Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge: The imitating science project

Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge:The imitating science project Stein Dankert Kolstø & Idar Mestad, University of Bergen, Norway

Introduction • Knowledge about the nature of science • Students’ assessment of socio-scientific issues • Science as a process • Including social processes • Truly open-ended experiment • Publish • Discuss

Purpose 1. How to use practical activities to teach social processes in science 2. Present our analysis of the impacts of the project on students’ ideas about science

Outline • Theoretical framework • Design of the project • Evaluation method • Findings • Discussion

Theoretical framework • Nature of science • Design principles G. Bezzuoli (1841) painting of an Galileo Galilei experiment

Nature of science • Constructivist view • Interpretation and argumentation • ”Core science” - ”Frontier science” • Social processes • Publication • Evaluation • Argumentation

Design principles • Dewey • Ground students’ learning • Practical problem solving activities • Understand the underlying principles

Design principles • Socio-cultural perspectives • Learning is situated • Understandings are linked to the contexts they were acquired • Distributed knowledge • Collaboration strengthens learning

The design of the imitating science project • Open-ended experiment in small “research-groups” 1. Trigger: Newspaper headlines • Tobacco causes the death of half of those who smoke • NATO-bombing might cause cancer • Air-soles cause health problems

The design of the imitating science project 1. Trigger 2. Information • Learning objectives • General research question: • "Why do people walk around in circles in open spaces when the visibility is low due to fog or snow?".

The design of the imitating science project 1. Trigger 2. Information 3. Practical work • Planning • Electronic framework • Scaffolding • Carried out their experiment • In the school garden • Writing an electronic report • Presentation

The design of the imitating science project 1. Trigger 2. Information 3. Practical work 4. Discussions • Whole class discussion • Weak and strong aspects of the different methods • Writing the joint report.

The design of the imitating science project 1. Trigger 2. Information 3. Practical work 4. Discussions • Whole class discussion • Science as a process • Teacher led class debate

Evaluation method • Students • 14 years old, grade 8 and 9 • Two science classes, 20 and 28 students • Data • One science class (n=28) • 10 min.: "How does a researcher work?" • 23 pre texts and 23 post texts

Evaluation method • Research questions • What are the pupils’ views about processes involved in research? • What are the pupils’ views about what researchers do to increase the quality of their research? • What are the pupils’ views about the reliability of the outcome of research?

Evaluation method • Qualitative analysis • Code and retrieve • Constant comparative method • Aim of the analysis • Ideas the students developed during the project • Hypothesis about weak and strong points to inform further development (Issues of validity in the paper)

Findings: Main processes involved in research • Pre texts: • “Make inquiries” (n=8) • “Solve problems” (n=6) • Collecting and analysing data (n=4) • Erik pre: I think researchers make inquiries and analyse and establish a conclusion • Testing of hypotheses (n=5)

Findings: Main processes involved in research • Testing of hypotheses • Pre texts (n=5) • Post texts (n=14+5): • Berit post: They [researchers] make hypothesis and then they tests this in different ways (many different). Then they find a conclusion. Then they discuss with other researchers and criticise each other works.

Findings: Main processes involved in research

Findings: What researcher do to increase the quality of their research?

Findings: The reliability of the outcome of research • Positivistic • Anette: ... maybe makes an inquiry to get knowledge about what other people think is right, and then he must test it somehow so that ha can prove that “it is like this”. • Critical • Sigrid : Arrive at a reasoned conclusion. Discuss with other researchers about their opinion. If necessary make a new conclusion/hypothesis. If new hypothesis -> “start again”. • Opportunistic

Findings: The reliability of the outcome of research

Discussion • The imitating science project • Including the whole process of research? • Managed to imitate or illustrate main characteristics ? • Scientific research methods • Hypothesis • Plurality of methods • Role of theory

Discussion • Social processes in science • Publication • Peer review (More issues discussed in the paper)

Concluding remarks • Limitations of the project • Student engagement: • Students had to use their creativity • Critical success factor: • Ongoing reflections

Functional scientific literacy? • Why knowledge about science as a process? • Include projects where current controversial socio-scientific issues in media are examined

Thank you for listening! Stein Dankert Kolstø & Idar Mestad Paper at www.uib.no/people/pprsk/Dankert

Learning about the nature of scientific knowledge: The imitating science project