a discussion ensued that drew the students’ attention toward the NOS

aspects, such as the teacher stating ‘Where dowe find scientific tentativeness in our inves-

tigation?’ or ‘What NOS aspects do you see in our investigation?’ In addition, science

notebooks were used in the classroom. These notebooks enabled students to record

their scientific data, as well as record NOS understandings and reflections over time.

Children’s literature was used to teach and emphasize NOS aspects. For example,

during a decontextualized investigation on observation and inference the book Earthlets:

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

As explained by Professor Xargle (Willis & Ross, 1994) was read. The book was used to

emphasize the distinction between observation and inference, as the studentswere listen-

ing to the book they talked observations made by Dr Xargle, and the inferences that he

made. We talked about why his inferences were funny to us, though they were reasonable

to him. One student stated during the story ‘He is trying to make inferences from the data

he is collecting—he is a scientist!’ After the story the students engaged in an activity that

required them to determine what might be inside a sealed bottle. Students made various

observations, and then as a group discussed the inferences they made and the obser-

vations that led them to those inferences. We concluded with another story that day,

Seven Blind Mice (Young, 1997) where students were able to note observations and infer-

ences within the story, as well as the role of subjectivity. For instance, one student said

‘They bring their data together and compare it. They heard the other mice’s inferences

so they had more background knowledge and had different ideas.’ Another student

agreed, stating ‘You need background knowledge to make inferences.’ See Table 1 for

a listing of science content and corresponding NOS conceptions taught through those

lessons throughout the school year. The strategies used to teach NOS are elaborated

in Akerson et al. (2011b).

Data Collection

To determine students’ NOS conceptions, we used the VNOS-D2 (Lederman &

Khishfe, 2002) pre (August), post 1 (mid-year–December), and post 2 (end of school

year) using interviews of all students who had informed consent. The VNOS-D2 is an

open-ended instrument that elicits ideas about certainty in scientific knowledge, charac-

teristics that distinguish science from other fields, creativity in science, and scientific sub-

jectivity. The VNOS-D2 does not measure conceptions of sociocultural NOS, so while

there was a focus on teaching sociocultural NOS we did not measure change in con-

ceptions of sociocultural NOS over time. These interviews lasted approximately

30 min each. We conducted small group interviews in the spring semester using the

Young Children’s Views ofScience (YCVOS) (Lederman, 2009)protocol. These interviews

allowed us to consider how children think and express ideas about science among them-

selves and allowed us to expand our understandings of their NOS conceptions. We col-

lected student work such as record sheets and science notebooks to further track changes

in student NOS conceptions over time. We videotaped all science lessons and the lead

researcher kept a researcher/teacher log of each day of instruction in which she recorded

impressions of student learning and events each day.

To identify low-, medium-, and high-achieving students for the case studies, we col-

lected student work in materials such as science notebooks, worksheets, and charts.

We also used videotapes of classroom interactions to note the kinds of responses to

teacher questions and statements students made regarding NOS aspects in science.

We used student responses to the VNOS-D2 to note which students had better

NOS conceptions, and compared these responses to the student work to identify

low-, medium-, and high-achieving students. Specific methods for the selection of

these cases are described in the data analysis section below.

8 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Table 1. Science content and NOS aspects emphasized over time

Month in

school year Science content/process

NOS aspects taught/

emphasized/mentioned

The use of science

notebook or written work

August–

September

FOSS rocks and minerals Differentiate between

observation and inference

Use FOSS worksheets as

provided in curriculum

† Distinction between

rocks and minerals

Scientific creativity

(create categories of

rock/minerals from

observations)

Discuss NOS ideas orally

† Properties of rocks and

minerals

September Jumping bean

investigation

(measurement, averages,

problem-solving)

Observation and

inference

Written work on paper

Reading unit: ‘Thinking

like a scientist’

Subjectivity Begin using observation

and inference sentences

in morning work activities

Oobleck (colloidal

suspension, matter)

Social and cultural

embeddedness

Written work on

observation and inference

chart

Reading unit: electricity Tentativeness (change

interpretation or collect

new data)

Discussions of content

and NOS ideas in class

groups using NOS poster

October Reading: scientific

method/electricity

Make NOS connection

with the reading

Students write letter to

curriculum writer for why

there is no single scientific

method

Science: electric circuits Observation and

inference

† Science notebooks:

students record circuits

built during unit

Owl pellets (what do

owls eat?)

Background knowledge

(subjectivity)

Students record NOS

ideas throughout unit

Tentativeness Students record drawings

of bones found in owl

pellets

Empirical data Students make inferences

of what owls eat, discuss

influence of background

knowledge and tentative

NOS

Creativity

November

and

December

Force and motion: roller

coasters

† Theories and laws † Record your

observations

(Continued)

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Table 1. Continued

Month in

school year Science content/process

NOS aspects taught/

emphasized/mentioned

The use of science

notebook or written work

Ramps and toy jeeps † Observations and

inferences

† Students responded in

notebooks: what

inferences do you have

for how a roller coaster

best works? What do

you base your ideas on?

Fungus, yeast, mushrooms † Empirical data † Created poster

describing results of

their ramp

investigations and

made oral

presentations

† Subjectivity † Test yeast rising in

different solutions.

Predict rising and make

bread with yeast from

different solutions

† Tentativeness

† Creativity

January and

February

Sound: † Observation and

inference

Debriefed orally through

discussions

Vibrations † Empirical data Students record ideas in

science notebooks about

content and NOS

Pitch † Tentativeness Developed idea for

animal that left fossil

bones; changed ideas over

time as new evidence was

collected

Volume † Subjectivity

Dinosaur fossils activity

March Earthlets † Observation vs.

inference

† List observations and

inferences in notebook

Mystery samples (content-

free, decontextualized)

† Social and cultural

context

† Subjectivity

April Magnets (circle magnets,

bar magnets, horseshoe

magnets, speaker

magnets)

† Observation vs.

inference. Students

share NOS elements:

background knowledge

(subjectivity), empirical

data, creativity,

observation vs.

inference, social and

cultural context

† Recorded observations

and inferences on data

sheet instead of

notebook

(Continued)

10 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Data Analysis

The VNOS-D2 was analyzed pre (August) post one (December), and post two (May)

independently by two researchers, seeking patterns of individual student responses

and then comparing analyses. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and

further consultation of the data. We then compared pre, post one, and post-two

data to note change in NOS conceptions over the course of the school year. We tabu-

lated each student’s responses and coded them inadequate, adequate, and informed,

and compared these analyses together and then over time. We used the same coding

scheme as developed in Akerson and Donnelly (2010) that was used with K-2 stu-

dents. Inadequate responses indicated that we found that students did not have a

good conception of that particular NOS aspect, such as believing that ‘data speaks

for itself’ in terms of inferential NOS. Adequate responses indicated that the

student could identify and explain most components of the NOS aspect, such as

stating that people make inferences from observations. Informed meant that students

held strong understandings of the NOS concept and could provide examples. For

instance, regarding conceptualizing the distinction between observation and infer-

ences, if students responded with ‘scientists saw the dinosaurs so they know how to

put them together’ we coded the response ‘Inadequate’. An example of an adequate

response would be ‘scientists found bones’. An informed response was ‘scientists did

not see dinosaurs, but found their bones, fossils, and looked at the habitat.’

We analyzed the YCVOS interviews by comparing student responses to questions

and integrating these responses into the table of individual VNOS-D2 responses.

