NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTION AND PEER COACHING: A …

NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTION AND PEER COACHING: A STUDY OF A

SECONDARY SCIENCE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

by

CARY WAITE SELL

(Under the Direction of J. Steve Oliver)

ABSTRACT

For science teachers to be able to teach in the manner that is being called for in

current reform documents such as the Next Generation Science Standards, they should

have knowledge of the nature of science (NOS) and knowledge of how to incorporate

NOS concepts into their classroom practice. Designing professional development

programs that provide the necessary structure for teachers to gain knowledge of NOS and

gain the knowledge necessary to teach NOS is an important task for teacher educators.

This study incorporates peer coaching, as part of a community of practice, into such a

professional development to determine its efficacy as a support system for developing

knowledge of NOS. In an embedded mixed methods study design which made use of

cross case analysis, five secondary science teachers from a suburban high school

experienced a 15-week professional development program, utilizing peer coaching as a

support system, to help them develop knowledge of NOS and the skills to teach NOS.

The VNOS-C was administered to participants prior to and also after the program.

VNOS-C data was quantized for pre/post comparisons. Qualitative data (e.g. interviews,

observations, artifacts) was used to determine the efficacy of the different aspects of the

PD program. Using the Wilcoxon Ranked Sum test, a significant positive change

(p<.05) was found in the VNOS-C results when compared pre/post. Qualitative analysis

revealed that along with professional reading and reflecting as a group on what was being

learned, a multi-faceted one-on-one relationship resulting from peer coaching was

perceived by the participants as being an important support in helping them develop

knowledge of NOS and skills to teach NOS. The results suggested that inclusion of peer

coaching as part of a community of practice would be a beneficial addition to PD for in-

service teachers learning NOS concepts. Results also suggested that more study is

needed regarding what factors, such as science discipline, may influence how teachers

internalize NOS concepts.

INDEX WORDS: nature of science, peer coaching, professional development, secondary

science, mixed methods research



by

CARY WAITE SELL

BS, University of Georgia, 1990

M.Ed., University of Georgia, 1993

Ed.S. University of Georgia, 1996

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2018

© 2018

Cary Waite Sell

All Rights Reserved



by

CARY WAITE SELL

Major Professor: J. Steve Oliver Committee: Norris Armstrong

Barbara Crawford David Jackson Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2018

iv

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my family, without whom, I would not be the person

that I am. This work would not have been possible without the continued support and

encouragement from my mother and stepfather. Right behind them was always the

encouragement from my father, who unexpectedly passed away during the second year of

this doctoral program, and my stepmother.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are several who must be acknowledged, without whom, I would not have

been able to finish this doctoral program or this dissertation study. I first say thank you

to my loving and supportive family and friends who constantly gave me the strength to

keep moving forward when I felt that I could go no further and who always understood

when I needed to be alone to work. Next, I thank my principal for allowing me to conduct

this study in our school. Thank you to the wonderful colleagues with whom I teach, who

also have been continuously encouraging and understanding, as well as often picked up

much of the duties I left undone at times as I have worked towards the goal of this

degree. In this category, I especially thank my friend and colleague with whom I coach

academic team, sponsor science fair, and sponsor Science National Honor Society. He

often had to handle many things on his own due to my work on this degree. I also have

to thank my students, particularly two who so often helped with my animals. Not only

were they always telling me that I could do this, but they also made sure that I never had

to worry about taking care of the animals or other small things in my classroom. Finally,

I couldn’t say thank you enough to my advisor and committee chair. He has known me

since I was a pre-service teacher. He was one of my first methods professors. His

continued patience and guidance as he mentored me through this program and this

document particularly have been indispensible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

Problem Statement ....................................................................................... 9

Purpose Statement ..................................................................................... 11

Research Questions ................................................................................... 14

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................. 15

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 17

Significance of the Study ........................................................................... 19

Delimitations ........................................................................................... 20

Assumptions .......................................................................................... 22

Definition of Terms ................................................................................... 23

Summary ........................................................................................... 25

Organization of the Study .......................................................................... 26

2 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE .................................................... 27

The Nature of Science ............................................................................... 28

vii

Peer Coaching ............................................................................................ 48

Professional Development ......................................................................... 61

Summary .................................................................................................... 70

3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 75

Professional Development ......................................................................... 81

Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis ............................................... 89

Qualitative Data Collections and Analysis ................................................ 95

Limitations ............................................................................................... 106

Summary .................................................................................................. 109

4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 111

Analysis of Quantitative Data ................................................................. 112

Analysis of Qualitative Data ................................................................... 130

Individual Cases ...................................................................................... 156

Using Cross Case Analysis to Elaborate on Findings ............................. 178

Meta-Inferences ....................................................................................... 185

Summary .................................................................................................. 186

5 CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 190

Discussion of Research Questions ........................................................... 191

Implications for Science Teacher Education ........................................... 198

Implications for K-12 Science Teacher In-Service PD ........................... 200

viii

Limitations ............................................................................................... 201

Thoughts on Being an Insider Researcher ............................................... 205

Recommendations for Future Study ........................................................ 206

Subjectivity Statement ............................................................................. 209

Final Thoughts ......................................................................................... 210

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 212

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 238

A VNOS-C ........................................................................................................ 239

B Professional Development Evaluation Form ................................................. 242

C Interview Protocol for Participants POST Professional Development .......... 244

D Data Collection Matrix .................................................................................. 246

E Peer Coaching Observation Form ................................................................. 248

F Outlines for Each Professional Development Session .................................. 249

G Professional Development Proposal for Local Administration ..................... 255

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1: Alignment Between the Nature of Science and the NGSS ............................. 30

Table 2.2: Empirical Studies Ways to Influence Teachers’ Views of NOS ...................... 32

Table 2.3: Definitions of Peer Coaching ........................................................................... 50

Table 2.4: Empirical Studies Implementation of Peer Coaching ...................................... 52

Table 2.5: Descriptions of Professional Development ...................................................... 63

Table 3.1: Cross Reference VNOS-C to Tenets of NOS ................................................... 90

Table 3.2: VNOS-C ........................................................................................................... 90

Table 3.3: Descriptors for Levels of Sophistication for the VNOS-C .............................. 93

Table 3.4: Breakdown of Data Sources Used .................................................................... 98

Table 3.5: Provisional Codes for Research Question 1 ................................................... 101



Table 3.8: Coded Conversation from PD Session ........................................................... 102

Table 3.9: Example Matrix Showing Binning of Coded Data ........................................ 104

Table 4.1: Participant Pre and Post PD VNOS- C Scores ............................................... 114

Table 4.2: Participant Pre and Post PD VNOS-C Scores Averaged by NOS Tenet ....... 119

Table 4.3: Average Scores for Each NOS Tenet Pre and Post PD with Ranges ............. 122

Table 4.4: Summary of Data Related to Planning NOS Instruction ................................ 135

Table 4.5: Summary of Data Related to NOS Instruction Taking Place ......................... 137

x

Table 4.6: Elements of Professional Development Most Beneficial ............................... 150

Table 4.7: Summary of Data Related to Coaching and Community of Practice ............. 153

Table 4.8: Summary of Alan’s VNOS-C Scores ............................................................. 157

Table 4.9: Summary of Vanessa’s VNOS-C Scores ....................................................... 160

Table 4.10: Summary of Crissy’s VNOS-C Scores ........................................................ 165

Table 4.11: Summary of Pat’s VNOS-C Scores ............................................................. 170

Table 4.12: Summary of Anne’s VNOS-C Scores .......................................................... 174

Table 4.13: Summary of Key Components of Five Cases .............................................. 180

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework .................................................................................. 18

Figure 3.1: Embedded Mixed Methods Research Design ................................................. 77

Figure 3.2: Professional Development Design Framework .............................................. 82

Figure 3.3 Model for Condensing Qualitative Data ........................................................ 105

Figure 4.1: Changes in VNOS Alan ................................................................................ 116

Figure 4.2: Changes in VNOS Vanessa .......................................................................... 117

Figure 4.3: Changes in VNOS Crissy .............................................................................. 117

Figure 4.4: Changes in VNOS Pat ................................................................................... 118

Figure 4.5: Changes in VNOS Anne ............................................................................... 118

Figure 4.6: Pre and Post Average VNOS Scores by NOS Tenet .................................... 122

Figure 4.7: Clustering of Pre-PD VNOS Values ............................................................. 124

Figure 4.8: Clustering of Post-PD VNOS Values ........................................................... 125

Figure 4.9: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Output and Descriptive Statistics .................... 128

Figure 4.10: Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 129

Figure 4.11: Diagram of Data Convergence for Question 2 ........................................... 132

Figure 4.12: Overlap of Evidence for Planning and Implementing NOS Instruction ..... 144

Figure 4.13: A NOS Centered Introduction to the Structure of DNA ............................. 145

Figure 4.14: Development of Data Categories for Question 3 ........................................ 148

Figure 4.15: Engineering Cycle Model ........................................................................... 162

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Including authentic science experiences in the science classroom has long

been a focus for reforms in science education (NSF, 1962; AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996;

NRC, 2013). Creating authentic science experiences for students means that we are

engaging students in science experiences that teach them to reason and think

scientifically in an environment that is as similar as possible to those in which scientists

work (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). Following from the reform documents mentioned

above and from the work of Chinn and Malhotra (2002), the claim can be made that

students should be able to design and carry out their own scientific investigations, be able

to determine what types of data should be collected and then analyzed in order to answer

a scientific question. An appreciation of how science works supports students’

understanding that science is not a finished body of knowledge, but instead is a

continuing human process that produces an understanding of the natural world (Schwartz

& Crawford, 2006). “In K-12 classrooms the issue is how to explain both the natural

world and what constitutes the formation of adequate, evidence-based, scientific

explanations,” (National Research Council [NRC], 2013).

Scientific inquiry has been used as a means to promote instruction based in

authentic science through various curriculum studies and designs of the 1950’s and

1960’s such as the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC), the Biological Sciences

Curriculum Study (BSCS), and Chemical Education Material Study (CHEM), meeting

2

with differing levels of success and all but BSCS disappearing from classrooms (DeBoer,

1991). Inclusion of scientific inquiry as part of authentic science activities, as mentioned

above, has been a part of the call in major science education reform documents (NSF,

1962; AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996; NRC, 2013). However, scientific inquiry is only part

of the picture. Scientific inquiry is the process by which scientific knowledge is

developed in society and the nature of science is the way we understand science

(Lederman, 2004). Authentic scientific inquiry refers the type of research and work that

scientists actually do (Chinn& Malhotra, 2002). As stated above, the nature of science

refers to our understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed. Lederman (1992)

referred to the nature of science as the epistemology of science, that is to say how we

understand scientific knowledge, the way it was constructed, the limitations on that

knowledge, and the endeavor of science. These are the beliefs inherent to scientific

knowledge and the development of scientific knowledge. Schwartz and Lederman (2008)

worked with practicing scientists across the varied scientific disciplines and found that,

although there were variations between disciplines, what is referred to here as the nature

of science was both present and necessary in the work that the scientists did. Scientists

understand that science is tentative (one area of the nature of science) in that all

knowledge is subject to change. The scientists working with Schwartz and Lederman

(2008) believed that science cannot prove anything absolutely. Scientists work from the

idea that science is empirical (another area of the nature of science). Science requires

logical connections between observable phenomena and predictions as well as

observations and inferences, models, data and evidence, justification, reproducibility, and

3

prediction. The Schwartz and Lederman (2008) study indicated that the nature of

science is an integral component to “authentic science.”

In an age when much of society is centered on social media and instant access to

internet information, people are bombarded on a regular basis with many claims which

purport to be “scientific” or claims that assert to be as valid as those that are scientific.

Understanding the nature of science is essential to understanding how scientific

knowledge is constructed and vetted, what the strengths of science are as well as the

limitations of science are.

For this study, the nature of science is defined as, “the values and assumptions

inherent to the development of scientific knowledge,” (Lederman, 1992). What follows

are the values and assumptions that will be referred to in the remainder of this study as

the eight tenets of the nature of science as put forth by Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell,

and Schwartz (2002). Each will be explained in further detail later in this chapter:

1) Scientific knowledge is tentative, not static.

2) Scientific knowledge is empirical, based on observation.

3) Scientific knowledge is theory-laden.

4) Scientific knowledge is partly the product of human inference, imagination, and

creativity.

5) Scientific knowledge is socially and culturally influenced.

6) Scientists approach problems from a multitude of ways; there is no single

“Scientific method.”

7) Theories and laws are two distinct types of knowledge, both of which have

importance in the scientific community.

4

8) Observations and Inferences are two different entities, both of which are

important in the development of scientific knowledge.

In order to fully approach science in as authentic a manner as possible in the science

classroom, both scientific inquiry and the nature of science should be addressed.

Lederman (2004) stated that without an understanding of both the nature of science and

scientific inquiry, teachers cannot orchestrate the types of learning that is called for in

science education reform documents.

Teaching of the nature of science has been promoted for over 100 years

(Lederman, 2007) and has been supported as a fundamental component of scientific

literary by organizations such as the National Science Teachers’ Association (NSTA,

1982). Alters (1997) published a study questioning, “Whose Nature of Science?”

indicating that there is not agreement among all groups as to what the nature of science

actually is. However, Smith, Lederman, Bell, McComas, and Clough (1997), in a

response to the Alters (1997) study, indicated that there is far more consensus about what

constitutes the nature of science than there is disagreement. It was further indicated by

Smith et al. (1997) that the disagreements that did exist were in issues not relevant to K-

12 education. Further, it was indicated that there is widespread agreement about what k-

12 students should know about the areas of the nature of science listed above (Lederman

et al., 2002; Peg & Gummer, 2010; Wong, 2009). To further explain the tenets of the

nature of science listed above, Lederman (2007) has described them as follows:

• Science is never absolute. It is tentative, but durable. As new

information and new technology and techniques are developed, new

5

interpretations of data and possible revisions to ideas, concepts, and

theories may occur.

• Science is empirical, being based on observations of the natural world

and inferences from those observations.

• Science is subjective. It is theory laden in that the background, beliefs,

and philosophical frameworks of scientists will influence how data is

interpreted.

• Science is partially based on human imagination and creativity. Not

only are the development of experimental technique and research methods

products of human creativity, but so are the larger interpretations of data

and development of explanations as well as development of new theory.

• Science is a human endeavor. Human biases and cultural mores have an

influence on what science is undertaken and how new scientific

information is received by the general population. This is particularly

apparent with issues that are deemed controversial by current culture such

as anthropogenic climate change, vaccines, evolution, stem cell research,

artificial intelligence, and species conservation.

• Science recognizes that observations and inferences are different.

Observations are information taken in through the senses, whereas

inferences are interpretations of those observations. They are both useful

in developing scientific knowledge.

• Science recognizes that there is a difference between scientific laws

and scientific theories. Scientific laws are descriptions of observable

6

events, which typically include a mathematical statement of relationships

between observable events (e.g. Newton’s Laws of Motion, Boyle’s Law

relating the pressure and volume of a gas, Periodic Law describing the

repeating of chemical and physical characteristics of elements in the same

family of the periodic table).

• Scientists approach problems in many ways. There is no one

“scientific method.” Science is not a linear process. One might start with

a question, with observations, with the claims of another scientist, or in

any other way. There is no one “right” way to approach a problem in

science.

The nature of science has been the subject of intensive, systematic educational

research for 50 years (McComas, 1998; Lederman and Lederman, 2014). Quantitative

instruments such as the TOUS (McComas, 1998) and the VOSE (Chen, 2006) as well as

quasi-quantitative instruments backed up with a structured qualitative interview data such

as the VNOS (Lederman, 2002) have been used to measure the construct often labeled as

the nature of science (Lederman, 1992). Research in the area of nature of science (NOS)

has been categorized into four areas (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). These four

areas include (1) student conceptions of nature of science, (2) curricula to improve

student conceptions of nature of science, (3) assessment of and practices to improve

teachers’ conceptions of nature of science, and (4) identifications of relationships

between teachers’ conceptions of nature of science, classroom practice, and student

conceptions of nature of science (Lederman, 1992). The research of the current study

7

focused on the third area primarily, practices to improve teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science, and also on part of the fourth, the relationship between teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science and classroom practice.

One major obstacle standing in the way of the translation of an understanding of

the nature of science to students from science teachers is the fact that most science

teachers do not have an informed concept of the nature of science. There is a great deal

of literature showing that, in general, secondary science teachers do not hold

sophisticated or informed views of the nature of science (Lederman, 1992; Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000b; Akerson & Abd-El-

Khalick, 2000; Lederman, Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, & Bell, 2001), nor do they often

engage students in authentic scientific inquiry (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002). In

Lederman’s (1992) literature review focusing on teachers’ conceptions of the nature of

science, numerous studies starting as early as 1950 (Anderson, 1950; Behnke, 1961;

Miller, 1963; Carey and Stauss, 1970; King 1991, among others) all indicated that

science teachers generally possessed a concept of the nature of science that was

inadequate and not informed. Similarly, in Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman’s (2000)

review of literature which focused on improving science teachers’ conception of the

nature of science, as with the previous review (Lederman, 1992), the studies suggested

that teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science were inadequate and that steps should

be taken to improve teachers’ concepts of the nature of science.

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) reviewed numerous studies which focused

on improving teachers’ conception of NOS, separating the studies into those that used

implicit methods to affect change and those that used explicit methods to affect change.

8

Implicit methods are those in which it is assumed that by doing science, with no explicit

references to the nature of science, participants will come to understand the nature of

science (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). Explicit methods are those methods which

directly address specific tenets of NOS and overtly relate them to the science concepts

being studied (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). In examining the numerous studies in

this literature review, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) reported that any attempt to

help teachers better their understanding of the nature of science should be both explicit

and reflective.

Addressing teachers’ knowledge of the nature of science is only part of the

endeavor to increase incidents teaching nature of science in the classroom. Lederman

and Zeigler (1987) suggested that there is no significant relationship between teachers’

understandings of the nature of science and their classroom practice. Instructional

intention is a major factor in determining whether a teacher incorporates NOS into his or

her classroom practice (Lederman, 1999).

Herman, Clough, and Olsen, (2013) wrote of afforded opportunities to include

NOS instruction meaning that in order to effectively teach and incorporate NOS into

one’s classroom instruction, a teacher must be able to recognize the moments that afford

opportunity to insert or to clarify NOS concepts, even when NOS instruction has not been

specifically planned. Recognizing the afforded opportunities to incorporate NOS

requires that a teacher have a deep understanding of the concepts of NOS.

Lederman (2007) reported five generalizations that can be made regarding

research in the nature of science. The first generalization is that K-12 students do not

typically have adequate conceptions of the nature of science. Second - K-12 teachers do

9

not typically have adequate conceptions of the nature of science. Third - The nature of

science is best learned when the instruction of NOS is explicit and reflective. Fourth –

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science do not automatically translate into

classroom practice. The fifth generalization is that teachers do not generally regard

nature of science as an instructional outcome that is of equal status to the traditional

science subject matter outcomes. These generalizations lead to the problem that is

addressed by the current study.

Problem Statement

As described in the rationale above, research has shown that both science

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science and their ability to convey the nature of

science to their students tend to be inadequate. We therefore continue to look for ways to

design professional development, which will support change in teachers’ conceptions of

the nature of science, as well as teachers’ classroom practice regarding teaching the

nature of science. It is for this reason that the current study was implemented, to develop

a means by which secondary science teachers can be supported as they develop

knowledge of the nature of science and the skills necessary to teach the nature of science.

The research literature, which focused on factors that would influence teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science, has suggested that a teacher’s personal framework

(e.g. depth of knowledge, religious, ethical, cultural) creates a filter through which the

nature of science is conceptualized (Bartos & Lederman, 2014; Brickhouse, 1990;

Lederman, 1999; Liu & Lederman, 2007; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002).

10

The research literature focused on professional development meant to enhance

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science revealed several commonalities. As earlier

stated, many empirical studies examining the efficacy of explicit teaching of the nature of

science versus the implicit teaching of the nature of science have been conducted (Bell,

Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011; Bianchini & Colburn, 2000; Schwartz, Westerland, &

Garcia, 2010).

A strategy often used as a support for learning in professional development

programs for teachers, is reciprocal peer coaching. Peer coaching, for the purposes of

this study, is operationally defined as a collegial process in which two faculty members

of equal status work together to make observations and help one another improve their

approaches to teaching using the techniques demonstrated in professional development

(Huston & Weaver, 2008). Peer coaching as follow up to training in a professional

development has resulted in greater transfer of knowledge than just the training alone

(Showers, 1982, 1984). Reciprocal peer coaching, as a means of staff development, has

been shown to be effective in building a community of practice (Van Driel, et al., 2001;

Showers, 1982, 1984). Wenger (1998) defined a community of practice as a group that

shares (1) mutual engagement, (2) common goals, and (3) a shared repertoire. Darling-

Hammond & McLaughlin (1995) along with Snow-Gerono (2005) have indicated that

development of a community of practice is essential for an effective professional

development. It would, therefore, logically follow then that reciprocal peer coaching, as

part of a research based professional development should act as an effective support

strategy to aid in the development of a community of practice whose common goal is to

generate in science teachers a more informed conception of the nature of science.

