 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, Volume 4, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2003) John LOUGHRAN, Amanda BERRY, Pamela MULHALL and Dick GUNSTONE Teaching and testing about the Nature of Science: problems in attempting to determine students' perceptions
|
FindingsPart Two:
Question 1 of this section of the test asked student to consider why the scientists' finding was "so surprising". Responses to this question that were of interest to us were those we considered illustrated an insight into the practice of science. This was not such an easy question to answer. Many students, rather than examining the surprising nature of the result either treated the question as an exercise in comprehension or expressed their disbelief at the peculiar link between light, the back of the knee and jet lag. Typical responses of this nature included,
Because it is very unlikely that a light on your knee will stop jet lag and insomnia. (Student 72)
This was surprising to find out because it would be unlikely to happen. (Student 1).
We noted 14 (16%) responses that pushed beyond this idea of disbelief and began to focus on the findings and how the findings might be tested or questioned. For example,
I think it's surprising because only your eyes can detect things like light. How can knees see light? (Student 74)
I would say that the findings were so surprising because it goes against the scientific conclusions that have previously been made. It also opens up a Pandor[a]'s Box of other possibilities. (Student 75)
Because they withheld judgement and it was an important issue that arised [sic]. (Student 64)
Because you would never think, but simply shining a light on a knee would result in this stopping or resetting of the biological clocks. Also, it was not known that light could absorb/effect into the knee. (Student 69)
Question 1b followed by asking if experts often react to new discoveries in this way (ie by being surprised). Of the 76% of students who answered Yes to this question, 23% (15 out of 66) offered good reasons to accompany their response. Typical good reasoning was similar to that of Student 79 who wrote,
I believe that they have to react like this as part of their profession. Without the discovery going through a series of proofs it would be misleading for the public if they confirmed discoveries and it would also be unprofessional as not all possibilities have been considered.
Question 2a asked the students to consider in the article what was intended by the expression, "if the findings hold up". We were interested in determining how many students attributed the meaning of this to the reproducibility of experimental results. 48% of the students responded in a way that suggested their recognition of this meaning.
In Question 2b students were asked to explain how scientists might see, "if the findings hold up". We analysed their responses in terms of the details of test reproducibility that they provided. 43% of students offered details that we thought indicated an understanding of how to test for reproduction of results.
Question 2c pursued these ideas further by asking the students, "if they had ever done anything" in their science classes that involved testing results (using 2b as the example). Interestingly, 44% of students responded positively to this question and offered examples from their school science experiences to support their answer.
One example is that of student 79 who wrote,
Yes, when testing whether a substance was an acidic or basic solution we used both pH paper and universal solution comparing our results we collected information from a range of sources before making the conclusion that the solution was an acid or a base.
As we discussed above, the initial finding from Part 1 was that the students did not explicitly link the article to their Year 10 science experiences. In fact, the open-endedness of part 1 also carries the problem that the students may well have been attempting to second-guess what was required. Despite this, there are clear signs in the data for Question 2c that they have in fact made links with the process of scientific verification outlined in the article and the processes in which they have engaged in their science classes. One possible reason for the difference in the data for Part 1 and Question 2c is that the latter was preceded by other questions that acted as prompts for students' memories. Another is that the wording of Part 1 specifically refers to Year 10 science experiences. This is because our original intention was to explore and compare the effects of doing Susan's unit in Year 10 on students' understanding of science practice. As students answered this question, and given their tendency which we have discussed to consider linking in terms of content, their focus may have been on trying to decide when they did whatever content they remembered as opposed to their learning experiences.
Question 3a attempted to explore the students' understanding of a scientist's statement in the article concerning their attempts to find flaws in the experiment. Only 8% (7 out of 87) gave well-expressed responses that indicated a clear understanding. An example is the following:
They were trying to find out if the results just happened by chance or if they were incorrect when experimenting. (Student 75)
Question 3b was designed to uncover how the students thought testing for experimental flaws might occur. 47% of the students responded to question 3b by noting the need for experiments to be reproducible and 41% mentioned aspects of experimental design and conditions associated with experimental design that were important to test for flaws.
By testing it on different people who have different sleeping patterns. (Student 86)
By doing more tests on different types of people. (Student 4).
They probably looked over everything, tested it over and over again. (Student 2)
By testing different people - old, young, as well as using different lights like torches and dim lights. (Student 55)
By doing really close examinations on all the people being tested ie. To make sure some weren't less tired than others, what they had eaten (in case they had more energy). (Student 43)
Question 4 was concerned with exploring the students' understanding of communicating results and asked them to consider why the article might be published in the journal Science as well as a newspaper (in this case one of the daily papers The AGE). 66% of students responded in terms of the need to publish for an appropriate audience, hence the need for an article in Science, and 32% noted the need to generally communicate results as an important reason for the different forms of publication.
So that people only interested in the SCIENCE field read about the experiment. (Student 14)
It would be published in Science so that people would take these findings seriously. (Student 26)
Because it is an experiment [in] which no flaws have been found and so is liable to be published to inform scientists and people. (Student 25)
People who are interested in science could see the findings. (Student 33)
Question 5b attempted to probe the students' understanding of the purpose of scientific inquiry and asked the students whether they thought that scientists generally approach experiments with some idea of what they are attempting to investigate. 87% of students responded positively to the question with 62% noting that such an approach was self-evident.
They have to know where they are headed but also they could discover stuff they did not know. (Student 85)
Because they would waste their time and money if they didn't have an idea in [sic] what to do. (Student 22)
Because they nearly always know what they're doing. (Student 14)
Yes because why would they choose to do this experiment. Sometimes these findings can be found by accident. (Student 39).
Interestingly, only 8% of students (7 out of 87) noted a relationship between the experimental method and the idea being tested. For example,
They have to have an idea of what they are trying to find in order to construct an experiment procedure in the first place. (Student 78).
Before conducting an experiment a[n] hypothesis need to be developed. They need an aim to prove or to disprove an idea. (Student 25).
Copyright (C) 2003 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 4, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2003). All Rights Reserved.