We noted how students conversed with one another, and how they justified their

Table 1. Continued

Month in

school year Science content/process

NOS aspects taught/

emphasized/mentioned

The use of science

notebook or written work

May Forces: spinning (forces

and motion with tops,

whirlybirds)

† Observations and

inferences

† Recorded on data

sheets their

investigations

† Empirical data

† Background knowledge

† Tentativeness

† Social and cultural

context

Last week of

school

Presentations in science

festival (fossils, light,

solids/liquids, sound,

fungus/Jupiter)

† Observation vs.

inference

Students made

presentations to parents

and guests about science

and NOS that they had

learned during the year

† Empirical data

† Subjectivity

† Tentativeness

† Creativity

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

understandings of NOS to one another. This integration of the YCVOS data enabled

us to further elaborate student individual conceptions and also to discern how stu-

dents talked among themselves about science and NOS ideas.

To understand how students of differing abilities developed NOS conceptions, we

chose cases based on their VNOS-D2 responses. We organized a table of students who

had strong, moderate, and weaker NOS conceptions at the end of the school year

based on VNOS-D2 responses. From these students, we selected one to serve as a

case to represent each group. We selected students who were classified as working at

grade level by the teacher, and for whom we had the most complete sets of data. We ident-

ified three studentswho held improvedunderstandingsof NOS, yet atdifferent levels and

to different degrees, classifying them as high, medium, and low NOS achievers.

We developed case studies of these three students through a review of the data from

the school year. We reviewed these three students’ notebooks and other class projects,

and reviewed the videotaped lessons to determine the kinds of conversations each

student had regarding NOS during science lessons. We used their VNOS scores,

class work, and videotaped analyses to develop case studies. At least two authors

reviewed each set of data and determined the kinds of interactions each student

held with the teacher and with peers, as well as the kinds of examples they provide

of NOS aspects present in science lessons. We identified Rupert as high-achieving

because he could clearly describe accurate responses to the VNOS questionnaire,

including examples of ideas that were not previously shared by the teacher. Jerri

was identified as medium-achieving because she could provide accurate descriptions

of most NOS aspects as well as provide examples, those these examples had generally

been shared by the teacher. Tom was identified as low-achieving because, though he

could provide appropriate definitions of most NOS aspects, he often could not

provide examples of these ideas.

Results

In this section, we provide overall results regarding the NOS conceptions held and

developed overall by students in the class. Pre-conceptions, mid-year understandings,

and end of year conceptions will be shared. Next, we share case studies of a low-

achieving, a mid-achieving, and a high-achieving student to illustrate how students

developed conceptions differentially.

Overall Development of Students’ Conceptions of NOS

The first author interviewed all students with consent pre instruction, midway

through the school year, and at the end of the school year. The VNOS-D2 was

used for the pre and post interviews, and end of the school-year interviews. The

second author aided in conducting group interviews of the students using YCVOS

at the end of the school year. Table 2 shows the number of students in the class

who held various conceptions of NOS and how those conceptions changed over time.

12 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Table 2. Third-grade students’ conceptions of the target aspects of the NOS

NOS aspects

Pre-intervention

(%)

Post-intervention

(1) (%)

Post-intervention

(2) (%)

Tentativeness

† Scientific knowledge is never

changed (inadequate)

25 13 0

† Scientists discover new evidence

and try or invent something new

(adequate)

19 31 80

† Scientists change their ideas

(adequate)

13 0 10

† Scientists share and take ideas

(inadequate)

6 6 0

† Scientists are not certain they are

right (adequate)

6 19 0

† Scientific knowledge could change

(adequate)

31 31 10

Observation and inference

† Scientists use evidence and they are

sure about their findings

(inadequate)

38 38 10

† Scientists use evidence but they are

uncertain about their findings

(adequate)

56 63 90

† No response 6 0 0

Empirical based

† Scientists use evidence (adequate) 94 94 100

Creativity

† Scientists use their creativity and

imagination (adequate)

63 94 90

† Scientists do not use their creativity

and imagination (inadequate)

19 0 0

† Scientists have to use data/fact and

tell the truth (inadequate)

13 6 10

† Creativity and imagination lead to

the wrong answer (inadequate)

6 0 0

Subjectivity

† Scientists have different evidence

(inadequate)

19 13 0

† Scientists have different ideas/

opinions (adequate)

25 39 90

† Scientists are different (inadequate) 19 0 0

† Scientists share their ideas

(inadequate)

0 16 0

† They do not know what happened

(inadequate)

6 13 10

† Irrelevant or no responses 31 19 0

Note: Number of subjects at the beginning of the study was 16. Due to attrition, the number of

subjects at the end of the school year is 10.

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

From a review of Table 2 it is evident that as a whole, students’ conceptions of the

measured NOS aspects improved over the course of the school year. Regarding the

students’ conceptions of the tentative NOS, prior to instruction 31% of the students

held inadequate conceptions, while at post-intervention 1 only 19% of the students

held inadequate conceptions. At the end of the school year at post-intervention 2,

all students in this third-grade classroom held adequate conceptions of the tentative

NOS. Student conceptions of the distinction between observation and inference

also improved over the course of the school year, with 38% of the students exhibiting

inadequate ideas pre-intervention, while 56% held adequate views, with one student

unable to answer. By mid-year, that student held an adequate conception of the dis-

tinction between observation and inference, meaning that 63% of the students held

adequate ideas, with 38% retaining inadequate conceptions. By the end of the

school year 90% of the students developed adequate understandings of the distinction

between observation and inference with only 10% retaining inadequate ideas. Stu-

dents’ conceptions of the empirical NOS were fairly good at the beginning of the

school year, with 94% of them exhibiting adequate understandings, and by the end

of the year all students held adequate understandings.

Students’ development of the understanding of scientific creativity improved from

instruction as well. Prior to instruction only 63% of the students held adequate ideas

about scientific creativity, while 38% held inadequate understandings. By post-

intervention 1 94% of the students exhibited adequate understandings, while only

6% held inadequate understandings. At the post-intervention 2 measure 90% held

adequate and 10% held inadequate understandings. This reduction in percentage is

actually due to attrition and not a decrease in understanding.

Regarding students’ conceptions of the subjective NOS, prior to instruction 54%

exhibited inadequate understandings, while 31% could not respond to the question

in a way that it was possible to determine their understandings. Only 25% responded

in a way that indicated they held adequate ideas about the subjective NOS. However,

by mid-year only 19% of the students were unable to respond to the question, and

only 42% exhibited inadequate conceptions, while 39% of the students held adequate

understandings. By the end of the school year 90% of the students held adequate con-

ceptions of the subjective NOS.

The case studies below will enable us to elaborate on the development of students’

NOS conceptions over time. We present the cases below highlighting high, medium,

and low NOS achievement.

Case Studies

To further the understanding of how third graders develop NOS conceptions we now

share insights from our case studies. We identified low-, medium-, and high-achieving

NOS students by exploring how students explain NOS aspects and whether they can

support their understandings with appropriate examples. We provide background

regarding their typical school work, personal information, NOS conceptions, and

classroom interactions that supported their growth in NOS conceptions.

14 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Tom. Our low-achieving student, Tom, was a white male student from a low socio-

economic family who had difficulty with spelling and writing, but was strong in math-

ematics, and held interesting ideas, for example, ideas to write about. His mother was

hospitalized for breast cancer, and so he missed a substantial period of schooling,

which certainly inhibited his conceptualization of not only NOS, but also other

content he would learn in school. However, we did have a full set of data for him in

terms of videotapes, interviews, and student work for the entire school year. He

had ‘gaps’ in his understandings due to missing school on occasion. When in class,

Tom was generally on-task, and claimed to ‘like’ science, and was engaged in

science. Other students who were classified as ‘low’ were generally such because

they arrived later in the school year and therefore did not have a full year of NOS

instruction, nor did we have a complete set of data for them.