11

Purpose Statement

The literature revealed a lack of studies connecting peer coaching with the

development of knowledge of the nature of science and the skills necessary to teach the

nature of science. The purpose, therefore, of this study was to determine the efficacy of

using peer coaching as a support system for secondary science teachers who participated

in a professional development program to learn concepts of the nature of science and gain

the skills necessary for teaching the nature of science. If peer coaching is shown to be

an effective support strategy when used to enhance science teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science, then this study will have provided an additional way to help science

teachers to address reform issues and to include authentic science experiences in their

classroom practices.

A professional development program that utilizes techniques of reciprocal peer

coaching to facilitate enhancing teachers’ views of the nature of science could address

improving the teaching of authentic science and scientific inquiry. Given that reciprocal

peer coaching has been shown to have a positive effect on teacher learning (Zwart et al.,

2008; Vidmar, 2006; Goker, 2006), it follows that using reciprocal peer coaching as a

professional development tool to help teachers improve the sophistication of their views

of the nature of science could have positive effects on teachers’ conceptions of the nature

of science.

According to the National Academies, professional development programs are,

“learning experiences for teachers that (1) are purposefully designed to support particular

kinds of teacher change, (2) include focused, multi-day sessions for teachers, (3) may

include follow up opportunities, and (4) have a finite duration (National Academies,

12

2015). Professional development for in-service teachers can be instrumental in changing

teacher behavior at least in short term. Loucks-Horsley et al (2010) suggested that in

order to build professional development for sustainability, one must address building

collective knowledge across the school in order to develop a community of support.

Professional development can help bring about communities of practice or

professional learning communities (Wenger, 1998). In fact, Loucks-Horsley et al.

(2010) called for schools to “break down the barriers… [and to]… promote collaboration

and sharing of effective practices” (p. 31). Within learning communities, teachers are

impacted because they are placed into an environment in which they can collaborate,

participate in experimentation with teaching innovations (p. 144). Communities of

practice will also allow for teachers to engage in challenging discourse about their

teaching practices (p. 145). That discourse allows teachers to critique one another and

essentially coach one another in order to identify areas of need in teaching, and thus

teachers provide support for one another as the initiate a change in practice (p. 153).

Loucks-Horsley et al. (2010) also advocated for professional development over a

longer period of time rather than a one- time event. They suggested 30 to 100 contact

hours over a period of 6 – 12 months. That sort of time commitment is difficult to

accomplish in a typical professional development but the suggested time indicates that

longer time periods gives participants the ability to adjust and will be more successful in

transforming the practice of participants.

Reciprocal peer coaching, as a process of cooperation between two or more

colleagues in which they exchange ideas, implement ideas, and reflect on their practices

is a very meaningful addition to professional development (Van Driel, et al., 2001;

13

Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). In reciprocal peer coaching, there is mutual consultation

between teachers of equal status (Murray et al., 2009). Vidmar (2006) referred to peer

coaching as “collaborative self- assessment”.

Given that it is beneficial for teachers to include in their classroom practices

methods designed to teach students the nature of science, teachers must be able to teach

these concepts within the science curricula. Developing a program to build the skills of

science teachers within a school to incorporate the nature of science into their instruction

will be beneficial to the teachers, which is the focus of this study. Several forms of

coaching will take place in this type of program. The type of coaching that was the focus

of data collection was reciprocal peer coaching.

In order to bring in the reciprocal peer coaching aspect, a component of the

professional development will include opportunities for the teacher participants to view

directly and reflect together with dyadic partners’ teaching lessons and then discuss those

lessons with one another. The literature regarding professional development as a tool to

make positive changes in the views of the nature of science of science teachers is

significant (Lederman, 1992; Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000a), but it is not common

to find studies that utilize reciprocal peer coaching as an agent to help teachers improve

their views of the nature of science during a professional development program and

increase the incidence of teaching the nature of science.

The efficacy of the peer coaching, when used as a support mechanism for

professional development regarding the nature of science, is being examined. My

project goal for this study was for teachers to develop more sophisticated views of the

nature of science and to increase the number of incidents of teaching NOS concepts and

14

issues in their classrooms. Additionally, I examined what teachers perceived to be

beneficial support systems behind any changes in their views of the nature of science and

their willingness to include NOS concepts in their classroom practice. Any differences

and similarities that existed between the teacher participants, which may have contributed

to their willingness to incorporate nature of science into their classroom practice, was

also examined through the use of instrumental case study (Stake, 1995).

Research Questions

In order to work toward the above stated goal, the following overarching question

for this study was developed:

What aspects of a professional development program developed around peer coaching

and nature of science instruction are effective as supports for secondary science

teachers’ (1) conceptions/knowledge of the nature of science and (2) enactment of

science instruction emphasizing the nature of science?

In order to better examine the cases and this question, three specific research

questions were deconstructed from the overarching question.

1) What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during the

course of the professional development? These outcomes were measured using the

instrument, VNOS- C (Views of the Nature of Science) developed by Lederman , Abd-

El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz (2002). This is a quasi-quantitative question even though

the instrument is an open-ended survey. The resulting data were coded and quantized so

that results of pre and post-tests could be compared.

15

2) What influence does a professional development have on the incidents of teaching

nature of science or willingness of teachers to include nature of science instruction in

their classroom practice?

This question was addressed using data from transcribed interviews with each participant

in the study, conversations during sessions of the professional development program,

informal conversations with study participants, and artifacts from participants (e.g. lesson

plans, laboratory handouts, assessment items).

3) To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching dyad

relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants attribute any

changes in their views of the nature of science? This is question was be approached

using data transcribed from interviews with participants, conversations during sessions of

the professional development program, and reflective journal writing by the participants.

Theoretical Framework

Within the format of a professional development program utilizing reciprocal peer

coaching, legitimate peripheral participation in the form of a community of practice

(Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), is the theoretical framework of this study.

Wenger (1998) explained that engaging in a community is important for both developing

an individual identity and fostering personal growth. If we follow the definition of a

community of practice given by Bianchini & Cavazos (2007) we find that members share

common goals, meet regularly over an extended time, and engage in collaboration and

critique of each other’s work. Wenger (1998) also included the exigency for common

goals. He gives three components that generate an effective community of practice, (1)

16

mutual engagement, (2) common goals, and (3) a shared repertoire. Building a

community of practice to address growth in science teacher views of the nature of science

is the end toward which this study worked.

Legitimate peripheral participation refers to the situated learning of individuals

within a particular group or community. This community of practitioners is necessary to

sustain the community and indicates that learning is a social process that is not done in

isolation. Typically, legitimate peripheral participation involves apprenticeship in which

a novice or newcomer learns from a more experienced member of the community. In this

study, the situated learning was the learning that focused on the nature of science,

pedagogical content knowledge of the nature of science, and strengthening of the

community of science teachers involved with the study. The concept was that reciprocal

peer coaching would enhance the community of practice and thereby create a bridge

between the formal learning of the professional development and the informal learning

that takes place outside of the scheduled professional development time (Kyndt et al. ,

2016). Community of practice helps not only build but sustain changes after the

professional development has been completed.

The common goal of secondary science teachers in this community of practice

was to become more familiar with the Nature of Science (NOS) and to learn strategies to

incorporate teaching the nature of science within subject context to secondary science

students. Scientific knowledge is tentative; empirically based; subjective; partly a

product of human inference, imagination, and creativity; and socially and culturally

imbedded (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, and Lederman, 2000). The teachers’ conceptions of

17

nature of science and their willingness to include instruction in nature of science in their

classroom practice are central for this study.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1.1 shows the developed conceptual framework for the current study.

Community of Practice (Wenger, 1998) is the theoretical framework of the current study.

It is larger in the model and in a contrasting color (yellow) to indicate its importance.

Reciprocal peer coaching (shown in light blue) has been shown to contribute to a

positive community of practice (Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, & Bolhuis, 2009) and it has

been shown to be an effective tool to support the development of skills that are taught in

professional development (Huston & Weaver, 2008; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, &

Gallagher, 2007; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Van Driel et al., 2001). These relationships

are shown with the arrow to “Community of Practice” indicating that peer coaching can

contribute to the development of a community of practice and the arrow to “Effective

Professional Development” indicating that peer coaching can support skill development

thereby contributing to effective professional development (indicated in light green).

18

Within the framework of community of practice, using peer coaching as a support

mechanism, effective professional development is carried out to enhance participating

secondary science teachers’ knowledge of the nature of science as well as their

pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science (both indicated in dark

blue). With both knowledge of the nature of science and a command of the pedagogical

content knowledge to teacher the nature of science, an increased willingness to include

nature of science instruction into regular classroom practices should emerge in the

Figure. 1.1 Conceptual Framework

19

participating teachers. This increased willingness to teach the nature of science is the

goal of the professional development and is indicated in red.

Community of practice and peer coaching are on the base of this diagram

indicating that they form the foundation on which the professional development is

constructed. Knowledge of the nature of science and pedagogical content knowledge of

the nature of science both grow from effective professional development. Willingness

to include instruction in the nature of science develops out of the combined knowledge of

the nature of science and pedagogical content knowledge of the nature of science.

Significance of the Study

There are many reasons why continued study of the nature of science is important

for science education. Driver, Leach, Miller, and Scott (1996) reported five significant

reasons to continue the pursuit of increasing knowledge of and the teaching of the nature

of science. They described the nature of science as being utilitarian. Having a robust

concept of the nature of science allows people to make sense of science and to experience

greater benefits from the technology that is used in society. An understanding of the

nature of science is democratic. A robust understanding of the nature of science allows

people to be better prepared to make informed decisions regarding socio-scientific issues.

A robust understanding of the nature of science has cultural significance. Science and

technology are integral parts of modern culture and having a robust understanding of the

nature of science is necessary to fully appreciate the value of scientific contributions to

twenty-first century society and culture. A robust understanding of the nature of science

allows a better understanding of the moral commitments held by the scientific

20

community which impact society. Finally, a robust understanding of the nature of

science supports the learning of scientific subject matter.

Decades of studies have shown that K-12 science teachers generally do not

possess an adequate conception of the nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,

2000; Bartos & Lederman, 2014; Lederman, 1992; Lederman, 2007). Although a

thorough understanding of the nature of science is, by itself, not enough to engender in

teachers a willingness to incorporate teaching the nature of science into classroom

practice (Lederman, 1999), it is foundational. Teachers cannot teach what they do not

know (Shulman, 1987). It is therefore necessary to continue to examine methods that

could be effective in supporting teachers in building the foundational knowledge of the

nature of science as well as the pedagogical content knowledge necessary to teach the

nature of science to students.

The current study focuses on a support method that has not been explored

extensively in the research literature. That method is the use of peer coaching as a

support to help reinforce concepts of the nature of science as well as pedagogical skills in

teaching the nature of science. Insight into how the secondary science teachers who

participated in this study thought about their instructional planning to incorporate nature

of science instruction into classroom practice and what influenced their planning is

explained.

Delimitations

The choice was made to examine the efficacy of using peer coaching as a method

of support for a professional development program designed to provide secondary

21

science teachers with an appropriate knowledge base of the nature of science and the

pedagogical content knowledge to be able to teach the nature of science. Although the

research literature suggested that peer coaching has been an effective support method in

other professional development programs (Showers & Joyce, 1996), little was found

connecting peer coaching to the development of knowledge of the nature of science.

The nature of science was selected as the topic for this professional development program

because it is a topic of interest to the researcher because it is instrumental in developing

science literacy in students.

For this study, the acquisition of knowledge of the nature of science in students

was not addressed. The focus of the current study was on the acquisition of knowledge

of the nature of science by teachers. A follow up study is suggested to describe what

effect that this sort of teacher professional development may have on the students of the

participating teachers, but the current study focuses only on teachers.

Given that peer coaching was the factor to be examined in this study, the literature

review does not include any studies in which peer coaching was being used as a method

of mentoring teachers who were in the induction phase of their careers were not included.

Only empirical studies that focused on teachers who were of equal status acting as

coaches for each other were included. The reason for the inclusion only of studies of this

nature in the section of the literature review devoted to peer coaching was to maintain the

focus of the current study on teachers of essentially equal status helping each other rather

than one teacher acting in the expert role and the other in the novice role as in expert

coaching.

22

Finally, in examining empirical studies which dealt with supporting growth of

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science, studies conducted prior to 2002 were

excluded as that was the year that Lederman et al. published their seminal piece, Views of

the Nature of Science: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’

Conceptions of the Nature of Science (Lederman et al., 2002).

Assumptions

In any research study there are specific assumptions that must be made in order to

proceed with the study. First and foremost, given that the central topic of the current

study is the nature of science, it is assumed that this particular area of research in science

education will continue to remain important. The nature of science has been an issue in

science education for over 100 years (Lederman, 2006) and has been examined

empirically for over 50 years (Lederman, 1992). With the breadth of study that has

focused on some aspect of the nature of science and the time during which study of the

nature of science has taken place, it is a logical assumption that this area of science

education research will continue to remain important.

Along with the assumption that the nature of science will remain an important

issue in science education worthy of study, it is also assumed that the instrument, “Views

of the Nature of Science – C” (VNOS-C) validly measures the conceptions of the nature

of science of study participants. The VNOS-C was used in the current study to generate

a profile of each of the five subjects who were the focus of each case. Lederman, Abd-

El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz (2002) traced the development of instruments that have

been used to assess the views of the nature of science. Additionally, they collected data

23

from the VNOS questionnaire itself as well as interview data from participants to

systematically improve the validity of the VNOS instrument. Bell (1999) conducted an

investigation assessing the construct validity of the VNOS-B. The version of the VNOS

instrument used in the current study, the VNOS-C, has been administered to pre-service

elementary teachers (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001) and pre-service and in-service secondary

science teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Schwartz, Lederman & Crawford,

2000). These data were compared and contrasted using NOS profiles of all participants

generated by independent researchers and analyzed by Abd-El-Khalick (2001) to

establish the construct validity of the VNOS-C.

Finally, among the sources of data for the current study are participant interviews,

response forms that participants completed regarding coaching instances with their

coaching partners, and evaluation forms completed by the participants. Each of these

types of data source involved the participant answering a series of questions. An

assumption of honesty and integrity was made with regard to the participants and the

answers that they provided. To help insure that participants were truthful with their

responses, assurances of anonymity were provided; participant check opportunities were

given to obtain participant agreement with profiles being produced in each case; and the

participants also had the ability to withdraw from the study at any time.

Definition of Terms

In the text of the current study, the following terms will be used:

The Nature of Science (NOS). This is “the values and assumptions inherent to the

development of scientific knowledge,” (Lederman, 1992).

24

Peer Coaching. This relationship is defined as a dyadic relationship in which two

professional colleagues work together to plan, pool experiences, practice new skills,

conduct action research, teach one another, problem solve together, and work together in

order to expand their professional repertoires (Robbins, 1991; Showers & Joyce, 1996;

Swafford, 1998; Wong & Nicotera, 2003).

Professional Development (PD). This activity is defined as “learning experiences for

teachers that (1) are purposefully designed to support particular kinds of teacher change,

(2) include focused, multi-day sessions for teachers, (3) may include follow up

opportunities, and (4) have a finite duration (National Academies, 2015).

Community of Practice. The definition of a community of practice given by Bianchini &

Cavazos (2007) is a community in which members share common goals, meet regularly

over an extended time, and engage in collaboration and critique of each other’s work.

Wenger (1998) also included the exigency for common goals. Wenger gives three

components that generate an effective community of practice, (1) mutual engagement, (2)

common goals, and (3) a shared repertoire.

Scientific Inquiry. Scientific inquiry refers to the processes and methods of how

scientists do their work developing scientific knowledge, and how the resulting scientific

knowledge is accepted (Lederman, Lederman, Bartos, Bartels, Meyer, & Schwartz, 2014;

Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004).

25

Beliefs. In this document, the use of the word “belief” is used to mean a firm considered

opinion.

Reflection. In this document, the word “reflection” is used to mean consideration of

thoughts, events, or actions.

Summary

Within a framework of community of practice, the current study is a an

instrumental multi-case study examining the efficacy of peer coaching as a method of

support for a professional development program designed to enhance secondary science

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. The nature of science, as a construct,

has been studied by educational researchers for over 50 years. During this time, explicit

and reflective teaching of the nature of science along with several other factors have been

shown to be effective in developing sophisticated conceptions of the nature of science in

science teachers. Knowledge of the nature of science alone has been shown to be

ineffective in influencing teachers to include nature of science instruction in their regular

classroom practice. The professional development of the current study was designed to

enhance both knowledge of the nature of science and pedagogical content knowledge of

the nature of science.

The research literature is lacking with regard to the use of peer coaching as a

method for supporting teachers as they develop a sophisticated concept of the nature of

science and methods for including the nature of science in their regular classroom

practice. The purpose of the current study is to examine the efficacy of peer coaching

26

as a support method for developing both knowledge of the nature of science and the skills

to teach the nature of science. It is hoped that assertions from the current study will add

to the literature in the area of NOS research focused on improving teachers’ concepts of

the nature of science.

Organization of the Study

Following chapter 1, the introduction, the remainder of the current study is

organized in four additional chapters, references, and appendixes. Chapter 2 brings

forward relevant literature in the three areas that are the focus of the current study. Those

areas are as follows:

• The nature of science, specifically what factors influence the conceptions of the

nature of science found in science teachers and efforts that have taken place in

attempt to influence the conceptions of the nature of science found in teachers.

• The efficacy of peer coaching.

• Building effective professional development

Chapter 3 describes the research design and the rationale for selecting multi-case study as

the research design, as well as each of the five cases. Additionally what data was

collected, what sources were used as data, and the instrument used to collect certain data

will be detailed in chapter 3. Chapter 4 will describe the study’s findings, an analysis

of the findings, and discussion of the findings. Chapter 5 will present a summary of the

study, conclusions, and recommendations based on the study’s findings. Concluding

this study will be the references cited and the appendixes.

27

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

What follows is a review of the relevant literature related to three specific aspects

of the research questions stated below: the nature of science, peer coaching, and

conducting effective professional development. Each of these areas forms part of a triad

that forms the theoretical base for this study. The nature of science was a focus because

that was the knowledge base to be developed by the professional development. What

characteristics make an effective professional development was a focus because that was

the medium through which the knowledge of NOS was shared. Finally peer coaching

was a focus because that was the support system the efficacy of which was central to the

study. Searches were conducted using the Google Scholar search engine, the ERIC data

base, as well as data bases of the major peer reviewed science education journals, Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, Science and Education, The

International Journal of Science Education, and the Journal of Science Teacher

Education.





28

1) What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during the

course of the professional development?

2) What influence does a professional development have on the incidents of teaching


their classroom practice?

3) To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching dyad


changes in their views of the nature of science?

The Nature of Science

Research in the area of nature of science (NOS) has been categorized into four

areas (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a). These four areas include (1) student

conceptions of NOS, (2) curricula to improve student conceptions of NOS, (3)

assessment of and practices to improve teachers’ conceptions of NOS, and (4)

identification of relationships between teachers’ conceptions of NOS, classroom practice,

and student conceptions of NOS. (Lederman, 1992). For the current study, research that

focuses on the third area of NOS research was the emphasis for literature review. The

nature of science can be defined as, “the values and assumptions inherent to the

development of scientific knowledge,” (Lederman, 1992). These assumptions take the

form of perceptions held by individuals informed about the nature of science such that to

understand the nature of science one has to comprehend that scientific knowledge is

tentative, empirically based; scientific knowledge is theory-laden; it is partly the product

of human inference, imagination, and creativity; and it is socially and culturally

influenced (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz, 2002). In Lederman’s

29

(1992) literature review focusing on teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science,

numerous studies, starting as early as 1950, (Anderson, 1950; Behnke, 1961; Miller,

1963; Carey and Stauss, 1970; King 1991, among others) all indicated that science

teachers generally possessed a concept of the nature of science that was inadequate and

not informed. Similarly, in Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) a review of literature

was again undertaken which focused on improving science teachers’ conception of the

nature of science. In this review, as with the previous, the studies suggested that

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science are inadequate and that steps should be

taken to improve teachers’ concepts. Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) reviewed

numerous studies aimed at improving teachers’ conception of NOS, separating the studies

into those that use implicit methods to affect change and those that use explicit methods

to affect change. Implicit methods are methods in which it is assumed that by doing

science, learners (teachers or students) will come to understand science. Implicit

methods also are those in which there are no explicit references to the nature of science

(Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). Explicit methods are those methods, which

directly address specific tenets of NOS and overtly relate them to the science concepts

being studied (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). In examining the numerous studies in

this literature review, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) purported that any attempt to

help teachers better their understanding of the nature of science should be both explicit

and reflective.

