Scientific Literacy for 21 st Century Learners: Why Nature of Science is Important

1. Scientific Literacy for 21st Century Learners: Why Nature of Science is Important Dr. Renee’ Schwartz Middle & Secondary Education Georgia State University rschwartz@gsu.edu September 23, 2015

2. Our Goal…..

3. What is the goal of scientific literacy? To develop responsible citizens in a society where science plays a significant role life, well-being, future, family Producers and consumers of science

5. Georgia Performance Standards: Science

6. Content and Rigor • Clarity & Specificity • Vague statements • Poor integration of STEM, inquiry, and Nature of Science

7. What do youth think about careers in STEM? • U.S. News (2012) reports 60% of youth ages 16-25 are not considering STEM fields. • 34% don’t know what STEM careers are • 33% STEM too challenging • 28% not well enough prepared to pursue STEM degree or job • Nationally, only 30% of high school graduates are prepared for college level science. ACT, Inc., The Condition of College & Career Readiness. (Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.,2011), http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr11/readiness1.html

8. What are learners capable of? “There is growing evidence that young children can learn and think in the same way as scientists…” November 2, 2013 The Oslo Times

12. What is needed for college readiness? 21st Century Skills Science

13. Science is often taught as a final body of facts. • Science is often taught as product, not process. • The way science is often taught develops misconceptions and misrepresentations about what science is and what scientists do.

14. Our Goal…. ….. to help students “learn science in a way that reflects how science actually works.” (NRC, 1996, p. 214)

15. What is science? • What do you think science is? • In what ways do you think science is different from other subjects, such as history, mathematics, or religion? • How are art and science similar? How are they different?

16. Framework: What is science? Body of Knowledge: Science Content Practices Way of knowing Nature of Science Nature of Scientific Inquiry Science

17. What do you see?

18. What do you see?

19. NOS and NOSI • NOS refers to the characteristics of scientific knowledge, and the values that necessarily influence its development (Lederman, 2007) • NOSI refers to the nature of the processes through which scientific knowledge is developed and accepted (Schwartz, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2012)

20. Nature of Science [NOS] • Empirical: Natural world • Product of a human endeavor • Creative • Socially and culturally embedded • Theory-laden and subjective: Influenced by knowledge and theoretical lens • Observation and inference • Models, theories, laws • Subject to change, but robust (tentative) Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Schwartz, 2002

21. Geo-centric vs Helio-centric

23. Gravity differs across regions of Earth Highest is the Artic: 9.8337 m/s2Lowest is Peru: 9.7639m/s2

24. Nature of Scientific Inquiry [NOSI] • Questions • Scientific investigations are guided by questions (but not all questions can be addressed scientifically) • Multiple Methods • No single “Scientific Method” • Justification • The form and role of argument from evidence in the development and acceptance of new knowledge • Anomalous data • Role, recognition, and handling • Data and Evidence • sources, roles of, and distinctions between • e.g. Duschl et al., 2007; Gilbert, 1991; Osborne et al., 2003; Schwartz, 2004; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008

25. Science & Engineering Practices • Asking questions & Defining problems • Developing and using models • Planning and carrying out investigations • Analyzing and interpreting data • Using mathematics and computational thinking • Constructing explanations & Designing solutions • Engaging in argument from evidence • Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

26. Nature of Scientific Inquiry [NOSI] • Questions • Scientific investigations are guided by questions (but not all questions can be addressed scientifically) • Multiple Methods • No single “Scientific Method” • Justification • The form and role of argument from evidence in the development and acceptance of new knowledge • Anomalous data • Role, recognition, and handling • Data and Evidence • sources, roles of, and distinctions between • e.g. Duschl et al., 2007; Gilbert, 1991; Osborne et al., 2003; Schwartz, 2004; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008

27. Decisions & Directions • Scientists must decide: • What to do with anomalous data • When to pursue publication “Among scientists, research agendas appear to be shaped by scientists’ responses to anomalous data as well as by theories.” (Chinn & Brewer, 1998, p. 649).

28. Justification of scientific knowledge: • What do scientists need and do for their claims to be accepted by the scientific community? (argumentation, evidence, communication) • Role of anomalies: • How do scientists identify and deal with anomalies?

29. Sample

30. Preservice teachers: Reproducibility From scientists/preservice teacher comparison study • Internal: Many trials with same results 72% PSTs Scientists have to do lots of trials and get the same results over and over again. They can’t have anything different or strange. [science major, int] • Internal: “enough” Scientists make their results public when they have enough evidence. [elementary ed major, VOSI-270]

31. Reproducibility From scientists/preservice teacher comparison study • Internal: Statistical Analysis 46% Scientists vs. 0 PSTs • [Reproduce] That you can do internally within your own laboratory. Always we like to see multiple observations of the same thing…If that variation is small compared to the magnitude of the observation, then we are confident that this is probably a good result. We say it is statistically significant. [experimental chemist, interview]

32. Reproducibility From scientists/preservice teacher comparison study • External: other scientists repeat 40% PSTs vs. 13% scientists (collaborators) Scientists must have many other scientists reformulate the same results before they are ready to communicate their findings to the general public. [science major, int]

33. Ignore? or Explore? From scientists/preservice teacher comparison study PSTs: 80% said get rid of (ignore, toss out, change) • Usually the data is recorded, but not utilized because it is an abnormality and is not conducive to their scientific research. [secondary ed major, VOSI-270] Scientists: 0 ignore • Anomalies are very important. The worst thing that could happen is to ignore them. [theoretical physicist, VOSI-Sci]

34. Anomalies mean excitement and potential for change From scientists/preservice teacher comparison study What scientists say: We all secretly love that [finding an inconsistency] …[laughs] because then we have something to do …that is the way science progresses. [atmospheric scientist, int] That is the fun stuff. That is why you get up in the morning, for the things that don't fit. If all the data fit every existing theory, we'd be out of work. [plant biologist, int] 0% of the preservice teachers indicated anomalies could be good.

36. Misrepresenting NOS and NOSI! Mistakes vs. Excitement Memorizing vs. Exploring

37. The recommendation • Teach about NOS and inquiry in science classes!

38. Research recommendations for science standards and curricula • Authenticity: K–12 science education should reflect the interconnected nature of science and inquiry as it is practiced and experienced in the real world. • Progressive Learning: The science concepts should build coherently from kindergarten through 12th grade. • Application (Relevance), Critical Thinking, Problem Solving: Focus on deeper understanding of foundational concepts as well as application of content to local and global communities. • Analysis -Synthesis • Evaluation -Systems thinking • STEM and Literacy Integration: Science, engineering, and literacy should be integrated, from kindergarten through 12th grade. Literacy

39. An Integrated perspective

40. Contact: Dr. Renee’ Schwartz Middle and Secondary Education Georgia State University rschwartz@gsu.edu