Early in the school year, Tom exhibited common misconceptions of NOS concepts.

For example, regarding his understandings of what science actually was he stated that

‘science is like learning about dinosaurs. Where they came from, how to put the bones

together.’ We coded this idea as inadequate because while he does mention a scientific

topic (dinosaurs) he does not describe what makes it scientific. He seems to believe

that science is a list of items to ‘know’ and was unable to describe how science differed

from other subjects he studied in school. Regarding whether scientists would ever

change their claims, Tom’s response indicated that he also held inadequate under-

standings of the tentative NOS. He stated that scientists would ‘never change their

ideas. It is not like they can travel to the future and figure out that they should have

different ideas’. Indeed, Tom did not believe that TV weather people would ever be

wrong about their weather predictions, stating ‘they know what the weather will be

because they study it. They are not wrong.’ Despite the fact he did not think that

scientists would change their ideas, he did hold an adequate understanding of the

empirical NOS, stating in his first interview ‘scientists know there were dinosaurs

because you find the bones. The bones don’t belong to animals alive now, so they

knew it was from something else.’ His statement indicates some early understanding

of the role of empirical evidence, as well as the beginning of a conception of the

relationship of observation and inference. He recognized that scientists collected

data (bones) and knew that it was not from an animal alive today, so inferred a differ-

ent animal. Regarding the subjective NOS, James held an inadequate understanding.

His response that ‘no one knows why all the dinosaurs died, they weren’t there. So

they just disagree.’ This statement indicates an idea that because no one actually

saw the dinosaurs they are going to disagree about what caused their extinction.

However, the statement also indicates his understanding that no human actually

was alive during the time of the dinosaurs. Some students in the class did believe

that people had seen dinosaurs. Tom also held inadequate conceptions of the creative

and imaginative NOS. He stated ‘No, imagination is interesting to think about, but it

is not real. There is no way scientists can imagine things and be right about them!’

This statement additionally indicates that Tom held the conception that scientists

are ‘right’ and seek ‘right answers’ which also is related to his idea that scientists do

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

not change their interpretations of data—why would they change their ideas if they are

already ‘right?’

From watching videotapes of classroom instruction, it is apparent that Tom was

involved in science investigations when he was in class, and was glad to share his

ideas during class discussions. He also used his understandings of NOS during

science investigations. For example, during the first unit of the school year on rocks

and minerals (from the FOSS curriculum) he shared ‘it is going to be easy to tell if

rocks have calcite in them if they have the same reaction as the calcite itself.’ Tom

recognized that he would need to make some observations of reactions calcite

made, and compare them with the reactions made by other rocks, leading to an infer-

ence regarding the presence of calcite in the rock.

In a later lesson during the same rocks and mineral unit, Tom indicated that if scien-

tists found new rocks they would ‘examine them’. See the exchange below with the

teacher (and also including Jerri, medium achiever, and Rupert, high achiever):

Teacher: We have four new rocks to study! What would scientists do to study them?

Tom: They would examine them to find out information about them and if they were like

the other rocks they already examined.

Teacher: What kinds of things would they do to examine them?

Jerri.: They would do a scratch test, observe them.

Tom: They would look for minerals to see if there were minerals in them.

Rupert: They would look for more information from what they already know to see if it

could help them determine things about the new rocks.

Teacher: All good points. They would definitely use what they already know (subjectivity)

to find out more about the new rocks.

Tom was readily willing to share his ideas verbally, and was very active during

science lessons. He appeared to be thoughtfully considering data as well as interacting

with others in his group to conduct investigations.

Tom’s emphasis on data and making observations was evident in the following unit

as noted in the conversation below that began an exploration of jumping beans:

Teacher: A weird thing happened to me—mail came to me at the school! I got a little bag

of ‘Stuff’. I am going to pass it out to each one of you. What would you do if you were real

scientists to explore these items?

Tom: Examine it.

Teacher: Okay—how would you examine it?

Tom: Make a prediction of what it is, then make some observations and find out more

about it.

Later in the lesson students began to be surprised because they noted the ‘beans’

jumping. Tom stated ‘I think they were having a party in the bag!’ He later suggested

conducting a study to explore how they reacted in heat and cold temperatures, indi-

cating again, his understanding of the empirical NOS and the importance of data col-

lection to make inferences.

The teacher introduced science notebooks in the electricity unit that followed. The

science notebook was to enable students to make records of science content and data

16 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

collected, as well as reflect in writing on NOS conceptions they were developing

through the science investigations.

To introduce the electricity lesson, the teacher asked students to record their ideas about

electricity in their notebooks, as well as make drawing of circuits they would try and those

thatwere successful.During theclassdiscussion regardinghowscientistsmight investigate

electricity Tom said ‘They might estimate’ which is not linked to science or NOS content.

At the debriefing of the investigation that asked students to light a bulb using a battery and

one wire, the teacher asked students to ‘look at their list of observations, what can we infer

that electricity needs to travel in our circuits?’ Tomresponded ‘It has to have metal because

it does not work if you put the plastic part on the battery or the bulb.’ Tom’s statement

again illustrated his understanding of observation and inference (though he actually had

not written observations in his notebook, he did recall his observations).

Tom was less successful in making written records of his ideas about NOS as well as

other science content during the first half of the year. He would circle items on ‘work-

sheets’ (such as he circled ‘I like science’ on a worksheet about magnets) but did not

record ideas in a written form, other than drawing pictures. There was no other evi-

dence in the first half of the year of him discussing NOS concepts other than empirical

and observation and inference during class discussion.

At the December interview using the VNOS-D2, it was clear that some of Tom’s con-

ceptions of NOS had improved, though not all of them. During the interview it was

clear that Tom had adequate ideas about the empirical NOS, stating ‘Science is

where you collect data, put it together, compare it with other data, and you kind of

figure it out.’ He was also able to describe how science was different from other

school subjects, stating ‘in other things, like math or music or gym, you don’t take

data and crack it open. You don’t discover stuff from your data, you just learn stuff.’

However, he retained the conception that scientists never change their claims. He

stated ‘Scientists don’t change what they know. How would it help if they were dead

and then no one read a book about what they knew because they thought it was

wrong? Why would they change the book?’ Therefore, he retained the idea that once

the information was recorded in a book the idea would not be changed. Regarding

the subjective NOS, Tom thought that they might not all be looking at the same data

which is why they might be interpreting the data differently. He stated ‘They may

not have all gathered the same data, and it might be a different theme to them.’ The

teacher probed by stating ‘But what if they all shared their data and they all looked at

everyone’s data. Do you think they would agree then?’ Tom stated ‘They could just

be stubborn and just think theirs is right.’ His response indicated that he knew they

could disagree regarding the interpretation of the data, but he did not elaborate on

what might influence their disagreements other than their ‘stubbornness’. He did,

however, now acknowledge that TV weather people were not certain about their predic-

tions of the weather, stating ‘You can’t really know what Mother Nature is going to do

next. They would have to be able to go forward in time and they can’t.’ Tom also

retained the idea that scientists do not use imagination or creativity, stating

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

There is no way they need to use their imaginations. They have data. Why would you have

to imagine it if you can just use your data? There it is right there. You do not have to

imagine it or anything.

Therefore he still held an inadequate idea of scientific creativity and the use of

imagination in interpreting data, retaining the idea that data ‘speak for themselves’.

In the second half of the year, Tom continued to improve his conceptions of various

NOS aspects. For example, in an early winter lesson on yeast and fungus he was able

to relate what he had learned in a previous lesson to subjectivity in the current lesson.

