Epistemological undercurrents in scientists' reporting of research to teachers

Abstract

Our investigation focused upon how scientists, from both a practical and epistemological perspective, communicated the nature and relevance of their research to classroom teachers. Six scientists were observed during presentations of “cutting‐edge” research at a conference for science teachers. Following the conference, these scientists were interviewed to discern how each perceived the nature of science, technology, and society in relation to his particular research. Data were analyzed to determine the congruence and/or dissimilarity in how scientists described their research to teachers and how they viewed their research epistemologically. We found that a wide array of scientific methodologies and research protocols were presented and that all the scientists expressed links between their research and science–technology–society (STS) issues. When describing their research during interviews, the scientists from traditional content disciplines reflected a strong commitment to empiricism and experimental design, whereas engineers from applied sciences were more focused on problem‐solving. Implicit in the data was a commitment to objectivity and the tacit assumption that science may be free of values and ethical assumptions. More dialogue is recommended between the scientific community, science educators, and historians/philosophers of science about the nature of science, STS, and curriculum issues. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:469–485, 2000.

Science Instructors' Views of Science and Nature of Science

“…All of the participants in this study agreed upon the importance of empirical data in the development and justification of scientific knowledge. These results are consistent with the findings of others (Bell, 2000;Glasson & Bentley, 2000;Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003;Schwartz, 2004). This shows that participants in this study held "adequate" views about the empirical nature of science, as recommended by science education literature.…”

“…Therefore, it is hard to categorize their views as informed in one of the philosophical school of thoughts (e.g., rationalist, traditionalist, positivist, post-positivist, instrumentalist, and absolutist). These results are in agreement with the findings of Schwartz (2004) who reported that scientists' "epistemological views of science are complex and sophisticated, 'informed' in some areas, but not necessarily" (p. 1), and Glasson and Bentley (2000) who found that it is difficult to label a scientists as positivist or post-positivist based on their perceptions of their work, because the use of terminology is an issue of interpretation. However, these results were in contrast to the findings of Pomeroy (1993), Durkee and Cossman (1976), Kimball (1967Kimball ( , 1968, Schmidt (1967), and Behnke (1961) who reported either their participants held "adequate" understandings of the most aspects of NOS, or held more traditional "inadequate" views of the most aspects of NOS.…”

“…Views of the tentative NOS were consistent with the findings of Durkee and Cossman (1976) and Schwartz (2004) who reported that majority of their participants viewed the scientific knowledge as inherently tentative in nature. Consistent with the findings of Behnke (1961) and Glasson and Bentley (2000), only three participants had absolutist and mixed views of scientific knowledge. This shows that, overall, the participants in this study primarily affirmed that scientific knowledge is subject to change.…”

Science Instructors' Views of Science and Nature of Science

“…All of the participants in this study agreed upon the importance of empirical data in the development and justification of scientific knowledge. These results are consistent with the findings of others (Bell, 2000;Glasson & Bentley, 2000;Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003;Schwartz, 2004). This shows that participants in this study held "adequate" views about the empirical nature of science, as recommended by science education literature.…”

“…Therefore, it is hard to categorize their views as informed in one of the philosophical school of thoughts (e.g., rationalist, traditionalist, positivist, post-positivist, instrumentalist, and absolutist). These results are in agreement with the findings of Schwartz (2004) who reported that scientists' "epistemological views of science are complex and sophisticated, 'informed' in some areas, but not necessarily" (p. 1), and Glasson and Bentley (2000) who found that it is difficult to label a scientists as positivist or post-positivist based on their perceptions of their work, because the use of terminology is an issue of interpretation. However, these results were in contrast to the findings of Pomeroy (1993), Durkee and Cossman (1976), Kimball (1967Kimball ( , 1968, Schmidt (1967), and Behnke (1961) who reported either their participants held "adequate" understandings of the most aspects of NOS, or held more traditional "inadequate" views of the most aspects of NOS.…”