Concurring with Lederman’s (1992) review, Abd-El-Khalick and Boujoude

(1997) suggested from their study of in-service teachers that generally, teachers’

knowledge bases were lacking in nearly every respect. They further stated that teachers

30

Table 2.1 Alignment Between the Nature of Science and the NGSS.

tended to hold naïve views about the nature of science and that they did not demonstrate

adequate knowledge of the structure and function of their disciplines. Lederman (2004)

stated that without an adequate understanding of the nature of science and scientific

inquiry, teachers cannot plan and carry out the types of teaching and learning that is

called for in reform documents. Abd-El-Khalick (2013) reiterated that inquiry alone

cannot make improvements in teachers’ views of the nature of science and that there must

be explicit and reflective teaching of nature of science to teachers.

Following Lederman (2004), Bell, Mulvey, and Maeng (2016) in their study

which focused on pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science,

generated an alignment between the tenets of the nature of science and The Next

Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) (see table 2.1).

Tenets of Nature of Science NGSS Alignment with the Nature of Science Appendix H

Scientific knowledge is tentative, not static.

Scientific knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence or new interpretations of evidence.

Scientific knowledge is empirical, based on observation.

Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence.

Scientific knowledge is theory-laden Science is a human endeavor. The backgrounds of scientists and their theoretical commitments can influence the nature of their findings.

Scientific knowledge is partly the product of human inference, imagination, and creativity.

Science is a human endeavor. Science is the result of human endeavors, imagination, and creativity.

Scientific knowledge is socially and culturally influenced

Science is a human endeavor. Individuals and teams from many nations and cultures

31

Laws and theories are different kinds of scientific knowledge. They are not interchangeable and they are both important.

have contributed to advances in science. Technological advances have influenced progress in science and science has influenced advances in technology.

Scientists approach questions in a multitude of ways. There is not one “scientific method.”

Scientific investigations use a variety of methods, tools, and techniques to revise and produce new scientific knowledge

In the search for empirical studies focused on supporting the growth of teachers’

views of the nature of science, the key words “nature of science” and ”Influencing

teachers’ conceptions of NOS” were used to begin the search. Searches were conducted

using the Google Scholar search engine, the ERIC data base, as well as data bases of the

major peer reviewed science education journals, Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, Science Education, Science and Education, The International Journal of

Science Education, and the Journal of Science Teacher Education. Studies conducted

prior to 2002 were excluded as that was the year that Lederman et al. published their

seminal piece, Views of the Nature of Science: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment

of Learners’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science (Lederman et al., 2002). This is not to

say that studies conducted prior to 2002 were not relevant. The original VNOS –A was

first published in 1990 (Lederman & O’Malley, 1990). There is a deep history of

attempts to define, measure, and influence views of the nature of science prior to 2002

(Klopfer & Cooley, 1963; Carey & Stauss, 1970; Barufaldi, Bethel, and Lamb, 1977;

Akindehin, 1988). Scientists, science educators and philosophers of science have

struggled with the nature of science over a hundred years and concerned with measuring

the construct for over 50 years (McComas, 1998; Lederman and Lederman, 2014).

Studies involving k-12 students were excluded due to the fact that the subject of the

32

Table 2.2 Empirical Studies Ways to Influence Teachers’ Views of NOS

current study is teachers and improving teacher views of the nature of science. Studies

that involved pre-service teachers were included with the thought that strategies for

influencing pre-service teachers’ views of the nature of science would offer also offer

insight. In all 46 empirical studies were identified that involved determining influences

on teachers’ views of the nature of science or determining ways to influence teachers’

views of the nature of science (see Table 2.2).

Author(s) Results

Gess-Newsome (2002) Explicit instruction in NOS and inquiry have a positive effect on teachers’ views of NOS.

Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick (2002) Explicit and reflective inquiry oriented instruction in NOS was more effective than implicit inquiry oriented instruction.

Lin & Chen (2002) Taiwanese chemistry teachers were taught to teach chemistry through the history of science. Views of NOS were enhanced.

Matkins, Bell, Irving & McNall (2002) Controversial topics were used to contextualize NOS resulting in substantially more gains in NOS when compared to simply adding NOS instruction to a methods course.

Schwartz & Lederman (2002) The depth of NOS understanding, subject matter knowledge, and the perceived relationship between them affected participants’ learning of NOS. Teachers must have intent to teach NOS.

Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick (2003) Community of practice was shown to be important to help participants activate NOS understandings.

Linneman, Lynch, Kurup, & Webb (2003)

No valid interpretations could be made from the data

Cochrane (2003) Implicit instruction did not result in improvement. Explicit instruction with

33

process skill activity and inquiry instruction resulted in positive change in NOS views.

Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson (2004) Reflective and explicit instruction of NOS were used with a conceptual change model to generate change in teachers’ views of NOS.

Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford (2004)

Those who were more reflective were more successful in deepening their NOS conceptions. Reflection, context, and perspective were key components.

Thye & Kwen (2004) A significant portion of pre-service science teachers possessed uninformed views of the nature of science.

Abd-El-Khalick (2005) Participation in a philosophy of science course had a positive impact on the participants views of the nature of science.

Akerson, Morrison & McDuffie (2006) This study demonstrates that one course is not enough to maintain a change in pre-service teachers’ views of NOS.

Ogunniyi (2006) This study explored the effects of a semester long professional development course using argumentation to help enhance the views of NOS of participants.

Southerland, Johnston, & Sowell (2006) Conceptual ecologies of participants greatly affect their conceptions of NOS.

Tsai (2006) Courses in philosophy of science and theories of conceptual change moved participants to a more constructivist view of NOS.

Akerson Hanson, & Cullen (2007) Guided inquiry with explicit and reflective NOS instruction were used to improve teachers’ views of NOS.

Akerson & Hanuscin (2007) Community of practice and modeling lessons were instrumental in improving teachers’ views of NOS.

Liu & Lederman (2007) One’s socio-cultural view has an impact on the sophistication of one’s view of the nature of science.

Akerson & Donnelly (2008) Several traits compared to level of NOS understanding. (e.g. high spirituality correlated with inadequate views of NOS.

Akerson, Buzzelli, & Donnelly (2008) Participants who had higher ratings on an ethical and intellectual scale also tended to have more informed views of NOS.

34

McDonald (2008) Contextual, explicit instruction that included argumentation was effective in changing participants’ views of NOS.

Smith & Scharmann (2008) Explicit and reflective instruction using ostention was effective in enhancing pre-service teachers’ views of NOS.

Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson (2009) Metacognitive development can have a positive effect on participants NOS views.

Akerson, Cullen, & Hanson (2009) Community of practice on its own was not enough to change teachers’ practice, but it created a support environment that increased acquisition of skills to teach NOS.

Akerson, Townsend, Donnelly, Hanson, Tira, & White (2009)

NOS views were improved by including scientific modeling in their definitions of how scientists work.

Cakiroglu, Dogan, Bilican, Cavus, & Arslan (2009)

Explicit NOS instruction to elementary science teachers was successful in improving their views of NOS.

Iqbal, Azam, & Rana (2009) This study focused on connections between views of the nature of science and religion and indigenous culture.

Lotter, Singer, & Godley (2009) Practice teaching and reflection were used to improve teachers’ views of NOS.

Ma (2009) This study found relationships between conceptions of nature and conceptions of the nature of science.

Morrison, Raab, & Ingram (2009) Factors that had the most influence on teachers’ views of NOS were one-on-one interviews with scientists, job shadowing, and explicit, reflective NOS instruction.

Seung, Bryan & Butler (2009) This study examined three approaches to NOS instruction. Explicit and contextual were most effective in changing participants’ views of NOS.

Cullen, Akerson & Hanson (2010) Engaging participants in their own action research supported enhancement of participants views of NOS.

Hanuscin, Lee, & Akerson (2010) Knowledge of assessing NOS is not typically part of the instructional and assessment strategies that most teachers have.

McDonald (2010) Engaging learners in argumentation is shown to aid in the development of NPS views.

Posnanski (2010) Explicit activity based instruction in a two-

35

year professional development was used to enhance elementary science teachers’ views of NOS

Schwartz, Westerund, Garcia & Taylor (2010)

This study compared full immersion into scientific research with and without explicit NOS instruction. Both groups made gains but the explicit group make significant gains.

Bell, Matkins & Gansneder (2011) Contextual and explicit NOS instruction in NOS to effect change in pre-service elementary science teachers views of NOS.

Donnelly & Argyle (2011) Teachers from suburban and rural areas were more likely to implement NOS instruction than urban after a physical science professional development.

Akerson, Donnelly, Riggs & Eastwood (2012)

Community of practice was used as a support system to help pre-service elementary science teachers gain the skills to teach NOS.

Capps & Crawford (2013) Intensive week-long professional development used authentic scientific investigation to successfully improve teachers’ views of NOS.

Faikhamta (2013) Explicit instruction, reflection, role modeling, and both non-content and embedded instruction were used successfully to improve teachers views of NOS.

Hanuscin (2013) Identified 10 critical incidents in developing PCK to teach NOS

Herman, Clough, & Olsen (2013) NOS training will not necessarily translate into classroom practice. PCK for NOS is necessary.

Bartos & Lederman (2014) Developing PCK of NOS will increase the probability that NOS will manifest itself in the classroom.

Pavez, Vergara, Santibanez & Cofre (2016)

Successfully used history of science to improve teachers’ views of NOS.

Mulvey & Bell (2017) Used contextualized and non-contextualized NOS instruction in a yearlong professional development. Participants gained and maintained sophisticated views of NOS.

36

The empirical studies tended to fall into two realms, (1) discovery of factors that

influence teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science, and (2) attempts to cause a

change in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. There is some overlap in these

two categories because some studies determined that a particular factor could influence

teachers’ conceptions of NOS, while others made similar determinations while

attempting to cause change in teachers’ conceptions of NOS.

Factors Influencing Conceptions of NOS

Eight factors surfaced in the literature that could affect teachers’ conceptions of

the nature of science. Those factors included (1) depth of knowledge about NOS, (2)

subject matter knowledge, (3) conceptual ecologies of the teacher, (4) socio-cultural

view, (5) spirituality of the teacher, (6) measures of ethics and intelligence, (7) religious

view points of the teacher, and (8) the teacher’s conception of nature.

One influence on a teachers’ conception of the nature of science is depth of

knowledge about both the nature of science and about the subject matter that the teacher

is teaching (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). This was revisited by Bartos and Lederman,

(2014) as they suggested that developing pedagogical content knowledge of the nature of

science will increase the likelihood that nature of science will be included in classroom

instruction. Southerland et al. (2006) spoke of conceptual ecologies where nature of

science is concerned. They determined that a teacher’s conception of science, as either

a product, a process, or a mixture of the two, and how the teacher organizes his or her

conception of science will influence his or her conception of the nature of science. Abd-

El-Khalick and Akerson (2004) also suggested a relationship between how teachers view

37

science and how they view the nature of science. Liu and Lederman (2007) suggested

that teachers’ socio-cultural views have an impact on the teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science. Those teachers who tend to view the world in a more nature-centric

fashion tend to have more sophisticated views of the nature of science when compared to

those who have a more anthropocentric view. This is similar to the findings of Ma

(2009) whose data also indicated that participants’ conceptions of nature had an impact

on views of the nature of science. Akerson and Donnelly, (2008), suggested from their

study that high spirituality on the part of the teachers has a negative influence on the

teachers’ views of NOS. Further, Akerson, Buzzelli, and Donnelly (2008) indicated that

participants from their study who had higher ratings on scales of ethics and intelligence

tended to have more informed views of NOS. Finally, Iqbal, Azam, and Rena (2009)

studied the relationship between participants’ views of indigenous religion and

indigenous culture and their views of the nature of science. Their study suggested that

culturally-based beliefs do impact participants’ views of the nature of science.

In examining these studies together, it becomes clear that a teacher’s personal

framework (e.g. depth of knowledge, religious, ethical, cultural) creates a filter through

which the nature of science is conceptualized. The indications of these studies would

need to be considered when examining any disparities found in a study among

participants’ views of the nature of science.

Attempts to Effect a Change in Views of NOS

Along with the studies illuminating factors which were shown to influence

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science, 26 of the 46 empirical studies focused on

38

attempts to generate a positive change in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science.

Among the factors that researchers have used to support positive change in teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science are (1) explicit and reflective teaching of NOS

concepts, (2) concepts of NOS being taught contextually, (3) additions of history and

philosophy of science, (4) specific instruction in scientific inquiry, (5) specific

instruction in the pedagogical content knowledge of NOS, (6) building a community of

practice, and (7) specific instruction in argumentation.

The factor that is specifically mentioned in more empirical studies focused on

improving teachers’ NOS views than any other factor was the inclusion of explicit and

reflective teaching of NOS. In the 46 empirical studies focused on here, 21 of them

specifically mentioned the use of explicit and reflective instruction as a way to improve

teachers’ views of the nature of science. An explicit teaching of nature of science

concepts was defined by Lederman, Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, & Bell (2001) as being

instruction that is, “intentionally planned for, taught, and assessed rather than expected to

come about as the by-product of teaching science content or process skill or of engaging

students in science activities” (p. 137). Lederman et al. (2001) further explained that

explicit teaching of nature of science, “intentionally draws learners’ attention to relevant

aspects of NOS through discussion, guided reflection, and specific questioning in the

context of activities, investigations, and historical examples intended to improve

students’ conceptions of NOS” (p. 137). Although not part of the 46 studies due to its

publication date, Lederman et al. (2001) suggested that explicit instruction in the nature

of science with pre-service teachers positively impacted their conceptions of the nature of

science. The studies that have used explicit and reflective teaching to influence teachers’

39

concepts of the nature of science included those that focused on pre-service teachers

(Abd- El-Khalick & Ackerson, 2004, 2009; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011;

Cochrane, 2003; Lotter, Singer, & Godley, 2009; McDonald, 2008; Smith &

Scharmann, 2008) and those that focused on in-service teachers (Akerson & Cullen,

2007; Akerson, Townsend, Donnelly, Hanson, Tira, & White, 2009; Cakiroglu, Dogan,

Bilican, Cavus, & Arslan, 2009; Capps & Crawford, 2013; Faikhamta, 2013; Gess-

Newsome, 2002; Morrison, Raab, & Ingram, 2009; Mulvey & Bell, 2017; Posnanski,

2010; Schwartz, Lederman & Crawford, 2004; Schwartz, Westerung, Garcia, & Taylor,

2010; Seung, Bryan, & Butler, 2009) The common factor among each of these studies

was that instruction in concepts of the nature of science was done through planned,

intentional activities meant to point out how the activity related to specific tenets of the

nature of science. In several studies (e.g. Cochrane, 2003; Seung, Bryan, & Butler,

2009) explicit and reflective instruction in the concepts of NOS was directly compared to

implicit instruction (i.e. instruction through inquiry activities that does not specifically

draw attention to the tenets of NOS). Results indicated that explicit instruction

generated greater levels of sophistication in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science

than did implicit instruction that did not specifically draw attention to the tenets of nature

of science.

Situating instruction of the concepts of the nature of science into context within

scientific concepts also figured prominently in the literature being part of 13 of the

empirical studies (Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007; Akerson, Townsend, Donnelly, Hanson,

Tira, & White, 2009; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011; Capps & Crawford, 2013;

Cullen, Akerson, & Hanson, 2010; Faikhamta, 2013; Matkins, Bell, Irving, & McNall,

40

2002; McDonald, 2008; Morrison, Raab, & Ingram, 2009; Mulvey & Bell, 2017;

Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004; Schwartz, Westerund, Garcia, & Taylor, 2010;

Seung, Bryan, & Butler, 2009) When teachers were presented with information about

the nature of science as an add-on to instruction in a methods course, they were likely to

see NOS as something supplemental rather than something integral to science instruction

(Matkins, Bell, Irving, & McNall, 2002). Schwartz et al. (2004), within a framework of

situated learning, provided authentic science experiences (Chinn & Malhatra, 2002) in

the form of science research internships to pre-service secondary science teachers in

conjunction with seminars with explicit instruction in concepts of NOS. Their findings

suggested that context was a major factor in connecting scientific inquiry to concepts of

the nature of science. Schwartz et al. (2010) utilized the context of science research

immersion with practicing scientists for their study with in-service teachers. They varied

the amount of explicit instruction in NOS that was received by two different groups.

Their findings suggested that context resulted in some gains in concepts of the nature of

science for all participants and the group that experienced both contextualized instruction

and explicit instruction made significantly greater gains. In these example studies, one

with pre-service teachers (Schwartz et al., 2004) and one with in-service teachers

(Schwartz et al, 2010), context was identified as an important factor in successful

instruction of the nature of science. Seung, Bryan, and Butler (2009) endeavored to

compare three approaches to teaching NOS to pre-service science teachers, explicit/non-

contextual, explicit/contextual, and explicit/case-based. Their findings indicated that

those pre-service teachers who experienced the explicit/contextual instruction showed the

most change in their conceptions of the nature of science.

41

Closely related to situating the learning of NOS concepts within context is the

inclusion of scientific inquiry with NOS instruction. Engaging in scientific inquiry alone

does not tend to produce a fully developed concept of the nature of science (Schwartz et

al., 2004), however scientific inquiry does provide a context from which one can

explicitly address the nature of science (Schwartz & Crawford, 2006). Most of the

studies that involved NOS in context also involved scientific inquiry, but ten studies

specifically mentioned scientific inquiry ( Akerson & Cullen, 2007; Akerson &

Hanuscin, 2007; Capps & Crawford, 2013; Cochrane, 2003; Gess-Newsome, 2002;

Morrison et al., 2009; Mulvey & Bell, 2017; Posnanski, 2010; Schwartz et al., 2004;

Schwartz et al., 2010). Scientific inquiry is defined as “the characteristics of the

scientific enterprise and the process through which scientific knowledge is acquired,

including the conventions and ethics involved in development, acceptance, and utility of

scientific knowledge” (Schwartz et al., 2004, p. 611). Studies such as Capps and

Crawford (2013), Cochrane (2003), Gess-Newsome (2002) and Schwartz et al. (2004)

included scientific inquiry and authentic science activities within the scope of their pre-

service teacher courses or as part of in-service staff development. Other studies, such as

Schwartz et al. (2010), immersed teachers in authentic science by having them work with

scientists. In both cases, teachers participated in authentic science in conjunction with

participating in explicit instruction in the concepts of NOS. resulting in increased

sophistication of the teachers’ conceptions of NOS. Morrison, Raab, and Ingram (2009)

found that one-on-one interviews and conversation with the scientists whom they were

shadowing had the greatest impact on teachers’ views of NOS. This study immersed

secondary, middle, and elementary science teachers in science research at a research

42

facility for two consecutive summers. Based on the literature described above, taking

part in scientific inquiry, which is the way that scientific knowledge is developed, is an

integral component in developing an understanding of how scientific knowledge is

developed (i.e. NOS).

Six of the empirical studies utilized additional courses or additions to existing

courses focusing on the history and philosophy of science in order to address conceptions

of the nature of science that are inconsistent with current standards (Abd-El- Khalick,

2005; Akerson, Morrison, & McDuffie, 2006; Faikhamta, 2013; Lin & Chin, 2002;

Pavez, Vergara, Santibanez, & Coffee, 2016; Tsai, 2006). Lin & Chin (2002) taught

pre-service Taiwanese science teachers to teach chemistry through the history of science.

Their findings indicated that increased knowledge of the history of science enhanced the

conceptions of the nature of science in the participating pre-service teachers. Pavez et al.

(2016) also made use of the history of science to successfully improve teachers’ views of

NOS. Both Abd-El-Khalick (2005) and Tsai (2006) focused on courses including the

philosophy of science as a way to enhance the conceptions of the nature of science for

pre-service and in-service teachers respectively. Akerson et al. (2006) demonstrated

with their study of pre-service teachers that one course in NOS is not enough to generate

and maintain a change in views of the nature of science. Herman et al. (2013) also

suggested that having course work training in NOS with pre-service teachers without

follow up training does not guarantee that NOS concepts will be transferred to classroom

behavior as the pre-service teachers become in-service teachers. The literature here is

mixed. Courses in history and philosophy seem to have a positive effect on the

43

conceptions of the nature of science, but the data suggests that, by themselves, they are

not enough to make lasting changes to teachers’ views.