The teacher asked ‘Does anyone see any subjectivity in this lesson?’ to which Tom

responded ‘Well, we sort of knew something wouldn’t work to grow the bread, like

the rubbing alcohol, because it wouldn’t grow the yeast by itself.’ This statement indi-

cates that he understands the connection between data and making inferences, and

shows he also knows that there is a link between what you know about the data in

helping you to interpret it.

Indeed, he continued to try to refine his understanding of the subjective NOS as the

school year progressed. In a debriefing of a lesson on skeleton bones and the inferences

students made regarding the animals the bones may have come from, the teacher asked

‘If you were looking up information to give you more background knowledge to help

you interpret the bones, what part of nature of science would that be?’ Tom responded

with ‘Subjectivity. That way you have more knowledge about the data you have.’

Indeed, in the same lesson the teacher asked ‘How about creativity? Were you creative

like a scientist?’ Tom responded ‘Yes—we were looking at the bones to infer what we

had, what the bones were from.’ He clearly was refining his ideas about creativity as

well as subjectivity through the activities in science.

Tom had a good understanding that science was empirical, and that scientists need

data to support claims. For example, he stated ‘science is where you get data, put it

together and compare it with other data, just to figure something out.’ He shared in

a science lesson in the second half of the school year ‘if a scientist came across some-

thing that they didn’t understand they would examine it—look for data.’ (mystery

samples lesson). He also described to the other students in the class that an obser-

vation is ‘something you see, feel, taste, hear, smell’.

By the end of the school year Tom still did not have a good understanding of the

tentative NOS. Early in the school year he claimed that ‘science does not change.’

When asked why he thought that, he responded ‘Because no one would read a

book about stuff that was just going to change’, implying that they would not

publish something that were not ‘true’. His ideas did not change by the end of the

school year, when he noted that scientists would only change their ideas if they

found out something was untrue or ‘weird, like there may still be dinosaurs’.

He retained incomplete understandings of the role of imagination and creativity in

the development of scientific knowledge. Again, mid-year he stated that ‘scientists

don’t use their imaginations because they have facts. Why would you have to

imagine it if you can use your data?’ His statement implies that scientists simply

collect the data, and the data speak for itself without the need for imaginative or

18 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

creative interpretation by the scientist. Indeed, at the end of the school year Tom had

a similar idea, stating ‘they don’t use their imagination because I’m guessing if

you’ve got the facts you most likely don’t need your imagination,’ with a similar

implication that there is no need for interpretation of data that presents facts on

its own.

Despite that Tom did not recognize the role of imagination in the development of

scientific knowledge, he acknowledged the subjective NOS. At the end of the school

year, he continued recognizing opinions of data, stating

well, you’ve got your opinion, and I’ve got my opinion. I am pretty sure it’s more likely the

ice age that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. That’s what I think of the data. But we’re

still both looking at the data.

It is clear that Tom did have some adequate and developing conceptions of NOS

aspects, and that most of his discussions and comments included an emphasis on

data and evidence. It seems that Tom saw science as evidence-based, and that the evi-

dence ‘spoke for itself ’ in terms of not needing creativity or imaginative interpretation,

yet the scientist’s background knowledge still influenced the claims made about the

data.

Jerri. Jerri was our medium-achieving student and was a white female from an

affluent family. She claimed to ‘hate science’ but was an excellent writer and

enjoyed writing many stories, and enjoyed writing in her science notebook. She

struggled with mathematics, having a difficult time finishing her mathematics in

the time allotted. Prior to instruction Jerri held the idea that science was about

‘bugs and all kinds of insects’ and that science was different from other school sub-

jects because ‘it is more interesting than even more boring subjects.’ While she stated

that scientists would change what they know, she was unable to state why she

thought that or why they would change their minds. Regarding the distinction

between observation and inference, she recognized that scientists inferred the

shape of dinosaurs from bones they found, and while they were reasonably sure,

they were not certain. However, she held an inadequate conception of the subjective

NOS, stating that scientists come to different interpretations of the same data

because they look at the data ‘in different orders’. Her statement indicates that

she believed if they were looking at the data ‘in the same order’ they would interpret

it in the same way. She held an adequate view of the creative NOS as indicated by her

statement that ‘scientists use their imaginations to figure out the answers of what

they are looking for.’

During the rocks and minerals unit early in the school year Jerri began to better

differentiate between observations and inferences. For example, when the teacher

asked for some observations of some rocks Jerri stated ‘it is black and white with

dots. It is hard, and you can’t scrape it.’ In later lessons she could also describe

ways to collect new data, based on what she had done in prior lessons such as when

she stated she could explore new rocks by ‘making observations, doing a scratch

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

test, and looking to see if there are minerals inside’. Similarly, in the Oobleck lesson

Jerri stated ‘My observation is it is green and blue, and my inference is that it is a

solid and a liquid’ (Oobleck activity).

Jerri seemed to really enjoy the science notebooks, possibly because she enjoyed

writing so much in general. When they were introduced at the beginning of the elec-

tricity unit she made a long list of things that used electricity, and described electricity

as ‘energy that comes from the light’. After the teacher asked the students to begin

their explorations of how to light a bulb using a battery and a wire Jerri asked ‘After

we draw what made it light up can we write our observations?’ It seemed that the

science notebook was a good tool to connect Jerri both to the science content as

well as learning about NOS. Indeed, during the debriefing at the end of the lesson

Jerri was able to consult her science notebook to describe observations and inferences

that she made. For example, she stated

I observed that if I connected the wire to the right place on the battery and also the bulb it

would light up. I inferred that the electricity was going in a circle. We build a bigger circuit

and observed and inferred how to make one, we used data to help us.

When the teacher asked whether the students were creative like a scientist Jerri

stated ‘We used so many ways to figure out how the electricity goes. We did not use

the “scientific method” that we read about, we used lots of creative ways, like a real

scientist!’ Jerri was able to describe her view of scientific creativity as well as her

idea about the distinction between observation and inference by October of the

school year, indicating a growth in her ideas.

Jerri also recorded her ideas about NOS in her science notebook. For example, she

listed all the NOS aspects we were studying in her 11–26 entry. She defined these

ideas using her own words, such as her description of tentativeness as (1) more

data, (2) change ideas about data, (3) find out new ideas when you think about

your data. She had similar definitions for other NOS aspects. Her use of her notebook

to reflect seems to help her be more metacognitive about her own ideas of science.

By December it was clear that her ideas about most NOS concepts had improved.

She described science as ‘a way to do experiments, and write down data, and save your

data. Then you figure out what your data means’. She stated that scientists ‘found

bones and studied them. They looked at the bones and thought, well, the animal

must look something like its bones, and figured out about dinosaurs’. These state-

ments indicated a good understanding of the empirical NOS, as well as the connection

she was making to her own ideas influencing the meaning of the data. This connection

to her role in creating ideas was noted when she stated that ‘science and art are both

creative, but in different ways.’ She further stated ‘in art you create pictures, but in

science you create ideas.’ She stated that scientists ‘used their imagination to figure

out what the data means. They have to think about it to figure it out’. It was clear

that she held a fairly sophisticated understanding of scientific creativity for a third-

grade student. She also held an adequate understanding of scientific tentativeness,

stating that ‘scientists might change their ideas about something if they get different

data in a new experiment.’ She did not indicate she understood that scientists

20 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

might reinterpret existing data, but she did recognize that scientists could include new

data that might encourage them to rethink earlier interpretations. She also indicated

that scientists could not be sure of how dinosaurs looked because even if the ‘tried

hard’ to put the bones together the right way, they would not know if they were

wrote because they have not seen a living dinosaur. She exhibited an adequate under-

standing of the subjective NOS as well, by recognizing that scientists disagree about

interpretations of the same data set. She stated ‘Scientists maybe see something else

in the data than the other ones, they have different ideas about that data.’