“…Views of the tentative NOS were consistent with the findings of Durkee and Cossman (1976) and Schwartz (2004) who reported that majority of their participants viewed the scientific knowledge as inherently tentative in nature. Consistent with the findings of Behnke (1961) and Glasson and Bentley (2000), only three participants had absolutist and mixed views of scientific knowledge. This shows that, overall, the participants in this study primarily affirmed that scientific knowledge is subject to change.…”

Scientists Taking a Nature of Science Course: Beliefs and Learning Outcomes of Career Switchers

“…Before the NOS course, scientists were more familiar with the aspects of parsimony, authority, and methodology when asked about the role of subjectivity and objectivity. This finding is also consistent with prior research, showing that scientists held empiricism in high regard (Glasson & Bentley, ; Kelly et al, ; Peters‐Burton & Baynard, ), and scientists were less likely to recognize their work at an epistemological level (Elby & Hammer, ; Labinger, ; Wolpert, ). Scientists familiarity with personal and social levels of NOS and lack of familiarity with epistemological levels of NOS is accentuated in the VOSE pre‐test result regarding theories and laws, where scientists were more familiar with ideas about the certainty of theories and laws than with the idea of discovery or invention of these types of information.…”

Turning Crisis into Opportunity: Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Illustrated in the Scientific Research on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

“…Instead of examining scientists' espoused views about NOS, as in some early studies by Kimball (1968), Pomeroy (1993) and Southerland et al (2003), we made use of scientists' Turning Crisis into Opportunity 97 descriptions of their work to highlight for the audience of our teaching package how certain aspects of the scientists' work are related to various aspects of NOS and scientific inquiry. We concur with the recommendation by Glasson and Bentley (2000) that communicating descriptions of science and science practice provided by scientists can be an effective means of developing and enriching teachers' NOS understanding.…”

Science Instructors' Views of Science and Nature of Science

“…All of the participants in this study agreed upon the importance of empirical data in the development and justification of scientific knowledge. These results are consistent with the findings of others (Bell, 2000;Glasson & Bentley, 2000;Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003;Schwartz, 2004). This shows that participants in this study held "adequate" views about the empirical nature of science, as recommended by science education literature.…”

“…Therefore, it is hard to categorize their views as informed in one of the philosophical school of thoughts (e.g., rationalist, traditionalist, positivist, post-positivist, instrumentalist, and absolutist). These results are in agreement with the findings of Schwartz (2004) who reported that scientists' "epistemological views of science are complex and sophisticated, 'informed' in some areas, but not necessarily" (p. 1), and Glasson and Bentley (2000) who found that it is difficult to label a scientists as positivist or post-positivist based on their perceptions of their work, because the use of terminology is an issue of interpretation. However, these results were in contrast to the findings of Pomeroy (1993), Durkee and Cossman (1976), Kimball (1967Kimball ( , 1968, Schmidt (1967), and Behnke (1961) who reported either their participants held "adequate" understandings of the most aspects of NOS, or held more traditional "inadequate" views of the most aspects of NOS.…”

“…Views of the tentative NOS were consistent with the findings of Durkee and Cossman (1976) and Schwartz (2004) who reported that majority of their participants viewed the scientific knowledge as inherently tentative in nature. Consistent with the findings of Behnke (1961) and Glasson and Bentley (2000), only three participants had absolutist and mixed views of scientific knowledge. This shows that, overall, the participants in this study primarily affirmed that scientific knowledge is subject to change.…”

Scientists Taking a Nature of Science Course: Beliefs and Learning Outcomes of Career Switchers

“…Before the NOS course, scientists were more familiar with the aspects of parsimony, authority, and methodology when asked about the role of subjectivity and objectivity. This finding is also consistent with prior research, showing that scientists held empiricism in high regard (Glasson & Bentley, ; Kelly et al, ; Peters‐Burton & Baynard, ), and scientists were less likely to recognize their work at an epistemological level (Elby & Hammer, ; Labinger, ; Wolpert, ). Scientists familiarity with personal and social levels of NOS and lack of familiarity with epistemological levels of NOS is accentuated in the VOSE pre‐test result regarding theories and laws, where scientists were more familiar with ideas about the certainty of theories and laws than with the idea of discovery or invention of these types of information.…”