In their review of literature focused on improving science teachers’ conceptions

of the nature of science Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) elucidate eight major

factors that have an effect on teachers incorporating NOS into their regular classroom

instruction. These factors include pressure to cover content, classroom management,

organizational principles, concerns regarding the abilities and motivation of students,

institutional constraints, teaching experience, discomfort with their own understanding of

NOS, and a lack of resources for teaching NOS to students. Lederman (1999) pointed

out that teachers’ informed conceptions of NOS are necessary, but not sufficient for

teachers to teach NOS to students. The 2000 literature review (Abd-El-Khalick &

Lederman, 2000) corroborates the 1999 Lederman assertion. In his work focusing on

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), Shulman (1987) noted that teachers cannot teach

what they do not know. It is necessary to work to enhance teachers’ conceptions of NOS,

but further, it is necessary to determine ways to help teachers incorporate NOS concepts

into their classroom practice to help guide the development of an understanding of NOS

by their students.

In five of the empirical studies, researchers used the addition of pedagogical

content knowledge (PCK) for teaching NOS as a support for enhancing the teachers’

concepts of NOS and as well as increasing the likelihood that the teachers’ classroom

practice would include teaching concepts of NOS (Bartos & Lederman, 2014; Faikhamta,

2013; Hanuscin, 2013; Hanuscin, Lee, & Akerson, 2010; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002).

PCK is characterized as content knowledge related to the “teachability” of that content or

44

“a way to represent it so that it is comprehensible to others” (Schulman, 1986, p.9). In a

case study of two beginning secondary science teachers, Schwartz and Lederman (2002)

suggested an interaction between teachers’ knowledge of NOS, their beliefs, and their

pedagogical content knowledge of NOS. Bartos and Lederman (2014) concurred and

went further to indicate that developing PCK of NOS with teachers increased the

probability that NOS concepts will manifest in teachers’ classroom practice. Faikhamta

(2013) put forward a method of teaching teachers PCK for teaching NOS. His work

suggested that the increased knowledge of PCK of NOS made teachers more confident in

their ability to teach NOS. Hanuscin et al. (2010) addressed the PCK of assessing NOS

content as it was noted that knowledge of how to assess NOS was not generally

something that is part of the assessment strategies that science teachers are taught.

Regarding the PCK of NOS, the literature pointed to the inclusion of PCK of NOS as a

way to enhance teachers’ conceptions of NOS and to help teachers develop the

confidence to teach NOS.

Wenger (1998) used the term “community of practice” in referring to a group that

can support one another. Professional development can help bring about communities of

practice or professional learning communities (p. 7). In fact, Loucks-Horsley et al.

(2010) called for schools to “break down the barriers… [and to]… promote collaboration

and sharing of effective practices” (p. 31). Within learning communities, teachers are

impacted because they are placed into an environment in which they can collaborate,

participate in experimentation with teaching innovations (p. 144). Communities of

practice facilitate the engagement of teachers in challenging discourse about their

teaching practices (p. 145). That discourse allows teachers to critique one another and

45

essentially coach one another in order to identify areas of need in teaching, and thus

teachers provide support for one another as the initiate a change in practice (p. 153).

Four of the empirical studies discussed here employed community of practice as a

support to enhance the learning of NOS concepts (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003;

Akerson, Cullen, & Hanson, 2009; Akerson, Donnelly, & Argyle, 2011; Akerson &

Hanuscin, 2007).

It is important to note that each of the four studies discussed here involved

elementary level science teachers or pre-service elementary science teachers. All four

were extended length professional development programs, lasting between one and three

years. These studies suggested that building a community of practice created the social

support needed to help the teachers activate their NOS understandings (Akerson & Abd-

El-Khalick, 2003). They further indicated that having the community not only

improved the teachers’ concepts of NOS, but also had a generally positive effect on their

science pedagogy (Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007). Akerson, Cullen and Hanson (2009)

noted that community of practice on its own was not sufficient to change teachers’

practice. This mirrors studies that suggested inquiry alone was not sufficient to change

teachers’ practice regarding NOS (Schwartz et al., 2004; Mulvey & Bell, 2017). When

community of practice was used in conjunction with explicit and reflective teaching of

the NOS concepts, community of practice provided the support for enhancement of

teachers’ conceptions of NOS.

Three of the reviewed empirical studies employed training in the use of

argumentation in order to enhance teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science

(McDonald, 2008; McDonald, 2010; Ogunniyi, 2006). Ogunniyi (2006) describes

46

argumentation as rhetorical and reflective tool used by scientists, historians, philosophers

and sociologists of science. McDonald provided the definition of argumentation from

Toulmin (1958). Argumentation is an assertion and its accompanying justification

(McDonald, 2010 p. 1138). In Ogunniyi (2006), the argumentation was focused on

major events in scientific history (e.g. heliocentric v. geocentric solar system, the

acceptance of atomic models). Argumentation in McDonald (2010) focused more on

contemporary issues (e.g. relationships between diet, exercise and health, relationship

between cigarette smoking and cancer). In both Ogunniyi (2006) and McDonald (2008,

2010) argumentation was shown to enhance participants’ conceptions of the nature of

science. “Teachers were encouraged (in the Ubuntu spirit – the good of all) to see the

discussions as representing their collective search for valid and justifiable reasons for

particular stances rather than seeking only domination of a particular stance” (Ogunniyi,

2006, p. 95).

In looking at all of the literature related to influencing teachers’ concepts of the

nature of science patterns emerge. First, the majority of the studies focus on elementary

science teachers (29 of the 46). Second, explicit and reflective teaching of NOS concepts

is the most common innovation used to support development of an enhanced conception

of NOS. Explicit and reflective teaching of NOS concepts is common even when other

innovations are also used to enhance teachers’ views of NOS. The literature was clear

that explicit and reflective teaching of NOS concepts was shown to be more effective

than implicit teaching. Third, teaching NOS concepts within the context of science,

authentic science activities, and scientific inquiry has also been demonstrated to be

effective in teaching concepts of NOS, typically when done in conjunction with explicit

47

and reflective teaching. Finally, including specialty courses such as science history and

science philosophy, including training in the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of

NOS, building a community of practice, and including training in argumentation,

typically each in conjunction with explicit and reflective teaching of the concepts of

NOS, all have shown positive results in enhancing teachers’ views of NOS.

The Anomaly

One study that stood out among the rest was Linneman, Lynch, Kurup, Webb, and

Bantwini (2003). This study stood out in that it did not show any enhancement of

participants’ views of NOS. The researchers in this study were attempting to determine

the general views of NOS for 135 pre-service teachers in South Africa. To frame their

study, the researchers used four schools of thought (Linneman et al., 2003, p. 37)

(1) apriorism – understanding of nature can arise as a consequence of one’s thinking

(2) realism – there exists an objective truth about nature that is independent of one’s

thinking

(3) empiricism/logical positivism – knowledge is confined to the world of experience

and the aim of science is to produce theories that predict phenomena

(4) conventionalism – theory and truth are not fixed by nature but are creations of the

mind.

The researchers used a questionnaire with a Likert scale to assess into which of the above

schools of thought each of the teachers would fall. The items included issues such as

connections between daily life and HIV/AIDS and concerns about places for indigenous

science in the science curriculum. The results of the questionnaire could not lead to any

48

clear generalization and the researchers were unable to determine the adequacy of the

knowledge of NOS for the pre-service teachers in the test group. This study stands in

contrast to the other studies presented because it makes no determination.

Peer Coaching

Peer coaching was a support mechanism integral to the intervention, which was

the professional development program for developing knowledge of the nature of science.

Research in the area of reciprocal peer coaching included here focuses on formats as well

as benefits and drawbacks of reciprocal peer coaching. Additionally, studies that

indicate possible successes and failures of peer coaching are included.

In searching for empirical studies, models, and literature reviews focusing on the

efficacy of reciprocal peer coaching, the key word “peer coaching” was used to begin the

search. Articles and studies that focused on mentoring new teachers, coaching students,

administrative roles in peer coaching, and using coaching as a form of teacher evaluation

were excluded because those coaching issues are not the focus of the current study.

Additional searches were used adding the key words “effects on views of the nature of

science”, “ secondary science teachers”, and “science teachers” to “peer coaching” in

order to refine the search. The snowball technique of mining the references of

appropriate articles was also employed to locate additional relevant literature (Krathwohl,

1998). In all, twenty-three articles including seventeen empirical studies were identified

as having a focus important to the current study. Additionally identified, during the

search described, were five books, which focused on planning, establishing, and

maintaining a viable peer coaching program in a school.

49

To define peer coaching, one must look at the history of academic coaching.

Showers and Joyce (1996) explored the history and evolution of peer coaching. They

noted that data from the 1970’s indicated very low rates of skill transfer from teacher

professional development to classroom practice, prompting a series of studies that

included seminars and coaching sessions (Joyce & Showers, 1980). Baker and Showers

(1984) reported after the previously mentioned studies that the participants who were part

of peer coaching groups demonstrated significantly greater long-term retention of

strategies learned in professional development and that they also demonstrated more

appropriate use of the newly learned strategies.

Several definitions of peer coaching can be found in the literature (See Table 2.3).

There are many characteristics, which are shared among all of the definitions. Peer

coaching is a dyadic relationship in which two professional colleagues work together to

plan, pool experiences, practice new skills, conduct action research, teach one another,

problem solve together, and work together in order to expand their professional

repertoires (Robbins, 1991; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Swafford, 1998; Wong & Nicotera,

2003). Several typologies have been published regarding the types of peer coaching.

Wong and Nicotera (2003) distinguished five types: technical coaching, team coaching,

collegial coaching, cognitive coaching, and challenge coaching. Swafford (1998) gave us

three more types: expert coaching, reciprocal coaching, and reflective coaching. Most

peer coaching experiences likely involve multiple types and truly these eight types can be

corralled into a few larger groups. Here the focus will be on two types, expert coaching

and reciprocal coaching.

50

Author Definition Robbins (1991) Peer coaching is a confidential process through which two

or more professional colleagues work together to reflect on current practices, expand, refine and build new skills, share ideas, teach one another, conduct classroom research, and solve problems in the workplace. (p. 1)

Gottesman (2000) Peer coaching is a simple non-threatening structure designed for peers to help each other improve instruction or learning situations. (p. 5)

Wong & Nicotera (2003) Peers are used to help achieve the goal of improving the teaching and learning process

Tschannen-Moran, & Tschannen-Moran (2010)

Coaching has arisen to fill the professional development gap. It does so by getting people to think about their own experiences and to practice new behaviors 2015over time. (p.4)

Parker, Kram, & Hall (2012)

A dyadic relationship with the potential to foster significant learning for one or both parties.

Foltos (2013) Peer coaching is one teacher helping another to improve (p. 3)

Robbins (2015) Peer coaching is a powerful, confidential, non-evaluative process through which two or more colleagues work together (p. 9)

Expert coaching requires that one member of the dyad be a specially trained

teacher (or other professional) with an expertise in the particular area, or particular

methods that are targeted for improvement (Swafford, 1998). This type of coaching

involves having the “expert” observe the “novice” in teaching situations and then provide

feedback to the novice specifically regarding the methods or skills that have been

targeted.

Reciprocal coaching is a configuration in which each member of the dyad has the

intention of supporting the other’s teaching and in a “reciprocal” manner taking turns

being the coach and the one being coached (Zwart et al., 2009). Swafford (1998)

Table 2.3 Definitions of Peer Coaching

51

described reciprocal coaching as an arrangement in which teachers observe and coach

each other so that instruction can be improved.

Both of these forms of coaching involve a dyad, a pair of professionals, with

improvement of skills or methods of some sort as their target. In both cases, one

member of the dyad team observes the other in order to give constructive feedback on

what has been observed. In the case of expert coaching, one member of the dyad is the

coach and the other is the one being coached, whereas in reciprocal coaching, both

members of the dyad are at various times either the coach or the one being coached. As

Swafford (1998) stated, the type of peer coaching will change depending on the need of

the participants. In the current study, expert coaching was only a minor part as

participants first attempted to share how they planned to incorporate the nature of science

into their lessons. After the expert coaching within the professional development class,

the primary form of peer coaching that occurred with participants was reciprocal peer

coaching, which took place between professional development class meeting times.

Baker and Showers (1984) suggested that there was a positive impact on those

who participated in peer coaching. This suggestion led to follow up studies. In looking

at the current body of literature, seventeen empirical studies were identified as having

relevance to the current study.

52

Table 2. 4 Empirical studies Implementation of Peer Coaching

Authors Results Ross (1992) Positive correlation between increased

coaching of teachers and student achievement.

Showers & Joyce (1996) Implementation of PD concepts increases with peer coaching

Kent (2000) Themes indicated include – reflection, collaboration, validation, assistance with difficulties.

Slater & Simmons (2001) Confidence built; isolation overcome; adapted new strategies

Horn & Dallas (2002) Themes indicated include – collaboration, collegiality, communication, cooperation

Thijs & van der Berg (2002) Peer coaching is an effective tool for learning new concepts

Sekerka & Chao (2003) Peer coaching encourages reflection and the process benefits both the coach and the coached.

Goker (2006) Peer coaching increased the reported self-efficacy of teachers

Ladyshewsky (2006) [medical field] Competition between students was reduced as a result of peer coaching.

Huston & Weaver (2008) Peer coaching served as a successful way to fulfill the professional development needs of experienced faculty.

Zwart, Wubbles, Bolhous, & Bergen (2008)

Coached teachers are more likely to try new strategies.

Baheridoust & Jajarmi (2009) Coaching positively impacted the efficacy of teachers.

Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, & Bolhous (2009)

Coaching provides a safe, constructive, trustworthy environment for discussion and feedback.

Sinkinson (2011) Positive perceptions of coaching in this pilot study supported the continuation of coaching.

Rajab (2013) Coaching allows teachers to take ownership of their professional development.

Benson & Cotabish (2015) Participants attributed their increased knowledge and skills to reflection with their coach.

Scott (2015) Mixed results. No differences shown between the group that were coached and

53

the group that was not coached. There was significant difference within the coached group depending on how long one had been coached.

Of the identified empirical studies, all but four are qualitative in their

methodology. Two are quantitative studies and two are mixed methods studies, although

one of the mixed methods studies, Thijs and van der Berg (2002), cited no mixed

methods research literature in their methodology. Four of the qualitative studies follow

a case study design. The remaining studies utilize surveys, observations, digital diaries,

and interviews with varying numbers of participants. Each of the peer coaching

empirical studies identified except Scott (2015), suggested that peer coaching has a

positive impact on those who participate in the coaching. Scott (2015) does purport that a

statistical difference does exist in the perceptions of the efficacy of coaching between

those who first start in the coaching program and those who have been in the program for

a length of time. Only one study, (Ross, 1992) offered data that is directly related to

student achievement rather than to a measure of teacher success or teacher perceptions.

Ross (1992) affirmed that the students of teachers who are being coached showed higher

levels of achievement than those students of teachers who were not being coached as

measured using multiple-choice items from the Ontario Assessment Instrument Pool.

Reflection on one’s teaching was a common denominator found in each of the

analyzed peer coaching studies. Huston and Weaver (2008), in a study of university

instructors, found that critical reflection was a benefit of peer coaching. This finding

appeared in a study designed to generate effective professional development for

experienced university instructors in order to meet their needs for continued learning..

54

Huston and Weaver noted that an experienced faculty needs “opportunities for reflection

on practice and critical reflection on teaching” and peer coaching brings these

opportunities (Huston & Weaver, 2008 p. 10). Swafford (1998) found that coaches

provide three kinds of support: procedural, affective, and reflective. She further

explained that coaches “scaffolded conversations in post-observation conferences so they

moved conversations beyond procedures to clarifying issues… reflecting on teachers’

strengths… choices of materials, questioning strategies…” (Swafford, 1998 p. 56). This

same type of reflection was noted by Bianchini and Cavazos (2007) in a study focusing

on communities of practice, in which they found that weekly reflection with one’s coach,

inquiring into ones own practice, was integral to becoming a skilled teacher. Wong and

Nicotera (2003) in their review of literature focusing on strategies for developing a peer

coaching program, found that peer coaching is instrumental for encouraging reflection on

the teaching and learning process. Peer coaching, they found, provided an impetus for

participants to critically examine, together with a colleague - their partner coach – any

aspect of their teaching behavior.

In literature describing peer coaching, reflection surfaced as a primary component

and benefit throughout. In her work in peer coaching, Swafford (1998) described

reflection as one of the key areas of support that coaches provide. Parker, Kram, and

Hall (2012) spoke of the need for regular reflection in a coaching relationship. Foltos

(2013) noted the importance of reflecting on what went well and what did not go well

during an observation of a peer-coaching event. Zwart, Wubbles, Bergin, and Bolhuis

(2007) conducted an in-depth qualitative study focusing on experienced secondary

teachers and their patterns of change while engaged in peer coaching. They found peer

55

coaching to be a fundamental component of professional development as teachers were

able to reflect on the learning of the professional development exchanging professional

ideas and shared problem solving. They further concluded that reflection promoted by

reciprocal coaching can lead to changes in knowledge and beliefs which can result in

changes in practice. A participant in a study presented by Sekerka and Chao, which

focused on peer coaching as it occurs in teaching hospitals between medical students and

medical interns, stated “I get protected time for reflection. I think any time you step back

and observe someone else’s teaching behavior you begin to reflect upon your own”

(Sekerka and Chao, 2003 p. 34)

Along with the importance of reflection, the concept of increasing teachers’ self-

efficacy and confidence surfaced as a common theme in studies of peer-coaching

(Bagheridoust & Jajarmi, 2009; Goker, 2006; Slater & Simmons, 2001; Zwart, Wubbles,

Bolhuis, & Bergen, 2008; Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, & Bolhuis, 2009). Goker (2006)

worked with students preparing to be teachers of English as a foreign language

specifically comparing the skills and self-efficacy of those who trained using peer-

coaches and those who were not. His findings suggested that peer coaching supported an

increase in skill level as well as an increase in the self-efficacy of the participants. Slater

and Simmons (2001), in a study designed to determine how teachers would benefit from

a peer-coaching program, found that peer coaching helped teachers overcome isolation

and build confidence to try new pedagogical strategies. Zwart et al. (2008) found that

coached teachers are more likely to experiment with new pedagogical practices. This

was again seen by Zwart et al. (2009) as they indicated that the peer coaching

56

environment generates a setting in which teachers feel a certain pressure to try new

instructional methods and feel safe enough to do so.

In looking to the literature to describe the benefits and characteristics of peer

coaching, it is found that Showers described coached teachers as (1) generally practicing

new strategies more often, (2) using new strategies more appropriately, (3) exhibiting

longer retention of knowledge and skill (4) more likely to teach new strategies to their

students, (5) exhibiting clearer cognition of purpose and uses of new strategies (Showers,

1985 p. 22). Parker et al. (2012) added that peer coaching must involve teachers of equal

status. Foltos (2013) also prioritized equal status in his description of peer coaching.

He described equality as being one of the keys to a healthy coaching relationship.

Another key to building a friendly relationship, successful Peer Coaches believe,

is to make it clear to their learning partners that they are true peers. Coaches

repeatedly say that when they collaborated with another teachers, they work hard

to prove that they are equals who want to work and learn together to improve

teaching and learning. (Foltos, 2013 p. 9)

Mazukiewicz and Fisher (2013) also brought forward the need for equality between

coaching pairs. They emphasized the necessity that the all parties involved in coaching

must feel that effort, input and critique, and the work itself of improving targeted skills

must be equally shared between members of the coaching pair.

Other characteristics that literature suggested are to be found in peer coaching

programs are focus on personal growth (Parker et al., 2012), potential to promote

collaboration (Horn & Dallas, 2002;Wong & Nicotera, 2003), promotion of feedback

57

(Huston & Weaver, 2008; Masurkiewicz & Fisher, 2013; Wong and Nicotera, 2003;

Zwart et al., 2009), and they allow professional development to be ongoing and

continuous (Huston & Weaver, 2008; Masurkiewicz & Fisher, 2013).

Although it is generally accepted that peer coaching is a valuable tool for

professional development (Loucks-Horsley et al.,2010; Showers, 1982; 1984; 1985;

Swafford, 1998; Wong and Nicotera, 2003), given the nature of the relationship between

the teachers involved in a peer coaching dyad, it is possible that problems could be

associated with peer coaching events. In peer coaching, there is a mutual consultation

between teachers of equal status (Murray et al., 2009). This central tenet of mutual

consultation can open the door to possible issues. Parker, Kram, and Hall define peer

coaching as a dyadic relationship between two individuals of equal status that has the

primary purpose of supporting the personal and professional development of both parties

(Parker, Kram, & Hall, 2012 p. 362). Parker et al. (2012) explained the potential

problems that may occur in peer coaching with three different levels of potential

problems and how those problems interact with one another. The three levels of

possible problems that were examined are (1) situations with the individual, (2) situations

occurring with relations, and (3) situations that are found within the context of the

coaching event. Ladyshewsky (2006) indicated that just putting two people together and

asking them to coach one another will not bring success.