In the second half of the year Jerri continued to refine her ideas about NOS through

the science investigations in class. For instance, to introduce an investigation on skel-

etons the teacher read a book about dinosaur skeletons and fossils. Jerri was able to

share an idea from the book that ‘scientists thought that dinosaurs might have had

feathers because they saw feather spots on the bones.’ During the investigation of

the bones Jerri noted that they were continuing to change their inferences over

time. She stated in class

Every time we get new bones we are thinking they are from the same animal. Then we

change our inferences about what we think the animal is. When our inferences change

over time it is tentativeness. Except we have to have evidence to change our minds. We

have to think about the bones.

Her ideas about scientific tentativeness as well as the distinction between obser-

vation were sophisticated for a third-grade student.

During the magnet investigation that took place in April Jerri was able to describe

how she used empirical evidence to explore what was magnetic and what was not. She

stated ‘We tested things with our magnets, and we made a column in our science note-

books. One side had things that stuck to magnets, and the other side did not stick. It

was our empirical evidence.’ As the debriefing went on with others sharing their ideas

Jerri raised her hand and said ‘it seems like every time science is done we have all the

NOS aspects. Every time. That is what science is. I think that is science.’ It seemed at

this point of the school year she had internally conceptualized the importance of NOS

in terms of it being science itself. She had noted the patterns in previous science units,

and recognized that NOS was part of every science unit, and therefore most likely,

part of all science.

Jerri was also able to converse about her ideas about NOS with other students. The

following discussion took place during the small group interview of students in the

spring semester:

Teacher: How is science different from other things you learn about?

Sheena: Because you can collect data in science. If you don’t have observations and infer-

ences you aren’t really doing science.

Jerri: Like with math, you don’t figure stuff out, you have to just solve the same kind of

problems. In science you get to figure things out with your data.

Sheena: In science you look at stuff, think about it, collect data.

Mario: Yeah, in the olden days people created science, so they thought when they obser-

vated [sic] and inferenced it would be called science.

Sheena: Like you have science—you don’t look stuff up in a book, you actually have to

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

figure things out for yourself with science by making observations and inferences.

Jerri: And people invent things and that is science. You can not like guess in science, but

you can figure things out. If you just guess, it is not science. You have to make obser-

vations, collect data and then figure it out.

From the above excerpt which was initiated by the teacher, it is clear that the stu-

dents were confident in their ideas and were generally accurate in their ideas about

NOS. They were able to discuss their ideas with each other, and demonstrated ade-

quate ideas about observations, inferences, and the empirical NOS. These kinds of

discussions occurred also during science investigations, indicating that the students

conceptualized these ideas and were able to use them to share ideas with one another.

By the end of the year Jerri had an even more refined understanding of the empirical

NOS. She added to her explanation that

scientists can figure out there were dinosaurs by looking at the bones—they might get

them underground, they might see feather stripes, or something, or look at the size of

the bones, and figure out what size they might have been. Scientists figure out about dino-

saurs from their bones, and other stuff they find, like feathers or marks on the bones, and

where they find the bones. But they aren’t sure about how dinosaurs looked or lived

because they never actually saw one.

Through this statement we can see how Jerri’s conceptions grew more elaborate,

and how she was able to explain her ideas through examples she gave. She conceptu-

alized the tentative NOS, but did not describe how changes in science were based on

evidence. In her final interview of the year (May) she claimed that ‘scientists use

different clues, so they might change their minds if they think about other clues differ-

ent scientists looked at.’

Jerri understood that scientists used their creativity and imagination when thinking

about the inferences they make of data. She connected her ideas through the activities

in which she was engaged, as she stated in the fossils activity ‘We were creative like

scientists when we thought ideas about bones, when we tried to figure out from the

bones what animal it must have been.’ She had a strong conception of scientific crea-

tivity, and how it was different from artistic creativity.

She believed science was subjective and by the end of the school year, recognized

that scientists had different ideas about the data, stating ‘Even though scientists

have the same data to look at, they have different ideas. They look at the data differ-

ently.’ Her idea is connected to the differences in scientists, and emphasizing the con-

nection to empirical data.

Jerri held strong conceptions regarding the NOSaspects thatwere taught. She was able

to use the terminology and provide examples of her ideas. She could share her ideas verb-

ally and in writing, and was involved in the investigations and sharing her ideas.

Rupert. Our high-achieving student was a Native American male who enjoyed school

and excelled in most subjects. He was high-achieving in mathematics as well as

writing, spelling, and reading. He claimed to ‘enjoy’ science, and from viewing video-

tapes of classroom interactions it was clear that he was active in science investigations

22 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

as well as in sharing his ideas. He also talked about what it was like to go to Native

American events, and shared with the class costumes that he wore and told about

events with his family that took place outside of school. He even talked about

wearing ‘skirts’ as part of his native dress, but was not embarrassed about these

things he shared; indeed, he seemed proud of them and also proud of his achieve-

ments in school.

Prior to instruction Rupert defined science as ‘reading about stuff, like chemistry

and liquids and solids’. However, he also included in his definition that a ‘scientist

experiments with the liquids and solids too’. Therefore, he had a limited understand-

ing of the empirical NOS. He also agreed that scientific claims could change, but only

because ‘scientists invent new things.’ So he had an add-on view of scientific tenta-

tiveness, believing science could change only when scientists would make new inven-

tions. Regarding the distinction between observation and inference, Rupert believed

that scientists ‘figured out what dinosaurs looked like by their bones, but they

couldn’t know for sure what they looked like because they didn’t see their skin’.

This statement provides evidence that Rupert believed scientists could infer from

their data, as well as were not certain about their claims. Rupert held a somewhat

adequate conception of the subjective NOS as evidenced by his statement ‘Scientists

all know different things, so they think different things about the data.’ He was not

able to describe why they held different ideas or how that influenced their thinking.

He also believed that scientists used their imaginations in developing claims stating

‘Yes, they use imagination because basically thinking is imagining. They imagine

how dinosaurs died even though they don’t really know.’ We coded his idea as

‘adequate’.

Rupert was verbal and engaged in investigations from the beginning of the school

year. For example, in the rock and minerals unit Rupert commented during a

lesson debrief ‘Scientists look for more information so they can understand the

rocks better.’ The teacher interpreted this as a search for background knowledge

and held a short discussion about scientific subjectivity.

During the jumping bean investigation a little later in the year Rupert stated he was

inferring it is a jumping bean by his observations. The teacher mentioned that we

could make even better inferences if we had more information. Rupert said ‘we

could get more information from reading the envelope they came in.’ This

comment led to a discussion regarding increasing our background knowledge to

make better interpretations of data. In fact, the envelope held a return address, so

we realized that the contents of the envelope had come from Mexico! This new infor-

mation led to a discussion of the kinds of plants and animals that might live there vs. in

the Midwest.

During the Oobleck unit Rupert further illustrated that he conceptualized the dis-

tinction between observation and inference by stating

My inference is that this is a weak acid. It is not a solid or a liquid. Well, it acts like both of

them some of the time, so it isn’t either of them. I guess it could be acid or a gas, but gas is

like air, acid is the only thing left.

