ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Using the Activity Model of Inquiry To Enhance General Chemistry Students’ Understanding of Nature of Science Sara C. Marchlewicz*,† and Donald J. Wink‡ Departments of †Learning Sciences and ‡Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, United States ABSTRACT: Nature of science refers to the processes of scientific activity and the social and cultural premises involved in the creation of scientific knowledge. Having an informed view of nature of science is important in the development of scientifically literate citizens. However, students often come to the classroom with misconceptions about nature of science. The activity model of inquiry is a theoretically grounded and empirically derived model of scientific inquiry and could be used as a thinking frame to help students develop more informed views of nature of science. This paper reports work on how to implement this model in the general chemistry classroom, and on how undergraduate students’ views of scientific inquiry shift. Implementation includes having students reflect on how current topics in science and their own lab work compare to the activity model of inquiry. Students are asked to respond to essay prompts and a pre- and postquestionnaire designed to assess naïve and informed views of nature of science. Findings show student responses to essay prompts and questionnaires and how they shifted in their views of nature of science. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Public Understanding/Outreach, Communication/Writing, Inquiry-Based/ Discovery Learning, Misconceptions/Discrepant Events, Applications of Chemistry, Learning Theories
I
f chemistry taught in the classroom is to add to the public’s understanding of science, school science must “develop students’ understanding of the scientific enterprise itself, the aims and purposes of scientific work, and the nature of the knowledge it produces”.1 Many students come into the classroom with a particular image of science and how scientists conduct scientific work. The processes of sciences and the creation of scientific knowledge compose nature of science (NOS). Understanding NOS is important, for it has been noted, “an appropriate understanding of NOS will allow students to make more informed decisions on science-based issues in their daily lives”.2 Specifically in chemistry, students must understand how chemists develop and apply theories, laws, and other ideas. For example, they should understand that solubility rules are not just a collection of facts that someone wrote down but rather are empirical and question driven. However, what many students know about NOS comes from the media, everyday experiences, traditional presentations of “the” scientific method, and technology.3 These experiences provide a misleading foundation for becoming scientifically literate. A scientifically literate public would be able to understand what types of evidence validate claims within science and how these claims can be developed into an understanding of nature.4 How to accomplish this, especially when students have misconceptions, is therefore an important challenge for instruction. In chemistry instruction, this link between claims and understanding is already apparent, for example, in the work of Greenbowe and others of the implementation regarding the science writing heuristic.57 There are three components of scientific literacy: the basic content, the processes that constitute scientific activity, and the social and cultural premises that create scientific knowledge.8 Content refers to the vocabulary of science and the basic concepts that make up scientific knowledge. This is the primary feature taught in the traditional learning settings. The processes of scientific activity and the social and cultural premises (contexts) that create scientific knowledge compose NOS. Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Today, including aspects of NOS is a central component within many science education research reform efforts.911 Leading researchers and educators in the NOS field are Norman Lederman and his co-workers, who refer to NOS as “the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge”.12 Lederman further states:13 [S]cientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change), empirically based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world), subjective (theory-laden), necessarily involves human inference, imagination, and creativity, and is socially and culturally embedded. NOS also includes that there is no universal recipe-like method for doing science, that theories and laws are separate types of scientific knowledge, and that there is a difference between inferences and observations.13 This paper will particularly focus on the idea of the myth of a universal scientific method as it develops when an explicit NOS strategy, based on Harwood’s activity model of inquiry, is used in a college chemistry classroom.
’ THINKING FRAMES FOR SUPPORTING NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTION Much research has shown that an explicit approach is more effective than implicit approaches in changing students’ and teachers’ views toward a more informed view of NOS.1417 Implicit approaches assume that NOS aspects will be learned as a by-product of doing science activities, whereas explicit approaches include structured opportunities or prompts to help learners reflect on their science-based activities.18 One way to Published: May 23, 2011 1041
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 1. Example of a traditional thinking frame that teachers use to teach the process of science. Image adapted and reproduced courtesy of Science Buddies, http://www.sciencebuddies.org/ (accessed Apr 2011).
