Critique of

“Teaching Elements of Nature of Science: A Yearlong Case Study of

A Fourth-Grade Teacher”

Valerie L. Akerson and Fouad Abd-El-Khalick

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volume 40, Number 10, pages 10-25-1049

Erin Peters

Science Teaching and Learning

Fall 2004/Spring 2005

Purpose of Study

This study, conducted over a calendar year, examined and supported an elementary school teacher, Tina, in her attempt to teach the nature of science (NOS) to sixth grade students. Tina was motivated to teach NOS and had some professional development in that area through her graduate degree. Tina had contacted the researchers seeking advice on how to explicitly teach NOS to her students. The researchers developed the following questions to drive the study: Are having informed NOS views and internalizing the importance of NOS instructional outcomes sufficient for enabling elementary teachers to teach effectively about NOS? If not, what other factors might come into play? What sorts of specific support do elementary teachers need to address NOS instructionally?

Researchers sought background to ensure that it was feasible for a teacher with Tina’s background and for sixth grade students to understand the important elements of NOS. It is not likely that a teacher who does not understand NOS would be able to successfully teach NOS to his or her students. Tina had prior knowledge of NOS due to her professional development experiences and her graduate degree. Tina did not have logistical barriers to teaching NOS and was extremely motivated to incorporate the concepts into her class. Although most background research has been done in the area of pre-service teachers and their development of NOS concepts, it was felt by the researchers that the situation would translate in Tina’s case.

Further exploration of the literature revealed that the use of explicit rather than implicit instruction of NOS resulted in student learning outcomes. Without the explicit references, the students would not likely learn aspects of NOS. The researchers explored the meaning of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) so that they could be informed about processes teachers use to translate content knowledge into classroom delivery. They also investigated characteristics of successful teacher development programs in order to provide useful intervention during the study.

The study was an interpretive case study and the methods emerged throughout the study. The researchers identified three concepts from the nature of science which were developmentally appropriate for elementary students and from which they could develop a coding system: inferential, tentative, and creative NOS. Data sets consisted of weekly observations and daily videotaping of Tina’s science class, which was one hour per day. Observations and videotapes covered the entire year. Tina completed the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire – Form B (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Schwartz, 2002) followed by a semi-structured interview at the beginning of the study, two times during the school year, and at the end of the school year. The interview helped to clarify questionnaire answers. Tina and the lead researcher kept reflective logs and corresponded through electronic means regularly throughout the study.

The progression of Tina’s understanding of five concepts (empirical, tentative, creative, theory-laden, social, observation vs. inference, and theories and laws) is presented in a matrix in the paper, which helps to explain the findings of the study. Tina had naïve views of all five concepts at the beginning of the study and her understanding improved marginally in two of the concepts and greatly in the remaining three. Although Tina’s own conceptions improved, she never achieved the goal of explicitly teaching NOS in the classroom. The researchers tried three different interventions, but none of the interventions helped Tina to transfer her knowledge into classroom practice. Tina’s classroom delivery did, however, improve from teaching no NOS in the classroom to implicitly teaching NOS in the classroom.

Positive Aspects of the Study

The selection of a participant seemed unusual, but the researchers accomplished sufficient background research to ensure that they would get valid data. Tina approached the researchers and solicited help in teaching NOS in her classroom. The researchers looked into the possible constraints that Tina’s background or classroom demography might have. The researchers checked out the use of elementary students as learners of NOS, and it was established in the literature that elementary students were developmentally ready for such concepts. They examined NOS studies in elementary classroom settings and found no constraints in Tina’s case. When the researchers established a research question regarding the support Tina would need to explicitly teach NOS in her class, they looked at literature about teacher knowledge and development related to NOS. Finally, they found research to support their methods of intervention so that the methods for teacher development were effective.

The qualitative methods used in the study were thorough. The literature review, as mentioned above, considered various aspects that an emerging study may pose. It appears from the article that the researchers did a great deal of work in establishing the methodology before they began, and even then, they took steps to improve the intervention when it was discovered that it was not having an effect on Tina’s teaching. The descriptions included in the article made a reader understand the context of the researchers and the context of Tina before, during and after the study. The researchers described Tina’s graduate program and how it related to NOS and Tina’s classroom set up, so that their audience would have rich context from which to evaluate the study. The design of the study had many sources from which to draw data. The researchers were participant observers once a week and Tina set up a camera in her room and taped her science class for the remaining days. The observations and video tapes alone covered each science class for a full year, which is very extensive. The questionnaire that was used to determine Tina’s level of knowledge is a well-known instrument, and the researchers took the extra step in conducting a semi-structured interview immediately after each administration of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was given four times during the year to determine any development of knowledge. The reflective logs were another way to gather data, and both the researcher and Tina kept reflective logs. The amount of data generated was sufficient to describe a rich story of Tina’s development in NOS.

The researchers described coding categories from the videotapes in great detail, which I thought added depth to an already deep study. The videotapes were coded for evidence of three levels of teaching NOS: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. Level 1 coding indicated that Tina was not emphasizing the NOS targets established at the beginning of the study, even if there was ample opportunity to do so. Level 2 coding indicated that Tina was implicitly teaching NOS, and Level 3 coding indicated that Tina was explicitly teaching NOS. Because the researchers took the time to explain the levels, any reference to this coding in the analysis section of the paper was clear.

