Student and instructor reactions to the use of historical short stories in a post-secondary
introductory biology course.
Jerrid W. Kruse, Michael Clough, Joanne Olson, Jim Colbert.
Iowa State University – Ames, IA.
4411 Morningside Ave.
Sioux City, IA 51106
This study examines the implementation of historically accurate short stories designed for use in an
introductory post-secondary biology course. The stories describe the development of fundamental
science ideas and explicitly draw out nature of science concepts through the use of embedded reflective
questions. This mixed methods study investigates student reactions to the short stories and how the
short stories affect student interest in pursuing science careers. Additionally, the study investigates how
use of the short stories has impacted the instructor’s ideas regarding nature of science instruction. Our
results indicate that the use of historical short stories in post-secondary introductory biology has
positively impacted student interest in science careers and positively influenced the instructor’s intention
to include the nature of science in their course. Student interest in science careers significantly
increased and many students noted surprise or encouragement when writing about new insights on the
nature of science such as: science is collaborative, science is creative, and science does not have to be
laboratory-based. The instructor intends to continue to use the short stories in their course due to
perceived decrease in student resistance to instruction on evolutionary theory and extensive inclusion of
high-level science content within the stories. We will present theme analysis of student and instructor
reactions to the short stories and discuss results that may help inform future work using historical short
stories in content area college courses to teach about the nature of science.
References:
Allchin, D. et al. (1999). History of Science with Labs. Science and Education 8, 619632.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science For All
Americans. Washington, D.C.
Brush, S.G. (1989). History of Science and Science Education. Interchange 20(2), 60.
Castro, R.S. & DeCarvalho, A.M.P. (1995). The historic approach in teaching: Analysis
of an experience. Science and Education, 4(1), 66-85.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ Responses to the Demands of Conceptual Change:
Considerations for Effective Nature of Science Instruction. Science & Education,
15(5), 463-494.
Clough, M.P. & Olson, J.K. (2004). The Nature of Science: Always Part of the Science
Story, The Science Teacher, 71(9), 28-31.
Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., Stanley, M., Colbert, J. & Cervato, C. (2006). Project title:
Humanizing science to improve post-secondary science education: Pursuing the second tier.
Proposal (Number 0618446) submitted to the National Science Foundation Course Curriculum
and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Phase II (Expansion) Program. Submitted for and funded
at $293,718.
Galili. I. & Hazan, A. (2000). The Influence of an Historically Oriented Course on
Students’ Content Knowledge in Optics Evaluated by Means of Facets-Schemes Analysis.
Physics Education Research: A supplement to the American Journal of Physics 68(7), S3-S15.
Green, K.C. (1989). A Profile of Undergraduates in the Sciences, American Scientist, 77
(Sept.-Oct.), 476.
Irwin, A.R. (2000). Historical Case Studies: Teaching the Nature of Science in Context.
Science Education 84, 5-26.
Jung, W. (1994). Toward Preparing Students for Change: A Critical Discussion of the
Contribution of the History of Physics in Physics Teaching. Science and Education. 3(2), 99130.
Klassen, S. (2006). A Theoretical Framework for Contextual Science Teaching.
Interchange, 37(1-2), 31-62.
Langer, J.A. & Applebee, A.N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching
and learning. National Council of Teachers of English Research Report No. 22. Urbana: NCTE.
Lederman, N.G. (1992) Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A
review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of
Science, Routledge, New York.
McComas, W.F. (2004). Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science, The Science Teacher,
71(9), 24-27.
McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P. & Almazroa, H. (1998). The Nature of Science in Science
Education: Rationales and Strategies, Ch 1, Kluwer: The Netherlands.
Moore, J. (1983). Evolution, Education, and the Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry.
In Zetterberg, J.P. (Ed.) Evolution Versus Creationism, Oryx Press: Phoenix, 3
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Science Teachers Association (1992). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of
Secondary School Science. Washington, D.C.
Shamos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy, Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick.
Shymansky, J.A. & Penick, J.E. (1981). Teacher behavior does make a difference in
hands-on science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 412-422.
Solomon, J., Scott, L. & Duveen, J. (1996). Large Scale Exploration of Pupils’
Understanding of the Nature of Science. Science Education 80, 493-508.
Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in
science education. Science and Education, 12, 617-643.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Tobias, S. (1990). They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different – Stalking the Second Tier.
Research Corporation, Tucson, AZ.
Weiss, I.R. (1993). Science Teachers Rely on the Textbook. In Yager, R.E. (Ed.) What
Research Says to the Science Teacher, Volume Seven: The Science, Technology, Society
Movement. Washington, D.C.: NSTA.
Yager, R.E. and Penick, J.E. (1984). What Students Say About Science Teaching and
Science Teachers. Science Education, 68(2), 143-152.