Individual factors that present problems within a peer coaching setting might

include lack of skills necessary to contribute to the mutual learning, lack of self-

awareness, mind-sets toward relational learning, ability to move beyond what is

immediately present, unrealistic expectations, and lack of motivation. Each of these

58

could potentially undermine peer coaching. Wong and Nicotera (2003) addressed the

problem of lack of necessary skills or necessary training. If either partner of the peer

coaching dyad lacks the skill to effectively coach and be coached, that is to listen and

offer constructive thoughts without moving to what might be considered an

“expert/novice” relationship, then the coaching relationship will breakdown. Participants

must have the skill to be coach and be willing to be coached. Communication skills fall

into this category as well, which can lead to unrealistic expectations because one or both

members of the dyad failed to communicate effectively to the other.

The second group of possible impediments to the peer coaching process is

relational or interpersonal factors (Parker et al., 2012). These factors include lack of

relational competence, overdependence, bad intentions, and betrayal or regret. Each of

the possible issues in the relational or dyadic group is very similar to issues found in the

discussion of individual issues. That these issues are discussed in the relational section as

well indicates the interconnectedness that Parker et al. (2012) uses as their framework for

presenting possible problems associated with peer coaching.

The third realm of possible issues for peer coaching contains contextual issues.

Wong and Nicotera (2003) indicate that many school systems have limited funds to put

into professional development and this can create a context in which peer coaching is not

full supported. It can also create a context that Parker et al. (2012) described as having

inappropriate incentives or rewards, which itself could lead to competition between

teachers. In a competitive culture, members of a coaching dyad may not be willing to

fully engage in supporting their partners. The strength of peer coaching is in its ability

59

to promote a culture of collaboration (Wong & Nicotera, 2003). If coaching pairs are

competing against each other, they will not likely be fully engaged in collaboration.

Arnau, Kahrs, and Kruskamp (2004) suggested that peer coaching should be

voluntary, encourage respect, be collaborative, and involve critical reflection. If these

characteristics are kept in mind when planning a professional development program that

includes peer coaching, including training in how to effectively listen to the other

member of one’s coaching dyad and give appropriate feedback, then as Parker et al.

stated, the outcomes of the professional development are more likely to be achieved

(Parker et al., 2012).

In sum, the literature reviewed indicated that peer coaching is a viable approach to

address continuing professional development needs with teachers as a stand-alone

program (Huston & Weaver, 2008; Mazurkiewicz & Fisher, 2013). Additionally, the

literature suggested that when peer coaching is used as a support to reinforce skills from

professional development, coached teachers tend to retain and use the skills learned in the

professional development more often and more appropriately than those who were not

coached (Baheridoust & Jajarmi, 2009; Jao, 2013; Showers & Joyce, 1996). Further,

provisions for training effective coaches have been recommended (Foltos, 2013;

Gottesman, 2000; Robbins, 1991, 2015). These authors elaborated that effective peer

coaches should listen to their coaching partners without being evaluative, be supportive

and encouraging of their coaching partners, and work to maintain equality with their

coaching partners. Additionally, peer coaches should work together to determine what

skills or activities will be the focus of a coaching session They should reflect regularly,

60

focusing on professional growth and maintain a non-competitive relationship with one

another (Parker et al., 2012).

Although the practice of peer coaching has been shown to be an effective support

strategy for professional development (Huston & Weaver, 2008; Mazurkiewicz & Fisher,

2013), in searches using the Google Scholar search engine, the ERIC data base, as well as

data bases of the major peer reviewed science education journals, Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, Science Education, Science and Education, The International Journal

of Science Education, and the Journal of Science Teacher Education, no studies were

found linking peer coaching with professional development that focused on enhancing

the conceptions of the nature of science held by science teachers. As no empirical

studies have been found to make the link between using reciprocal peer coaching as a

professional development support strategy and enhanced conceptions of the nature of

science, it is not known if reciprocal peer coaching, when used as a support strategy,

would be effective in helping science teachers learn the nature of science, activate

knowledge of the nature of science or help promote changes in classroom behavior to

include teaching the nature of science.

Although no literature was found that directly connects peer coaching and

professional development designed to develop teachers’ knowledge of the nature of

science, the literature indicated that peer coaching in other situations is a successful

supporting factor for learning. It follows then that peer coaching would be an efficacious

component to employ, giving teachers a partner with whom to learn, collaborate,

determine ways to incorporate NOS concepts into their classroom practice, then reflect

61

together on those efforts, and thus both grow in both knowledge and skill of teaching

NOS concepts.

Professional Development

The cornerstone of the current study is the effectiveness of a professional

development program designed to enhance teacher’s conceptions of the NOS. In order to

conduct effective professional development, it was necessary to examine the literature

that focused on the consensus of characteristics of effective professional development.

In the world of teacher education, typically the education of teachers is separated

into three phases: pre-service education, when those who plan to become teachers are in

teacher preparation programs and have not yet begun to work on their own as teachers;

induction level teachers, when teachers are in the first four or five years of their education

career; and then the in-service years after induction. After the pre-service time period,

when the teacher is in charge of his or her own classroom, teachers are often offered and

sometimes required to participate in continuing education programs usually called

professional development.

According to the National Academies (2015), professional development programs

are, “learning experiences for teachers that (1) are purposefully designed to support

particular kinds of teacher change, (2) include focused, multi-day sessions for teachers,

(3) may include follow up opportunities, and (4) have a finite duration. Loucks-Horsley

et al. (2010) provided a framework that is very helpful in planning and carrying out of

professional development. This framework included allowing research literature and

standards to guide the goal development of the program. It also included maintaining a

62

connection with what we know about teacher learning, student learning. In other words,

in designing a professional development, one should use “research-based principles.” As

with the National Academies (2015), Loucks-Horsley et al. (2010) advocated that

professional development is linked to classroom practice, provides support for teachers as

they begin to implement those things learned in the program, and ensures that the

program lasts for long enough time build new behaviors in teachers.

In examining the work of Loucks-Horsley et al (2010), four major ways that

formal professional development can impact teachers were identified (1) enhancing

teachers’ knowledge, (2) enhancing quality teaching, (3) developing leadership capacity,

and (4) building professional learning communities. Planned professional development

must address teacher content knowledge. Part of designing professional development is

knowing what one’s audience needs and knowing what the target audience is doing in

classrooms. Loucks-Horsley et al. (2010) referred to context as they discuss the

importance of knowing what is needed most in a particular site. This means that

professional development should be focused on not just general pedagogy, but on what

the teachers are actually teaching, giving relevance to the program. “Teachers need to

experience learning the way they will implement it in the classroom…” (Loucks-Horsley

et al., 2010, p.43).

In a search of descriptions of what constitutes best practices for effective

professional development, the search, “Best practices for science teacher professional

development” was used. Given that the search target was practices for effective science

teacher professional development, articles focusing on professional development policy

were excluded. Articles focusing on pre-service teacher development were excluded

63

from the search since the focus of the current study is in-service teachers. Additionally,

articles that focused on the effectiveness of a particular skill in professional development

and not the characteristics of the professional development that led to those skills were

also excluded. In all, nineteen descriptions of what constitutes effective professional

development were used (see table 2.5).

Study Description of Professional Development Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin

(1995)

- Engage teachers in concrete tasks that illuminate the process of learning and development.

- Grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation that is participant driven

- Must be collaborative and focus on a community of practice

- Connected to and derived from the teachers’ work with his/her students.

- Sustained and ongoing, supported by modeling, coaching, collective problem solving

- Connected to other aspects of school change

Luft & Pizzani (1998) - Modeling behavior is a must - Modeling should take place in

context Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birmin,& Yoon (2001)

- Focus on content - Contain opportunities for active

learning. - Maintain coherence with other

learning activities. - Incorporate collective participation

of teachers - Provides duration to the learning

activity. Van Driel et al. (2001) - Long term professional

development is necessary to achieve

Table 2.5 Descriptions of Professional Development

64

lasting change - Uses effective strategies such as

learning networks, peer coaching, and collaborative action research

Guskey (2003) - Focus on improving teacher pedagogy and content knowledge

- Must last a sufficient amount of time.

- Promotes collegiality and collaboration

- Inclusive of evaluation procedures of the school

- Site based Borko (2004) - Curriculum based

- Should involve strong communities of practice.

Jeanpiere et al. (2005) - Deep science content - Requires teachers to demonstrate

competence - Includes process knowledge

Snow-Gerono (2005) Supportive learning communities and creative dialogue are important for successful professional development.

Banilower, Heck, & Weiss (2007) Sustained professional development improves teachers’ ability to teach science.

Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher (2007)

- Focus on content - Should be aligned to standards

(local, state, national) - Reform based - Should include mentoring or

coaching Lumpe (2007) - Focus on professional learning

communities - Effective feedback to those

participating - Promotes collegiality - Promotes cooperation

Harrison et al. (2008) - Development of teacher learning communities

- Provides opportunity for teachers to reflect

- Builds new practice from existing practice

- Engages teachers in collaborative, long-term inquiries into teaching

65

practices - Content is central

Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson (2010)

- Enhancing teachers’ knowledge - Enhancing quality teaching, - Developing leadership capacity - Building professional learning

communities Capps, Crawford, & Constas (2012) - Supports teachers in developing

inquiry lesson plans - Provides authentic inquiry

experiences - Focuses on science content - Connected to what teachers are

doing in their classes Wilson (2013) - Focus on specific content

- Engages teachers in active learning - Collective participation by teachers - Coherent with local, state, nationals

standards - Duration

Luft & Hewson (2014) - Incorporates adequate support for teacher change

- Opportunities for collaboration - A coherent program - Focus on content knowledge

National Academies (2015) - Purposefully designed to support particular kinds of teacher change,

- Include focused, multi-day sessions for teachers

- May include follow up opportunities

- Have a finite duration Lotter et al. (2016) - Engages teachers in reflection

- Engages teachers in practice teaching of the skills that are the focus on the professional development.

Kyndt, Gijbels, & Grosemans (2016) Informal learning can enhance - subject knowledge - pedagogical knowledge - professional attitudes and identity

66

Loucks-Horsley et al. (2010) made clear that effective professional development

should be set within the context of what participants are doing and that participants

should have opportunity to practice the skills targeted by the professional development.

For the current study, during the meeting times of the program, participants will have the

opportunity to demonstrate the targeted skill, which is teaching the nature of science.

Looking specifically for professional development programs that are designed to

enhance teachers’ views of the nature of science, there is literature that helps inform the

building of this type of professional development. Capps and Crawford (2013) suggested

in a study which was a professional development program designed to increase both

inquiry based learning and the teaching of the nature of science, that if the professional

development is designed well, even if it is short term, it can support the enhancement of

teachers views of the nature of science. They went further to implicate the importance of

reflection relating the participants’ former teaching practices to their new teaching

practices.

Examining the patterns of information found in the literature for constructing

effective professional development, several key factors stood out. Putnam and Borko

(2000) suggested that teacher learning should be situated within the environment in

which it will be practiced. In the literature examined, content was specifically

mentioned more often than any other characteristic of effective professional

development. Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birmin, and Yoon (2001) along with Penuel,

Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher (2007) suggested a focus on content. Guskey

(2003) indicated that the focus should be on pedagogy and content knowledge. Borko

67

(2004) espoused that professional development should be curriculum based and

Jeanpierre et al. (2005) explained the need for deep science content.

Effective professional development should support a community of practice (Lave

and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Being mentioned in the literature almost as

commonly as being content centered, promoting a collaborative community of practice

was prominent in professional development literature. Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, (1995), Borko (2004), Snow-Gerono (2005), Lumpe (2007), Harrison et al.

(2008) among others, all suggested that professional learning communities and

communities of practice be a part of effective professional development. Harrison et al

(2008) indicated in their study involving teachers in the United Kingdom and in Israel

that effective professional development depends on the shared vision of the teachers

involved in the professional development. Further, they purported that the shared vision

of the community of practice of the professional development gives the teacher

participants a direction and guide to accomplish the task of the professional development

(Harrison et al, 2008, p. 582).

Within learning communities, teachers are impacted because they are placed into

an environment in which they can collaborate, participate in experimentation with

teaching innovations (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). Loucks-Horsley et al. further

explained that communities of practice also allow teachers to engage in challenging

discourse about their teaching practices and that this discourse allows teachers to critique

one another and essentially coach one another in order to identify areas of need in

teaching, and thus teachers provide support for one another as the initiate a change in

practice.

68

Effective professional development should include active learning opportunities

for the teacher participants. Active learning appeared in eight of the nineteen articles

which suggests that providing an opportunity for participants to actively practice what is

being taught in the professional development is a major component determining the

efficacy of the professional development. Garet et al. (2001) along with Wilson (2013)

indicated that opportunities for active learning were important. Jeanpiere et al. (2005)

further suggested that participants should have an opportunity to demonstrate competence

in the skills of the professional development. Harrison et al., (2008) described the active

learning process as allowing teachers to build new practices from existing practices. For

professional development focusing on inquiry in the science classroom, Capps et al.

(2012) advocated that participants be provided with authentic inquiry experiences.

Lotter et al. (2016) supported opportunities for participant teachers to engage in practice

teaching of the focus skills of the professional development. Taken together, these

articles make an argument for incorporating active learning into professional

development.

“Stop facilitating one-shot workshops” (Lumpe, 2007, p. 127). Lumpe

admonished professional development facilitators to plan professional development or

extended time. Nine of the nineteen manuscripts studied prominently mentioned that

professional development should be done over an extended time rather than as a one-time

workshop. Darling-Hammond and Mclaughlin (1995) supported sustained and ongoing

professional development. According to Van Driel et al. (2001) and Banilower et al.

(2007), long term and sustained professional development is necessary to achieve a

lasting change in teachers and improve the teachers’ ability to teach science. Guskey

69

(2003) suggested that professional development must last a sufficient amount of time in

order to be effective. Long-term inquiries (Harrison et al., 2008), duration over an

extended time (Wilson, 2013) and focused, multi-day sessions (National Academies,

2015) are all suggested for effective professional development. Collectively, the literature

suggested that effective professional development should take place over an extended

time.

Supported by the literature as prominently as extended time for professional

development is the characteristic that professional development should be connected to

local, state, and national standards and should connect to reform based teaching. Darling-

Hammond and Mclaughlin (1995) stated that professional development should be

connected to other aspects of school improvement. Penuel et al. (2007) indicated

directly that professional development should be both aligned to standards and reform

based in nature. Wilson (2013) suggested that effective professional development

should be coherent with local, state, national standards. Luft and Hewson (2014) echoed

Wilson stating that professional development should be coherent with standards, school

improvement, and reform documents.

In addition to the five primary characteristics mentioned, there are a few other

characteristics of professional development that are mentioned often in the literature

although not as often as the five primary characteristics. Lotter et al. (2016) and

Harrison et al., (2008) specifically stated that reflection on the part of the participant is

important for effective professional development. This characteristic of professional

development is mirrored in much of the literature of effective instruction for the nature of

science (Faikhamta ,2013; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford ,2004), in the literature

70

regarding communities of practice (Huston & Weaver, 2008), and in literature regarding

peer coaching (Bianchini & Cavazos, 2007; Swafford, 1998; Wong and Nicotera, 2003).

Modeling target behavior during professional development is suggested by Darling-

Hammond and McClaughlin (1995) as well as Luft and Pizzani (1998). Lastly, Wilson

(2013) along with Garet et al. (2001) noted increased effectiveness of the professional

development when there was collective participation by teachers. That is to say when

groups of teachers who were from the same school or same department participated in the

professional development together. Lumpe (2007) noted that professional development

should promote collegiality and cooperation. Having groups that are already colleagues

could help promote collegiality and cooperation.

In sum, the literature explicating the characteristics of effective professional

development suggested that there are definite characteristics that effective professional

development should have. Professional development should (1) focus on content and

be taught within context; (2) support a community of practice among teachers; (3)

provide active learning for the teacher participants; (4) take place over an extended time

period; and (5) connect to local, state, and national standards as well be driven be reform

based teaching. Additionally, reflection, modeling target behavior, and encouraging

collective participation are positive characteristics to include in professional

development.

Summary

Machi and McEvoy (2012) have suggested that a literature review should contain

two types of argument, an argument of discovery, which details what we know about a

71

phenomenon, and an argument of advocacy, which makes a case for questions that need

to follow. They further indicate that advocacy should logically follow discovery.

There are three areas in which the current literature review focused, (1) teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science, (2) peer coaching, and (3) characteristics of

effective professional development.

Argument of Discovery

The literature was clear that effective teaching of NOS concepts should be explicit

and reflective (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004,2009; Capps & Crawford, 2013;

Cochrane, 2003; McDonald, 2008, 2010; Mulvey & Bell, 2017; Swartz, Lederman,

Crawford, 2004; among others). Other interventions such as teaching in context

(Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004), scientific inquiry (Capps & Crawford, 2013),

PCK training (Hanuscin, 2013), and argumentation training (Ogunniyi, 2006) have been

successful in enhancing teachers’ conceptions of NOS, typically when used in

conjunction with explicit and reflective teaching of NOS concepts. Community of

practice has also been used successfully as a support system to enhance teachers’

proclivity in learning concepts of NOS (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Akerson,

Donnelly, Riggs & Eastwood, 2012; Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007). In sum, successful

NOS instruction for teachers should be explicit and reflective, contextual and authentic

(including scientific inquiry), include instruction on how to teach NOS, and include some

sort of support system such as building a community of practice.

The literature suggested that reciprocal peer coaching is a dyadic relationship that

fosters the learning of those involved (Parker, Kram, & Hall, 2012), is non-evaluative

72

(Robbins, 2015), and allows one teacher to help another to reach a goal (Foltos, 2013;

Wong & Nicotera, 2003). Peer coaching is a viable way for organizations to address

continuing professional education and professional development (Huston & Weaver,

2008; Mazurkiewicz & Fischer, 2013). Further, peer coaching has been shown to be an

effective support system when used in conjunction with other professional development

programs in order to provide additional support for teachers as they learn and practice

new skills (Baheridoust & Jajarmi, 2009; Jao, 2013; Showers & Joyce, 1996).

Additionally, peer coaching has been shown to be instrumental in developing a

community of practice (Horn, Dallas, & Strahan, 2002; Parker, Kram, & Hall, 2012;

Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, & Bolhuis, 2009).

In creating professional development, the literature indicated that professional

development should focus on content (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birmin, & Yoon, 2001;

Guskey, 2003; Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010, among others),

provide an opportunity for teachers to practice new skills (Capps, Crawford, Constas,

2012; Luft & Hewson, 2014), take place over an extended time (Harrison, Hofsteiner,

Eylon, & Simon, 2008; Lumpe, 2007; Van Driel, Beijaard, Verloop, 2001), and connect

to local, state and national standards (National Academies, 2015; Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, 1995). Further, development of communities of practice has been shown

to enhance the effectiveness of professional development (Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, 1995; Guskey, 2003; Harrison, Hofsteiner, Eylon, & Simon, 2008; Lumpe,

2007; Snow-Gerono, 2005).

73

Argument of Advocacy

There is overlap in the literature regarding enhancing teachers’ concepts of NOS

and professional development. By definition, attempts to change or enhance a

pedagogical skill or teacher knowledge would be professional development (Louks-

Horsley et al., 2010). There is overlap in the literature between professional

development and reciprocal peer coaching in that peer coaching can be an effective

support intervention for professional development (Huston & Weaver, 2008; Penuel,

Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Showers & Joyce, 1996; Van Driel et al.,

2001).

In carrying out searches with the Google Scholar search engine, the ERIC data

base, as well as data bases of the major peer reviewed science education journals, Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, Science and Education, The

International Journal of Science Education, and the Journal of Science Teacher

Education, no empirical research was found connecting the use of reciprocal peer

coaching to professional development programs designed to enhance teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science. The connection can be made through community

of practice (Wenger, 1998). Community of practice when used as a support

intervention has been shown to help enhance teachers’ concepts of NOS (Akerson &

Abd-El-Khalick, 2003). Community of practice has been identified as a major

component of effective professional development (Snow-Gerono, 2005). Peer coaching

has been shown to help develop a community of practice (Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, &

Bolhuis, 2009). Given that literature has suggested that peer coaching is a way to

develop a community of practice and also that community of practice is useful in

74

supporting enhancement of teachers’ views of NOS, using a chain logic argument (Machi

& McEvoy, 2012), it is reasonable to say that peer coaching would be a useful

intervention to help support the growth of teachers’ conceptions of NOS. There is,

however, no empirical data to support this supposition. Therefore, the literature gap lies

in how peer coaching might support the enhancement of teachers’ NOS views.

Putting these areas together, a professional development designed to enhance

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science should take place over an extended amount

of time, focus on the content that science teachers are teaching, explicitly connect NOS

content to the science content, include opportunities for teachers to reflect and collaborate

on how they are teaching concepts of NOS, provide opportunities for teachers to engage

in authentic scientific inquiry as it is connected to NOS concepts, provide teachers with

knowledge of how NOS concepts are connected to local, state, and national standards,

include skills in how to teach NOS concepts, and provide a support system – peer

coaching – for teachers as they learn NOS and the skills of teaching NOS concepts.