make NOS explicit is to use a thinking frame. Thinking frames are “intended to guide the process of thought; supporting, organizing, and catalyzing that process”.19 Placing the features of scientific inquiry at the center of a thinking frame may help students to better understand the process of science. Commonly, teachers use the traditional scientific method as a thinking frame to teach the process of science, such as the one shown in Figure 1, which was adapted from a Web site for students involved in science fair projects.20 According to Rudolph,21 the traditional scientific method stems from an early 20th-century attempt by the Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers to determine what should constitute science education. Rudolph21 further discusses how this group of teachers used works from Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum22 first published in 1620, John Dewey’s How We Think,23 published in 1910, and other sources to develop the traditional scientific method. Although this group of teachers saw Dewey’s work as a simplistic means of teaching scientific practices, this was a misinterpretation that actually led Dewey to rewrite sections of his book, as well as commenting about the phases as not fixed steps but rather “traits of reflective thinking” (quoted in ref 21). Even with this attempt to set matters straight, the traditional scientific method stuck and is taught in many science classrooms today. However, dissatisfaction with the traditional scientific method model abounds. It includes an overall linear view of the scientific process that occurs step-by-step in a sequential order. It excludes any theoretical, cultural, or social aspect to the creation of scientific knowledge. In addition, traditional presentations of scientific method omit any hint of the human imagination, creativity, or subjectivity that is found in the actual inquiry. Because of this procedural setup, it has been an easy instructional
ARTICLE
Figure 2. William Harwood’s activity model of inquiry, a new thinking frame to teach the process of science. Image adapted and reprinted with permission from ref 25. Copyright 2004 National Science Teachers Association.
tool for teachers to use. However, this is not an accurate model of how science is actually done both because of the nonlinear aspect of many scientific inquiries and the fact that all knowledge should be thought of as a means for meeting human needs. Omitting the latter aspect, it has been argued, is both false and less likely to engage learners.24 William Harwood’s activity model of inquiry25 (see Figure 2) is a recent, data-based model that may have potential as a thinking frame for teaching nature of science aspects. It was developed from interviews with 52 faculty members across nine disciplines at a research university.26 Some responses from faculty members about scientific inquiry were that it is the bridge that connects the known to the unknown, it is fueled by questions, which drive the investigation, and it is an approach used in problem solving. The faculty members also described an investigator as someone who is connected to other disciplines, observant, willing to be wrong, both a collaborator and a communicator, and creative. While Lederman discusses the nature of scientific knowledge, Harwood’s model25 can be used for the discussion of nature of scientific activity. Within Harwood’s activity model of inquiry,25 10 activities relate in a web-like structure. No unique pathway exists; individuals chose what to do next based on what they need. Activities can be repeated as necessary. Questions are in the middle, suggesting them as the central feature of inquiry. The other nine activities include: defining the problem, forming the question, investigating the known, articulating the expectation, carrying out the study, examining the results, reflecting on the findings, communicating with others, and observing. Even the activities that could be interpreted as conclusions bounce back to questions and other activities. The activity model of inquiry25 has significant potential as a precise framework for discussing and teaching the aspects of NOS. The communicating with others activity is a way to teach the social component of NOS. Both defining the problem and 1042
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education formulating the question activities can be used to teach the cultural component. Observing, and carrying out the study, can be used to illustrate how science is empirically based as well as a way to show that scientists can carry out a study in more ways than just through experiments. Examining the results, and reflecting on the findings, are places to teach the differences between observations and inferences. The aspect of subjectivity can be taught using almost every single activity. Creativity is inherent in the model because a person needs to choose his or her own path. The tentative NOS can be taught by showing that there is no end to the model. Although all aspects of NOS are important, students will have trouble recognizing the cultural, empirical, creative, subjective, theory-laden and tentative nature of science if they hold a traditional linear model view of the scientific method. This particular intervention aims at examining how the activity model of inquiry impacts students’ initial concepts of scientific method.
