Students’ Participation in an Interdisciplinary,Socioscientific Issues Based UndergraduateHuman Biology Major and Their Understandingof Scientific Inquiry

Jennifer L. Eastwood & Troy D. Sadler &

Robert D. Sherwood & Whitney M. Schlegel

Published online: 8 June 2012# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine whether Socioscientific Issues (SSI)based learning environments affect university students’ epistemological understanding ofscientific inquiry differently from traditional science educational contexts. We identify andcompare conceptions of scientific inquiry of students participating in an interdisciplinary,SSI-focused undergraduate human biology major (SSI) and those participating in a tradi-tional biology major (BIO). Forty-five SSI students and 50 BIO students completed an open-ended questionnaire examining their understanding of scientific inquiry. Eight generalthemes including approximately 60 subthemes emerged from questionnaire responses, andthe numbers of students including each subtheme in their responses were statisticallycompared between groups. A subset of students participated in interviews, which were usedto validate and triangulate questionnaire data and probe students’ understanding of scientificinquiry in relation to their majors. We found that both groups provided very similarresponses, differing significantly in only five subthemes. Results indicated that both groupsheld generally adequate understandings of inquiry, but also a number of misconceptions.Small differences between groups supported by both questionnaires and interviews suggestthat the SSI context contributed to nuanced understandings, such as a more interdisciplinaryand problem-centered conception of scientific inquiry. Implications for teaching and re-search are discussed.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078DOI 10.1007/s11165-012-9298-x

J. L. Eastwood (*)Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine,514 O’Dowd Hall, Rochester, MI, USAe-mail: eastwood@oakland.edu

T. D. SadlerMU Science Education Center, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA

R. D. SherwoodDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

W. M. SchlegelDepartment of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Keywords Socioscientific Issues . Scientific Inquiry . Scienceepistemology . Interdisciplinary Science . College science teaching

Recent reports on postsecondary education emphasize the importance of preparing students toexamine complex issues in science, critique differing perspectives, and make socially responsibledecisions (AAC&U 2007; Brewer and Smith 2011; Miller 2007). As members of a democraticsociety, college graduates need to be informed and empowered to influence contemporary issues,such as environmental pollution or public health disparities, which include both scientific andsocial dimensions. The goals expressed in recent educational reform documents echo the dialogueon scientific literacy within the science education community (Hurd 1998; Roberts 2007). Whilethese discussions have emphasized the need for a scientifically literate citizenry, post-secondaryeducational institutions must also focus on preparing socially responsible professionals who areable to address complex, socioscientific problems.

Although scientific literacy has been defined in diverse ways, Roberts (2007) describes it asa continuum from understanding of scientific products and processes (Vision One) to knowl-edge of “science-related situations” where both science and non-science concerns share impor-tance (Vision Two, p. 730). In any place on the continuum, epistemological conceptions ofscience are an essential component of scientific literacy. Driver et al. (1996) have argued thatunderstanding of Nature of Science (NOS) helps individuals to manage aspects of science andtechnology encountered in daily life, participate in decision-making with science-related issues,understand the place of science in culture, understand how the moral values of society areupheld in scientific communities, and understand science content. From a Vision Two perspec-tive of scientific literacy, helping students develop informed epistemological conceptions ofscience and scientific inquiry is imperative to promoting students’ evidence-based and ethicaldecision-making with socioscientific issues (SSI).

SSI are contemporary problems that incorporate both scientific and social knowledge andconcerns. SSI learning environments engage students in self-directed science learning,argumentation, consensus-building, and moral reasoning (Sadler 2009; Sadler and Zeidler2009). By nature, SSI offer numerous opportunities for discussion and reflection uponepistemological ideas about science (Bell et al. 2011; Matkins and Bell 2007; Sadler et al.2004). In this study, we examine whether long-term participation in an SSI-based, interdis-ciplinary human biology major and participation in a traditional biology major may influ-ence students’ epistemological understanding of scientific inquiry differently.

Science Epistemologies

To provide background on the conceptualization of science epistemologies underlying thisstudy, we will discuss three primary frameworks prominent in the science educationliterature, including Nature of Science (NOS; Lederman 1992), Nature of Scientific Inquiry(NOSI; Schwartz et al. 2008) and contextualized science epistemologies (Allchin 2011;Sandoval 2005).

Nature of Science

Nature of Science (NOS) is the dominant framework for science epistemologies in thescience education literature. NOS represents science as a way of knowing and “the valuesand beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and development” (Lederman 1992, p. 498).

1052 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

Researchers generally agree that the following aspects constitute NOS: (1) scientific knowl-edge is based on empirical evidence, (2) scientific knowledge is subject to change (tenta-tive), (3) science involves creativity and imagination, (4) scientific knowledge is influencedby social and cultural factors, (5) science is theory-laden, (6) theories and laws aredistinct types of knowledge, (7) scientific knowledge is based upon observations andinferences, which are distinct; and (8) there is no single scientific method (Lederman etal. 2002; Lederman 2007). Researchers are in consensus that K-12 students, teachers,and preservice teachers have generally unsophisticated NOS conceptions (Lederman1992; Ryan and Aikenhead 1992); therefore, developing instruction that results in moreinformed views of NOS has been a significant focus in science education (Lederman2007; Sandoval 2005).

Research on approaches for improving NOS conceptions has found that an explicit approach,in which NOS learning is treated as a cognitive objective, is more effective for improving NOSconceptions than an implicit approach, in which students are engaged in authentic scienceactivities without explicit discussion of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Khishfeand Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Lederman 2007). Most research on implicit approaches wherestudents are engaged in classroom inquiry interventions (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002;Linn and Songer 1993; Meichtry 1992) or research apprenticeships (Bell et al. 2003) reports nosignificant change in students’ NOS conceptions. However, a study in which NOS gains wereseen for students who experienced inquiry instruction throughout the entirety of elementaryschool suggests that long-term, consistent inquiry-based instruction could enhance NOS under-standing (Smith et al. 2000).

Research on explicit approaches to NOS instruction has shown student gains in NOSunderstandings in many different learning environments including scientific inquiry(Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Schwartz et al. 2004), history or philosophy of science(Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000), science content (Hanuscin et al. 2006), argumenta-tion (McDonald 2010; Ogunniyi 2007), elementary science teaching methods (Abell et al.2001; Akerson et al. 2000; Scharmann et al. 2005), and elementary teacher professionaldevelopment (Akerson andHanuscin 2007). Reflection on NOS as related to particular contextshas been discussed as an essential feature of NOS instruction (Schwartz et al. 2004). Theexplicit-reflective approach, in which students are introduced to NOS aspects through examplesand activities and engaged in structured reflective activities to make connections among ideas isthe recommended approach for teaching nature of science concepts (Lederman 2007; Ledermanand Abd-El-Khalick 1998). Schwartz et al. (2004) provided further recommendations forexplicit NOS instruction, identifying three aspects important to improving NOS views: authen-tic context, opportunities for reflection on NOS and students’ own experiences, and taking anoutside perspective to reflect on students’ own inquiry experiences.

Views of Scientific Inquiry

While views of scientific inquiry are often collapsed into NOS, views of scientific inquiryare distinct because they encompass the nature and reasoning behind the processes ofconstructing and justifying scientific knowledge (Schwartz et al. 2008). Views of scientificinquiry focus on what scientists do and how scientific knowledge is produced, rather thanthe nature of the knowledge itself (Schwartz and Lederman 2006).

To operationalize views of scientific inquiry, we must first define scientific inquiry. Flickand Lederman (2004) classify inquiry into three different commonly used meanings: (1) themethods and ways of thinking that contribute to scientific knowledge development, (2)knowledge about the methods used to develop scientific knowledge, and (3) a method of

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1053

teaching in which students carry out processes similar to those of scientists. This multi-dimensional definition is consistent with the National Science Education Standards (NRC1996) presentation of scientific inquiry:

Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural worldand propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry also refersto the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientificideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world (p. 23).

For the purpose of this study, we define inquiry as the various processes of scientificknowledge construction and epistemological knowledge about these processes will beidentified in this paper as “understanding of scientific inquiry” (Schwartz et al. 2008).

Scientific inquiry is a central process to multiple fields of study, including natural,physical, and social sciences (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1991). However, scientists vary intheir degrees of emphasis on historical data, experimental data, qualitative or quantitativemethods, foundational scientific principles, and findings of other scientists (Schwartz 2004;Schwartz and Lederman 2006; Wong and Hodson 2009). Schwartz et al. (2008) provide alist of seven key aspects of the nature of scientific inquiry: scientists (1) justify knowledgewith evidence, (2) use different methods appropriate to the questions they investigate, (3)recognize anomalous data, (4) distinguish between data and evidence, (5) uphold standardsof practice and peer review in scientific communities, (6) design investigations based onquestions, and (7) have various reasons for investigating phenomena.