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

His comment illustrates that he is basing his inference on his observations of the

material, and recognized that it had characteristics of both. His inference was that it

was then something else, and ruled out gas because it was not like ‘air’ but must be a

weak acid. Of course, his content knowledge was inaccurate, but his reasoning was

based on observation and inference. Later in the same lesson, after other students

shared their ideas that it could possibly be both a solid and a liquid at the same time,

the teacher stated ‘we have several ideas about this substance, and yet we all have the

same data.’ Rupert stated ‘A lot of scientists have different ideas, but they think the

same as others, or they think different. It ends up that they talk about their ideas,

check their ideas, and then maybe they agree.’ This statement indicated that Rupert

was refining his view of subjectivity, considering multiple viewpoints of data as well

as interactions among scientists as a way to agree about the best interpretation of data.

Rupert used his science notebook faithfully to record data and to reflect on ideas

about NOS. For example, he wrote ‘batteries suck energy and then it works your

light. Then it quits working because it is tired. Inference is a thought and a suppose

about empirical evidence.’ We interpreted this statement to mean he was making an

inference about how the battery worked in his simple circuit, and then what caused

it to ‘run down’. By including his definition of an inference it is clear to see that he

connects it to data, and also recognizes it is his thought (or suppose) about the

data, so he may or may not be accurate.

At the mid-year interview Rupert illustrated his improved conception of the empiri-

cal NOS by stating

Science is when you collect data and learn things about it. Like say you found out there

was some sort of dinosaur and you thought it was one thing, but you changed your mind

when you thought again, and that is collecting data and learning about it.

This statement also indicates his realization that a scientist thinks about the data

(indicating an idea about subjectivity as well as imagination) and also tentativeness

(you can change your mind about the data). Regarding scientific creativity specifically,

Rupert stated ‘Like Edison had to imagine and be creative to figure out how to make a

light bulb. He was trying things out and figured it out.’ Another illustration of Rupert’s

improved conceptions of scientific tentativeness is his statement ‘The world is chan-

ging, scientists might learn something new. They might think something different.’

His conception of scientific tentativeness did not yet include a reinterpretation of

existing data, however. His conception of the distinction between observation and

inference also improved, as indicated by his statement

Well, scientists think there were dinosaurs because of fossils, rocks, and bones. After they

studied those they figured out there were these huge animals that used to live a long time

ago. They are not sure what they looked like because they never found their skin, and they

might have mixed up the bones. The dinosaurs really might have looked a lot different.

This statement shows that he realized scientists were tentative in their explanations,

that they made inferences from their observations of evidence, and that the evidence

was rocks, fossils, and bones. He also retained his adequate conception of subjectivity,

24 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

stating ‘scientists think different things about the data, nobody knows for sure, so you

just think what you think about the data. You could talk about it with other scientists

and figure out what is the best idea you have.’ His statement illustrates his understand-

ing that scientists have different ideas about data, and again, that they can share ideas

and then come to an agreement. He still does not define why he thinks they have

different ideas.

During the debrief of a story about dinosaurs as the start of a fossils lesson in the

second half of the school year Rupert stated ‘This book is a lot about scientific crea-

tivity. The scientists create ideas about dinosaurs and birds, thinking that birds might

be dinosaurs!’ He then raised a question during the same discussion ‘Did they use

social and cultural context?’ To which the teacher stated

I think they did—in this book we can see about the ancient Chinese—when they saw the

bones they inferred dragons. However, the scientists in our culture did not infer dragons

because there were no dragons in our culture.

Rupert often asked questions to clarify his NOS ideas, whereas neither Jerri nor

Tom asked raised questions about NOS.

Later during the exploration on fossil bones Rupert stated to his partner ‘I have

background knowledge about dinosaurs. I am making an inference about this bone.

It is bent like a T-Rex leg, so I think it is a T-Rex.’ Not only does this statement

show that Rupert conceptualizes observations and inferences of data, but also his con-

ceptions of scientific subjectivity in terms of his background knowledge influencing his

interpretation. Indeed, his use of NOS terms and discussion of NOS ideas with his

partner, in the absence of the teacher, illustrated his internalization of these ideas.

In lessons toward the end of the school year it was clear to see that Rupert was inte-

grating his ideas about NOS fairly well. During a lesson on mystery samples (March)

Rupert talked about how they were making inferences about what is inside sealed con-

tainers. During the magnet unit Rupert described how they were using their back-

ground knowledge (subjectivity) to infer items that might be magnetic.

As noted above, Rupert engaged in discussions with his peers regarding NOS

during investigations. He was also very engaged in the group interview, sharing his

ideas about NOS with his peers. Below is an excerpt:

Interviewer: I am going to drop these helicopters, and I want you to observe them

Rupert: I notice the big one spins. That is my observation. Its wings are wider so maybe it

can catch the air more easily. The air makes it twist.

Craig: The big one doesn’t spin so much. The weight must bring it down.

Rupert: Why does the small one go down faster when it weighs less? Maybe it is because of

the air resistance that is still pushing on the bigger one.

Nate: Because gravity is pulling it down, the heavier one gives more force to stay up.

Interviewer: So is this a scientific investigation?

Rupert: We were investigating how they spin and trying to figure out why there are

differences.

In this exchange, we can see students discussing scientific ideas, and also Rupert

describing observations (the big one spins) and his inference (wings are wider to

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

catch the air). None of the other students in the group use the term ‘observation’

though they are discussing science content.

In the final interview of the year, Rupert stated, ‘well in science you make obser-

vations, then you’ll like guess, or really predict what it is going to be like, and then

you figure it out. These are inferences of your observations. You can try it out.’ His

comment shows that he connects inferences to data, and to making predictions that

are not certain (he initially states ‘guess’ which he changes to ‘prediction’).

Rupert held an informed understanding of the subjective NOS. When asked how

science was different from other subjects he studied in school, he stated ‘in science

I make observations and inferences, and there is subjectivity.’ When thinking about

his definition of the role of subjectivity, he notes in his final interview that scientists

look at the data in different ways, and that influences how they see the data. He

recognized the role of background knowledge, as he stated during the fossil

investigation ‘I am making an inference—I am taking this fossil and I have seen pic-

tures of T-Rex before and I am using background knowledge to help me with the infer-

ence.’ He went on to say ‘A lot of scientists have different ideas, then they start

thinking the same. It ends up they share ideas and discuss, and then sometimes

they agree on their new ideas. Sometimes they don’t agree.’ He understood that back-

ground knowledge and subjectivity influences interpretations of data, as well as the

tentative NOS.

Regarding the tentative NOS, he held a good understanding of this aspect. He rea-

lized that scientists cannot be 100% sure of the inferences they make of their data. For

example, he realized that scientists look at weather patterns to forecast future weather.

He stated ‘They are pretty sure about the weather, but not 100%—they look at other

weather, like to see if it is coming in our direction. They can’t be sure because it could

move around in a different way.’

He held good understandings of the creative and imaginative NOS. For example, in

response to the teacher’s question of ‘What aspects of NOS do we see in this book

(dinosaur book)’ Rupert responded ‘We can see the creative NOS. Scientists create

ideas about dinosaurs and birds from evidence.’ We can see that he understands scien-

tific creativity as the creation of ideas from evidence and is different from artistic crea-

tivity. In his final interview, he showed his understandings of creative and imaginative

NOS by stating

When they want to figure out something, they have to figure out a way to study it, like

explore some kind of liquid, or mineral or rock. They have to figure out how to study

it and how to say what you found out.

Rupert asked questions that led to his understanding, such as when queried ‘Did

they [scientists] use their social and cultural context when creating ideas about dino-

saurs?’ It is clear that this expressed curiosity helped Rupert refine his ideas about the

subjective NOS when he discussed how his background knowledge about T-Rex, for

instance, influenced how he was interpreting the fossils he was observing. He recog-

nized that scientists’ knowledge influenced how they interpreted data, as it influenced

how he interpreted data himself.

