Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry for Scientific Literacy Dr. Renee’ Schwartz

1. Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry for Scientific Literacy Dr. Renee’ Schwartz Georgia State University Middle & Secondary Education ESERA Summer School 2017 University of South Bohemia ČeskeBudějovice, Czech Republic

2. - What is the goal of scientific literacy? To develop responsible citizens in a global society where science plays a significant role life, well-being, future, family

3. What are learners capable of? “There is growing evidence that young children can learn and think in the same way as scientists…” November 2, 2013 The Oslo Times

7. Why? • Science has been taught as a body of facts. • Science has been taught as product, not process. • The way science has been taught has developed misconceptions and misrepresentations about what science is and what scientists do.

8. Our Goal…. ….. to help students “learn science in a way that reflects how science actually works.” (NRC, 1996, p. 214)

9. Framework: What is science? Body of Knowledge: Science Content Practices Way of knowing Nature of Science Nature of Scientific Inquiry Science

10. What is scientific inquiry? [scientific practices] • Skills: investigate scientifically • Understanding: Nature of Scientific Inquiry • Pedagogical strategy: involve learners in scientific investigations to learn science concepts

11. Merging Identities Scientist Learner

12. Why is scientific literacy important? • School science vs. Real world • Socioscientific issues • Global climate change

13. Why is scientific literacy important?

14. Why NOS and NOSI? • Understanding NOS and NOSI can help dispel misconceptions people have about what science is (and is not) and what scientists do. • Tentative, yet robust • Empirical • Justification: claims must be consistent with evidence • Science is messy, but that’s ok!

15. What do you see?

16. Nature of Science: NOS] • NOS refers to the characteristics of scientific knowledge, and the values and influences that necessarily influence its development (Lederman, 2007)

17. Nature of Scientific Inquiry [NOSI • NOSI refers to the nature of the processes through which scientific knowledge is developed and accepted (Schwartz, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2012)

18. Conceptual Framework for Nature of Science (NOS) & Scientific Inquiry (NOSI) NOS NOSI Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge Process Used to Generate Scientific Knowledge Credit: Jennifer Parrish, Middle Tennessee State University, 2017

19. What do you see?

21. Nature of Science [NOS] • Subject to change, but robust (tentative) • Empirical: Natural world • Creative (human endeavor) • Socially and culturally embedded (human endeavor) • Observation and inference • Influenced by knowledge, perspective, and theoretical lens (theory-laden and subjective) • Models, theories, laws Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Schwartz, 2002

22. Nature of Scientific Inquiry [NOSI] • Questions • Scientific investigations are guided by questions (but not all questions can be addressed scientifically) • Questions determine the method • Multiple Methods • No single “Scientific Method” • Method (inquiry procedures) can influence results • Data and Evidence • sources, roles of, and distinctions between • All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results. • e.g. Duschl et al., 2007; Gilbert, 1991; Lederman et al., 2014; Osborne et al., 2003; • Schwartz, 2004; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008

23. NOSI • Justification • The form and role of argument from evidence in the development and acceptance of new knowledge • Claims must be consistent with data collected • Explanations are based on data collected and what is already known • Anomalous data • Role, recognition, and handling e.g. Duschl et al., 2007; Gilbert, 1991; Lederman et al., 2014; Osborne et al., 2003; Schwartz, 2004; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008

24. Scientific models and modeling • As products of inquiry • As process of inquiry • Explanatory • Enable prediction • Simplify (Gilbert, 1991; 2004; Schwartz, 2004; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008)

26. What perspective do NOS and NOSI promote? Science as Product or Science as Process? THE answer book or The answer book RIGHT NOW*

27. What are we doing now? A Century of NOS in Teacher Education Recommendation for NOS in Secondary Biology Begin Focus on Assessing & Improving Teachers’ NOS Views Curricular Materials Developed for NOS K-12 Standards Reform: Focus on NOS and SI NGSS Nov 7 Dec 20 2013 1963 1990’s 2000 2002 2008 1970’s 1907 Teachers Play Critical Role in NOS Instruction K-12 Teachers & Students Hold Inadequate NOS & SI Views Knowing is insufficient for teaching (PCK) Today 6 days 18 days 24 days Historical Cases, Physical Sciences & Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies 16 days Explicit - Reflective Approaches Effective Use Implicit & Explicit Approaches 25 days VNOS VOSI Credit: Jennifer Parrish, Middle Tennessee State University, 2017

