But is it effective?
Assessing the impact of a historically
based unit
David W. Rudge, Biological Sciences & The Mallinson Institute
for Science Education, Western Michigan University
Uric C. Geer, The Mallinson Institute for Science Education,
Western Michigan University
Eric M. Howe, Department of Education, Assumption College
Outline
•
•
•
•
I. Introduction
II. Method
III. Results
IV. Conclusions
I. Introduction
• The Phenomenon of Industrial Melanism
Biston betularia f.
typical
Biston betularia f. carbonaria
I. Introduction
• The Phenomenon of Industrial Melanism
Frequency of dark form
Centers of air pollution
I. Introduction
• The Phenomenon of Industrial Melanism
Photographs of light and dark forms on soot-darkened
and lichen-covered tree trunks
I. Introduction
• History of Research on Industrial Melanism
• Mystery Phenomenon format
• Exploration from multiple theoretical perspectives
Lamarckian Inheritance
Natural Selection
Mutation Theory
I. Introduction
Research Questions
•
•
Did the Mystery Phenomenon unit improve student
understandings of a targeted set of issues associated
with the nature of science?
If so, what was it about the unit that led to these
changes?
II. Method
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Participants
Context
Intervention
Procedure
Data Analysis
1. Participants
•
•
•
•
•
Conducted at large Midwestern university
Spring 2007
Preservice elementary school teachers
13 participants (19 potential)
100% white, female, 18-30 yrs. old
2. Context
• Based on Michigan Science Curriculum Framework,
AAAS Project 2061, National Science Education
Standards
• BIOS 1700 Life Science for Elementary Educators I
– Taxonomy, Anatomy and Physiology, Ecology,
Evolution
• Taught in lecture-lab (24 students) format
• Unit of interest takes place during lab
3. Intervention
• Open-ended problems from history of research on
industrial melanism
– Instructor provides information that historically led to
discovery
– Students are invited to identify problem, pose theories
– Students are invited to come up with ways to test theories
• Instructor facilitates Explicit / Reflective† discussion:
 Explicit
• NOS is actively considered in relation to content
 Reflective
• Students construct their own insights
† cf. Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman (2000)
4. Procedure
Qualitative (Interpretive) Research
1. Pre/post test = open-ended VNOS-C
survey
2. Semi-structured interviews††
To establish validity of survey
To allow further probing of student responses
††Lederman & O’Malley, 1990
4. Procedure
Pre- and Post- Survey NOS Topics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Definition of theories, how created
Whether theories change
Definition of experiments
Whether experiments are necessary
The subjective (theory laden) nature of science
Role of imagination and creativity
5. Data Analysis
• Characterize pre- and post- responses to questions
into emergent themes
– cross check consistency with rest of students answers
• To address whether change has occurred
-analyze aggregate for evidence of change
• To address why change has occurred
-analyze responses of interviewed individuals
III. Results
Summary of Change in Student’s NOS Views (N=11)
Presurvey
Naïve
1. Nature of theories
2. Possibility of theory
change
Naïve
n=2
18%
n=3
27%
3. Necessity of
experiments
6. Creativity and
Imagination
More
informed
Postsurvey
n=4
36%
n=0
0%
n=0
0%
n=4
36%
More
informed
n=9
81%
n=2
18%
III. Results
Student Interview re. Necessity of Experiments
ТThe only thing that jumps out I guess is initially
before I had it in my mind that something had to be
tested and basically you had to have proof. So
therefore you had to do an experiment and prove that
this theory or this idea is true. Whereas in this, when I
went back in after we talked about it in class, you
know sometimes we canХ
t always do experiments. So
it changed my idea that- OK wait a second here, if we
canХ
t do experiments what do we do? You know, how
do we prove stuff? And then it went back to the case
where we kind of dipped into, you know, we have to
rely on historic historyРhistorical information, you
know. ItХ
s still research, itХ
s still Й itХ
s still finding
information but itХ
s not a step by step process of
hands-on trying something out. ItХ
s more taking other
ideas from other past experiments or experiences that
other scientists have had and making them your own.У
(Student 29-1, interview)
IV. Conclusions
•
•
The Mystery Phenomenon Unit did
cause some change in student
understandings of a targeted set of NOS
issues.
Whether this is due to the use of history
is somewhat unclear.
Acknowledgements
This material is based on work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. 0202923. Any
opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.