’ USING THE ACTIVITY MODEL OF INQUIRY IN INSTRUCTION ABOUT NOS The flexibility and data-based nature of Harwood’s activity model of inquiry25 suggests it is a good thinking frame to use to develop students’ understanding of the actual NOS as described in the work of Lederman.13 In particular, the lack of a linear structure, the focus on inquiry processes, and the inclusion of societal and cultural factors mean that scientific methods are presented by the activity model of inquiry as variable, openended activities. Thus, inclusion of the activity model of inquiry within a college general chemistry program was undertaken and has been done multiple times. This particular paper focuses on one implementation that also included adaptation of laboratory work to provide students with their own experience of inquiry in science as part of their learning. Classroom Context
This project took place within a first-semester general chemistry course at an urban community college in the summer session where the first author was the instructor. The course had 18 students enrolled, and was structured around lecture, group activities, laboratory experiments, and quizzes and exams. Many of the labs were verification labs, yet two labs were created to include an inquiry component. In addition, writing-to-learn strategies were used. Writing has been shown to be an effective means in promoting conceptual change6,27,28 and metacognition.29 Writing is a useful tool for the writer to clarify his or her knowledge, organize the ideas to be written, and reflect on the learning experience.30 Assignments relevant to NOS were a standardized questionnaire given at the beginning and end of the semester and four course-related writing assignments given throughout the semester. On the second day of instruction, students were introduced to a definition of scientific models and asked to draw their own model of what the process of science looked like. The students were then asked to describe their models to the group. After a class discussion about the similarities and differences among the students’ models, the activity model of inquiry was introduced. The instructor described how the model was developed and described each of the components. The instructor then gave an example of how development of a pharmaceutical follows the activity model of inquiry. At the beginning and end of the semester, all students were given the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire Form-C
ARTICLE
(VNOS-C) developed by Lederman et al.12 The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess students’ understanding of scientific practice and aspects of NOS rather than content knowledge. On the first day of class, students were told that there are no correct answers to the questions and as long as they attempt to answer the questions, they would receive full credit on the problems. Additionally, if they did not know how to answer a question, to receive full credit, they needed to explain why they did not know. They were told not to leave it blank or just say, “I don’t know”. The instructor provided students with feedback that included prompts to further their thinking. To assess the changes, if any, in students’ views of NOS, this questionnaire was given again on the last day of the semester. In an attempt to prevent studying for the questionnaire, students were never told they would take this assessment again. Once again, students were told that there were no incorrect answers and that they would receive full credit by simply answering the questions. This time, however, students were told that they could not simply say that they did not know the answer; they needed to actually attempt to answer the question. The first writing assignment was given on the second day of class and was due one week later. The assignment had students respond to the prompt: “Describe how scientific knowledge is created. Do all scientists follow the same approach?” The intent of this writing assignment was to further assess students’ view of a single, universal scientific method. The other intent was to determine how students understood the creation of scientific knowledge and how the different aspects of NOS contributed to the creation of a particular piece of scientific knowledge. The second and third writing assignments required the students to interact with the activity model of inquiry and reallife scenarios. The second writing assignment asked students to look for components of the model in an actual example of science by analyzing a news or journal article (in chemistry, biology, or physics). For the article that students chose individually, they were to find at least 10 examples of how the science in the article fits with the components of the model. Students were not to use any component more than twice, so they should have used at least five different components. In addition, they were to explain how the specific example of their article fits the component within the model and show how that example then linked to the next component that they cited. Lastly, they needed to compare and contrast their news article findings using the activity model of inquiry with the scientific method discussed in their textbook.31 This writing assignment was used to introduce students to science outside the classroom and to provide a more authentic setting that fits the activity model of inquiry. The third writing assignment was similar to the second writing assignment, although this time students were asked to analyze their own chemistry laboratory work. Initially, the news article activity was assigned before the students’ lab activity so students would see how scientists engage in science first before transferring this knowledge to their own lab experience. The lab used for this writing assignment was a solubility rules lab and was chosen because it had an inquiry component. For the writing assignment, students were to write a lab report. Within it, they needed to include a brief introduction about what the solubility rules are, a procedure paragraph, collected data and analysis, results, and conclusion. They then needed to analyze their own lab work and identify where they executed particular components of the activity model of inquiry. As before, they needed to compare and contrast their findings using the model with the scientific 1043
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education method discussed in their textbook.31 The purpose of this assignment was to get students to see how their own activity relates to the model. The fourth writing assignment was assigned the last week of class and due before they took the questionnaire. Students were asked to answer: “How has your understanding of science been confirmed or changed over the semester? In particular, how does the activity model of inquiry fit or not fit your understanding?” They were to use their previous writing assignments to help support their opinion and understanding. The intent of this assignment was to get students to think about what they had learned over the semester and how their understanding has changed, if it did at all. In addition, they were to reflect on the chemistry content learned throughout the semester and what they enjoyed, what they struggled with, and what they would like to learn more about. Two inquiry labs used in the course also added instruction of NOS via the activity model of inquiry. The first lab was modified from a demo32 and was used to teach the solubility rules. In this lab, students were to run separate experiments with generically labeled chemicals and note the results of each experiment, namely, whether a precipitate was formed. The students’ goal was to be able to classify the generically labeled anions as either generally soluble or generally insoluble, while categorizing the generically labeled cations as always soluble or as a cation that follows the rule of the anion using the students’ observations from the different reactions.32 However, it is not possible to properly classify the cations and anions with the information provided, so students must design and test additional reactions using the supplied solutions. The second lab was also modified from a demo,33 and was used to teach stoichiometry and limiting reactants. Students use different ratios of aluminum foil and a solution of copper(II) chloride to determine which relationship consumes all of both starting materials. Students then use their results to find the limiting reactant and theoretical yield. Both of these labs and the additional labs within the course used the science writing heuristic6 as a format for writing lab reports.
