Undergraduate science students' images of science

Abstract

This article describes views about the nature of science held by a small sample of science students in their final year at the university. In a longitudinal interview study, 11 students were asked questions about the nature of science during the time they were involved in project work. Statements about the nature of science were characterized and coded using a framework drawing on aspects of the epistemology and sociology of science. The framework in this study has three distinct areas: the relationship between data and knowledge claims, the nature of lines of scientific enquiry, and science as a social activity. The students in our sample tended to see knowledge claims as resting solely on empirical grounds, although some students mentioned social factors as also being important. Many of the students showed significant development in their understanding of how lines of scientific enquiry are influenced by theoretical developments within a discipline, over the 5 -8 month period of their project work. Issues relating to scientists working as a community were underrepresented in the students' discussions about science. Individual students drew upon a range of views about the nature of science, depending on the scientific context being discussed.

Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry

“…The results of this study suggest that explicit and guided attention to and reflection on NOS in the context of the authentic scientific research experiences is that missing factor. These findings corroborate reports promoting an explicit/reflective, constructivist-based approach to teaching about NOS through inquiry pedagogy (e.g., Bianchini & Colburn, 2000;Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002;Roth & Lucas, 1997;Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999;Smith et al, 2000). The guided journal writings and seminars provided opportunities for active reflection.…”

“…Descriptions of scientific inquiry provided by contextually based laboratory studies (e.g., Knorr-Cetina, 1999;Latour & Woolgar, 1979) offer a glimpse into the complexities of authentic practice. The real world of science is not typically represented in the classroom (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002;Driver et al, 1996;Roth, 1995;Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999). Although both contexts provide opportunities for social construction of understanding, the classroom community rarely promotes complex reasoning and negotiation of meaning as it is expressed within the scientific community (e.g., Chinn & Malhotra, 2002).…”

“…Thus, scientific inquiry may provide a viable context for discussion and reflection within which learners can develop NOS conceptions (Carey & Smith, 1993;NRC, 1996;Roth & Lucas, 1997;Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999). Different approaches to contextualizing NOS within inquiry have varied in effectiveness.…”

“…It is suggested, and supported empirically, that to be effectively taught, NOS must be viewed as a cognitive learning outcome and addressed explicitly and reflectively within the learning environment (Carey & Smith, 1993;Driver et al, 1996;Lederman et al, 2001). Without explicit attention afforded to relevant aspects of NOS within the context of inquiry experiences, learners' views of NOS likely remain unchanged (Bell et al, 2003;Ryder, Leach, & Driver, 1999).…”

Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three‐year study

“…For the typology of literature that we offer, and for all discussions of literature, readers are referred to the references given in Table 1. Kremmer and Bringle (1990) (2 ) Kardash (2000) (3 ) Ryder, Leach, and Driver (1999) (4 ) Rauckhorst (2001, July) Evaluation (5 ) Alexander, Foertsch, and Daffinrud (1998, July) (6 ) Nagda et al (1998) (7 ) Foertsch, Alexander, and Penberthy (1997, June) (8 ) Alexander et al (1996, June) (9 ) Fitzsimmons et al (1990, March) Costa (1997) (24 ) Manduca (1997) (25 ) Nikolova (26 ) Nikolova (27 ) Dukes, Kubinec, and Nations (1996) (28 ) Voight (1996 Nov.) (29 ) Weal and Clarke (1996, Aug.) (30 ) Krochalk and Hope (1995) (31 ) Byrd et al (1994) (32 ) Holme (1994) (33 ) Fletcher (1993) (34 ) De La Garza, Anderson, and Lee (1991) (35 ) Sanzone (1977) (36 ) Shellito et al (2001) (37 ) Orthlieb and Fewster (1994) (38 ) Christman (1991) (39 ) Dean (1991) (40 ) Jones (1991) Continued Promotional and discussion articles (41 ) Halstead (1997b) (42 ) Kurland and Rawicz (1995) (43 ) Strassburger (1995) (44 ) Gueldner et al (1993) (45 ) Seago (1992) (46 ) Schamel and Ayres (1992) (47 ) Bunnett (1984) (48 ) Powers and Black (1976) (49 ) Parsons and Bentley (1975) (50 ) Powers and Black (1975) (51 ) Stevens and Reingold (2000) Histories and reviews (52 ) Schulz (1998) (53 ) Halstead (1997a) (54 ) …”