Most of the published work addressing individuals’ understanding of scientific inquiry iscombined with studies of NOS understanding and supports explicit instruction on NOS andscientific inquiry. This includes studies with inservice teachers (Akerson et al. 2009), preserviceteachers, (Schwartz et al. 2004), and K-12 students (Lederman and Lederman 2004). Schwartz(2007) found that explicit reflective instruction on NOS and scientific inquiry in an undergrad-uate biology course for preservice teachers promoted more informed views of scientific inquiry.Students changed views of a single scientific method to multiple methods including observa-tional and correlational methods, and showed gains in their understanding of experiments,scientific models, and scientists’ justification of claims. Lederman and Lederman (2004) foundthat both teachers and elementary students improved their conceptions of multiple methods ofscientific inquiry, different interpretations of scientists, and relationships between evidence andexplanations after participating in Project ICAN: Inquiry, Context, and Nature of Science. In astudy of scientists’ conceptions of NOS and NOSI, Schwartz (2004) and Schwartz andLederman (2006) found that general aspects of NOS and NOSI were consistent amongscientists, but more specific aspects varied in relation to the context of scientists’ work.

Science Epistemologies in Context

Several researchers have investigated science epistemologies as applied to specific contexts.Sandoval (2005) distinguishes formal epistemologies, which are ideas about professionalscience, from practical epistemologies, which are ideas students hold about their ownscientific knowledge development through inquiry. Sandoval’s concept of formal scientificepistemologies is similar to the students’ knowledge of the aspects of NOS. The scienceeducation community has studied NOS and therefore formal epistemologies extensively;however, little is known about students’ practical epistemologies. Only a few studies haveexamined students’ epistemological views about their own processes when engaged inscientific inquiry or problem solving (Sandoval 2005). Driver et al. (1996) investigatedstudents’ views of science as contextualized in their school inquiry experiences. The authorsused an interview protocol asking students to describe their reasoning processes while

1054 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

engaged in science activities. They postulated a developmental progression from elementaryto high school, including phenomenon-based, relation-based, and model-based conceptions.Sandoval (2005) notes that the methodology in this study has potential to identify students’practical epistemologies.

Some studies have addressed epistemological views in relation to various science disci-plinary contexts. Erduran and Scerri (2002) described epistemological differences betweenchemistry and physics. They distinguished the discipline of physics as mathematicallydriven, while chemistry is predominantly characterized by qualitative investigations andclassification. Additionally, Erduran and Scerri argue that different science disciplines applyand emphasize laws differently. For example, laws in physics tend to be deducible, while inchemistry, laws such as the Periodic law are not (Erduran 2007; Erduran and Scerri 2002).

Schwartz (2004) and Schwartz and Lederman (2006) investigated whether views of NOSandNature of Scientific Inquiry (NOSI) vary among scientists of different disciplines. Twenty-four practicing scientists of various disciplines and methodological approaches completedopen-ended questionnaires, which elicited views of NOS and NOSI. The authors found thatscientists of different disciplines were consistent in their views of the main categories of NOSand NOSI, with the exception of justification and prediction. Some discipline-specific patternsalso emerged within the subcategories of the main aspects, which the authors interpreted asrelating to the context of the work of different scientists. The authors concluded that whileepistemological views of science appear to be contextual, differences in views are more likelyinfluenced by individual context than disciplinary context.

Wong and Hodson (2009, 2010) examined differences in NOS understandings of scien-tists of different disciplines. Interview data from 14 scientists from different fields anddifferent parts of the world revealed primary categories of NOS features including methodsof scientific inquiry, the role of scientific knowledge, and social dimensions of science.Confirming results of Schwartz (2004) and Schwartz and Lederman (2006), they foundgeneral agreement among scientists about major concepts of NOS, but differences indomain-specific epistemological aspects. For example, because of the variance in methodsof inquiry, scientists vary in their views of experiments. Wong and Hodson argue that there isno single list of NOS aspects that fits all science disciplines and contexts. They furthersuggest that assessments of NOS need to take context into account.

Overall, research on conceptions of NOS and scientific inquiry suggest that studentsimprove their understanding through explicit-reflective instruction in association with par-ticipation in scientific practice. Research also suggests that while the principal aspects ofepistemological conceptions of inquiry are consistent among scientific disciplines, specificaspects are context-dependent. Although formal conceptions of inquiry have been studiedmore fully, little is known about students’ understanding of inquiry in the context of theirown participation.

Socioscientific Issues

Socioscientific issues integrate science content, culture, and society and provide opportuni-ties for the application of knowledge and ethical reasoning to decision-making (Sadler2009). Sadler (2011) outlines a framework for designing and implementing SSI learningenvironments, including centering instruction on a controversial issue, providing scaffoldingfor argumentation and decision-making, and providing reflective culminating experiencessuch as a debate or development of position papers. SSI learning environments shouldencourage high levels of student participation, collaboration, and mutual respect. Students

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1055

should have opportunities to engage in reasoning and/or argumentation, interact withscientific ideas and real data, and negotiate social aspects of the issues.

SSI engage students in inquiry processes as well as provide opportunities to reflect oninquiry of scientists. Barab et al. (2007) describe inquiry in SSI as “socioscientific inquiry,”in which students use scientific processes to consider issues that require negotiating scien-tific, political, ethical, and economic concerns. These authors suggest that socioscientificinquiry incorporates (1) engagement in a narrative context, (2) using conventional repre-sentations specific to science, and (3) carrying out inquiry, which the authors describe asexploring, asking questions, discovering and testing ideas, sharing findings, and consideringthe societal impacts of findings. Socioscientific inquiry may involve research into theliterature, analyzing published data, or collecting and analyzing new data. SSI involveinvestigations of both socially and scientifically relevant questions and data may takevarious forms from both the natural and social sciences (Eastwood et al. 2011). SSI contextsprovide opportunities for students to ask questions, design and carry out investigations, andcommunicate their findings. Sadler et al. (2007) discuss the role of socioscientific inquiry inpreparing sophisticated decision-makers, who are able to pose questions, determine whatinformation they need, and develop plans for finding solutions.

Research supports the effectiveness of SSI in development of argumentation skills (Albe2008; Dori et al. 2003; Harris and Ratcliffe 2005; Kortland 1996; Pedretti 1999; Tal andHochberg 2003; Tal and Kedmi 2006; Walker and Zeidler 2007; Zohar and Nemet 2002);creativity (Lee and Erdogan 2007; Yager et al. 2006) and content learning (Klosterman andSadler 2010; Yager et al. 2006). When SSI interventions have been compared to traditionalscience learning environments, SSI contexts have been found to be as effective (Barker andMillar 1996; Yager et al. 2006) or more effective in enhancing students’ content learning(Zohar and Nemet 2002). Additionally, research supports the conclusion that students findSSI contexts interesting and motivational (Albe 2008; Bennett et al. 2005; Bulte et al. 2006;Dori et al. 2003; Harris and Ratcliffe 2005; Zeidler et al. 2009; Parchmann et al. 2006).There is evidence that SSI learning environments increase students’ levels of communityinvolvement (Yager et al. 2006) and improve their attitudes toward science (Lee andErdogan 2007; Yager et al. 2006). Finally, research findings confirm that SSI may facilitatepersonal epistemological development. Zeidler and colleagues (2009) found that studentswho experienced an SSI-based anatomy and physiology course over a full academic year,made gains in reflective judgment, while students participating in a traditional content-basedanatomy and physiology course made no significant gains.

Many researchers have suggested that SSI provide excellent contexts for teaching NOS(Bell et al. 2011; Sadler 2009; Sadler 2011). Although many have suggested that decision-making in SSI and understanding of NOS are integrally connected (Sadler et al. 2004; Belland Lederman 2003), few studies have examined how SSI contexts affect students’ epis-temologies of science. Zeidler et al. (2002) found that when presented with evidenceopposing their beliefs on a particular socioscientific issue, students’ NOS views wererepresented, although inconsistently in their reasoning. Sadler et al. (2004) found thatstudents discussed factors related to targeted NOS aspects (empirical basis, social andcultural embeddedness, and tentativeness) when explaining their reasoning with conflictingevidence on global warming. Walker and Zeidler (2007) also found that students’ NOSunderstandings were represented in the artifacts produced as a part of an SSI-based unit;however, students did not refer to NOS in a debate activity, even when relevant toarguments.