’ EXAMPLES OF STUDENT RESPONSES The questionnaire responses and writing assignments were analyzed using the Lederman et al.12 framework for coding. Student responses were coded as naïve or informed with regard to students’ views concerning the myth of a universal scientific method. Three themes emerged from analyzing student work over the course of the semester: typical change, significant change, and no change. Under the typical change theme, students’ responses were mostly coded as informed views at the end of the semester but with limitations. For example, students exhibiting a typical change may understand the nonlinear nature of science but do not also explain why there is not a specific pathway. Students classified within the significant change theme demonstrated initial naïve views that develop into an informed view of the myth of a universal scientific method. Students under the no change theme do not show any change from their initial views. Within this population, there were not any students who began with informed views of the myth of a universal scientific method. Only students who held naïve views of this aspect of NOS at the beginning and end of the semester were classified under this theme. Example responses are presented as brief cases illustrating examples of what types of effects have been observed in response to the impact of the activity model of inquiry on students’ beliefs regarding the myth of a
ARTICLE
Figure 3. Student 1’s drawing of the process of science completed at the beginning of the semester showing a linear progression of steps. Drawing reproduced with permission.
scientific method. Subsequent work will be done to characterize student outcomes more systematically. Students 1 and 2: Typical Change in Understanding of Myth of a Scientific Method
The first two cases show typical student responses. When asked to draw a model of the scientific process, all students in the class drew something that included a linear process (see Figure 3) or a cyclic process (which had a specific order) (see Figure 4). Students’ drawings showed varied starting positions, choosing among question, hypothesis, or observation to begin their process. However, the same overall sequence was observed in all drawings. All students followed the hypothesis with experiment and then some form of data and conclusion. In a few instances students even labeled their drawings as the “scientific method”. Starting with a naïve view of the myth of a scientific method (as in Figures 3 and 6), many students believed that there is only one approach to science. In the VNOS-C postquestionnaire, one student talked about experiments being a “test that is done to figure out the answer”. However, he did not talk about how that answer was found. But in the fourth writing assignment, he talked about the freedom associated with the activity model of inquiry. He stated, With the activity model of inquiry, the thoughts about the topic should be a little more free [sic] to ponder all options. Since there is no destined path, the scientists or student is able to go from one activity to another without worrying about breaking a certain cycle. He understands that there are different approaches taken to answer a question and he even talks about students using this as well as scientists.
1044
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
Figure 4. Student 2’s drawing of the process of science completed at the beginning of the semester. This student drew a cyclical process but numbered the steps in a particular order. This student titled his drawing “Scientific Method”. Drawing reproduced with permission.
Another student noted how she understood scientific knowledge in her fourth writing assignment: I always followed the standard scientific method I had learned in high school, and thought that this was how scientific knowledge was created. I learned that scientific knowledge takes more than just one run through the scientific model or one group of scientists. This student also showed promising shifts in other parts of her views of the activity model of inquiry. She further went on to discuss how she used the communicating with others component of the model in the classroom: “We communicated with each other to compare data. Also, we researched as another form of communication.” These two students’ responses are what were typically observed within the final assignments. Many students began to incorporate activity model of inquiry components, particularly the communicating with others component. Some students also developed more informed views regarding the different approaches taken to solve a scientific problem and that there is freedom within this process. Student 3: Significant Change in Understanding of Myth of a Scientific Method
This case shows significant and, from our viewpoint, exemplary change from the beginning of the semester to the end in respect to the myth of a scientific method. In response to the VNOS-C questionnaire item that asks the student to define an experiment, her response at the beginning of the semester was “an experiment has a purpose and can be tested with materials. It is based off scientific methods and has about 3 trials before the final results and conclusion.” This is very similar to her drawing of a model of the scientific process (see Figure 5). Within her model, she drew a visual notebook aid that has the steps of the scientific method written in a grid. In both of these responses, she was writing out the steps within the traditional scientific method. She even included the traditional three trials that are included with many cookbook lab procedures. After introduction of the activity model of inquiry, she still held on to her belief of a scientific method. In her first writing assignment, she stated “they [scientists] follow the same approach by using steps like the scientific method.” However, after
Figure 5. Student 30 s drawing of the process of science completed at the beginning of the semester. This student began to draw a notebook of different steps within the process of science but then wrote a paragraph describing the linear progression of these steps. Drawing reproduced with permission. The student’s text reads: “Visual and [sic] notebook for the scientist to keep track of trials and results in an organized way. (Stating his problem/purpose, finding a hypothesis, materials, procedure, results and conclusion). The scientist usually begins with a problem or purpose then leads to a hypothesis. Then state the materials and write out the procedures. After 3 trials of experimenting, write the results then state the conclusion.”
analyzing the news article, she started to see the differences in the usefulness between the scientific method and the activity model. “The activity model gives more lead [sic] way to approach the study. The [scientific] method, although can relate [sic], is more simplistic and to the point for a simple study.” However, in this assignment, she was looking for the similarities more than the differences in the two models. She still mentioned that the results of the study would soon become a law or theory after being tested many times. This thinking is still parallel to the scientific method. After the completion of writing assignment 3 (to analyze her own experiment), she really started to grasp the usefulness of the activity model of inquiry. This experiment is a great example using the activity model of inquiry. There was no set order of procedure. It was in a way that the procedure is [sic] based off of our convenience.... The scientific method gives a specific order of studying and testing during an experiment.... The scientific method would have just stopped as is [sic] stating that not enough information was found instead of searching for more answers like the activity model. She first noted that the activity model of inquiry had no set order and is based on convenience. She contrasted this to the 1045
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
focused on how similar they are. She reverted back to the scientific method thinking again in her third writing assignment. Instead of looking at how she bounced around from activity to activity in her work, she just listed the steps in order of how the lab report was set up. In her fourth writing assignment, she still listed the steps of the scientific method. Scientists make observations and hypotheses which leads them to carry out experiments...they usually started by observing, forming questions, carrying out the study, collecting data, analyzing the data, and drawing a conclusion. She repeated this listing in the VNOS-C postquestionnaire and also stated “scientific knowledge is related to scientific method [sic].” This student kept her naïve understanding of the myth of a scientific method throughout the entire course. Observations from Student Cases
Figure 6. Student 4’s drawing of the process of science completed at the beginning of the semester. This student titled her drawing “Scientific Method” and listed the steps of the traditional framework in a linear order. Drawing reproduced with permission.
scientific method by noting its specific order. When discussing her own experience in the lab, she talked about how she would have had to stop her experiment when there was missing information if she were following the scientific method. However, since she was following the activity model of inquiry, she was able to bounce over to another component to find the missing information needed to solve the problem. This type of response is also found in her writing assignment 4 and the VNOS-C postquestionnaire response. She has a more informed view of the different approaches scientists take to solve problems. In her response to the experiment question on the VNOS-C questionnaire at the end of the course, she talked about experiments being “open ended” and that there is “no set way to conduct an experiment as long as it is based off a question”. Student 4: No Change in Understanding of Myth of a Scientific Method
This student held onto the belief of a universal scientific method throughout the entire semester. She began the semester by listing the steps of the scientific method in both her scientific model drawing (see Figure 6) and her response to the experiment question in the VNOS-C questionnaire. “An experiment is a theory with a purpose, hypothesis, results, and a conclusion.” When responding to the question about whether scientists follow the same approach in the first writing assignment, she said, [S]cientists used some steps of what now a day [sic] is consider “scientific method”.... Scientists had to state the problem or purpose...then, they have to state a hypothesis, do the experiment, make observations, record data, analysis [sic] the evidence, and draw a conclusion. The conclusion should include whether the hypothesis was correct or not. In her second writing assignment, she started to see the differences between the two models of inquiry, yet she still
The fact that some students show major changes in their view of the myth of a scientific method may stem from the students’ open-mindedness. In particular, Student 3 was very open to new information and wanted to learn ways to be able to use these new ideas. The more common responses entail less dramatic changes in which slightly revised understanding of the scientific method appear. This suggests that the activity model of inquiry can support shifts, yet also reminds us that major changes in deeply held beliefs are difficult to achieve in a short one-semester experience, which is an expected, although discouraging, finding.