26 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Discussion

Students in this class improved their understandings of NOS aspects, but did so dif-

ferentially in terms of the kinds of examples they could provide and the definitions

they gave to the various NOS aspects. Contextualized explicit-reflective instruction

is effective at helping all students conceptualize NOS aspects, though differentially

by ability level. This instruction is similar to the CRD found effective at improving

NOS ideas by Deng et al. (2011). However, similar to what Ozkal et al. (2011) and

Conley et al. (2004) found, the low SES student in our case study had less sophisti-

cated NOS conceptions. Indeed, Tom missed a good amount of school, and that also

influenced his understandings. It could be that low SES students miss more school in

general and that contributes to lower achievement. However, Tom, the low SES and

low-achieving student, was able to develop several good conceptions of NOS aspects.

For example, he realized that scientists need evidence, but also once they made their

claims they would not change these ideas. He believed that the data speak for them-

selves—that scientists understand it better if they have more background knowledge,

but there was no room for interpretation through imagination or creativity. However,

he held good understanding of the distinction between observation and inference, and

definitely understood that science is evidence-based. Jerri, the medium-achieving

student who was higher SES, and also rarely missed school, was able to define the

NOS aspects that were emphasized in her class, and could write about them in her

notebook, providing examples from her investigations of NOS aspects she recognized.

She conceptualized thinking and making inferences as scientific creativity, and rea-

lized that science was tentative and scientific claims could change, though she

could not describe influences on this change. Like Tom, she recognized the impor-

tance of evidence in making scientific claims, but more so recognized the role of the

scientist in interpreting that evidence. The high-achieving student, Rupert, was

able to integrate the ideas surrounding the NOS aspects, as well as raise questions

regarding the ideas to further his own understanding. He began using these NOS

terms during investigations with other students earlier than others did. He talked

about his NOS ideas in terms of doing science himself—how he was undergoing

changes in his ideas and interpretations of data. He connected the subjective NOS

as a way scientists gain more information that can change their interpretations of exist-

ing data, and recognized the role of cultural context in interpretation of data. He

recognized the role of creativity and imagination in scientific knowledge, and talked

about scientists ‘creating ideas from evidence’. It is apparent that through participat-

ing in scientific investigations in which NOS aspects were connected to content being

explored students’ ideas improved. We postulate that his ability to navigate several

cultures himself—e.g. his Native American culture as well as the mainstream

culture at school—enabled him to conceptualize different viewpoints and how those

viewpoints could influence interpretations of the world, and in the case of scientists,

interpretations of the data.

From our case studies, we have found different trajectories for NOS learning

that developed from the instruction provided during that school year. Tom, our

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

low-achieving student, initially held inadequate of all NOS aspects. Through the

activities he engaged in during the science classes he mainly discussed the importance

of data in making scientific claims. By mid-year he held adequate understandings of

the empirical NOS, as well as the distinction between observation and inference,

which follows from his emphasis on data. He retained inadequate understandings

of tentativeness, the subjective NOS, and the role of imagination and creativity in

making scientific claims. However, through the second half of the year he developed

better understandings of subjectivity and connected his own ideas to realizing that

scientists use what they know to help them interpret data. The teaching strategies

that were helping him develop these ideas were the direct questions regarding the

aspects of NOS during discussions. For example, when directly asked whether scien-

tists used creativity Tom was able to recognize that ‘we are creative through figuring

out a skeleton from the bones. That is what scientists do too.’ The science notebook

that was used in class was not useful for Tom because he did not enjoy writing, and in

fact, rarely completed any writing assignments in class. However, the class discussions

and activities did enable him to improve his understandings of NOS aspects. By the

end of the school year he had adequate conceptions of nearly all NOS aspects, retain-

ing the inadequate idea that scientists could not use their imaginations, because

imaginations were not ‘real’.

Our mid-achieving student, Jerri, also exhibited misconceptions about most NOS

aspects prior to instruction. Early in the school year she began focusing on the distinc-

tion between observation and inference in conversations, and also through recording

her observations in her science notebook. The science notebook seemed to help Jerri

develop and refine her NOS understandings. She enjoyed writing, and used the

science notebook as an opportunity for her to write about her ideas. Recorded her

observations not only of science investigations, but also defined the NOS terms in

her own words in her notebook. The notebook helped her reflect and think about

her ideas. By the end of the school year she held at least adequate understandings

of all NOS aspects. She was able to internalize the NOS aspects through reflecting

and writing in her science notebook after each activity. The notebook allowed her

to build on her strengths in writing to connect to her conceptions of NOS.

Like the other case-study students, our high-achieving student, Rupert, also started

the school year with limited understandings of the NOS aspects. His learning trajec-

tory seemed to connect well to both the class discussions as well as the science note-

book. During class discussions not only did he state his own ideas about NOS aspects,

but he was the only one of our three case-study students who asked questions about

the NOS aspects, which also seemed to help him flesh out his ideas. Therefore, the

class discussions were most effective in helping him to refine his ideas by asking for

more information. He also used the science notebook effectively to help him reflect

on his NOS understandings. He reflected on his observations as well as inferences,

even when unprompted by the teacher. While Jerri included many observations in

her science notebook, Rupert was the only one of the three case-study students

who also included inferences when unprompted by the teacher. This use of the note-

book seemed to help him improve his NOS understandings by mid-year—he

28 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

conceptualized that scientists must use their imaginations because they had to

‘imagine what the data mean’, which was similar to him imagining his inferences

from his observations. Children’s literature used in the classroom also enabled him

to note aspects of NOS that were apparent in stories that were read. He was able to

respond to the teacher’s questions regarding NOS aspects present in stories, such

as talking about scientific creativity in terms of scientists developing ideas about dino-

saurs from evidence, and raising a question about social and cultural context in terms

of interpreting the bones to be dinosaurs and not dragons. The classroom discussions,

science notebooks, and children’s literature, coupled with his desire to know more

about NOS as evidenced by his questions during investigations and discussions,

enabled him to develop informed ideas about the subjective, tentative, creative, ima-

ginative, and empirical NOS, and to have a clear and accurate understanding of the

distinction between observation and inference.

After looking at the spectrum of students’ understandings of NOS conceptions, we

found that these third-grade students developed better understandings of certain

aspects of NOS over other NOS aspects. For example Tom, Jerri, and Rupert all

held informed understandings of observation vs. inference, the creative and imagina-

tive NOS, and the role of empirical evidence in developing scientific knowledge, yet

only Rupert held an informed understanding of the subjective NOS. We think

similar results may be found with other students at elementary levels, with more con-

crete NOS elements being more readily attainable at the elementary grade levels than

the more abstract, and depending on the learning trajectory that students may follow.

Therefore, we believe that focusing on concrete aspects of NOS is beneficial in helping

elementary students develop their understanding of NOS as well as in understanding

science concepts. Tom may have struggled with explaining scientific tentativeness

because he missed enough school where he did not see the change of ideas over

time to see how his scientific explanations may have changed. However, Ozkal et al.

(2011) also found that lower SES students had weaker conceptions of the tentative

NOS, and less sophisticated scientific epistemologies in general. Tom was a lower

SES student who also missed much school, and also did not effectively use the

science notebook to reflect on NOS ideas. Both Jerri and Rupert did develop better

conceptions of the tentative NOS and were able to make the connection that the

data they collected was related to the change in scientific explanation. Both Jerri

and Rupert reflected on the tentative NOS in their science notebooks as well. To

further emphasize the tentative NOS at the elementary level, we recommend conduct-

ing experiments where students collect data over time and then are directed by the

teacher to see changing patterns in data. We believe that more such activities where

students made observations of changing data more than once, Tom might have had

a better understanding of the tentative NOS.