Some researchers have investigated the effects of integrating explicit NOS instruction inSSI learning environments. Matkins and Bell (2007) investigated changes in fifteen

1056 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

preservice elementary teachers’ NOS conceptions after explicit-reflective NOS instructionembedded in an SSI unit on global climate change and global warming (GCC/GW). Theauthors found that preservice teachers improved their conceptions of both NOS and GCC/GWand applied their NOS understandings in their decision-making about the socioscientificissue. Khishfe and Lederman (2006) compared ninth grade students’ NOS understandingsafter explicit NOS instruction integrated into a controversial science issue (global climatechange) and explicit NOS instruction that was non-integrated. They found that for both theintegrated and non-integrated conditions, students improved their NOS views. The integrat-ed group showed slightly larger gains in informed views, while the non-integrated groupshowed slightly larger gains in transitional views. Bell et al. (2011) investigated the effectsof approach and context on NOS understandings of preservice teachers. Four treatmentgroups included combinations of explicit or implicit NOS instruction and NOS contextual-ized in a global climate change/global warming (GCC/GW) unit or NOS as a stand-alonetopic. Consistent with previous research, the authors found that students who receivedexplicit NOS instruction in both contexts made significant gains in NOS conceptions.However, the GCC/GW context group was more likely to apply targeted NOS views inargumentation.

Research on science epistemologies in SSI contexts have focused on how students applyNOS conceptions in reasoning with SSI (Sadler et al. 2004; Zeidler et al. 2002) and theeffects of explicit NOS instruction in the context of SSI (Bell et al. 2011; Khishfe andLederman 2006; Matkins and Bell 2007; Walker and Zeidler 2007). Although NOS under-standing has been studied in relation to SSI, we are unaware of published studies thatexplicitly address how understanding of scientific inquiry specifically may be facilitated inSSI environments.

Focus of Study

This study compares the conceptions of scientific inquiry of students in a four-year,interdisciplinary, SSI-based undergraduate human biology program and those in a traditionalbiology major. An SSI approach encourages students to critically assess knowledge from avariety of sources. We suggest that students’ understanding of the ways in which informationis generated is significant to how they will evaluate and apply that information in a decisionor argument. For example, a student who dismisses descriptive studies as invalid wouldlikely consider different sources of evidence for a particular problem as compared to astudent who only views quantitative evidence as authoritative. There is evidence thatscientists have nuanced conceptions of NOS and NOSI related to the unique contexts oftheir work on scientific problems (Schwartz et al. 2004; Schwartz and Lederman 2006;Wong and Hodson 2009, 2010). It is possible that the context of the learning environmentand the ways in which scientific problems are addressed in that learning environment alsoresult in nuances in students’ science epistemologies.

As previously discussed, science epistemologies have been conceptualized as Nature ofScience (NOS), Nature of Scientific Inquiry (NOSI), and contextual science epistemologies.For this study, we chose to focus on students’ conceptions of scientific inquiry rather thanNOS because we believed that a focus on inquiry was more likely to engage students inreflection on both the inquiry of scientists and their own practice of inquiry. Additionally,artifacts for both majors such as course descriptions explicitly discussed a focus on theinquiry process, but not the nature of science, so we believed students would likely be morefamiliar with the concept of scientific inquiry than NOS.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1057

In this study, we investigate whether students participating in an interdisciplinary humanbiology major with consistent, in-depth SSI experiences (the SSI group) understand scien-tific inquiry differently from those who experience a traditional biology major (the BIOgroup). Our focus is to explore themes in students’ conceptions of scientific inquiry ratherthan to assign scores, although we recognize that the nature of the themes sheds light on thedepth and accuracy of students’ conceptions. We use a mixed methods approach (Creswelland Plano Clark 2007) comparing themes from students’ general conceptions of inquiryelicited by an open-ended questionnaire (VOSI; Schwartz et al. 2008) as well as interviewsin which participants discuss their understanding of scientific inquiry in relation to theirmajor and undergraduate learning experiences in general. The research questions guidingthis investigation are as follows:

1) What are the epistemological understandings of scientific inquiry of students in the SSIand BIO majors?

2) Do students participating in the SSI and BIO majors understand scientific inquirydifferently, and if so, how?

Theoretical Framework

Our theoretical lens is informed by situated learning theory, which posits that knowledge isintegrally connected to the context in which it is learned. The learning context incorporatestools, ideas, and other individuals with whom learners interact (Brown et al. 1989; Greeno1998). Drawing from this framework, we postulate that effective learning environments offerstudents opportunities to work with and apply concepts in contexts authentic to their use.Similarly, we draw upon the framework of Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger1991) in which members of the community learn through interactions with each other andother elements of the environment. Through participation in classroom learning communi-ties, individuals are enculturated into a set of practices and cultural norms. SSI providecontexts for classroom communities that negotiate cultural norms including epistemologicalviews of scientific inquiry.

Method

Context of Learning Environment

The study took place in a large, research-intensive university. Participants were recruitedfrom the SSI and BIO majors. Although the groups experienced many of the same coursesand the same university environment, four components set the SSI group apart: yearly, SSI-centered core courses, theme-based seminars, a four-year reflective portfolio for students tointegrate their experiences and interdisciplinary coursework, and participation in programactivities like voluntary coffee hours, student government, and retreats. The SSI major wasdesigned to scaffold the progressive development of ethical and evidence-based reasoningwith science and technology-related problems facing humanity, primarily in the corecourses. The faculty members who designed the program conceptualized a trajectory fromexploring different perspectives to advocating for evidence-based positions, using team-based and case-based SSI modules. A faculty member from a natural science discipline and afaculty member from a social science or humanities discipline team-taught each of the core

1058 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

courses, with the exception of the senior level core course, which was taught by the programdirector, a biology professor. In the SSI major, scientific inquiry was explicitly discussed as acentral disciplinary process in science in which scientists generate evidence-backed con-clusions in relation to questions about phenomena. Students in the SSI major took the sameintroductory science courses as BIO majors, including introductory biology, molecularbiology, evolutionary biology, chemistry, and physics. SSI students also selected variousscience electives.

The BIO majors took the same introductory science courses as SSI majors, includingintroductory biology, molecular biology, evolution, chemistry, and physics, and selectedfrom among the same science electives (although most SSI majors took fewer scienceelectives, likely because of the interdisciplinary programmatic requirements). Additionally,BIO majors took courses in the arts and sciences to fulfill degree requirements. Like the SSImajors, most BIO majors were preparing for medical and health science careers. The mostsignificant difference in learning environments from the SSI majors was the absence of anSSI-based core course sequence. Many, but not all of the courses had associated labs.Biology courses were primarily lecture-based and lab courses offered students opportunitiesto learn techniques and verify concepts taught in class. A few lab courses offered openinquiry experiences. Outside of major requirements, the BIO major offered students flexi-bility to pursue particular interests within and outside science, and BIO students declared avariety of minors.

Participants

Participants included convenience samples of students at the mid-point and end of theirundergraduate degree programs. SSI and BIO majors were recruited from the sophomore(second year) and senior (fourth year) level SSI core courses, and sophomore and seniorlevel biology courses. Sophomore level participants included 30 SSI students and 30 BIOstudents, and senior level participants included 15 SSI and 20 BIO students. The seniorgroup was smaller due to a small class size of SSI majors. Participants from both groupsreported similar professional goals, with the largest portion of both groups planning to entermedical school, graduate school, or research. Both groups reported similar, relatively highaverage grade point averages (SSI: 3.26 and BIO: 3.41). The groups differed somewhat intheir declared minors, where the most common minor of SSI majors was psychology (33 %SSI; 20 % BIO) and the most common minor for BIO majors was chemistry (11 % SSI; 44 %BIO). Informal discussions with BIO majors indicated that requirements for their major andpreprofessional programs overlapped with the chemistry minor. BIO majors were also morelikely to minor in an area of the humanities (18 % SSI; 34 % BIO), presumably because themore focused nature of the major allowed them time to establish additional areas ofexpertise.

Data Collection

Data collection for this study took place within the context of a larger study, which, inaddition to understanding of inquiry, investigated and compared SSI and BIO students’reasoning with socioscientific issues, their basic biology content knowledge, and theirperceptions of their learning environment (Eastwood et al. 2011).

Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI) We used seven questions from the “Views of ScientificInquiry” student and scientist versions, VOSI and VOSI-Sci (Schwartz et al. 2008; Schwartz and

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1059

Lederman 2006; see Appendix) to investigate students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Thisopen-ended questionnaire asked students to reflect on the meaning of inquiry and what scientistsdo as individuals and as a community. The VOSI was developed to investigate participants’understanding in the following concepts: 1) scientific investigations are guided by questions, 2)scientists use multiple methods, 3) there are multiple purposes driving scientific investigations,4) scientists must justify scientific knowledge, 5) scientists must recognize and manage anom-alous data, 6) data and evidence are different, and 7) scientists work in communities of practice.