In the chapter that follows, the methodology used in this study is explained along

with the rationale for following the chosen methodology to address the research questions

presented at the beginning of the chapter.

75

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

In order to answer the research questions of the current study, an embedded mixed

methods study (Creswell 2014) was designed which included an instrumental multi-case

study (Stake, 1995), used to elaborate on the findings. The research question and three

sub-questions for the current study are as follows:





1) What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during

the course of the professional development?

2) What incidents of teaching nature of science or willingness of teachers to

include nature of science instruction in their classroom practice are discernable

after a semester-long professional development on teaching the nature of

science?

3) To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching

dyad relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants attribute

any changes in their views of the nature of science?

76

As stated, the overall research design for the current study was an embedded mixed

methods design (Creswell, 2014), in which quantitative data - quantized data from the

Views of the Nature of Science (VNOS - C) instrument - was collected within a larger

qualitative design (See Figure 3.1). The VNOS-C was given to participants both prior to

and after a 15-week professional development program. The purpose of the PD was to

support in several ways, including the use of peer coaching, the development of

knowledge of the nature of science and skills in the ability to teach the nature of science.

The quantized data from the VNOS-C served as a pre to post metric of the participants’

knowledge of the content being addressed in the PD. Qualitative data was collected in

the form of semi-structured interviews with participants during and after the program,

observations of participants during coaching sessions and instructional time, coaching

observation forms, transcripts of each of the professional development sessions, notes

and memos from informal conversations throughout the program with participants, end-

of-program evaluation forms, and artifacts produced by the participants. The qualitative

data was used to determine what the participants were doing with regard to teaching

nature of science concepts and how they were doing it. Additionally, each of the

participants was treated as a separate case with descriptions being constructed from both

the quantitative and the qualitative data. A cross case analysis (Stake, 1995) was used

to further elaborate on the findings.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the overall study design. For each of the five examined cases (1

to n), quantitative data in the form of quantized VNOS-C data was collected both prior to

the beginning of the professional development program and after the professional

development program. Qualitative data was collected for each case throughout the time

77

of the professional development program (see above). Together, these data, both

quantitative and qualitative, were used to generate interpretations and assertions for the

current study.

The participant sampling for the current study was criterion based (Collins, 2010).

All participants were science teachers at the same high school. The criteria for selection

were that participants had to be veteran secondary science teachers, beyond the induction

years of service (5+ years). All were science teachers in a suburban high school and all

had greater than a bachelor’s degree. The size of the participant group was five teachers,

each representing a case. The population of potential participants was limited by

78

constraints set by district level administration in the school system where the study took

place. The study population size was limited by time and commitment constraints of the

teachers within the school’s science department. This sample size would be too small for

a generalizable statistical analysis for comparison to a population, however, the

quantitative analysis will be used as a component to help describe differences and

similarities between the cases, determining if there is a difference that is not due to

chance between pre and post administrations of the VNOS-C instrument. All data was

collected from all of the participants.

The site for this study was the high school at which the principal investigator

works as a member of the science department. This site selection was primarily due to

convenience. The availability of science faculty along with the ability to gain approval

from those involved (e.g. institutional IRB, school system IRB, district level

administration, and local administration) were also factors driving the selection. The

school is a suburban school with approximately 3000 students. Its student population is

very representative demographically of the county in which it is located in that 63% of

the students are members of minority ethnic or cultural groups compared to 61% for the

district as a whole. Forty-one percent of students are eligible for free and reduced lunch

compared to 54% for the district as a whole.

Guiding the current study from a research philosophy standpoint was the paradigm of

pragmatism. Ontologically, it is understood that there can be many possible explanations

for a change in one’s view of the nature of science. In examining the possible effects of

and explanations for a relationship such as the peer coaching relationship on the

conceptions of the nature of science of science teachers, epistemologically, several

79

methods were needed to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Operating

within the framework of pragmatism frees the researcher to use the methods that best

answer the research questions. Pragmatism places more emphasis on the question rather

than the methods and thus allows methods to be chosen based on the question (Creswell

& Plano-Clark, 2011). Greene (2007) suggested that pragmatism rejects, “historical

dualisms [in] its acceptance of both realist and constructivist strands of knowledge.”

(p.84). From the notion of utility, acquiring a fully developed understanding of this

relationship will require both quantitative and qualitative methods (Feilzer, 2010).

Greene (2007) provided five purposes that would lead a researcher to use mixed

methods, one of which is complementarity. Complementarity builds on the strengths of

one or more research methods to complement the possible weakness of other methods,

thereby creating a broader and deeper understanding of what is being studied. In this

study, the quantitative data and qualitative data are complementing each other. The

quantitative data was used to determine if a change had taken place in the participants’

knowledge of NOS and the qualitative data was used to determine how that change was

facilitated. Together, the qualitative and quantitative data were used to answer the

question of the study.

Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Sutton (2006) defined mixed methods research as “a class

of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research

techniques, methods, approaches, concepts, or language in a single study or set of related

studies” (p. 69). Creswell (2014) explained mixed-methods research as “an approach to

inquiry involving both quantitative and qualitative data” (p 4). For this study, mixed-

methods research will be defined as such. Quantitative methods were used to approach

80

research question #1 to determine differences pre and post intervention. Qualitative

methods were used to approach research questions two and three. For sub-question

number two, an exploration of how participants’ classroom practice changed during the

course of the study was undertaken. For sub-question three, participants’ perceptions of

why changes occurred in their perceptions of the nature of science was examined.

A mixed-methods approach to this study will allow the researcher to fill in the gaps

that would be left with a mono-method approach (Feilzer, 2010). The VNOS-C is a

well-documented and used instrument (Lederman et al, 2002), but it only allows the

researcher to determine if there is a change in the participants’ perceptions of the nature

of science, how large of a change, and in what areas. Employing a mixed-methods

approach allowed the determination of what the participants believed most influenced

changes in their conceptions of the nature of science, and thus developed a clearer picture

of this phenomenon. It is primarily for reasons of complementarity that mixed-methods

research was used for this study (Greene, 2007). Examining the peer coaching

relationship and its possible role in improving teachers’ perceptions of the nature of

science from various stand points using both quantitative and qualitative data helped

generate a fuller picture of the phenomenon.

Triangulation (Greene, 2007) was an additional reason for using mixed methods

research. The phenomenon being examined through both quantitative and qualitative

data was the possible effects of peer coaching on the participants’ views of the nature of

science. Quantitatively, any difference in growth of sophistication of conceptions of the

nature of science between the cases was exposed and qualitatively this was examined

81

through interviews, which shed light on what participants viewed as important causes of

any change in their views.

Using multiple cases to compare and elaborate on the findings adds confidence to

findings (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). The quantitative data was used to aid in

describing each of the cases and used together with the qualitative data in order to

generate an interpretation and assertions for the study. Given that multiple cases were

being compared, some standardization was necessary (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana,

2014). The quantized VNOS-C data and use of the same interview protocols gave a

layer of standardization to compare between cases. Stake (1995) has referred to the use

of case study to understand some phenomenon as instrumental case study. This form of

case study was selected in order to gain a better understanding of how each of the

secondary science teachers involved in the study understood his or her growth in

knowledge of the nature of science and pedagogical content knowledge necessary to

include instruction in the nature of science in their normal classroom practice. By

comparing and contrasting the participants as different cases, a more complete picture of

the interaction of the components of the professional development program of the study

and a better understanding of the participants perceptions of those interactions was gained

than could have been gained if quantitative methods alone had been used.

Professional Development

For science teachers to teach the nature of science to their students, they must

understand the nature of science. In his work focusing on pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK), Shulman (1987) noted that teachers cannot teach what they do not

82

Figure 3.2 Professional Development Design Framework. Adapted from Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010)

know. Working to enhance teachers’ conceptions of NOS is necessary, but further, it is

necessary to determine ways to help teachers guide students in the development of

knowledge of NOS. What follows is a description of the professional development

program that was designed as part of this study.

In planning this professional development, I followed the framework set by

Loucks-Horsley et al. (2010) (See Fig. 3.2).

This model explains the steps needed to plan and carry out a rigorous and

productive professional development. Keeping both the NGSS (NGSS Lead States,

2013) and the revised standards for this particular school system, which had been

83

released just prior to this study, the content of the professional development was designed

to include concepts of NOS as they could be interwoven with the science content as well

as the science and engineering practices present in the revised standards. Although

student data was not used, student-learning activities (e.g. ways to actively teach the

difference between observations and inferences) served as the context for the teacher

activities of the program. Critical issues such as the need to develop not only

knowledge of NOS but also the skills necessary to teach NOS, and the desire to

incorporate NOS into classroom practice all played key roles in determining the content

of the professional development. For professional development to be considered robust,

it would need to address specific goals and produce some sort of positive gains for both

teachers and ultimately students. Student outcomes should always be the target as

professional development seeks to develop teacher behavior (National Academies, 2015).

Student outcomes were not measured for this study. This is only to denote that for any

staff development targeting teaching practices, the effects on students should always be

kept in mind. Ideally, any positive change resulting from the professional development

would also need to be sustainable. In the case of the current study, the target positive

change was that teachers develop more sophisticated views of the nature of science and

develop the skills necessary to incorporate NOS into their classroom practice. After the

professional development program was completed, participant evaluation and analysis of

the data from the study were used to initiate reflective thought on the part of the

instructor. Following the cycle of the Loucks-Horsely et al (2010) model, Ideas for

improving the professional development for future delivery were generated.

The specific goals for the professional development program were

84

1) To introduce science teachers to the construct of the nature of science.

2) To increase the sophistication of participants’ views of the nature of science.

3) To develop pedagogical skills to incorporate explicit and reflective teaching of

the nature of science into their existing curriculum.

4) To give teachers an opportunity to collaborate and coach each other as they

develop skills in teaching the nature of science.

As stated in chapter 2, according to the National Academies (2015), professional

development programs are, “learning experiences for teachers that (1) are purposefully

designed to support particular kinds of teacher change, (2) include focused, multi-day

sessions for teachers, (3) may include follow up opportunities, and (4) have a finite

duration. In planning the length of time for a professional development, Lyndon and

King (2009) indicated that if properly developed, a one-time professional development

can make an impact in the classroom, however, other literature indicates that a longer,

more sustained staff development with follow up is more effective (Crowther & Cannon,

2002; Garet et al.,2001; Guskey, 2003; Guskey & Yoon, 2009). With this criterion about

duration in mind, the professional development of this study took place over the course of

one school semester (approximately 15 weeks) with follow up during the second semester

of the same academic year.

Each face-to-face session of the professional development was designed to

include elements such as group discussions and group collaboration in order to build a

community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). As stated in chapter 2,

community of practice has been shown to be a positive support factor for teachers

85

learning new knowledge and skills in a professional development program (Borko,

2004;Lumpe, 2007; Snow-Gerono ,2005).

Using professional research literature as the guide, the professional development

was directly related to the new learning objectives that teachers in the school were having

to implement which included a great deal of inquiry (Luft and Hewson , 2014). Penuel et

al. (2007) indicated directly that professional development should be both aligned to

standards and reform based in nature. The new learning objectives were based on NGSS

(NGSS Lead States, 2013).

Over the course of 15 weeks, there were 5 one - hour sessions of face-to-face

contact. An additional 3 hours of time during the semester for teachers to collaborate

with and coach each other with direct observation or with collaboration after teaching

were part of the program. Prior to the first session, participants were asked to complete

the VNOS-C instrument in order to have a baseline measure of their views of the nature

of science.

Each session of the professional development focused on one or two of the tenets

of the nature of science, demonstrations of how to incorporate those aspects of the nature

of science into the existing science curriculum, de-contextualized activities related to the

tenets of the nature of science, instructional readings related to NOS and NOS

instruction, reflective professional discussion of the readings, and opportunities for

participants to collaborate and develop additional ways that the targeted NOS strand can

be incorporated into the curriculum.

Professional development workshop sessions took place approximately every

three weeks during the semester. The VNOS- C was given to participants for completion

86

before the first session. The general plan and content for each session included concrete

teaching examples of the specific tenets of the nature of science and discussions of how

those tenets can be intertwined into the existing curriculum. Luft and Pizzini (1998)

indicated that using a demonstration classroom can have positive effects in the changes

that can be achieved in a professional development. This program was a hybrid in that

demonstrations and reflections took place in the professional development sessions and

then the participants saw their colleagues demonstrate the skill of incorporating NOS into

the teaching curriculum.

Below is the plan that was used each of the face-to-face professional development

sessions. See Appendix F for a complete outline of each face-to-face session.

Session 1 - August 15, 2017

Explanation of what we will be doing in this course and what our goals are.

Introduction to scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Discussion of why SI

and NOS are important, how they fit into our curriculum, and how they fit into

reform based science teaching (NGSS). Introduction to peer-coaching and how

that will be used as a support for learning.

NOS Focus: Science is empirically based.

Inquiry Focus: Taking the training wheels off of laboratory activities.

Article: Keys to Teaching Nature of Science (McComas, 2004)

Session 2 - September 5, 2017

Sharing from the last meeting. The Cube (activity related to prediction). How

does this relate to NOS?

87

NOS Focus: Science is tentative. Relate to biology and chemistry AKS. Use a

case for discussion of tentativeness of science.

Inquiry Focus: Application of old procedures to add an inquiry component to a

lab.

Article: Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science (Lederman and

Lederman, 2004)

Session 3 - September 26, 2017

Sharing experiences since last meeting. Pendulum inquiry. Inquiry Focus:

changing simple things to create an inquiry lab. NOS connections to this inquiry?

Tricky Tracks (activity)… How does this relate to NOS?

NOS focus: Science is partially the product of human inference, creativity, and

imagination. Periodic Table building. How are observations and inferences

different?

Article: Teaching and Assessing Nature of Science (Clough, 2011)

Session 4 - October 17, 2017

Sharing experiences since last meeting. Black Box activity. Skull prediction.

Science answers do not come from a book. What does scientific consensus mean?

Relate to all NOS concepts so far.

NOS focus: Science is theory laden as well as socially and culturally imbedded.

Examples: Flat Earthers, anti-vaccers, lack of support for stem cell research,

GMOs, Climate change. Any controversial issue. Dinosaur extinction,

expanding or contracting universe Using argumentation to address this.

Article: Focusing Labs on Nature of Science (Colburn, 2004)

88

Session 5 - November 14, 2017

Sharing experiences since last meeting.

NOS Focus: The difference between scientific laws and scientific theories along

with the myth of THE scientific method. Does true scientific inquiry have to

always have hypotheses and variables?

Inquiry Focus: Giving students the autonomy to develop their own questions.

Article: Understanding Nature of Science Through Evolution (Narguizian, 2004)

According to Garet et al. (2001), focusing on content is a core feature of effective

professional development. The primary content of this program was the construct

known as the nature of science. Guskey (2003) reported from his study of effective

professional development that the factor that impacts the efficacy of the program more

than others is enhancement of teacher knowledge and skills. Through explicit instruction

and modeling, this program will address teacher knowledge and skills. Abd-El-Khalick

and Lederman (2000) in their review of literature on teaching the nature of science have

indicated that professional development meant to illicit more sophisticated views of the

nature of science should include explicit (not didactic) teaching of the nature of science

and the opportunity for teachers to reflect on what they have learned as well as how to

communicate this to students. Here explicit refers to meaningfully connecting the areas

of the nature of science to science content in situ which contrasts a didactic approach

which would be teaching a list of characteristics of the nature of science. This also

contrasts an implicit format, which would expose participants to the nature of science, but

89

only indirectly through science inquiry, which has been shown not to be as effective in

improving views of the nature of science (Akerson et al., 2000).

Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

The method of data collection for the quantitative portion of the study was

participant survey, the VNOS-C instrument (Lederman et al., 2002). This data was

collected twice from all participants, once prior to the professional development program

and once after the program sessions are completed. The VNOS-C survey (see

Appendix A for the VNOS-C) is in an open-ended survey and is interpreted according to

the guidelines specified in by Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, and Schwartz (2002).

The VNOS-C data was used to determine if there is an overall difference in conception of

the nature of science after the professional development and what areas of the nature of

science developed more or less with each participant.

The VNOS-C is an open-ended questionnaire with 10 questions, each with a focus

on one or more of the eight tenets of the nature of science (see Table 3.1 and 3.2 for

cross reference). Each question presents an opportunity to the participant allowing him

or her to explain some aspect of science and give reasoning to support his or her answer.

Because it allows the participant to formulate his or her own answers as opposed to

choosing a forced response from among pre-created options such as the Test on

Understanding Science (TOUS) (Cooley & Klompfer, 1961), the VNOS generates a

more accurate description of the taker’s conceptions of each of the aspects of the nature

of science (Lederman et al., 2002).

90

Items from the VNOS-C

Tenets of the Nature of Science

4, 10 Scientific knowledge is tentative, not static.

1,2,7 Scientific knowledge is empirical.

4,8 Scientific knowledge is theory-laden (subjective – influenced by scientists’ background, experiences, biases, and ontology.

8,6,7,10 Scientific knowledge is partially a product of human inference, creativity, and imagination.

9 Scientific knowledge is socially and culturally embedded.

2 Both observations and inferences are important for development of scientific knowledge and they are different.

5 Laws and theories are different kinds of scientific knowledge. Understanding the difference is important for science.

3 There is no one “scientific method”. Scientists approach questions in many ways.

Views of the Nature of Science

1 What, in your view, is science? What makes science (or scientific discipline such as physics, biology, etc.) different from other disciplines of inquiry (e.g. religion, philosophy)?

2 What is an experiment?

3 Does the development of scientific knowledge require experiments? a. If yes, explain why. Give an example to defend your position. b. If no, explain why. Give an example to defend your position.

4 After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g. atomic theory,

evolutionary theory), does the theory ever change? a. If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why.

Defend your answer with examples. b. If you believe that scientific theories do change: (1) explain why

theories change (2) Explain why we bother to learn scientific

Table 3.1 Cross Reference VNOS-C to Tenets of NOS

Table 3.2 VNOS-C

91

theories. Defend your answer with examples. 5 Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Illustrate

your answer with an example. 6 Science textbooks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of

protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (neutral particles) with electrons (negatively charged particles) orbiting the nucleus. How certain are scientists about the structure of an atom? What specific evidence do you think that scientists used to determine what an atom looks like?

7 Science textbooks often define a species as a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring. How certain are scientists about their characterization of what a species is? What specific evidence do you think that scientists used to determine what a species is?

8 It is believed that about 65 million years ago the dinosaurs became extinct. Of the hypotheses formulated by scientists to explain the extinction, two enjoy wide support. The first, formulated by one group of scientists, suggests that a huge meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago and led to a series of events that cause the extinction. The second, formulated by another group of scientists, suggests that massive and violent volcanic eruptions were responsible for the extinction. How are the different conclusions possible if scientists in both groups have access to ad use the same set of data to derive their conclusions?

9 Some claim that science is infused with social and cultural values. That is, science reflects the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it was practiced. Others claim that science is universal. That is science transcends national and cultural boundaries and is not affected by social, political, and philosophical values, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced.

a. If you believe that science reflects social and cultural values, explain why. Defend your answer with examples.

b. If you believe that science is universal, explain why. Defend your answer with examples.

10 Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to find answers to the

questions they put forth. Do scientists use their creativity and imagination during their investigations?

a. If yes, then at which stages of the investigations you believe scientists use their imagination and creativity: planning and design, data collection, after data collection? Please explain why scientists use imagination and creativity. Provide examples if appropriate.

b. If you believe that scientists do not use imagination and creativity, please explain why. Provide examples if appropriate.

92

The qualitative data from the VNOS-C was quantized in order to compare each of

the participants’ conceptions of the nature of science before and after the time of the

professional development. To inform the process of coding and quantizing the qualitatively

gathered data, similar studies that coded survey and interview data and quantized that data were

examined. Scogin and Stuessy (2015) quantized coded transcripts of interactions between

science mentors and science students in order to analyze the efficacy of encouraging language on

student engagement in inquiry science. Further, Posnanski (2010) quantized data from the VNOS

in order to determine growth among elementary teachers in views of NOS. Posnanski’s coding

and analysis were based on work by Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002). In order to quantize

the VNOS data, for each item on the VNOS, the participant’s response was examined for

statements that corresponded to one of four levels of sophistication with regard to the

nature of science and given a numerical score for each phrase or statement (Capps &

Crawford, 2013). For statements that indicate an uninformed conception of the nature of

science, a score of “0” was used. For statements corresponding to an emerging

conception of the nature of science a score of “1” was used. Likewise, a more informed

conception received a “2,” and statements indicating a robust conception of the nature of

science received a “3.” Table 3.3 shows illustrative phrases corresponding to specific

levels of NOS sophistication. To get an average level of sophistication, a simple

arithmetic average for each item was calculated by adding all of the scores marked in an

item and then dividing by the number of scored statements in that item.

