|
Volume 1, Issue 4 ISSN
1528-5804
Print Version
Article
and Commentaries Submit a Commentary
Bell, R. (2001). Implicit instruction in technology
integration and the nature of science: There's no such thing as a
free lunch. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online serial] , 1 (4) .
Available:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss4/currentissues/science/article2.htm
Implicit Instruction in Technology Integration and
the Nature of Science:
There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
RANDY
BELL
University of Virginia
Although at first glance introducing technology and
introducing the nature of science into classroom instruction may
appear to be very different issues, several parallels between the
two topics can be drawn. Both topics are recommended by current
science education reform documents. Both are innovations in that
they require commitments and actions differing from teachers'
typical practice. And, in the case of both topics, educators have
adhered to seemingly logical pedagogical assumptions that have
proven inadequate to change students' deep-rooted beliefs. It is on
this last point that my commentary on the article by Germann,
Young-Soo, and Patton (2001) will focus.
Germann et al. reported the reactions of preservice
teachers in their secondary science methods class to electronic
journaling and electronic concept mapping. In this writing
intensive course, students explored a variety of issues, including
inquiry learning, classroom management, and curriculum design. The
focus of the electronic journaling and concept mapping treatments,
however, was to enhance the preservice teachers' understandings of
the nature of science.
By 'nature of science,' I refer to the epistemology
of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs
inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman,
1992). Nature of science is a complex and abstract construct that
involves reflecting on the scientific enterprise in ways not
encouraged by typical textbook-based science curricular
experiences. While there is disagreement regarding specific aspects
of the nature of science, there exists an acceptable level of
generality regarding the nature of science upon which the majority
of experts agree and which is relevant and accessible to K-12
students (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, Schwartz, & Akerson,
2001; Smith, Lederman, Bell, McComas, & Clough, 1998). For
instance, the concepts that scientific knowledge is tentative
(subject to change), empirically based (based on observations of
the natural world), and partly the product of human inference,
imagination, and creativity are consistent with current
philosophical views of science and useful for combating students'
absolute views of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, these tenets
of the nature of science are supported by current science education
reform documents (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1989; 1993; National Research Council, 1996) and have
provided a conceptual framework for a number of investigations
(Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Bell, Lederman, &
Abd-El-Khalick, F., 2000; Lederman & O'Malley, 1990; Lederman,
Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, & Bell, 2001; Matkins & Bell,
2001).
It is unclear from their article how Germann et al.
defined nature of science, what targeted conceptions of the nature
of science they hoped to change, and what instructional approaches
they used to elicit this change. From what they did not say,
however, it can be inferred that they used an implicit approach to
nature of science instruction. Implicit teaching is perhaps best
defined by its basic premise that students will learn about a
construct (such as the nature of science) simply through
participating in activities consistent with the construct. For
instance, in the historical approach, students might read about
important episodes from the history of science or perhaps repeat
historically significant investigations. In the process-centered
approach, students might be taught process skills and participate
in inquiry-based activities. In the discussion approach, students
would participate in open-ended discussion (in class or online)
about their beliefs in and experiences with science. Note that in
all of these approaches, students may be engaged in pedagogically
sound instructional activities. What makes the instruction implicit
is the lack of direct attention to particular aspects of the nature
of science. In other words, the focus of the lesson is history,
process skills, or science content, with students left to pick up
conceptions of the nature of science as a by-product.
In the class described by Germann et al., students
were encouraged to reflect upon and discuss their own views of the
scientific enterprise. The authors provided no evidence that these
discussions were purposeful or directed at changing students'
conceptions. As the authors put it,
It was hoped that the use of electronic
journaling and concept mapping would promote sustained
reflection....On the surface, we were disappointed. Most students
had never even thought about the nature of science before (despite
having spent countless hours in lecture halls and laboratories) and
16 weeks was simply not long enough for them to articulate and then
refine or change their initial propositions. Reflection as measured
by change in propositions did not happen.
Given Germann et al.'s implicit approach, I believe
that their lack of success in eliciting conceptual change in the
preservice teachers' understandings of the nature of science was
predictable. This belief is based upon my experiences as a teacher,
in my nature of science research, and in my review of the relevant
nature of science literature, all of which point to the necessity
of explicit nature of science instruction.
Underlying the explicit approach to nature of
science instruction (not to be confused with direct instruction) is
the philosophy that teaching is a deliberate act, and that to
maximize learning, instruction must be purposive and goal driven.
Explicit instruction addresses the nature of science (or other
constructs) head-on and rests on the premise that students are
likely to learn what we want them to learn only when they are
purposively taught. This is not to say that students do not learn
implicitly; however, lessons learned implicitly may well be
contrary to the teacher's intentions. Effective teachers do not
leave to chance their students' development of accurate
understandings of science content. Rather, they purposively plan
and execute instruction designed to facilitate students'
construction of scientifically valid understandings. Lessons on the
nature of science should be no exception.
Explicit instruction may involve students in
similar activities to those mentioned previously, but as part of
the lesson the teacher guides students into thinking explicitly
about specific aspects of the nature of science. As Russell (1981)
noted, 'If we wish to use the history of science to influence
students' understanding of science, we must...treat this material
in ways which illuminate particular characteristics in science' (p.
56). Thus, at the conclusion of a lesson on the history of the
development of the atomic model, the teacher might encourage
students to consider the sources and implications of the tentative
nature of science. A skillful teacher could challenge students'
absolute views of scientific laws by demonstrating through
historical vignettes that many scientific laws have changed over
time. Likewise, teachers may teach students the processes of
observation and inference through demonstrations and hands-on
activities.
The lesson becomes explicit in regard to the nature
of science when the teacher encourages students to think about how
observation and inference apply to the construction of scientific
concepts and what implications this has for scientific knowledge in
general. It should be noted that the same instructional activities
may be used in implicit and explicit approaches. The difference,
therefore, is not so much a difference in kind as it is in
emphasis. Implicit approaches assume students will enhance their
conceptions of the nature of science indirectly through doing
science or studying historical episodes. Explicit approaches
address the nature of science as something to be 'planned for
instead of being anticipated as a side effect or secondary product'
(Akindehin, 1988, p. 73).
It is unfortunate but true for most students coming
into our preservice science education programs that, as Germann et
al. noted, they have 'never even thought about the nature of
science before (despite having spent countless hours in lecture
halls and laboratories)' (p. 8). Students' misconceptions are the
result of years of science instruction focusing on the products of
science, with little attention to the values and assumptions
inherent to the development of scientific knowledge. Furthermore,
there is increasing evidence that students construct a 'common
sense' epistemology as part of their cognitive development, in
which they see knowledge in general as arising directly from
observation and view bodies of knowledge as collections of
(absolutely) true beliefs (Kitchener & King, 1981; Kuhn, Amsel,
& O'Loughlin, 1988). To further exacerbate the problem, they
are exposed to textbooks and other curricular materials rife with
misconceptions about the nature of the scientific enterprise ' such
as the so-called 'scientific method' and the spurious hierarchical
relationship between scientific theories and laws (see McComas,
1996, for a discussion of these and other common nature of science
misconceptions).
Thus, through a combination of years of both
implicit and explicit instruction, the majority of our students
come to class with deeply ingrained misconceptions about the nature
of science. Many science educators, as well as the scientists who
teach college level science courses, believe that students will
pick up current conceptions of the nature of science by osmosis'by
listening to lectures about science, engaging in discussions about
science, or by 'doing' science, including hands-on, inquiry-based
activities. Yet the nature of science is a complex topic, and
students' misconceptions about the nature of science have proven as
resistant to change as their misconceptions about other science
content.
Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) reviewed
empirical studies on improving science teachers' understandings of
the nature of science. They concluded that of the three general
approaches reported in the literature (historical, implicit, and
explicit), the explicit approach consistently effected the most
significant conceptual change. The extensive literature on
conceptual change adds further support, indicating that explicit,
purposive instruction is necessary to address the misconceptions
students develop both implicitly and explicitly (Butts, Hoffman,
& Anderson, 1993; Joshua & Dupin, 1987; Strike &
Posner, 1992).
In the explicit approach, instruction is geared
toward specific aspects of the nature of science, sometimes
utilizing elements from the history and philosophy of science.
Activities specifically developed to target nature of science
concepts serve as object lessons that can enhance classroom
discussions (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, & Bell, 2001; McComas,
1998; National Academy of Sciences, 1998). And contrary to the
results of Germann et al.'s experience with implicit instruction, a
number of investigations have reported substantial gains in
preservice teachers' understandings of the nature of science in a
single semester of explicit instruction (Abd-El-Khalick et al.,
1998; Akindehin, 1988; Bell et al., 2000; Carey & Stauss, 1968;
Lederman et al., 2001; Matkins & Bell, 2001; Olstad, 1969;
Shapiro, 1996).
As Germann et al. pointed out, concept mapping and
journaling have the potential to facilitate students' abilities to
pose effective questions, challenge assumptions and confront points
of confusion. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, that such
tools can support, but not substitute for effective instruction.
Experience has made it clear that it is inherently unproductive to
assume that students will implicitly develop desired knowledge and
skills through the introduction of tools (whether technological or
pedagogical). This being the case, methods courses should strive to
help preservice teachers develop the skills, knowledge, and
attitudes they need to turn potentially useful tools into sound
instructional practice.
As indicated at the beginning of this commentary,
the issue of what our students learn and do not learn implicitly
has direct application in regard to the topic of technology, as
well as the nature of science. Teacher preparation courses all too
often focus on implicit approaches to improving technology
integration in science instruction. How often have we heard the
call for greater access to computers and other technologies, with
little attention to the professional development necessary to
assist teachers in using these tools? Or how about the approach
that teacher educators simply need to help preservice teachers
become comfortable with using technology, and they will
automatically use it to teach more effectively? If the goal is for
teachers to reform their practice (a process that involves
conceptual change), then explicit instruction is required. Just as
the introduction of concept mapping and electronic journaling alone
failed to produce changes in the nature of science conceptions of
Germann et al.'s students, the introduction of technology alone
will fail to produce changes in teachers' conceptions of science
instruction.
What is true in life, in general, is also true in
teacher preparation'there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Technology access and skills are necessary but insufficient steps
toward using technology effectively in science instruction. Rather,
science educators should explicitly instruct preservice teachers on
ways to integrate technology into their instructional practice.
Such instruction will require science educators to provide
conceptual frameworks for technology integration, model lessons
involving appropriate uses of technology, and opportunities for
preservice teachers to develop and practice teaching lessons that
appropriately integrate technology. Like most worthwhile goals,
such explicit instruction is inherently more difficult to achieve,
but much more likely to produce desired results.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., &
Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional
practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education,
82, 417-436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G.
(2000). The influence of history of science courses on students'
views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching , 37 , 1057-1095.
Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an
instructional package on preservice science teachers' understanding
of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related
attitudes. Science Education , 72 , 73-82.
American Association for the Advancement of
Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of
Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061
report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., &
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's
conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563-581.
Butts, D.P., Hoffman, H.M., & Anderson, M.
(1993). Is hands-on experience enough? A study of young children's
views of sinking and floating objects. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 5 (1), 50-64.
Carey, R.L., & Stauss, N.G. (1968). An
analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by
prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education 52
, 358-363.
Germann, P., Young-Soo, K., & Patton, M.D.
(2001). Heightening reflection through dialogue: A case for
electronic journaling and electronic concept mapping in science
classes. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online serial], 1 (3). Available:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss3/currentissues/science/article1.htm
Joshua, S., & Dupin, J.J. (1987). Taking
into account student conceptions in instructional strategy: An
example in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 4 ,
117-135.
Kitchener, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981).
Reflective judgement: Concepts of justification and their
relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology , 2 , 89-116.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M.
(1988). The development of scientific thinking skills.
Orlando, Fl: Academic.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers'
conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., &
Bell, R.L. (2000). If we want to talk the talk we must also walk
the walk: The nature of science, professional development, and
educational reform. In J. Rhoton & P.S. Bowers (Eds.),
Issues in science education: Professional development planning
and design . Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers
Association.
Lederman, N.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F.S., Bell,
R.L., Schwartz, R., & Akerson, V.L. (2001). Assessing the
'un-assessable': Views of nature of science questionnaire
(VNOS). A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis,
MO.
Lederman, N.G., & O'Malley, M. (1990).
Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development,
use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74,
225-239.
Lederman, N.G., Schwartz, R.S.,
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R.L. (2001). Pre-service teachers'
understanding and teaching of the nature of science: An
intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics,
and Technology Education, 1, 135-160.
Matkins, J.J., & Bell, R.L. (2001).
Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the
nature of science in an elementary science methods course. In P.
Rubba, J. Rye, W. Di Biase, & B. Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 2001 Annual International Conference of the Association for
the Education of Teachers in Science . Pensacola, FL:
Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
McComas, W.F. (1996). Ten myths of science:
Reexamining what we think about the nature of science. School
Science and Mathematics , 96 , 10-16.
McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998). The
nature of science in international science education standards
documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in
science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52)
. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
National Academy of Science. (1998).
Teaching about evolution and the nature of science .
Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National
science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic
Press.
Olstad, R.G. (1969). The effect of science
teaching methods on the understanding of science. Science
Education, 53 , 9-11.
Russell, T.L. (1981). What history of science,
how much, and why? Science Education, 65 , 51-64.
Shapiro, B.L. (1996). A case study of change
in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent
investigation in science: Learning about the 'face of science that
does not yet know.' Science Education , 80 ,
535-560.
Smith, M.U., Lederman, N.G., Bell, R.L.,
McComas, W.F., & Clough, M.P. (1997). How great is the
disagreement of the nature of science: A response to Alters.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 , 1001-1003.
Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1992). A
revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl and R. J.
Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology,
and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). New York:
State University of New York Press.
Contact Information
Randy Bell
Curry School of Education
University of Virginia
PO Box 400279
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4279
Phone: (804) 924-1380
randybell@virginia.edu
Submit a Commentary
|