Student Interviews Four students from each year and major (a total of 16 participants)participated in interviews, which ranged from 45 to 75 min. The interviews, as part of alarger study (Eastwood et al. 2011), probed students’ basic biology understanding, reasoningwith SSI scenarios, understanding of inquiry, and general perceptions of students’ majors.The majority of the inquiry portion of the interview protocol involved asking students toexplain or clarify their responses to VOSI questions. Interview questions varied dependingon students’ questionnaire responses, but most participants were asked to explain theirconceptions of experiments, data, evidence, and theories. In addition, participants wereasked to define scientific inquiry and discuss how their majors and their prior experiencesin general shaped their understanding of inquiry. Interviews were intended to elicit ways inwhich students’ experiences in their majors related to their views of scientific inquiry.Interviews were fully transcribed. A significant portion of the audio data for one participant(a BIO sophomore) was lost, so while interview notes were used to validate VOSI responses,the data from this interview were not included in the interview analysis.

Additional Data Sources Several secondary data sources were collected to support analysesof student questionnaires and interviews. These include course observations and artifacts,such as syllabi, web-based information about the majors, and assignments. Interviews werealso conducted with the SSI program director (also a biology professor and fourth author)and two faculty members who taught the sophomore SSI core course (a neuroscienceprofessor and a sociology professor).

Data Analysis

VOSI Analysis Questionnaires were qualitatively analyzed (Miles and Huberman 1994).Prior to analysis, questionnaires were de-identified so that group affiliation was removed. Tofacilitate consistent analysis of the large data set, questions were divided into clusters of twoto three questions that, upon initial reading of questionnaire responses, tended to evokerelated concepts. Each student’s word-processed questionnaire responses were entered into atwo-column table and responses to questions within the same cluster were grouped foranalysis as a unit. In the first round of coding for each cluster, themes and unique subthemesemerging from the data were entered into the table next to each student response cluster.Initial analysis was performed with targeted VOSI concepts (Schwartz et al. 2008) in mind,however, additional themes emerging from the data were recorded in the code column aswell. Targeted concepts, which included questions guiding investigations, multiple methodsof scientific investigations, and multiple purposes of scientific investigations, were identifiedin our data set. In addition to the targeted concepts identified by the VOSI developers, weattended to the following themes which emerged from the data set: definition of experiment,existence and processes of the scientific method, scientists working in communities, dis-tinctions between data and evidence, and methods of data analysis. For each theme identi-fied, unique subtheme codes were developed from student responses.

1060 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

Codes for each cluster were reduced and refined through multiple cycles of data analysisuntil no additional codes emerged and redundancies were removed. Codes applied toindividual clusters were then compiled across each questionnaire to represent distinct themesidentified across the entire questionnaire. Codes that were present in less than 5 % ofquestionnaires were removed from the final coding scheme. A second researcher reviewedthe coding scheme for clarity and appropriateness and reviewed a 10 % subsample of codedresponses. The two researchers discussed and reached consensus on the interpretation of thesubsample, and any suggestions were incorporated in a final round of analysis of the fullsample.

After coding was complete, questionnaires were matched to SSI and BIO groups andinstances of individual codes for each theme were tallied and represented as percentages.Fisher’s exact tests were performed to determine whether groups differed statistically inparticipants’ inclusion of particular codes in their responses. P values less than .05 wereconsidered significant. Although multiple statistical comparisons were performed, we con-sider an alpha level of .05 to be appropriate considering the exploratory nature of the studyand the relatively small sample sizes.

Interview Analysis The interviews were used both to gauge the accuracy of interpretations ofVOSI responses and to probe students’ inquiry understandings and factors that influencedthose understandings more deeply. We compared initial interpretations of the VOSI tointerview responses and found interpretations to be consistent. Emergent codes from inter-view transcripts were compared among members of SSI and BIO groups, and then across thedifferent groups. Based on patterns found in the initial interview analysis and final VOSIresponses, the interview transcripts were reexamined to focus in depth on three themes: (1)factors that influenced current understandings of inquiry, (2) discussion of inquiry asinclusive of different disciplines, and (3) discussion of different perspectives/interpretationsof scientists.

Results

We present results in categories of emergent themes from the VOSI questions. Themesinclude questions guiding investigations, multiple methods of scientific investigations,multiple purposes of scientific investigations, definition of experiment, existence and pro-cesses of the scientific method, scientists working in communities, distinctions between dataand evidence, and methods of data analysis.

Investigations Are Guided by Questions

Overall, less than half of students in each group indicated that they viewed investigations asguided by or beginning from questions (see Table 1). Although at the sophomore level,slightly more BIO students indicated this view (43 % vs. 37 %), at the senior level,significantly more SSI students indicated this view (67 % vs. 25 %; p0 .019).

In interviews, each student was asked to define inquiry in biology. Four of the eight SSIstudents identified determining a question and two identified finding a particular topic toinvestigate as the starting point for inquiry. For example, a senior SSI student responded,“Inquiry is just questioning an unknown or a topic you’re more interested in.” A sophomorestudent described inquiry as the process of investigating questions and discovering newquestions in the process. One SSI student explained that hypotheses were generated from

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1061

problems, and one SSI student indicated that scientific inquiry begins with “Tests, tests, andtests again.”

Of the seven BIO students for whom interview data was available, responses wereslightly more variable. Three BIO students explained that inquiry begins with curiosity ora “quest for knowledge.” One student explained that after a field or topic is identified,scientists make hypotheses, and one indicated that following identification of a field ofinterest, scientists “go about using the scientific method.” One conflated questioning withhypothesizing, defining inquiry as “raising a question by setting a hypothesis.” Finally, oneBIO student defined inquiry as “the gathering of data.”While the interview data provides anincomplete representation of the population of the study, it suggests that SSI students may beable to articulate views of the question-centered nature of inquiry more clearly in interviewsas opposed to the questionnaire format. However, the interviews support the finding from thequestionnaire data that many students have misinformed views about inquiry being guidedby hypotheses or data collection.

Multiple Methods of Scientific Inquiry

The majority of students in both majors understood that scientific inquiry encompassedmultiple methods, offering a variety of scientific methods and procedures (see Table 2). Asubset of participants in both groups differentiated between controlled and naturalisticstudies (22 % SSI and 30 % BIO). Responses from a similar subset (20 % SSI and 28 %BIO) indicated a view of scientific methods as purely experimental (i.e. controlled studies).

Table 1 Percentages of participants indicating investigations are guided by questions

Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO % SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-%BIO % SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-BIO

37 43 −6 67 25 42* 47 36 11

*Statistically significant (p<.05)

Table 2 Percentages of participants indicating views about multiple methods in scientific inquiry

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

Different methods 77 63 14 73 85 −12 76 72 4

Social and naturalsciences vary

33 17 16 40 10 30 36 14 22*

Controlled andnaturalisticstudies vary

27 30 −3 13 30 −17 22 30 −8

Experimental methodsonly

20 33 −13 20 20 0 20 28 −8

*Statistically significant (p<.05)

1062 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

SSI students were significantly more likely to indicate that scientists use methods from thenatural sciences or social sciences (36 % vs. 14 %; p0 .017).

Inclusion and integration of different disciplines in scientific inquirywas a common theme ininterviews with SSI students. Five of the eight SSI participants interviewed (4 seniors and 1sophomore) discussed how inquiry incorporates ideas and methods from different disciplinarydomains. They connected the interdisciplinary nature of their learning experiences in the SSIprogram to scientific inquiry. For example, one SSI student said, “[Biology] is interdisciplinary.And so I appreciate that science is influenced by society and science is influenced by religionand by social constructions and things like that, and vice versa.” SSI students discussed theintersection of different disciplines around various problems they had studied incourses or for individual research projects. These included the interrelatedness ofchemistry and physics in human biology, the biological and social basis of anorexia,studies of prayer and healing, the role of genetics in health, and suicide in military(physiological and psychological aspects). The excerpt below highlights how a par-ticular student considered the interdisciplinarity of scientific inquiry. In this excerpt,the student is discussing a particular inquiry, the Framingham Heart Study, and hercomments are representative of many other SSI students who conceptualized inquiryfrom an interdisciplinary perspective: “…they [studied] everything from life style toyour eating habits, your exercise habits, your smoking and stress, they did every lifestyle factor possible, as well as the clinical part as well… like your blood, your bloodpressure, stuff like that, as well as the life style factors that played into it, so theyconnected both [social and biological] of those.”

Only two of the BIO students interviewed discussed scientific inquiry as including thesocial sciences. One student discussed a sociology course in which she studied the biolog-ical, psychological, economic, and social aspects of AIDS. However, this student expressedher perception of bias against the social sciences among professionals in the physical andnatural sciences. She said, “I guess the hard core sciences wouldn’t think of psychology andsociology as real sciences, but I think their approach in obtaining their results is scientificprocess.” Another BIO student discussed inquiry in anthropology, referring to case studieson hormones and human behavior. She emphasized that anthropology was scientific, anddistinguished between anthropology and the natural and physical sciences (which shereferred to generally as “science”) as having different ways of formulating and investigatingquestions. She explained that “science” was more hypothesis-driven and less tolerant of“intermediate” or unexpected results.