93

Table 3.3 Descriptors for Levels of Sophistication for the VNOS-C

Science does reflect social and cultural values in some instances. However some

things are universal. Your explanation of data and observations will be based on your

experiences and beliefs.

Level of Sophistication of NOS Concepts

Numerical Score Illustrative Phrase

Uninformed 0 Science is completely objective. Only data and facts are used to draw conclusions.

Emerging 1 Science is subjective in its approach to a problem, but data alone drives the conclusion.

More Informed 2 Science is subjective in its approach as well as in the drawing of conclusions.

Robust 3 A scientist’s background, theoretical knowledge, belief systems, and previous experiences will all influence the approach in a scientific investigation as well as the interpretation of data in order to draw conclusions.

Below is an example of a response to item 9 of the VNOS-C (see Table 3.2 for

VNOS items) and an illustration of the method used to develop an average score for that

item.

94

The first statement, “Science does reflect social and cultural values in some instances”

was scored 3, robust because it indicates that the writer recognizes that science is

culturally embedded. The 2nd statement, “some things are universal” was scored 1,

emerging because it indicates the belief that some things in science are immune to

cultural influences. Alone, this statement would likely be scored 0, uninformed, but

combined with the lead statement, it indicates that the writer does not think that science is

completely unbiased. The last statement “explanation of data and observations will be

based on your experiences and beliefs” was scored 2, more informed as it does indicate

that the writer understands that scientific explanations are made through the filter of the

scientist’s existing beliefs. For this item response, there were three scored statements, a

“3”, a “1” and a “2”. These scores total to 6 and since there were three scored statements,

6/3 = 2. The average level assigned to this item for this participant was “2”, more

informed. This process was repeated for each item on the VNOS-C for each participant

at the beginning of the professional development and again after the professional

development.

With the average level of NOS sophistication calculated for each VNOS-C item,

an average score was also calculated for each tenet of the nature of science (see Table

3.1 for the VNOS-C item and tenet of NOS cross reference) for each participant before

and after the professional development program. For example, the NOS tenet, “Science

is tentative” is connected to items #4 and #10 on the VNOS-C. If a participant had an

average score of 2.3 on item #4 and an average score of 3 on item #10, then this

participant would have an average score of 2.67 for this tenet of NOS. In this manner,

an average level for each tenet of NOS was calculated for each participant before and

95

after the professional development program. Change in each tenet could be compared

among participants along with comparisons of each participant’s profile overall NOS

profile.

In order to determine if any difference in the VNOS-C scores between the pre-

professional development administration and the post professional development

administration was not a difference due to chance, the Wilcoxon Rank Sums test was

used (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011). This test was chosen because it is a non-

parametric test and therefore does not require the data to approximate a normal

distribution. The small sample size necessitated a non-parametric test, the Wilcoxon

Rank Sums test, as the choice of to compare results from the two VNOS-C

administrations.

The collection and use of the quantitative data described above was to address the

first research question, “What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of

science during the course of the professional development?” Additionally, the

quantitative data was used to add to the description of each participant as a case with

qualitative data being used to complete the description and give context to the

quantitative data.

Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative data was collected during the current study in order to address both

the second and third research questions:



96


science?




A source of qualitative data collected included multiple interviews with each

participant including follow-up interviews with participants to clarify responses to items

on the VNOS-C and final interviews with all participants after the professional

development program (see appendices for the protocol). The interviews followed the

professional development program in order to determine to what the participants attribute

any changes in their views of the nature of science and why they feel that parts of the

professional development either did or did not contribute to any change they may have

experienced. Interviews were designed according to Creswell (2013) in that they were

open-ended, general, and focused on the phenomenon being studied. All interviews

were recorded and fully transcribed prior to analysis.

Additional sources of qualitative data used for the current study included notes

taken by the principal investigator during the professional development sessions, while

observing conversations during science department meetings and subject area planning

meetings (chemistry, biology, and physics) which involved all of the participants of the

study, and while observing and taking part in conversations with participants during

informal situations other than professional development session time periods.

Conversations during professional development sessions were also recorded for

97

transcription and analysis. Along with these data sources, the participants completed

feedback forms dealing with coaching sessions that each shared with his or her partner

and an evaluation questionnaire at the end of the professional development program

which included both forced response (choices given) and free response items (see

appendix E). Additionally, artifacts such as newly designed laboratory investigations and

student activities, which were designed during, after, and perhaps stimulated by the

professional development workshops were used as data sources.

Table 3.4 indicates what data sources were used and for which research question

they were used. In order to address research question 1) What changes occur in

teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during the course of the professional

development?, before the study, participants completed the VNOS-C and interviews to

clarify their answers (Lederman et al., 2002). During the study, informal conversations

were held with the participants, forms that provided documentation of coach interaction

were collected, sessions of the professional development were recorded and transcribed

for analysis, and notes were taken by the principal investigator. After the professional

development had ended, all participants completed a post-study VNOS-C and follow up

interviews were conducted.

98

Research Question

Pre-Study Data Collection

Mid-Study Data Collection

Post Study Data Collection

1) What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during the course of the professional development?

VNOS C administration for all domains VNOS C structured interview with all participants (same questions to clarify answers)

Conversations and group sharing during the professional development sessions. Observation/interaction sheets completed by teachers as they coach each other Transcripts of PD sessions Additional observer taking notes during PD sessions

VNOS-C administration for all domains VNOS structured interview (same questions to clarify answers) This is to compare overall change for all participants of the program as well as individual changes in each domain of NOS. Additional Interview Questions 4,5, 7,11, 13, 14 Professional development Evaluation form Questions 3, 4, 8, 9

2) What influence does a professional development using peer coaching as a support method have on the incidents of teaching nature of science or willingness of teachers to include nature of science instruction in their classroom practice?

There is no pre-study data collections for this question.

Conversations and group sharing during the professional development sessions. Observation/interaction sheets completed by teachers as they coach each other Transcripts of PD sessions

Post study interview questions 6, 8, 13,15 Artifacts: lesson plans, class activities, handouts. Professional

Table 3.4 Breakdown of Data Sources Used

99

Mid –Study mini-interviews. Artifacts: Lesson plans, Class activities, handouts

Development Evaluation Question 7

3) To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching dyad relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants attribute any changes in their views of the nature of science?

There is no pre-study data collection for this question

Conversations and group sharing during the professional development sessions. Observation/interaction sheets completed by teachers as they coach each other Transcripts of PD sessions Mid –Study mini-interviews.

Interviews with participants post professional development sessions Questions 5,6, 9,10, 12, 15 Professional development evaluation form Questions 5,6, 10, 11

Although no pre-study data was collected, in order to address research questions

2) What incidents of teaching nature of science or willingness of teachers to include

nature of science instruction in their classroom practice are discernable after a

semester-long professional development on teaching the nature of science? and

research question 3) To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal

peer coaching dyad relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants

attribute any changes in their views of the nature of science?, several forms of

qualitative data were collected as described above (e.g. notes taken by the principal

investigator, informal conversations, feedback from participants regarding interaction

with their coaching partner, transcripts of professional development sessions). Data

100

collected to address questions 2 and 3 after the professional development program

include all of the qualitative data forms mentioned for the mid-study data collections

along with post-professional development evaluation questionnaires and semi-structured

interviews with the participants which were transcribed for analysis. See the chart in

Table 3.4 for a breakdown of which interview questions and which post-professional

development evaluation questionnaire items were connected to each research question.

For analysis of the qualitative data, the work of Miles, Huberman, and Saldana

(2014) and Saldana (2016) served as a model. This model is described by the authors as

“shamelessly eclectic” (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014, p. 9). The eclectic nature

of their model works well with the research paradigm of pragmatism in mixed methods

research (Feilzer, 2009; Johnson & Onweugbuzie, 2004; Johnson, Onweugbuzie &

Turner, 2007), that is to say that both pull in aspects of other techniques or philosophies

in order to address the question and data.

As data was collected in the form of transcripts from professional development

sessions, field notes taken by the principal investigator, and transcripts of interviews,

initial condensation of the data corpus took the form of first cycle coding (Saldana,

2016). A list of provisional codes was developed based on the conceptual framework

and the research questions (See Tables 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 for lists of provisional codes

separated by research question). For the list of provisional codes, each code was tied to

a research question in order to make later analysis easier.

After the data collection had begun, additional codes emerged and were added as

a result of inductive coding. One such code, Anec C, was used to set aside sections of

data that were relating anecdotes from participants’ classrooms to the other participants.

101

Provisional Codes Related to Research Question 1

Definition of Code

NU -1 Indicates use of NOS that is uninformed

NE -1 Indicates use of NOS that is emerging

NMI -1 Indicates use of NOS that is more informed

NR - 1 Indicates use of NOS that is robust


Definition of Code

NTE -2 Indicates that participant is explicitly teaching NOS in the classroom

NSI - 2 Indicates that participant is including NOS in inquiry activities

NIP - 2 Indicates that participant is planning for use of NOS in the classroom


Definition of Code

CCo -3 Indicates that participant is attributing change to coaching CDT -3 Indicates that participant is attributing change to direct NOS

instruction in PD Program CRe - 3 Indicates that participant is attributing change to the readings

that were discussed in the PD Program CAc - 3 Indicates that participant is attributing change to NOS related

activities that took place during the professional development program.

After beginning the first cycle coding, the need for an additional code related to

research question 1 became apparent. The added code was NG-1, which indicated a

mention of a NOS tenet but not in a context that could be labeled as one of the four

descriptors (uninformed, emerging, more informed, or robust). In an excerpt from the

Table 3.5 Provisional Codes for Research Question 1

Table 3.6 Provisional Codes for Research Question 2

Table 3.7 Provisional codes for Research Question 3

102

first round coding of the transcript of one of the professional development sessions, the

need for the added code becomes clear. Pseudonyms are used for participants to protect

anonymity. This excerpt took place during an activity in which the participants were

constructing a fictitious periodic table using puzzle pieces representing fictitious

elements, which were marked in several ways creating several possible patterns. No

instruction regarding the puzzle was given prior to the participants’ attempt to construct

it. This activity was meant to illustrate that science is empirical, tentative, theory laden,

and creative. After having put the “periodic table” puzzle together, the conversation

shown in Table 3.8 ensued.

Speaker Utterance Code 1 Instructor So,thisrighthere,whatareallthethings,thenatureofsciencethat

wecouldpulloutofwhatyoujustdid?Fromwhatwe'vetalkedaboutinthelastcoupleofsessions.

Not coded

2 Pat We'redefinitelylookingforpatternsinnatureandthatwaypatterns...

NG-1

3 Vanessa Afteryouguyssaidsomething,yousaidhowaboutthis?Andeverybodywaslike,"Yeah.Let'scheckthat."Sothatwaslikesomewhatofahypothesis,andthenwecheckedit...

NG-1

4 Alan Well,itwasgoingalongwithourpre-conceivednotions.Wehave,wearebiasedtowardsacertainthing.Sowe,that'swhywedecidedtoputitthiswayhere

NR-1

5 Pat Right Not coded

6 Alan Whereas,likewhathesaid,ifsomeonehadnot,hadnointroductiontothat,theymayhaveorganizeditadifferentwayintermsofhowwewentthiswayfirst...

NR-1

7 Pat Theymayhavedonecolor'causewedidn'tevenlookatthecolor,wedidn'tcareaboutthecolor.

NG-1

8 Alan Ortheycouldhavegone,(laughs)insteadofgoing,buildinghorizontal,thentheycouldhavegoneverticalandthenbuilthorizontalafterthat.

NG-1

Table 3.8 Coded Conversation from PD Session

103

In line 2, Pat stated that they were looking for patterns. This was initially coded,

NMI-1 (NOS More Informed). After reading the passage, it was decided to create the

new code NG-1 indicating that the participant had correctly identified a tenet of NOS, but

that it was not clear from the statement that a specific level of understanding of that tenet

was indicated. The new code was then applied to utterances that included tenets of the

nature of science, but did not indicate any particular level of understanding of the tenet

resulting in the coding that is present in the above example.

One round of second cycle coding used each of the tenets of the nature of science

as a larger category into which the coded bits were placed. This allowed the principal

investigator to determine which areas of the nature of science had been discussed by

participants more or discussed less, relative to the other NOS tenets. The amount of

discussion time a particular tenet has could have an influence on the participants’ ending

VNOS-C responses. The manner in which the tenets are discussed and the initial coding

also served as an indicator of how participants were internalizing their understanding of

the nature of science. Below, Table 3.9 is an example matrix showing how this

particular category code was used to sort the previously (Round 1 coding) coded items.

The second cycle of coding also consisted of pattern searching in the groups of

similarly coded items from the first cycle coding in ways other than their direct

connection to one of the tenets of the nature of science (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana,

2014). One additional larger bin was built in to the provisional codes due to the fact that

sets of provisional codes were developed for each of the three research questions.

Those codes that identified items or utterances that would address research question 1

could all be grouped together. Likewise items that addressed research question 2, as well

104

as items that addressed research question 3 could be similarly grouped. Beyond the

specific bins for each research question, category codes were used as larger bins that

indicated patterns. One particular category code served to collect all coded items that

related to community of practice (Wenger, 1998), the participants’ relationships with

each other, and any effect that those relationships had on their classroom practice.

NOS Tenet (Descriptive Category)

Code Utterance

Tentative NR-1

NSI-2

NMI-1

Alan: It’s tentative. It changes over time. Vanessa: There is no right answer. This is a NOS activity. Anne: As technology improves, then our explanations change to some extent.

Empirical NSI-2

NR-1

Vanessa: It would be an interesting thing to predict what the bottom number would be. Vanessa: What is the evidence [for that event]?

Theory Laden NMI-1 Vanessa: A subjectiveness about that [activity].

Creative NR-1 Alan: We needed some creativity to kind of start putting this together.

Cultural NR-1 Pat: It is definitely a group effort. Observations/Inferences NU-1

NMI- 1 NIP-2

Vanessa: It’s a large and a small animal. Vanessa: That’s an inference. Crissy: [We put into class] how do we decide when one phase [of mitosis] ends and the next begins.

Laws/Theories NG-1 Pat: That’s what I was wondering, if this follows the trend on the periodic table [Periodic Law]

Multiple Methods of Science NR-1

Crissy: We can look at the different characteristics and decide which are the most important. Look at all of the information and decide.

Table 3.9 Example Matrix Showing Binning of Coded Data

105

NR-1 Vanessa: Science is messy. Sometimes we have to explore.

Analysis

The act of coding qualitative data is itself part of the analysis (Miles, Huberman,

& Saldana, 2014). Placing coded data into the larger categories, either those related to

specific research questions, the tenets of the nature of science, or other categories such as

community of practice, served to help identify themes within the data (see Figure 3.3 for

the model of condensing qualitative data from Saldana, 2016).

Saldana’s model (2016) indicates that raw data is coded according to the coding

scheme being used by the researcher. Patterns observed in the coded data are used in

Figure 3.3 Model for Condensing Qualitative Data. Adapted from Saldana, 2016.

106

order to develop categories into which the coded data can be placed. The categories are

then used to develop overlying themes that exist within the data. For the current study, a

mixture of a prior categories and categories that were developed during analysis were

used to organize the data corpus.

After condensing the data as described above, within each case, what Stake

(1995) refers to as petite generalizations were made. These are general statements about

one case. The petite generalizations were then used to compare the five cases within the

current study in a cross-case analysis to determine differences and similarities between

the cases (Yin, 2014). By comparing the cases of the study, assertions were made

regarding factors that contributed to and impeded the development of knowledge of the

nature of science in the participants as well as the tendency of the participants to

incorporate the nature of science into their classroom practice.

In order to increase the validity of coding on the VNOS-C, all interview

transcripts, and transcripts of the professional development sessions, a second researcher

independently coded 20% of each type of data in the data corpus, checking for

agreement. Any disagreement as to the coding was discussed until consensus was

reached. New sections were coded and checked until there was at least 90% agreement.

The process of cross checking with an additional researcher also provided the principal

investigator with the opportunity to reflect more deeply on the data as it was being coded.

Limitations

Being a multi-case study, the results are not generalizable. Additionally, due to

the small sample size results of this study cannot be generalized to a larger population.

107

The results, however, can be suggestive of what could occur in other cases that are

similar to the cases of the current study (Stake, 1995). Each participant was examined as

a separate case and the cases were used in cross case analysis to determine similarities

between the cases. The cross case analysis added to the validity of the given assertions.

District level officials of the school system in which the study took place, limited

the size of the study by limiting participation in the study to one school in the district.

The school that was the site of the study was the home school of the principal

investigator. The district officials would not approve allowing the study to include other

schools due to changes that had recently taken place in the district high school science

curricula (biology, chemistry, and physics). All science related professional

development taking place district wide during the time period of the current study was

strictly controlled, developed by, and delivered by the district science office.

The participants of the study were not selected randomly. Given that the

volunteers did not represent a random section of the population, this further established

that generalization to other populations was not be possible. The self-selected volunteers

came to the study with the predisposition of wanting to improve their pedagogy, which

creates a limitation in the populations for this type of professional development technique

might be useful.

With the number of participants, parametric tests to determine statistical

significance in the quantitative portions of the study were not usable, given that

assumptions of normal distribution of data could not be made. This limitation required

that non-parametric tests be used in order to determine statistical significance when

examining differences between the quantized data taken from the pre-study

108

administration of the VNOS-C and the post-study administration of the VNOS-C. The

Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011), and Friedman’s Two Way

Analysis of Variance (Friedman, 1937) were used. Neither statistical test requires

assumption of normal distribution.

An additional potential limitation for the current study is the fact that the principal

investigator is employed as an educator at the school which served as the site of the

study. The principal investigator being a part of the same science department and

teaching the same subjects as the participants of the study could present a situation in

which participants’ actions, responses, and utterances could be different than they would

have been if the study had been conducted by an investigator with whom the participants

were not familiar.

Related also to the fact that the principal investigator is a co-worker with the

participants of the study is the possible limitation of subjectivity. Subjectivity is

necessarily a component of qualitative research (Anderson, Herr, Nihlen, 2007; Miles,

Huberman, Saldana, 2014). The subjectivity aspect of the current study was addressed

by incorporating it into the findings, fully discussing it, and disclosing it to the

participants. Just as the participants’ behaviors, responses, and utterances could have

been influenced by the pre-existing relationship with the principal investigator, the

principal investigator’s interpretations could also have been influenced by those pre-

existing relationships. The current study was emic given that the principal investigator

had access to what would be considered insider information due to his position at the

school and his relationship with the participants. Through discussion of initial

109

assumptions and interpretations with the participants in the form of member checks and

informal conversation, limitations of bias were kept to a minimum.

Summary

In this chapter, it has been stated that the current study is an instrumental multi-

case study that was analyzed using mixed research methods. Within the philosophical

paradigm of pragmatism, five veteran secondary science teachers were identified and

treated as separated cases during the course of a professional development program

designed to enhance the participants conceptions of the nature of science, increase the

pedagogical content knowledge of the nature of science of the participants, and increase

the instances of including the nature of science in the classroom practice of the

participants. Opportunities for the participants to build a community of practice

including developing a peer coaching relationship with another participant were

integrated into the professional development program in order to determine what sort of

effect developing a peer coaching/community of practice relationship with other learners

might have on each participants’ ability to learn the nature of science, pedagogical

content knowledge of the nature of science and the tendency to include nature of science

in classroom practice.

Data from the VNOS-C (Lederman et al., 2002) which was collected from each

participant prior to the beginning of the program and at the end of the program, was

quantized in order to generate part of the full description of each case and was compared

using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test to determine if a statistically significant difference

110

existed between the pre and post professional development administrations of the VNOS-

C.

In addition to the VNOS-C, a large qualitative data corpus was composed of

interviews with each participant, materials produced by the participants, transcripts of the

professional development sessions, field notes taken by the principal investigator,

questionnaires completed by the participants, and others. These data were analyzed

using methods set forth by Miles, Huberman, & Saldana (2014) and Saldana (2016),

which included developing provisional codes a priori as well as descriptive codes after

analysis had begun. Categories (some a priori) were used to sort the coded data and

themes were developed in order to develop petite generalizations about each case (Stake,

1995). Cross-case analysis (Yin, 2014) was used to make comparisons between cases.

Comparisons between cases allowed the principal investigator to develop assertions

regarding the internalization of the nature of science by each of the participants and what

factors of the professional development impacted the participants’ learning and utilization

of the nature of science.

In the chapter that follows, findings will be detailed in order to develop a full

picture of each case along with a comparison of those cases.