During the study, the supports given to Tina varied during the study depending on her needs. The researchers went to great lengths to try to convert Tina’s knowledge into practice. It was evident to the researchers two months into the study that Tina conceptions of NOS were not being translated into her instructional delivery. Initial supports were established in the form of face to face lesson debriefings, reflections, and self-critique which were intended to activate Tina’s tacit NOS understandings. When the ongoing analysis of data revealed that Tina was not exhibiting any Level 3 interactions, the researchers elicited outside help from a science professor. The science professor tutored Tina in earth science content, an area which Tina did not explicitly teach NOS. The researchers were hoping that an enriched understanding of content would help Tina teach to Level 3 targets. When given the opportunity in class situations to teach NOS explicitly, Tina continued to ignore the opportunity or to implicitly teach NOS. The researchers decided that modeling the lesson would elicit Level 3 teaching, so one of the researchers modeled a lesson, which is transcribed in part in the article. Tina shows evidence of developing her own knowledge of NOS, but shows no evidence of explicitly teaching NOS to her students. The researchers were astute in noticing that interventions were not working, and were resourceful in trying different interventions depending on what the data revealed.

When the interventions were described in the paper, the researchers used segments of the transcription, which helped to describe exactly their intention. Including the back and forth conversation of the researcher and Tina in developing her knowledge of NOS was effective in validating methods. If the conversations were taken out of the paper and only the narrative descriptions left in, the paper would not have been as strong as it is. It is evident to a reader that the researchers felt it was important to be as descriptive as possible in this qualitative study.

Negative Aspects of the Study

The researchers referred to inquiry teaching several times in their study, but did not define it. Inquiry has many meanings, as evidenced in the extensive literature which tries to describe inquiry. During the analysis part of the paper, they begin to connect inquiry to Level 2 behaviors of teaching, implicitly teaching NOS. I feel that the paper would have been stronger if they had connected inquiry with Level 2 behavior in their explanation of the coding system. There is some literature in professional journals that discuss the linkage between inquiry and NOS, several of the articles are by Lederman, the co-author. Although there is some research available, the authors did not address how inquiry and NOS are linked in their study.

I question the validity of one of the conclusions reached regarding elucidating content-specific NOS ideas, one type of intervention. During the description of the events leading up to the intervention, the article explains how a researcher intervenes by asking students questions during a lesson. Students were drawing models of the inside of the earth and the researcher, trying to probe into student knowledge of NOS, asked the student how they think scientists know what is inside the earth. The researcher reports that students simply respond that they do not know while other students had incorrect conceptions. At that point, the researcher made an assumption that Tina had difficulty teaching students NOS concepts explicitly. I am unsure whether the researcher had a trusting relationship with students. If the students did not trust the researcher because he was not interacting with them until this abrupt point, then students would not give a “truthful” answer, which translates to good data. A valid conclusion cannot be made from invalid data. The article would be stronger if the researchers explained their role prior to this point in more detail. A reader would need more information about the relationship between the researcher and students before they could evaluate the validity of the conclusion made.

Suggestions for Improvement

Although the background literature review for this study was extensive, any discussion of the intersection of NOS and inquiry was missing. The researchers mention how inquiry teaching fits into the study when describing coding schemes, but it is not supported in the article by prior research. This gap in the background research section of the paper is one of the few improvements that can be made.

As mentioned above, at one point in the study, the researcher intervenes in the classroom by asking a question of the students, “How do scientists know what is inside of the earth?” The researchers are very descriptive in the article, but neglect any description of their relationship with students. If they did not have a prior relationship with the students until this point, then any intervention would be marginally unethical in terms of qualitative design. If the researcher planned on intervening only at the teacher level, he or she should be aware of any damage that can be done by intervening on the student level. As described in the study, Tina felt that she couldn’t answer that question herself and did not know what to do for the remainder of the class. It seems to me that some of the trust in the participant/researcher relationship was diminished because of that incident. The researcher was trying to illustrate how to explicitly teach NOS and meant well, but it seems that it had negative consequences in the classroom.

If the point of teaching teachers the concepts of NOS is so that the students understand NOS, why didn’t the researchers gather data about students’ knowledge of NOS? NOS is a very complicated concept and continues to evolve in the science community. The study could have been deeper if the researchers looked at overlaps of teacher knowledge of NOS and student knowledge of NOS. It seems reasonable to expect that if professional development is being studied, then the outcomes of that development should be measured. This study could have been fortified by gathering data on student knowledge of NOS.

Overall the study was very descriptive, and helped to clarify an otherwise murky concept of how teachers transfer their knowledge of NOS to classroom activities. The research helped to inform the methods and context of the study. The study methods were aligned with the information the research questions sought. The ways the researchers gathered data was optimal for the types of questions they were asking. The data gathered was extensive enough to have adequate triangulation. Most of the conclusions made were sound and called for more research in the area of transfer of teacher knowledge to classroom instruction.