Multiple Purposes for Scientific Inquiry

When responding to the question, “How do scientists decide what and how to investigate?” themajority of participants in both groups recognized multiple purposes and influences onscientists (see Table 3). Responses were categorized as internal, external, or practical reasons.Internal reasons included personal concerns, such as interest, ambition, vanity, family influen-ces on value for science, and meaningful past experiences such as interactions with an inspiringteacher. External reasons included current trends in research, interest of society, and currentinfluences of other people, such as colleagues or supervisors. Practical reasons were categorizedas concerns or limitations such as funding, resources, and time. The two groups were fairlyconsistent in the types of concerns they cited, and there were no statistically significant differ-ences between the groups. Internal concerns were most commonly cited (80 % SSI; 80%BIO),followed by external (69 % SSI; 60 % BIO), and then practical (43 % SSI; 35 % BIO). Mostparticipants provided examples from at least two categories.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1063

Definition of Experiment

Groups showed no statistically significant differences in the ways in which they defined“experiment” (see Table 4). The majority of both groups considered hypothesis testing as anessential element of experiments. About one fourth of each group indicated that controllingvariables is a central aspect of experimental inquiry. About one fifth of participants in bothgroups defined experiment as general inquiry: searching for answers or discovering newknowledge. Less than 20 % of each group cited replicability, validity, and application of thescientific method.

Interviews offered additional insight into students’ understanding of experiment. Themajority of the SSI group (6/8 participants) defined experiment as involving questioning andcarrying out various processes to reach conclusions. For these students, experiment was ageneral term for a scientific investigation. One SSI student described experimentation asincorporating different disciplinary methods: “…when you get to the testing, or the exper-imental part of it, it should be everything from the actual, the way you think of it as alaboratory experiment, to observing a person in their environment, like their lifestyle, so Iguess experimentation is everything from the lab to actually observing.” Only two SSIparticipants (both seniors) discussed the specific purpose of experiments to investigate aquestion by manipulating or controlling variables.

BIO students reported similar conceptions of experiment. Half of the BIO students gavedefinitions similar to inquiry in general, as a way to find answers. Three BIO studentsinterviewed said that an experiment involved manipulating or controlling variables. Onestudent mentioned experiments in social science research and two said experiments could

Table 3 Percentages of participants citing internal, external, and practical influences on scientists

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

Internal 77 80 −3 87 80 7 80 80 0

External 70 63 7 67 55 12 69 60 9

Practical 40 30 10 47 40 7 43 35 8

One type only 27 27 0 13 30 −17 22 28 −6Multiple types 70 67 3 73 55 18 71 62 9

Table 4 Percentages of participants including particular characteristics in their definition of “experiment”

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

Tests hypothesis 60 70 −10 60 80 −20 60 74 −14Controls variables 30 27 3 27 20 7 29 24 5

Is replicable 13 13 0 27 10 17 18 12 6

Is valid or precise 7 20 −13 7 15 −8 7 18 −11Uses the scientific method 17 17 0 20 0 20 18 10 8

Nonspecific investigation 27 20 7 13 15 −2 22 18 4

1064 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

include naturalistic or observational studies. One BIO student differentiated experimentsfrom inquiry in that they attempt to disprove something, while inquiry attempts to answer aquestion.

Existence and Definition of a Scientific Method

The majority of both groups indicated views that there was “one scientific method or set ofsteps that all investigations must follow to be considered science” (69 % of SSI students and72 % of BIO students; see Table 5). Students who indicated there is one scientific methodwere asked to describe the steps of the method. The majority of these participants describeda list of processes rather than a prescriptive sequence. Only two participants (both BIO)indicated on the VOSI that specific steps needed to be followed. The most commonprocesses included were hypothesizing, collecting data, and making conclusions. Smallerproportions of students in each group included background research, analyzing data, com-municating results, and revising and repeating procedures. SSI students were significantlymore likely to include asking a question (49 % vs. 22 %; p0 .009) and making observations(27 % vs. 8 %; p0 .026). Participants who answered that there was not one scientific method(31 % of SSI participants and 28 % of BIO participants) were asked to describe differentmethods of investigations and explain how they differ. Because emergent codes for this itemwere consistent with the coding scheme for multiple methods of inquiry (see Table 1), thesedata are not represented separately.

Interviews corroborated the variety of interpretations of a scientific method in bothgroups. Of six SSI students asked to discuss the scientific method, three mentioned varied,“fluid,” or “circular” enactment of steps. Three participants said the scientific methodencompassed different methods of inquiry. Only one expressed that there is no scientificmethod, offering the example of clinical observation, which doesn’t fit the steps, but is stillscientific. For the BIO group, four students discussed the scientific method in their inter-views. Two described it as a general process of hypothesis testing and two mentioned variedorders of steps. One BIO student noted that participation in a research lab helped her see howas a scientist, you use “your own underlying process,” versus a common classroom defini-tion of the scientific method, where “they teach you rigid steps.”

Table 5 Percentages of participants including specific processes in their definition of “scientific method”

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

Questioning 50 33 17 47 5 42* 49 22 27*

Observing 30 10 20 20 5 15 27 8 19*

Background research 20 20 0 13 5 8 18 14 4

Hypothesizing 60 70 −10 40 65 −25 53 68 −15Collecting data 70 70 0 60 60 0 67 66 1

Analyzing 27 40 −13 33 40 −7 29 40 −11Making conclusions 60 57 3 47 55 −8 56 56 0

Communicating 0 13 −13 7 0 7 2 8 −6Revising and repeating 13 23 −10 20 10 10 16 18 −2

*Statistically significant, p<.05

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1065

Scientists Working in Communities

In response to the VOSI item asking, “If several scientists, working independently, ask thesame question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come tothe same conclusions?” the majority of students in both groups answered “no” (see Table 6).The most common reasons for different results cited included different data, differentinterpretations of data, error, and variation of methods. Significantly more BIO studentsnoted that scientists working independently would have different interpretations or perspec-tives (p0 .039). When asked if the scientists would reach the same conclusions if they wereworking together, about a third of both groups answered “yes” (see Table 7). These studentsfocused on scientists using the same data and methods, having the opportunity to reduceerror, and reaching consensus.

Table 6 Participants’ responses to whether scientists working independently will necessarily arrive at thesame conclusions and reasons supporting their response

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

YES 3 0 3 0 5 −5 2 2 0

NO 97 100 −3 100 95 5 98 98 0

Different data 40 57 −17 60 45 15 47 52 −5Different methods 23 10 13 20 20 0 22 14 8

Error 50 23 27 47 40 7 49 30 19

Different interpretations 30 57 −27 27 40 −13 29 50 −21*

* Statistically significant, p<.05

Table 7 Participants’ responses to whether scientists working in groups will arrive at the same conclusionsand reasons supporting their response

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

YES 37 40 −3 27 20 7 33 32 1

Same data 40 10 30 20 5 15 13 8 5

Same methods 23 7 16 7 5 2 9 6 3

Reduced error 50 3 47 0 10 −10 7 6 1

Consensus 30 23 7 13 5 8 20 16 4

NO 63 60 3 0 0 0 62 68 −6Different data 10 7 3 20 20 0 13 12 1

Different methods 10 0 10 20 10 10 18 4 14

Error 10 17 −7 20 20 0 11 18 −7Different interpretations 23 40 −17 27 30 −3 24 36 −12

1066 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

Distinctions Between Data and Evidence

When asked to define data in terms of science, themajority of participants in both groups describedinformation initially collected in a study (73 % SSI and 90 % BIO; see Table 8). Some studentsdescribed data less specifically as the “results” of a study (22 % SSI and 8 % BIO). A smallpercentage of both groups said that data must be quantitative (7 % SSI and 8 % BIO) and a subsetof both groups noted that data could be quantitative or qualitative (16 % SSI and 12 % BIO).

When asked if data and evidence were the same or different, the majority of both groupsresponded “different” (89 % SSI and 86 % BIO; see Table 9). The minority who considered thetwo terms synonymous explained that they both support an idea or answer a question. For thosewho made distinctions between data and evidence, about half of both groups explained thatevidence supported an idea or conclusion (49 % SSI and 54 % BIO). A small percentage ofparticipants (11 % SSI and 2 % BIO) expressed that data could be evidence, but did not expandtheir responses to distinguish evidence as data used to back an idea or argument.

Table 8 Percentages of participants including particular aspects in their definitions of “data.”

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

Raw, collected information 77 87 −10 67 95 −28 73 90 −17Results 23 10 13 20 5 15 22 8 14

Must be numeric 10 10 0 0 5 −5 7 8 −1Quantitative OR qualitative 10 13 −3 27 10 17 16 12 4

Table 9 Percentages of participants viewing data and evidence as the same or different and percentages ofparticipants citing particular themes in differences cited

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

The same 13 13 0 7 10 −3 11 12 −1Different 87 87 0 93 85 8 89 86 3

Evidence supportsidea

57 47 10 33 65 −32 49 54 −5

Certain data areevidence

10 3 7 13 0 13 11 2 9

Evidence emergesfrom data analysis

7 0 7 13 5 8 9 2 7

Evidence is ageneralization

3 3 0 13 5 8 7 4 3

Evidence is lessprecise

7 7 0 0 20 −20 4 12 −8

Evidence is morecertain

3 13 −10 7 5 2 4 10 −6

Data must bequantitative

7 7 0 7 5 2 7 6 1

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1067

Several misconceptions about data and evidence were found in the VOSI explanationsof both groups. One misconception was that evidence is the product of data analysis,which neglects the role of evidence in supporting or rejecting a claim. A small percentageof participants (7 % SSI and 4 % BIO) viewed evidence as a generalization, abstraction,or compilation of data. Some participants viewed evidence as less precise, less correct,less scientific, or more biased (4 % SSI and 12 % BIO). A small percentage of participants heldthe view that evidence is more certain, conclusive, or factual than data (4% SSI and 10%BIO).Finally, a small percentage of both groups distinguished data as purely quantitative whileevidence could be quantitative or qualitative (7 % SSI and 6 % BIO).

Interview data supported and added depth to the VOSI findings regarding data andevidence. The majority of SSI participants (7/8) understood that evidence differed from datain that it is used to “make a case” for an assertion or support or refute a claim. The followingcomment provided by a senior SSI student exemplifies this theme: “Data is just what it is,it’s the calculations. And evidence is when you use data to try to persuade someone to see acertain point of view, or to argue a point. Data can be used as evidence to advocate for acertain drug or something that reduces the heart rate, or whatnot.” Three SSI studentsexpressed confusion about whether data could be quantitative, qualitative, or both and wereinclined to view data as numbers. Two SSI students said that evidence was more concrete ormore “backed up,” illustrating confusion about the nature of evidence.

The BIO students voiced similar responses, where the majority of participants 6/7 under-stood that evidence supports a conclusion. One BIO participant defined data and evidence assynonymous. One BIO student said data must be quantitative and two expressed that evidenceis more tangible than data, like evidence from a crime scene.

Methods of Data Analysis

When asked to define and list the processes of data analysis, the majority of students in bothgroups discussed interpretation or making meaning of data (89 % SSI and 96 % BIO; seeTable 10). Some students included statistics (40 % SSI and 30 % BIO), visualizing data

Table 10 Percentages of participants including particular processes in their definitions of data analysis

Code Sophomore Senior Total

% SSI(n030)

% BIO(n030)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n015)

% BIO(n020)

% SSI-% BIO

% SSI(n045)

% BIO(n050)

% SSI-% BIO

Interpreting 87 97 −10 93 95 −2 89 96 −7Organizing data 17 20 −3 0 0 0 11 12 −1Reducing ortransforming data

10 7 3 0 0 0 7 4 3

Searching forpatterns

23 20 3 40 40 0 29 28 1

Comparing/contrasting 10 17 −7 27 5 22 16 12 4

Using statistics 23 13 10 73 55 18 40 30 10

Checking validity 30 7 23* 7 5 2 22 6 16*

Visualizing data 27 13 14 33 15 18 29 14 15

Nonspecific “lookingat” data

23 10 13 0 0 0 16 6 10

*Statistically significant, p<.05

1068 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

through graphs or charts (29 % SSI and 14 % BIO), checking validity or accuracy of datacollection (22 % SSI and 6 % BIO), and compiling and reviewing data (16 % SSI and 6 %BIO). Both groups showed marked differences between sophomore and senior levels ininclusion of statistical tests (SSI increasing 50 % and BIO increasing 42 %) and findingpatterns in data (SSI increasing 17 % and BIO increasing 20 %).

Inquiry Incorporating Different Perspectives

An additional theme that emerged from interview data was the importance of different pointsof view in scientific inquiry. Half of the SSI students interviewed discussed how science and/or inquiry involve integration of different perspectives (3 seniors and 1 sophomore). Theydiscussed how participation in the SSI program influenced them to consider the roles ofdifferent disciplinary perspectives. For example, one SSI student said, “To me though, it’skind of like if you really want to get to the bottom of the problem, you have to look at it fromthe lens of a biologist as well as a sociologist.” She discussed an example from her SSI corecourse in which her professors (a sociologist and a neuroscientist) modeled differentdisciplinary perspectives on the issue of suicide in the military. She continued, “[Myprofessor] was talking about how you have all of these different perspectives looking ontothe same problem and giving their input on the same problem… you’re definitely shaped bythe lens that you’re looking through. So, everyone has a different perspective coming intoit.” None of the BIO participants explicitly discussed the role of different disciplinaryperspectives in inquiry into issues or problems.

Students from both groups discussed consideration or integration of different perspectiveswhen explaining their reasoning in relation to particular socioscientific issues. Two SSIparticipants and two BIO participants argued that scientific claims about nutrition andtobacco consumption may be biased by a scientists’ background or interests. When askedto give a response and explain their reasoning to a scientific claim that the primary source ofglobal warming is land development rather than carbon emissions, six SSI and three BIOstudents explained that different arguments should be heard and incorporated into knowl-edge of and decisions on global warming. Most of these students drew upon their biologycontent knowledge to connect the two perspectives on the issue. For example, one of theBIO students explained, “So, yes, destructing [sic] all this biomass and putting up buildingsand roads is going to also lend a hand to our global warming problem…It’s the interaction ofmany different factors that come together.” Similarly, an SSI student emphasized discussionamong scientists with different viewpoints. “Even if they don’t think that carbon emissionsis a primary concern, it’s still a concern, and so I think effort should be made to look at itfrom multiple perspectives.”

Discussion

In this study, we sought to determine whether differences could be found in views ofscientific inquiry of students in an interdisciplinary, SSI-focused human biology major orstudents in a traditional biology major. Our results support the conclusion that understandingof the primary aspects of inquiry are similar for students who experience a discipline-centered biology major and an interdisciplinary, SSI-based major. However, we found somestatistically significant differences between the groups in their expression of particularaspects of their views of scientific inquiry, suggesting nuanced understandings related tothe different learning contexts. The results shed light on conceptions of inquiry held by

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1069

undergraduate students, reflecting the discourse in their college majors and indicatingmisconceptions common to those identified in the science education literature. We willdiscuss our findings on students’ conceptions of inquiry in terms of different methods inscience, different perspectives, the scientific method, data and evidence, and processes ofdata analysis. We will then offer implications for SSI-based teaching in college settings.

Different Methods in Science

The majority of students in both groups recognized multiple methods of inquiry, includingvaried procedures such as observational and lab-based work, different levels of control instudies, and different disciplinary approaches. However, SSI students included social scienceresearch in their responses and often discussed inquiry as interdisciplinary in their inter-views. These findings likely relate to the focus on different forms of inquiry in the SSI unitsconducted in core courses. The comments of two SSI core course professors (a sociologistand neuroscientist) confirm the interdisciplinary focus of their courses:

Sociologist:

And then in the context of, say reading about cholera, [SSI students] learn that Snowdid things that weren’t experimental, and that he did observational work, and followedsort of a scientific method in his approach to thinking through the problem, but itwasn’t bench science, it isn’t what I think students necessarily come into collegethinking that science is.

Neuroscientist:

I think one of the things that we try to do is emphasize that science is science. I meanthe word, “science” doesn’t apply to only bench scientists. People who do socialscience are scientists. The scientific method can apply. You just have to use differenttechniques, and you have to analyze the data differently, but it’s still science. And it’sstill valid.

As shown in the results, this focus of the SSI-based major on incorporating social andnatural science methods into a definition of scientific inquiry was clearly represented in SSIstudents’ VOSI and interview responses.

Views of Different Perspectives in Scientific Inquiry

The SSI program engaged students in rigorous study of issues from different points of view(for example, a module focusing on two scientists’ differing conclusions from an accumu-lating body of data on the HIV virus), and when discussing their experiences in their majors,most SSI students who were interviewed considered the ability to seek out differentperspectives on issues as an important outcome of their major (reported in Eastwood et al.2011). Additionally, we noted from questionnaire and interview data included in this study,that SSI students were more likely than BIO students to discuss different disciplinaryperspectives as contributing to scientific inquiry. Therefore, we expected that SSI studentswould be more likely to recognize that scientists studying the same problems and the samedata could reach different conclusions because their differing backgrounds or perspectivesinfluence the ways in which they interpret their findings. We found that SSI students wereless likely to indicate that scientists working independently or collaboratively might reachdifferent conclusions to the same problem due to differing perspectives or interpretations.Our data is insufficient to explain this difference, but future studies may investigate how

1070 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

classroom contexts, including SSI contexts, influence students’ understanding of the reasonsscientists reach different conclusions. We note that most students from both groups focusedon error and other circumstantial factors as contributing to different conclusions whileneglecting to discuss differing interpretations, which are common naïve conceptions(Schwartz et al. 2008). Future studies may investigate whether offering students particularcontexts in which different scientists reached different conclusions on an issue may helpstudents express understanding of different interpretations that was not elicited in our study.

