(NOS) Nature of science, teaching it, WAS:(scientific methods)

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

> Michael Bowen wrote:
> > In many cases, community college science courses will be flatly
> > rejected for transferability to certain public universities UNLESS the
> > course's catalog description explicitly states that the
> "scientific method"
> > (whatever that is) will be taught or illustrated,
>
> Ugh.
>
> =====================
>
> A good principle to apply in such situations is that it is
> important to give the customers what they want, keeping in
> mind that what they really want and really need probably
> differs greatly from what they initially say they want.
>
> They say they want "the scientific method" but what they
> really want is for us to teach people to think clearly.
> People aren't born knowing how to do that.  Learning to
> think is the most important objective of the physics
> course, far more important than any particular facts
> and figures.
>
> There _do exist_ things we all recognize as scientific
> behavior, taking scientific approaches to problems, etc.,
> and we probably pretty much agree what they are, although
> it might be hard to come up with a concise-and-complete
> list.  By the same token there are certain unscientific
> behaviors that we recognize with even greater clarity,
> and we can give guidelines for recognizing them.
>
> The problem is that the phrase "the scientific method" has
> been hijacked.
>
> > the "scientific method" (whatever that is)
>
> I understand the sentiment -- but the situation is
> even worse than that.  We _do_ know more-or-less what
> they mean by "the scientific method" but we recoil from
> it in horror.

The Physics Teacher called it anathema!

Much as we agree that "The Scientific Method" is a caricature of what
scientists and others do to construct understanding of natural phenomena, we
have totally failed to replace it with something better.  No lecture based
methods have been able to change student ideas about the processes involved
in constructing scientific understanding.  Similarly classes which use
inquiry methods have generally shown little increase in understanding of the
nature of science (NOS).  This latter term is the preferred by most of
authors in the science education publications.

However since 2000 there has been an approach which appears to be very
promising.  In the Sept. JRST see "Influence of Explicit and Reflective
versus Implicit Inquiry-Oriented Instruction on Sixth Graders' View of
Nature of Science" has evidence that it is possible to improve middle school
attitudes toward NOS.  There is a similar article JRST (2000) 37, pp295-317
which uses the same approach with science teachers.  One of the important
points is that in addition to inquiry activities the students were
explicitly asked questions about NOS and this was discussed after the
experiments.  In previous experiments it has been assumed that NOS would be
implicitly absorbed.  Whether or not alternative sequences such as
activities followed by lecture would be as effective have not been explored.

Notice that anyone who uses inquiry methods could add some questions and
discussion of NOS to satisfy the requirement.  The catalog could then
honestly read that the course covered the scientific method.  If a bit more
honesty is desired then the words nature of science could be included.  In
other words give them the words they want to hear.  This has been an
educational tactic which is time honored.  One could also give them the same
words if the course is conventional lecture based.  However I think the
description writer should understand that it is truly a white lie in that
case.

This relates very closely to Joe Redish's MPEX research.  Most courses
including some very inquiry oriented courses show lower MPEX scores and a
few studio or workshop style courses show a little gain.  Gain in such
courses could be enhanced by adding appropriate questions to the activities
and then by having some student discussion of NOS as well as discussion of
the physics content.  Gain in the MPEX could be improved by some explicit
action.  This parallels the fact that reformed physics curricula always need
some explicit treatment of the physics ideas.  Explicit does not imply
lecture, but in some cases lecture "may have" some effectiveness after the
exploratory activities.

Once students have acquired a much better view of NOS it may be possible to
get higher gain on the FCI/FMCE and similar tests.  Whether or not both NOS
teaching and conceptual physics teaching will complement each other could be
the subject of some future research.

BTW anyone who dashes to the library to look at the reference might also
find the last paper in the Sept. issue "Preservice Elementary Teachers'
Conceptions of Moon Phases before and after Instruction" enlightening.  Some
of the more interesting assertions is that before instruction the majority
(61.4%) did not know the moon orbited around the earth, and 93% did not know
that during the entire lunar cycle that half of the moon was always
illuminated by the sun, except during infrequent eclipses.  This particular
problem is poorly attacked by lectures, and was successfully taught by the
methods in the article.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX