1. Educational Context
The author's central concern addresses whether a teacher's perceptions of the nature of science influence classroom practice. Both the Benchmarks and National Science Education Standards emphasize the nature of science as a learning goal.
2. Research Design
Interviews, questionnaires, qualitative classroom
observations, plus a survey were used. There was tallying of students, but no quantitative results were collected.
No hypothesis was presented. The research questions
to guide the qualitative data collection were as follows:
1. Do teachers' understandings of the nature of science influence
classroom practice?
2. What factors facilitate or impede the influence of teachers'
understandings on classroom practice?
Five teachers of Biology, two males and three females, were investigated to find out if they are teaching ideas about the nature of science. All were former students of Norman Lederman. They were therefore familiar with the nature of science. They were free to follow whatever curriculum they wanted. Because all five knew about the nature of science, this experimental design was to identify how they used what they knew in a classroom setting. All had their master's and B.A. degrees in a science field. One was working on her Ph.D., and all had differing levels of experience that ranged from 2-5 years to 12-15 years. The classroom contexts ranged from rural to urban, but all were in Oregon. Some student populations were college bound, whereas others were going to be working in the community right out of high school. Many of the teachers had extensive background in science education courses, and all were trained by the author.
3. Findings
Findings were consistent with results from prior research. The teachers' knowledge about the nature of science is not considered when the teachers make decisions about instruction. The teachers' understanding of the nature of science did not influence student understanding of the nature of science.
Classroom management was a primary concern for the newer teachers. They were concerned with how the students were going to learn instead of with teaching. The experienced teachers did teach inquiry-based science, whereas the less experienced teachers would have liked to, but were too caught up in classroom management to be effective at inquiry-based teaching. The teachers did not use reflection on the nature of science as a tool during instruction or assessment.
4. Conclusions and Limitations
The conceptions teachers have do not necessarily influence what happens in the classroom. A systematic effort to make teachers aware of science didn't make a difference in terms of student understanding of the nature of science. The implication that students are learning the nature of science just because the teachers themselves know about the nature of science is wrong.
Some of those that weren't teaching for long may have failed due to classroom management problems. But the older teachers also didn't get the nature of science concept across.
The assumption that students are likely to learn the nature of science through the scientific method and inquiry needs to be questioned. Lederman speculates that the teacher needs to draw that out through reflection.
But the fact that students didn't learn the nature of science without reflection does not imply that they will learn it with reflection.
An alternative explanation is that teachers need curriculum that explicitly engages students in thinking about the nature of science.
5. Implications
The results of this project suggest that research into methods that effectively teach students the nature of science is needed.
Lederman, N.G. (2000)
Teachers'
Understanding of the Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: Factors That
Facilitate or Impede the Relationship, JRST
36(8): 916-929.