Scientific Method

VOSI and interview responses clearly indicated that recognizing the existence of a scientificmethod does not indicate a belief that there is one specific sequence of procedures. Moststudents who agreed that there was a scientific method loosely defined it as a list of inquiryprocesses and when students were probed in interviews, they indicated that the methods andorders of processes in the scientific method could vary. This is unsurprising, considering thatthe term, “scientific method” was included in the discourse and program documents of bothmajors, but broadly used to incorporate different aspects of scientific research. Althoughscience educators often stress the “myth” of a scientific method (Lederman et al. 2002;McComas 1998), recognizing a general set of processes common to scientific inquiry as “thescientific method” seems to be an issue of terminology rather than a naïve conception.

Overall, SSI and BIO participants included similar processes in their definitions of thescientific method. Most participants included the processes of hypothesizing, collecting data,and coming to conclusions. A hypothesis-centered view was evident for a large portion ofparticipants. However, SSI students were significantly more likely to include asking aquestion (49 % vs. 22 % BIO). This finding is consistent with the finding that SSI seniorswere more likely than their BIO counterparts to indicate that science begins with a question.Understanding the question-centered nature of scientific inquiry is fundamental to evaluatingscientific knowledge or explanations of phenomena. According to Sandoval and Reiser(2004), “Explanations are answers to particular questions, and this connection is importantepistemically. The evaluation of the worth of any explanation is in relation to its value as ananswer to the original question” (p. 349). Commonplace teaching of the “scientific method”has obscured this concept and promoted a common misconception that inquiry begins with ahypothesis rather than a question (Schwartz, et al. 2008). Consistent with student interviews,it is possible that the problem-centered nature of SSI may have helped SSI students to viewinquiry as focusing on a central question approached in a variety of ways by a variety ofscientists. Additionally, we found that SSI students were more likely to view the scientificmethod as inclusive of the social sciences. SSI students were more likely to includeobserving as part of inquiry (27 % vs. 8 % BIO), which may relate to conceptualizing ascientific method that incorporates qualitative social science methods.

Experiment

Similar to the general view of the scientific method, most participants from both groups did notexplicitly describe an informed view of experiment as a specific form of inquiry involvingcontrolled investigations. Schwartz et al. (2008) define experiment as follows: “An experimen-tal approach involves hypothesis testing through identifying and controlling variables ofimportance to the question, and manipulating one variable at a time to determine resultanteffects.”While most participants failed to identify controlling variables as an essential compo-nent, most did include hypotheses in their description of experiment. Researchers (Schwartz et

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1071

al. 2008; Wong and Hodson 2009) note that hypotheses are generally considered an essentialpart of the “scientific method” introduced and reinforced by science teachers.

Many participants from both groups articulated a generalized definition of experiment,which has been described in other studies. Schwartz et al. (2008) describe a general view ofexperiment as “anything that scientists do as they investigate.” Hodson (1988) found thatteachers referred to all laboratory activities, including teacher demonstrations as “experiments.”Additionally, in their study of scientists’ views of NOS, Wong and Hodson (2009) discussed ascientist’s distinction between “’experiments’ in science (for generating new scientific knowl-edge) and meaningful ‘experiments’ in science education (for bringing about learning)” (p. 17).These common misapplications of terminology may in part explain students’misconception ofexperiment. While some participants in our study referred to observational investigations asexperiments, others explained that all science involves controlling andmanipulating variables, anaïve view commonly held by students (Schwartz et al. 2008). Our study, supported by priorresearch suggests two separate views that essentially equate experiment and inquiry: manydifferent forms of inquiry investigations may be called experiments and all inquiry is neces-sarily experimental. Explicit clarification of this commonly misused terminology could aid inteaching aspects of the nature of scientific inquiry, such as inclusion of multiple methods inscience and experimental science as a form of inquiry appropriate to address a specific question.

Understanding of Data and Evidence

The majority of students from both groups viewed data as different from evidence, but onlyhalf of each group differentiated evidence by its role of supporting an argument. Addition-ally, misconceptions about the nature of evidence as less precise than data or as a general-ization of data, defining evidence as more certain than data, or suggesting data and evidenceare hierarchical in their truth value were seen in both majors. An explicit-reflective approachto teaching about the nature and application of evidence in scientific arguments may beuseful in promoting more informed views about data and evidence. Aspects of SSI learningenvironments, especially the focus on argumentation, could provide an excellent platformfor explicit teaching on what constitutes evidence and how evidence is evaluated and used tosupport arguments. Some explicit teaching on using evidence in the context of positionpapers was observed in the sophomore level core course, but the professors expresseddifficulty in effectively teaching this concept. The relationships between explicit approachesto teach about evidence and our findings are unclear.

Processes of Data Analysis

When asked to define data analysis and describe processes of data analysis, both groupsaccurately defined it as a process involving interpretation or making meaning of data.However, SSI participants were significantly more likely to include checking validity oraccuracy as a process of data analysis. Additionally, 29 % of SSI students cited visualizingdata, such as creating graphs or tables, vs. 14 % of BIO students. A plausible explanation forthese differences is that SSI students had more opportunities to carry out and reflect uponcomplete inquiry projects. Most SSI students interviewed discussed how SSI core coursesand an associated elective course in physiology helped them establish an understanding ofinquiry through regular experience with open inquiry. Many of the BIO interview partic-ipants discussed having had more “cookbook” laboratory experiences than projects wherethey developed questions, collected and analyzed data, and drew their own conclusions.Also, although many BIO participants had experience working in research labs, some

1072 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

discussed having only a small role or working on a project that was not their own. Perhapshaving more experience carrying out and reflecting upon open inquiry projects influencedSSI students to focus on effective presentation of data and arguing for validity of research.

Our findings also suggested growth in both groups over the course of the majors. Seniorlevel students were much more likely to include statistical tests (SSI increasing 50 % andBIO increasing 42 %) and finding patterns in data (SSI increasing 17 % and BIO increasing20 %). This suggests that students become more familiar with specific methods in dataanalysis with experience in their majors.

Conclusions and Implications

We found that students in an interdisciplinary, SSI-based major and students in a traditionalbiology-focused major did not differ greatly in their conceptions of scientific inquiry,although there were different patterns that emerged. These results are consistent withfindings of Schwartz (2004), Schwartz and Lederman (2006) and Wong and Hodson(2009, 2010) that scientists of different disciplines held similar views of the primary aspectsof NOS and NOSI with some nuances in views related to the specific contexts of their work.Similar to scientists of different disciplines, students embedded in the context of an inter-disciplinary, SSI-based major and a disciplinary biology major show some differences thatappear to be related to the context of their educational experiences.

We recognize that our ability to discern differences may have been limited by aninability to control for all of students’ instructional experiences. Although participating ornot participating in interdisciplinary, SSI-based core courses was a critical differentiatingfactor between the two majors, both majors offered flexibility for students to pursue avariety of experiences inside and outside of university courses. Interviews revealed that,although BIO majors did not experience SSI in core courses, many of these students hadtaken other courses (typically social science or “topics” courses) that involved SSI insome capacity. Additionally, many BIO students discussed having argued or studiedsocioscientific issues of interest, like global warming or smoking, on their own time(Eastwood et al. 2011). It is also important to note that SSI and BIO majors took many ofthe same biology content and lab-based courses. Although SSI majors explicitly connectedscience content and process to SSI in their core courses, this was only part of their exposure toideas about scientific inquiry.

Our findings indicate that undergraduate biology majors in both a traditional and inter-disciplinary, SSI-based context espouse many informed conceptions of inquiry, such asmultiple methods and purposes of inquiry and informed definitions of data analysis. Ourfindings also suggest that these students hold many naïve conceptions of scientific inquiry,such as misconceptions about evidence, the question-centered nature of inquiry, and the roleof scientists’ background and perspectives in interpretation of findings. Application of anexplicit-reflective approach in either context could further enhance students’ formal con-ceptions of inquiry (Bell et al. 2003; Bell et al. 2011; Schwartz et al. 2004). Bell et al. (2011)found that NOS instruction in global warming/global climate change contexts only enhancedNOS views when explicit instruction was given, “…despite the fact that this socioscientificissue and the instruction related to it were entirely consistent with the target nature of sciencecharacteristics” (p. 430).