’ CONCLUSIONS The activity model of inquiry can be a useful instructional framework to use in the classroom to teach aspects of NOS, particularly, the myth of a scientific method. The model implicitly includes some of the aspects of NOS. From the model’s many intersecting lines (Figure 2), it can be seen that there are countless ways to approach an inquiry, and the assignments can be used as guides for students to see how they approach their own scientific problem solving. In addition, the model can also be taught as scientific content and used to show how different sciences or scientists approach scientific problem solving. The activities within the activity model of inquiry can also be taught. Within these activities, other aspects of NOS can be included, such as the theory-laden nature of science within the observations activity. These assignments provide opportunities for students to pair content with one of the components of nature of science. Not only were students able to learn course material (i.e., solubility rules), they were also able to interact with material reported in the news media. Both of these activities provide the opportunity for students to develop more informed understandings of the different approaches scientists and the students themselves take when exploring scientific problems. In addition, most students responded very positively to the assignments and enjoyed completing them. Although these student assignments were used in a general chemistry course, they could also be implemented within another science course or within a science education course. Using these assignments in courses with more inquiry labs is another opportunity for students to further understand the different approaches taken when exploring scientific problems.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. 1046
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
ARTICLE
’ REFERENCES (1) Driver, R.; Leach, J.; Millar, R.; Scott, P. Young People’s Images of Science; Open University Press: Bristol, PA, 1996. (2) Ibrahim, B.; Buffler, A.; Lubben, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009, 46, 248–264. (3) Ryder, J.; Leach, J.; Driver, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36 (2), 201–219. (4) Dewey, J. Science 1910, 31 (787), 121–127. (5) Rudd, J. A., II; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (12), 1680–1686. (6) Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. Introduction to the Science Writing Heuristic. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005; pp 140154. (7) Wink, D. J.; Hwang-Choe, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (3), 396–398. (8) Wink, D. J. Found. Chem. 2006, 8 (2), 111–151. (9) American Association for the Advancement of Science Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Project 2061; Oxford University Press: New York, 1993. (10) National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (11) The use of the phrase “NOS” instead of the phrase “the NOS” is consistent with Norman Lederman’s reference to there not being a single definition of NOS and that NOS, itself, is tentative. (12) Lederman, N. G.; Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Bell, R. L.; Schwartz, R. S. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (6), 497–521. (13) Lederman, N. G. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 3 (2), 1–11. (14) Khishfe, R.; Abd-El-Khalick, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (7), 551–578. (15) Schwartz, R. S.; Lederman, N. G.; Crawford, B. A. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (4), 610–645. (16) Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Akerson, V. L. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (5), 785–810. (17) Khishfe, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45 (4), 470–496. (18) Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Lederman, N. G. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22 (7), 665–701. (19) Perkins, D. N. Educ. Leadership 1986, 43 (8), 4–10. (20) Science Buddies Web Page on Steps of the Scientific Method. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_ method.shtml (accessed Apr 2011). (21) Rudolph, J. L. Hist. Educ. Q. 2005, 45 (3), 341–376. (22) Bacon, F. Novum Organum; The Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1623. (23) Dewey, J. How We Think; D.C. Heath and Co.: Boston, MA, 1910. (24) Rudolph, J. L. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89 (5), 803–821. (25) Harwood, W. S. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2004, 33 (7), 29–33. (26) Harwood, W. S.; Reiff, R.; Phillipson, T. Scientists’ Conceptions of Scientific Inquiry: Voices from the Front. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC, January 1013, 2002; ED 465632. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED465632.pdf (accessed Apr 2011). (27) Fellows, N. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 985–1001. (28) Mason, L.; Boscolo, P. Instructional Sci. 2000, 28 (3), 199–226. (29) Ruggles Gere, A. Roots in the Sawdust: Writing To Learn across the Disciplines; National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL, 1985. (30) Langer, J. A.; Applebee, A. N. How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching and Learning; National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL, 1987. (31) Tro, N. J. Introductory Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009. (32) Stevens, K. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (3), 327–328. (33) Wood, C.; Breyfogle, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (5), 741–748.
1047
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