Turning Crisis into Opportunity: Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Illustrated in the Scientific Research on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

“…Instead of examining scientists' espoused views about NOS, as in some early studies by Kimball (1968), Pomeroy (1993) and Southerland et al (2003), we made use of scientists' Turning Crisis into Opportunity 97 descriptions of their work to highlight for the audience of our teaching package how certain aspects of the scientists' work are related to various aspects of NOS and scientific inquiry. We concur with the recommendation by Glasson and Bentley (2000) that communicating descriptions of science and science practice provided by scientists can be an effective means of developing and enriching teachers' NOS understanding.…”

Science Instructors' Views of Science and Nature of Science

“…All of the participants in this study agreed upon the importance of empirical data in the development and justification of scientific knowledge. These results are consistent with the findings of others (Bell, 2000;Glasson & Bentley, 2000;Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003;Schwartz, 2004). This shows that participants in this study held "adequate" views about the empirical nature of science, as recommended by science education literature.…”

“…Therefore, it is hard to categorize their views as informed in one of the philosophical school of thoughts (e.g., rationalist, traditionalist, positivist, post-positivist, instrumentalist, and absolutist). These results are in agreement with the findings of Schwartz (2004) who reported that scientists' "epistemological views of science are complex and sophisticated, 'informed' in some areas, but not necessarily" (p. 1), and Glasson and Bentley (2000) who found that it is difficult to label a scientists as positivist or post-positivist based on their perceptions of their work, because the use of terminology is an issue of interpretation. However, these results were in contrast to the findings of Pomeroy (1993), Durkee and Cossman (1976), Kimball (1967Kimball ( , 1968, Schmidt (1967), and Behnke (1961) who reported either their participants held "adequate" understandings of the most aspects of NOS, or held more traditional "inadequate" views of the most aspects of NOS.…”

“…Views of the tentative NOS were consistent with the findings of Durkee and Cossman (1976) and Schwartz (2004) who reported that majority of their participants viewed the scientific knowledge as inherently tentative in nature. Consistent with the findings of Behnke (1961) and Glasson and Bentley (2000), only three participants had absolutist and mixed views of scientific knowledge. This shows that, overall, the participants in this study primarily affirmed that scientific knowledge is subject to change.…”

Scientists Taking a Nature of Science Course: Beliefs and Learning Outcomes of Career Switchers

“…Before the NOS course, scientists were more familiar with the aspects of parsimony, authority, and methodology when asked about the role of subjectivity and objectivity. This finding is also consistent with prior research, showing that scientists held empiricism in high regard (Glasson & Bentley, ; Kelly et al, ; Peters‐Burton & Baynard, ), and scientists were less likely to recognize their work at an epistemological level (Elby & Hammer, ; Labinger, ; Wolpert, ). Scientists familiarity with personal and social levels of NOS and lack of familiarity with epistemological levels of NOS is accentuated in the VOSE pre‐test result regarding theories and laws, where scientists were more familiar with ideas about the certainty of theories and laws than with the idea of discovery or invention of these types of information.…”

Turning Crisis into Opportunity: Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Illustrated in the Scientific Research on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

“…Instead of examining scientists' espoused views about NOS, as in some early studies by Kimball (1968), Pomeroy (1993) and Southerland et al (2003), we made use of scientists' Turning Crisis into Opportunity 97 descriptions of their work to highlight for the audience of our teaching package how certain aspects of the scientists' work are related to various aspects of NOS and scientific inquiry. We concur with the recommendation by Glasson and Bentley (2000) that communicating descriptions of science and science practice provided by scientists can be an effective means of developing and enriching teachers' NOS understanding.…”