Jerri had difficulties in understanding the empirical NOS. She had a good under-

standing of the difference between observation and inference but she could not see

the bigger picture of how different observational and inferential pieces make evi-

dence-based science to create explanations. Throughout year, we had students

engage in a variety of investigations focusing on observation and inference but

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

again we think that doing a long term project where students would see patterns in the

data that they used to generate explanations would help them better conceptualize the

empirical NOS.

Rupert held very good understanding of NOS conceptions. In almost all instances

he could provide reasonable examples while explaining the NOS aspect. We think the

reason Rupert developed better understandings of NOS aspects is because he associ-

ated himself with many of the examples which provided him with strong real-life

context for conceptualizing aspects of NOS. If we could help other students draw

more of a personal connection to science, we think we may be able to help all students

develop a good understanding of these NOS aspects. All students in the class had

opportunities to learn about science and NOS through science and literacy connec-

tion, science notebooks, hands-on activities, discussions at the beginning, during,

and at the end of the class. These activities were well supported with formative assess-

ment strategies such as teacher questioning and scaffolding. These different strategies

helped students develop understandings of NOS and provided teacher insight into

what still needed to be emphasized. Of our three case-study students, however,

only Rupert showed enough interest in developing better conceptions of NOS to

ask clarifying questions, which exhibited his curiosity about not only science, but

also NOS.

Our study provides further evidence that explicit-reflective NOS instruction that is

successful for improving students’ conceptions (e.g. Khishfe, 2012; Khishfe & Leder-

man, 2007) can be successfully embedded into the regular classroom science curricu-

lum, and students of varying ability levels will be able to better conceptualize these

NOS ideas. We believe that to provide instruction that can meet goals of ‘Science

for All’ (National Research Council, 1996), as well as meeting the new Frameworks

goals for equity and diversity (Board on Science Education, 2012) we need to be

able to adapt our instruction to meet our diverse students’ needs, and students will

learn science. It is certainly the case that students in this third-grade class made

growth in their conceptions of NOS. The instruction that was used to improve the

NOS understandings of these third graders was a combination of contextualized

and decontextualized (Clough, 2006) explicit instruction that was embedded in

inquiry instruction. NOS instruction in this class was embedded in each science

lesson throughout the entire school year. This instruction included the adaptation

of FOSS curriculum, use of children’s literature, student writing about NOS

through science notebooks, and class discussions that debriefed each science lesson

with not only science content, but NOS content to emphasize NOS aspects in each

lesson. The teacher initially prompted students to discuss NOS aspects as part of

each science lesson, but withdrew the prompts as the students began to use the termi-

nology accurately and within each science lesson on their own without prompting.

These strategies were previously found successful for improving students’ NOS con-

ceptions (e.g. Akerson et al., 2011a), and are similar to the CRDs of Deng et al.

(2011).

Indeed, the students began taking more control of their learning of NOS as the year

progressed. The teacher did not need to prompt them to debrief lessons with NOS

30 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

aspects by the second half of the school year because they began to do so in discussions

themselves. As they were videotaped while engaged in inquiries we noted that students

used terms such as ‘empirical data’, ‘observation and inference’, and ‘tentative’ (e.g.

my ‘explanation is tentative until I look at the data more’) appropriately in conversa-

tions during the second half of the year.

Implications

Implications from this study reinforce the idea that explicit-reflective instruction is an

important strategy to use to help young children learn about NOS. Indeed, this study

emphasizes that NOS instruction that is contextualized in the content is effective in

improving NOS conceptions of students of varying ability levels. It is also clear that stu-

dentswill respond differently todifferent teaching strategies, and some will bemore effec-

tive for certain students, and as is the case with all content, students will develop different

learning trajectories. It seems from our study that students also more readily conceptu-

alize the more concrete NOS aspects such as empirical data and the distinction between

observation and inference, while they develop understandings of more abstract ideas

such as the subjective, creative, and tentative NOS later. We recommend emphasizing

the concrete NOS aspects first, and then building on those with the more abstract.

From this study, we recommend modifying existing science curricula in ways that

allowthe teacher todebrief NOS aspects aspart of each science investigation. Inaddition,

the reading curriculum at this particular school included science topics and enabled

further ways to embed NOS into reading as well. We used the science as well as

reading curriculum to reinforce NOS ideas. Based on our results, we recommend intro-

ducing NOS aspects early in the school year and continuing to reinforce these ideas in

eachscience investigation throughout the remainderof the year. We recommend that tea-

chers attempt to help all students make personal connections to the science curriculum

and toNOS through the subjective and cultural aspects, whichwe envision will help more

students develop appropriate understandings of NOS aspects.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Akerson, V.L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F.S. (2005). How should I know what scientists do—I am just

a kid: Fourth grade students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science

Education, 17, 1–11.

Akerson, V.L., & Volrich, M. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first grade internship

setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 377–394.

Akerson, V.L., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The results

of a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,

653–680.

Akerson, V.L., & Donnelly, L.A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What under-

standings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 97–124.

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Akerson, V.L., Buck, G.A., Donnelly, L.A., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Weiland, I.S. (2011a). The impor-

tance of teaching and learning nature of science in the early childhood years. The Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 537–549.

Akerson, V.L., Weiland, I.S., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund-Joshi, V. (2011b). Evidence-based strat-

egies for teaching nature of science to young children. Journal of Kırsehir Education, 11(4),

61–78.

Board on Science Education. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting

concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Clough, M.P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for

effective nature of science instruction. Science and Education, 15(5), 463–494.

Conley, A.M., Pintrich, P.R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in

elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186–204.

Creswell, J. (1996). Qualitative inquiry and research design. New York: Sage.

Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical

review of the research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.

Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions

of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.

Fathman, A.K., & Crowther, D.T. (2006). Science for English Language Learners: K-12 classroom

strategies. Arlington, VA: NSTA.

Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education,

94(1), 57–72.

Fensham, P.J. (1985). Science for all. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435.

Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science:

Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314–334.

Khishfe, R. (2012). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and

possibilities of an explicit-reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 29,

1–29.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F.S. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective vs. implicit inquiry-

oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of

nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.

Lederman, J.S. (2009). Young children’s views of science. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.

Unpublished paper.

Lederman, J.S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, form D2. Illinois Institute of Tech-

nology, Chicago, IL. Unpublished paper.

Lederman, J.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2004). Early elementary students’ and teachers understand-

ings of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from Project ICAN. Paper pre-

sented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching

(NARST), Vancouver, British Columbia.

Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Leder-

man (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). New York: Routledge.

Lee, O., & Luyx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language,

culture, and socioeconomic status. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research

on science education (pp. 171–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McGinnis, J.R., & Stefanich, G.P. (2007). Special needs and talents in science learning. In S.K.

Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 287–318).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

32 V. Akerson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3

Michaels, S., Shouse, A.W., & Schweingruber, H.A. (2008). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to

work in K-8 classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science.

Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=22

Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Sungur, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Cakiroglu, E. (2011). Elementary students’

scientific epistemological beliefs in relation to socio-economic status and gender. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 22(2), 115–127.

Saunders, W. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for

science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136–141.

Smith, C.L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M.G. (2000). Sixth grade students’ epistem-

ologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development.

Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.

Walls, L. (2012). Third grade African American students’ views of nature of science. Journal of

research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 1–37.

Willis, J., & Ross, T. (1994). Earthlets: As explained by Professor Xargle. New York, NY: Andersen

Press.

Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, E. (1997). Seven Blind Mice. New York: Scholastic.

Differing Ability Levels and NOS Conceptions 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bos

ton

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:13

13

May

201

3