28. How to assess NOS and NOSI views? • Cognitive domain (not affective) Watching practices inferring NOS or NOSI knowledge

29. Research Instruments • Views of Nature of Science [VNOS] Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, (2002) • Views of Scientific Inquiry [VOSI] Schwartz, 2004; Schwartz, Lederman, & Lederman (2008) • Views about Scientific Inquiry [VASI] Lederman, J.S., Lederman, N.G., Bartos, S.A., Bartels, S.L., Antink Meyer, A., & Schwartz, R.S. (2014) Note: There are others that target similar aspects in different ways. Caution: Does the instrument you want to use measure what you want to measure? How is NOS/NOSI defined?

30. What’s happening now? NOS and NOSI around the world Australia Korea Belgium Canada Brazil Argentina Spain United Kingdom Netherlands Israel Hong Kong Lebanon France Mexico Egypt Nigeria China Uganda Indonesia Sweden Finland Puerto Rico Greece Venezuela Chili Taiwan South Africa Germany New Zealand USA Turkey

31. For example: Lederman et al., 2017 (authors representing 20 countries) What are grade seven students’ understandings of Scientific Inquiry in various countries worldwide?

32. SampleAt least 100 seventh grade students sampled from each continent (except Antarctica) Israel (92) New Zealand (87) Nigeria (102) South Africa (106) Spain (159) Sweden (126) Taiwan (167) Turkey (268) United States (164) Total 2,634 Students • Australia (108) • Brazil (169) • Chile (142) • China –Beijing (166) • China - Shanghai (106) • China - Zhejiang (106) • Egypt (109) • England (103) • Finland (149) • France (109) • Germany (96)

33. Data Source • Views about Scientific Inquiry(VASI) • The VASI was scored by at least two people at each site. • Inter rater reliability was calculated (>80%) at each site for each aspect of inquiry.

34. Worldwide Average of Findings

35. Worldwide Average of Findings

36. Worldwide Average of Findings

37. What’s new in the USA? • Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] 3 dimensional teaching: Disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, cross-cutting concepts

38. Our goal as science teacher educators… To prepare science teachers to address the goals of the Next Generation Science Standards

39. NOS in NGSS Scientific Knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence

40. Scientific knowledge is a result of human endeavor, imagination, and creativity. Individuals and teams from many nations and cultures have contributed to science and advancing engineering.

41. Science carefully considers and evaluates anomalies in data and evidence

42. What’s happening now? What do scientists and teachers think about justification and anomalous data?

43. Decisions & Directions • Scientists must decide: • What to do with anomalous data • When to pursue publication

44. Target aspects for the study • Justification of scientific knowledge: • What do scientists need and do for their claims to be accepted by the scientific community? (argumentation, evidence, communication) • Role of anomalies: • How do scientists identify and deal with anomalies?

45. Sample

46. Methods • Open-ended surveys and interviews • Views of Scientific Inquiry [VOSI]-Sci (Schwartz, 2004) • Views of Scientific Inquiry [VOSI]-270 (Schwartz et al., 2008)

48. Reproducibility • Internal: Statistical Analysis 46% Scientists vs. 0 PSTs • [Reproduce] That you can do internally within your own laboratory. Always we like to see multiple observations of the same thing…Ifthat variation is small compared to the magnitude of the observation, then we are confident that this is probably a good result. We say it is statistically significant. [experimental chemist, interview]

49. Reproducibility: Preservice teachers • Internal: Many trials with same results 72% PSTs Scientists have to do lots of trials and get the same results over and over again. They can’t have anything different or strange. [science major, int] • Internal: “enough” Scientists make their results public when they have enough evidence. [elementary ed major, VOSI-270]

50. Reproducibility • External: other scientists repeat 40% PSTs vs. 13% scientists * Scientists must have many other scientists reformulate the same results before they are ready to communicate their findings to the general public. [science major, int] *collaborators