While groups held similar conceptions of scientific inquiry, we have identified someinteresting variations between groups that are consistent between student interviews, andVOSI responses. Our findings suggest that the SSI learning context influenced students to

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1073

view inquiry as inclusive of many disciplines and methods, especially those of the socialsciences. Additionally, the problem-focused aspect of instruction may influence students torecognize the question-centered nature of inquiry.

Although these findings suggest that learning context influences understanding of inqui-ry, we know little about how students’ views of inquiry are elicited and applied in particularsituations. While our study examined students’ decontextualized understanding of inquiry,we recognize that students’ application of epistemological views is to some degree context-specific. Hammer and Elby (2002) described epistemologies as ‘resources’ that individualscall upon in particular situations. Several studies have shown that students express incon-sistent views of Nature of Science across different contexts (Hammer 1994; Roth andRoychoudhury 1994; Sandoval and Morrison 2003; Solomon et al. 1994). Additionally,students’ epistemological views have been shown to vary in response to contextualized andde-contextualized questions (Leach et al. 2000). Given these findings, it is possible thatmore significant differences in understanding of inquiry could be found between SSI andBIO students if conceptions were elicited in specific scientific and socioscientific contexts.

Although there is some evidence that SSI environments enhance application of scienceepistemologies to specific problems (Bell et al. 2011), more research is needed. Recent discus-sions in the science education community suggest that assessments that target students’ episte-mological understandings while engaged in inquiry or socioscientific decision-making could helpus understand the nature and role of science epistemology in reasoning and problem-solving(Allchin 2011; Sandoval 2005). Therefore an important next step is to investigate the epistemo-logical views guiding particular decisions and processes (practical epistemologies) as well asgeneral descriptions of science and scientific inquiry like those elicited in widely used instrumentssuch as the VNOS and VOSI (Sandoval 2005). New approaches may shed light on importantquestions such as the following: Will students who experience SSI curricula be more likely toincorporate different disciplinary methods and ways of knowing into future investigations andproblem-solving?Will they be more likely to seek out different perspectives on particular issues?

Although we found few differences between groups, this study adds support to the ideathat an interdisciplinary SSI context is equally effective in promoting science epistemolog-ical views as a single disciplinary biology context. Ways in which SSI environments may beharnessed to help students develop more informed views of scientific inquiry, specificallyexplicit-reflective approaches, should be further developed and investigated. Our studysuggests that SSI learning environments specifically promote an understanding of scientificinquiry as incorporating various disciplinary perspectives and methods. The ways in whichstudents may apply these nuanced epistemological views in problem-solving and inquirycontexts is an important area for future investigation.

Acknowledgments Wewould like to recognize Vanashri Nargund for her contribution to data analysis in this study.

Appendix: Questions from Views of Scientific Inquiry Questionnaires, VOSI (Schwartzet al. 2008) and VOSI-Sci (Schwartz and Lederman 2006)

1. What types of activities do scientists do to learn about the natural world? Be specificabout how they go about their work.

2. What scientists choose to study and how they learn about the natural world maybe influenced by a variety of factors. How do scientists decide what and how toinvestigate? Describe all the factors you think influence the work of scientists. Beas specific as possible.

1074 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

3. (a) Write a definition of a scientific experiment?A scientific experiment is……

(b) Give an example from something you have done or heard about in science thatillustrates your definition of a scientific experiment.

(c) Explain why you consider your example to be a scientific experiment.4. Some people have claimed that all scientific investigations must follow the same general

set of steps or method to be considered science. Others have claimed there are differentgeneral methods that scientific investigations can follow.

(a) What do you think? Is there one scientific method or set of steps that all inves-tigations must follow to be considered science? Highlight one answer:

& Yes, there is one scientific method (set of steps) to science.& No, there is more than one scientific method to science.

If you answered “yes,” go to (b) below.If you answered “no,” go to (c) below.

(b) If you think there is one scientific method, what are the steps of this method?(c) If you think that scientific investigations can follow more than one method,

describe two investigations that follow different methods. Explain how the meth-ods differ and how they can still be considered scientific.

5. (a) If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow thesame procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions?Explain why or why not.

(b) Does your response to (a) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.6. (a) What does the word “data” mean in science?

(b) Is “data” the same or different from “evidence”? Explain.7. (a) What is “data analysis”?

(b) What is involved in doing data analysis?

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature ofscience: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

Abell, S. K., Martini, M., & George, M. D. (2001). “That’s what scientists have to do”: preservice elementaryteachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal ofScience Education, 23, 1095–1109.

Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: the results of a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653–680.

Akerson, V., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activity-based approachon elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37,295–317.

Akerson, V.L., Townsend, S., Donnelly, L.A., Hanson, D.L., Tira, P., & White, O. (2009). Scientific Modelingfor Inquiring Teachers (SMIT'N) Network: The Influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature ofscience, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 21–40.

Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerationsintersect: students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in ScienceEducation, 38, 67–90.

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century.

Washington, D.C.: AACU.Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry and

inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59–82.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1075

Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between Salters’ and traditional A-level chemistry students’understanding of basic chemical ideas. York, UK: University of York.

Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making onscience and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a scienceapprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientificinquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction onpreservice elementary teachers' understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 48, 414–436.

Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conventional approaches toteaching chemistry: comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1521–1547.

Brewer, C. A. & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action.Final report of a national conference organized by the AAAS, Washington DC.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 18, 34–41.

Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designingchemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28,1063–1086.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: can we improvehigher-order thinking skills of non-science majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: OpenUniversity Press.

Eastwood, J. L., Schlegel, W. M., & Cook, K. L. (2011). Effects of an interdisciplinary program on students’reasoning with socioscientific issues and perceptions of their college experience. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.),Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research. New York: Springer.

Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context ofarguing about the periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9, 247–263.

Erduran, S., & Scerri, E. (2002). The nature of chemical knowledge and chemistry education. In J. K. Gilbertet al. (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 7–27). The Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Flick, L., & Lederman, N. (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151–183.Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich

(Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction intoa physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants.Science Education, 90, 912–935.

Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk–what can belearned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439–453.

Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 20, 53–66.

Hurd, P. D. H. (1998). Scientific literacy: new minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416.Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented

instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39,551–578.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integratedversus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–318.

Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gainsassociated with socioscientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32,1017–1043.

Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. ScienceEducation, 80, 673–689.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

1076 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078

Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M. G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: theconsistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497–527.

Lederman, J. S. & Lederman, N.G. (April, 2004). Early elementary students’ and teacher’s understandings ofnature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from Project ICAN. Paper Presented at theAnnual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.

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. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesPublishers.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote under-standings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education:Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of sciencequestionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lee, M. K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students’ attitudes towardscience and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315–1327.

Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1993). How do students make sense of science? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39,47–73.

Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: global climate change and the nature ofscience in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137–163.

McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F.McComas (Ed.), The Nature of science in science education (pp. 53–70). Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction onpreservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47,1137–1164.

Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: data from a case ofcurriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389–407.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Miller, J.D. (February, 2007). The public understanding of science in Europe and the United States. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, SanFrancisco, CA.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C: NationalAcademy Press.

Ogunniyi, M. B. (2007). Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science-indigenous knowledgecurriculum: Part 2. International Journal of Science Education, 1189–1207.

Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralle, B., et al. (2006). ‘Chemie im Kontext’: asymbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal ofScience Education, 28, 1041–1062.

Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social respon-sibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach.

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbookof research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing andlearning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 5–30.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans. Oxford: New York.Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science

Education, 76, 559–580.Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice.

Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socioscientific issues based education: What we know about science education in the

context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning andresearch. New York: Springer.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: assessment forprogressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science inresponse to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.

Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078 1077

Sadler, T., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.

Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learningthrough inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.

Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after abiological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.

Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemicscaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.

Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of scienceinstruction: evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16,27–41.

Schwartz, R. S. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practice: A cross-discipline comparison ofscientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR.

Schwartz, R. S. (2007, April). Beyond Evolution: A thematic approach to teaching NOS in an undergraduatebiology course. Paper presented at the international meeting of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Schwartz, R.S. & Lederman, N.G. (2006, April). Exploring contextually-based views of NOS and scientificinquiry: What scientists say [tentativeness, creativity, scientific method, and justification]. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, SanFrancisco, CA.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in anauthentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientificinquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

Schwartz, Lederman N. G., & Lederman R. S. (2008, March). An instrument to assess the views of scientificinquiry: The VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies ofscience: the impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition andInstruction, 18, 349–422.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology. International Journalof Science Education, 16, 361–373.

Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in the ‘WISE’ projectin Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 69–89.

Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socio-scientific issues: classroom culture and students’ performances.Cultural Studies in Science, 1, 615–644.

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through scaffoldedinquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigationand scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.

Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about science as a socialpractice. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1431–1463.

Yager, S. O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbookdominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248–260.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: beliefs in thenature of science and responses to socio-scientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment throughsocio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas inhuman genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

1078 Res Sci Educ (2013) 43:1051–1078