111

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The goal of this study was to support teachers’ development of sophisticated

views of the nature of science and to increase the number of incidents of teaching NOS in

their classrooms. Herman, Clough, and Olsen, (2013) demonstrated that teachers who

were highly effective at including NOS instruction in their classroom practices made use

of opportunities to include NOS issues and concepts, whether or not they had

intentionally planned to include NOS instruction. Herman et al. (2013) referred to this

as seizing afforded opportunities. In order to capitalize on afforded opportunities,

teachers need to have, in addition to content knowledge, knowledge of NOS, and

knowledge and skills to teach NOS (see also Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). The data

and analysis that follows address the results of efforts to develop the latter two of these

three qualities in the participants of the current study.

In the introduction, it was stated that the current study is examining the following

questions:





112






science?




This chapter, which focuses on the findings of the current study, is organized into

sections, which correspond to the individual research questions. For the first research

question, findings result from analysis of quantitative data gathered when the participants

were combined as a single group. Moving to the second and third research questions,

qualitative data is analyzed to answer research questions two and three. Finally, a full

description of the participants is presented as five separated cases and cross case analysis

is presented to elaborate on the findings.

Analysis of Quantitative Data

Research Question 1

What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during the

course of the professional development?

113

In order to determine if there were differences in the conceptions of the nature of

science among the participants of the professional development of the current study, the

VNOS-C (Lederman et al., 2002) was administered both at beginning of the professional

development program and then again after the program was completed. All participants

completed the VNOS-C in written format and then each was interviewed using the same

questions to cross reference responses and assure that what was meant by the participant

in their response was what was understood by the researcher. As stated in chapter 3, the

VNOS-C is an open-ended questionnaire with 10 questions, each with a focus on one or

more of the eight tenets of the nature of science (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3 for cross

reference of which VNOS-C items are keyed to which tenets of the nature of science).

Each question allowed participants to explain some aspect of science and give reasoning

used to support his or her answer. The VNOS-C data was quantized as described in

chapter 3 of this study. For each item on the VNOS, the participant’s response was

examined for statements that corresponded to one of four levels of sophistication with

regard to the nature of science and given a numerical score for each phrase or statement

(Capps & Crawford, 2013). For statements that indicate an uninformed conception of

the nature of science, a score of “0” was used. For statements corresponding to an

emerging conception of the nature of science a score of “1” was used. Likewise, a more

informed conception received a “2,” and statements indicating a robust or very informed

conception of the nature of science received a “3.” To get an average level of

sophistication, a simple arithmetic average for each item was calculated by adding all of

the scores marked in an item and then dividing by the number of scored statements in that

item (see Figure 3.4 for examples of the four levels of sophistication of a participants

114

views of the nature of science.) The data in Table 4.1 indicates the average score for

each participant for each item on the VNOS-C. Figure 4.1 displays both administrations

(before the professional development program and after the professional development

program was completed) of the VNOS-C for each participant.

Alan Vanessa Crissy Pat Anne Alan Vanessa Crissy Pat Anne

VNOSitem Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post1 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 2.66 2.67 3.002 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 2.33 1.33 3.00 3.00 3.003 1.00 1.50 1.25 1.30 2.50 3.00 0.50 2.00 2.67 2.54 2.25 2.30 0.50 2.50 2.00 2.67 2.33 3.00 2.67 2.675 3.00 3.00 1.50 2.50 1.67 3.00 1.67 2.33 3.00 2.676 3.00 3.00 1.50 2.60 2.33 3.00 2.00 2.75 2.67 3.007 2.60 2.67 1.75 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.408 1.00 3.00 0.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.40 3.009 2.33 3.00 1.25 2.50 2.30 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.0010 2.33 2.50 1.00 2.60 1.50 2.67 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

The eight tenets of the nature of science are assessed by the items of the VNOS-C

instrument such that one or more tenets corresponds to each VNOS-C item. See table 3.1

for a cross-reference showing which of the 10 VNOS-C items corresponds to which of

the eight tenets of NOS (Tentative, Empirical, Theory Laden, Inferential & Creative,

Socially Constructed, Observations v. Inferences, Laws v. Theories, and Multiple

Methods of Science) (Lederman et al. 2002).

Table 4.1 Participant Pre and Post PD VNOS-C Scores

115

The use of the VNOS-C was to gage the participants’ sophistication regarding the

eight tenets of NOS, therefore the data presented in Table 4.1 was used with the cross-

referenced list (Table 3.1) to generate a score for each of the eight tenets for each

participant. For example, the empirical tenet of NOS is assessed by VNOS-C items 1,2,

and 7. If a participant was rated 3.0, 1.5, and 3.0 respectively for these 3 items on the

VNOS-C, this participant’s average score for the empirical tenet of NOS would be 2.5

(the arithmetic average of 3.0, 1.5, and 3.0), indicating that the participant held a view of

the empirical nature of science between “more informed” and “robust”. This process

was repeated for each participant for each of the eight tenets of NOS, generating a score

for each tenet for each participant. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between

tenets of NOS and the items on the VNOS-C, as the instrument was not designed as a

quantitative tool. The VNOS-C was designed as a qualitative instrument and meant to

generate profiles of respondents’ understandings of each NOS tenet from the interpreted

meaning of responses to the instrument items (Lederman et al., 2002). The score

generated from quantizing the VNOS-C data was meant to be an approximation of the

participant’s knowledge of each tenet of NOS. For this study, in cases where a VNOS-C

item was part of the assessment of more than one tenet of NOS, the score for the entire

item was used in the determination of the score for each of the NOS tenets with which it

was associated. For instance, item #2 on the VNOS-C is one of the items that assesses

the empirical nature of science. It also assesses observations v. inferences. Item #2 was

therefore used as a part of the calculation for both tenets. A rubric could possibly be

created to separate portions of responses for item #2 into items that specifically relate to

the empirical nature of science and items that specifically relate to observations v.

116

inferences, but for the purposes of this study, it was decided that the overlap of concepts

would be workable, given that the empirical nature of science relies on observations and

inferences. This data is displayed in Table 4.2 and is the data that was analyzed by

comparing pre-professional development values to post-professional development values

to address research question 1 - What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science during the course of the professional development?

In order gain an understanding of any changes that occurred during the course of

the professional development program regarding participants’ conceptions of each of the

eight tenets of NOS, a separate graph was generated for each participant comparing the

pre and post level of sophistication of the eight tenets, which were generated using the

process described above. Figures 4.1 to 4.5 contain these graphs for each participant

illustrating any change between pre and post score level for each tenet of the nature of

science. Note that the numbers on the graphs correspond to level of sophistication of the

participant’s view of each particular tenet of NOS (0 = uninformed, 1= emerging, 2 =

more informed, 3= robust).

2.29 2.53

1.625 2.23 2.33

3 3

1

2.4 2.89 2.65 2.79 3

3 3

1.5

Pre Post

Figure 4.1 Changes in VNOS - Alan

117

0.75

1.25

0.5

1.19 1.25 1

1.5 1.25

2.55 2.5 2.5 2.68 2.5

1.5

2.5

1.3

Pre Post

1.75 1.83 2.25 2.33 2.3

1

1.67

2.5 2.67 2.78 2.33 2.54

3

2.33

3 3

Pre Post

Figure 4.2 Changes in VNOS - Vanessa

Figure 4.3 Changes in VNOS - Crissy

118

2.67

1.94

2.67 2.75

2

1.33 1.67

0.5

3 2.89 3 2.94 3 3

2.33 2

Pre Post

2.835 2.56

2.035 2.268

2

3 3 2.67

2.835 2.8 2.835 2.85 3

3 2.67 2.5

Pre Post

Figure 4.4 Changes in VNOS - Pat

Figure 4.5 Changes in VNOS - Anne

120

In each graph (Figures 4.1 – 4.5), a separate line represents each of the tenets of

NOS with markers indicating which scores represent pre-professional development and

which scores represent post-professional development. The length on the line between

the two markers represents the amount of change between the two scores over the course

of the professional development program. Ideally, the round marker should be on top,

indicating improvement in the sophistication of the participant’s conception of that

particular tenet of the nature of science.

Although there are instances in the literature that have shown problems stemming

from misinterpretation of pre and post score studies due to both participant lack of

understanding at the beginning of the study and also participant background knowledge at

the beginning of a study (Delmas, Garfiled, Ooms, & Chance, 2007), work has been done

in areas of science education research (Rubba & Harkness, 2007) to redesign specific

instruments to better allow pre and post assessment. For the VNOS-C, Lederman et al.

(2002) indicated that the questionnaire should be followed with an interview of

participants in order to verify an understanding of the participant’s responses. Interviews

of the participants were conducted in the current study in order to verify understanding of

the participant responses. The questions of the VNOS-C do not directly state the NOS

construct to which they relate. They are instead questions related to general science

knowledge (e.g. “What, in your view, is science?” and “Is there a difference between a

scientific theory and a scientific law?”). See Table 3.2 or Appendix A for all of the

questions found on the VNOS-C.

The graphed data for each individual participant suggested that the participants

increased their level of knowledge of NOS as it is measured on the VNOS-C over the

121

course of the professional development. In order to further analyze the scores for the

tenets of NOS from the VNOS-C, the pre-professional development VNOS-C scores of

all participants, separated by the tenet of the nature of science, were graphed together and

observed to see how the scores tended to cluster (see figure 4.7). The same was done

for the post-professional development VNOS-C values (see figure 4.8). In Figure 4.7,

it can be seen that the points are spread out across the graph. For each of the tenets of

the nature of science, the values are spread on the axis from below 1.00 up to 3.00. This

suggested that the participants had widely varied views of the nature of science prior to

the professional development program ranging from very close to “not informed” to

“robust.”

The spread of the data visually shows a reduction in variation of the scores for the

participants for each of the 8 tenets of NOS. The pre-professional development mean of

the set of participants’ average scores for each of the NOS tenets was 1.96. The initial

standard deviation was 0.73. The mean of the set of participants’ average scores for each

of the NOS tenets was 2.64. The post-PD standard deviation of the participants’ average

scores for each of the tenets was 0.43. The reduction in the standard deviation indicated

that the scores were more tightly clustered (had less variance) after the professional

development. The graph visually shows that the score clusters for six of the eight tenets

of the nature of science appear more clustered (tentative, empirical, theory laden,

inferential and creative, socially constructed, and laws v. theories). For the two tenets

of the nature of science that were not as tightly clustered, (observations v. inferences and

multiple methods of science) the data spread for each is less in the post-PD VNOS-C

graph than in the pre-professional development VNOS-C graph (See Table 4.3).

122

NOS Tenet Pre-Professional Development

Average

Range Post –Professional Development

Average

Range

Tentative 2.06 2.09 2.69 0.60 Empirical 2.02 1.31 2.77 0.39 Theory Laden 1.82 2.17 2.66 0.67 Inferential and Creative

2.15 1.56 2.76 0.26

Socially Constructed

1.98 1.08 2.90 0.50

Observations v. Inferences

1.87 2.00 2.57 1.50

Laws v. Theories

2.17 1.50 2.70 0.50

Multiple Methods of Science

1.58 2.17 2.06 1.70

Average of Averages

1.96 1.74 2.64 0.77

Table 4.3 Average Scores for Each NOS Tenet Pre and Post PD with Ranges

Figure 4.6 Pre and Post Average VNOS Scores by NOS Tenet

123

Table 4.3 shows the average score for each NOS tenet both pre-professional

development and post-professional development, along with the range of the scores for

each tenet pre and post-professional development. This table shows how the group of

participants, as a whole, changed from pre to post-professional development. The range

for observations v. inferences from pre-professional development average scores was

2.00 and the range post-professional development was 1.50. For multiple methods of

science, the pre-professional development range of average scores was 2.17 and the post-

professional development range was 1.70. The post-professional development range for

multiple methods of science is the highest when compared to the range of the other

tenets. Figure 4.6 visually indicates that the average for each on of the tenets increased

from the pre-PD administration to the post-PD administration of the VNOS-C.

Post-professional development VNOS-C scores are shown in Figure 4.8. When Figure

4.7 and Figure 4.8 are compared, it can be seen that in Figure 4.8, the data points are clustered

more tightly and represent higher values for all but two of the tenets of the NOS. The two NOS

tenets that have a greater range of scores than the rest in the post-professional development data

are the tenet that focuses on the differences between observations and inferences (range of scores

is 1.50) and the tenet that focuses on multiple methods of science (range of scores is 1.70). The

data representing the tenet observations versus inferences is not as varied as the data representing

multiple methods of science. Only one participant held a view of this tenet below the “more

informed” (2.00) level on the post VNOS-C. The rest of the participants’ data points were

clustered above the “more informed” level. The tenet of NOS that shows a relatively high

124

Figu

re 4

.7. C

lust

erin

g of

Pre

– P

D V

NO

S V

alue

s

125

Figu

re 4

.8. C

lust

erin

g of

Pos

t-PD

VN

OS

Val

ues

126

variance after the professional development program was the tenet focusing on multiple

methods of science (i.e. the myth of “the” scientific method). This tenet had the lowest

post-professional development average and the highest post-professional development

range of scores (see table 4.3).

For clarification, it must be noted here that there is only one item on the VNOS-C

that directly addresses multiple methods of science, the tenet related to the “myth of the

scientific method”. This item specifically asks if the generation of scientific knowledge

requires controlled experimentation, which could be interpreted to be slightly different

from asking if scientific investigations can be approached in many ways. Although the

participants varied in the degree to which they felt that generation of scientific knowledge

required controlled experimentation, when they were asked in follow up interviews about

“the scientific method,” all participants reported that there was not one “scientific

method.” This position was also evidenced by the degree of open-ended inquiry

participants discussed and included in the laboratory investigations that they developed

during this professional development. One participant, Vanessa, made the following

statement when discussing the importance of allowing and encouraging students to

develop different ways to approach a scientific question.

I let them figure things out and I think my kids are at a point where they're not

afraid of not having the right answer that they're willing to sort of go in and sort

of discover a little bit for themselves. (Vanessa)

127

The data presented in table 4.2, which shows the pre-professional development

VNOS-C score for each of the 8 tenets of NOS for each participant along with the post-

professional development scores for each tenet for each participant can be examined

further to determine the degree of similarity the participants showed in their

understanding of the nature of science. If the set of pre-professional development scores

were taken as one data set, the average score is 1.96 and the standard deviation of that

data set is 0.725. If the set of post-professional development scores were taken as one

data set, its average would be 2.64 and its standard deviation is 0.430 (see table 4.3).

Comparing these two standard deviations indicated that there was more variance in the

set of pre-professional development scores than in the set of post-professional

development scores, suggesting that before the professional development, the participants

were less consistent as a group in their understanding of the nature of science and that

after the professional development, they were, as a group, more consistent with their

understanding of the nature of science. The clustering of points on the visual displays in

Figure 4.7 and 4.8 also indicated that the post-professional development data had less

variance than the pre-professional development data; that is to say that the consistency

within the group of understanding the nature of science was greater after the 15 weeks of

professional development than before.

In order to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the

two data sets in Table 4.2 (the set of pre-professional develop scores and the post-

professional development scores), a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare the

two data sets (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011). If the group of participants, as a whole,

held more informed views of the nature of science after the professional development

128

than before the professional development, then the set of post-professional development

scores from Table 4.2 should be higher than the set of pre-professional development

scores. Using IBM SPSS statistical software to conduct the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, a

null hypothesis that there would be no difference between the two data sets, and a

confidence level of 0.05, the calculated p-value was zero. (The output from IBM SPSS is

shown in Figure 4.9). The p-value was below 0.05, therefore it can be said that there is

essentially a 0% chance that the difference between the two sets of scores is due to

chance. A statistically significant difference, therefore, exists between the set of pre-

professional development VNOS-C NOS tenet scores and the set of post-professional

development VNOS- C NOS tenet scores. A Friedman’s Two-Way Analysis of

Variance by Ranks (Friedman, 1937) was also carried out using the same data. The same

results were found (see Figure 4.9 and 4.10 for the IBM SPSS output).

Figure 4.9 Wilcoxon and Friedman’s Test Output

129

Ultimately, the data analysis showed that all of the participants in the current

study either improved or remained stable at higher levels of sophistication with regard to

all eight tenets of the nature of science. Anne decreased slightly on the tenet related to

multiple methods of science, but the difference was very slight and is likely an artifact of

the precision in scoring of the open-ended instrument. This assumption gains validity

due to the statement in which Anne indicated that she had little time when the second

administration of the VNOS-C took place and gave less information. With less

information on the instrument, there was less opportunity to give a full picture of her

understanding. Both her pre and post VNOS-C resulted in scores that could be

categorized as closer to “robust” than to “more informed” in the multiple methods of

science tenet which suggested that she remained steady with a nearly “robust” conception

of the multiple methods of science tenet of NOS.

In addressing the first research question, What changes occur in teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science during the course of the professional development?, the

data analysis demonstrated that there was a change in the participants’ views of NOS.

Further, the data indicated that during the 15-week time period of the professional

development program, the change indicated the development of a more robust conception

Figure 4.10 Descriptive Statistics

130

of the nature of science. That is to say that the participants gained knowledge of the

nature of science as it is measured on the VNOS-C and were able to express that

knowledge within the context of the open-ended questions of the VNOS-C as well as in

the context of open-ended face to face interviews.

Analysis of Qualitative Data

Qualitative data was collected in the form of extensive interviews with

participants, observations of participants, transcripts of each professional development

session, field notes from informal conversations with and among the participants,

collection of artifacts such as lesson plans, developed student activities and laboratory

explorations, end-of- program evaluation forms completed by participants, and coaching

observation forms completed by the participants after coaching sessions with their peer

coach. Additionally, data from the VNOS-C administrations, which is open-ended, was

examined as qualitative data as well as quantized data. These data were used

collectively to generate an overall image of the group of participants as well as a

description of each of the participants as a separate case.

Research Question Two

What incidents of teaching nature of science or willingness of teachers to include

nature of science instruction in their classroom practice are discernable after a

semester-long professional development on teaching the nature of science?

131

The second research question of this study asked if any discernable changes

occurred in the participants’ classroom practice during and after the professional

development program of the study. Specifically, the change of interest is whether or not

there is an increase in the occurrence of teaching the nature of science in the classrooms

of the participants. Lederman (1999) indicated that several factors affect whether or

not a teacher will include nature of science teaching in his or her classroom practice,

going further, he stated that knowledge of the nature of science alone was not enough to

insure that the nature of science would be taught in the classroom. Figure 4.11 shows

the conceptual pattern of data convergence from all of the data sources related to the

second research question.

Previous studies have indicated that a desire and motivation to include NOS

instruction in classroom practice is necessary (Lederman, 1999; Schwartz & Lederman,

2002). All of the participants indicated a strong desire to incorporate nature of science

into their classroom practice. Table 4.5 is a summary of data from the final evaluation

form that all participants completed which included an indication of their intention to

continue incorporating NOS instruction. An additional column (not on the participants’

evaluation) on this table indicated the change in conceptions of the nature of science that

the VNOS-C measured with the participant.

The table shown in Table 4.4 is a matrix with summaries from the different forms

of collected data that surfaced as a result of coding for evidence of planning in order to

incorporate NOS instruction into classroom practices by the participants.

During post-professional development interviews in which each participant was asked

132

open ended questions regarding the program and was also given the opportunity to clarify

any previous data collected specifically about him or her (see appendix C for the

interview protocol), each of the participants made specific statements that were coded as

supporting the idea that a desire exists to continue using NOS instruction in classroom

practice. Four participants indicated that they would like to expand and include other

teachers. One example of this desire came from participant, Crissy. In suggesting that

not only should she and the group of participants move forward to implement more NOS

teaching in the classroom, Crissy indicated during an interview that she would like to

expand the concept of teaching NOS to others in the building. In the excerpt below,

Figure 4.11 Diagram of Data Convergence for Question 2

133

Crissy has just suggested that the group could successfully help others plan and

implement NOS teaching.

I think we can pull it off as a group the way we are right now and where we sit

down and we actually you know, plan what we're going to do. We plan the

overarching idea of what do we want the kids to get and then we start working on

the practicalities of you know, whatever manipulatives we're going to do, what

are we going to give them and then actually put that together and have that for, for

you know, for everybody to use and to access. (Crissy).

Continuing in this same chain of thought, Crissy, went further to suggest that the group of

participants could take leadership roles working with other teachers in each of the

curricular areas of science (biology, chemistry, and physics) to teach others to include

NOS instruction.

The group that participated in this professional development could act as that

expert going out into the other groups to help, because we have people from

Chemistry, Biology, Physics and they could each going to their own little worlds

and yeah. And they could start off with some of the activities that we did (Crissy).

Participant, Vanessa, stated in her post-professional development interview that

she wanted to learn more approaches to teaching her students about the NOS tenet,

multiple methods of science, “…as far as my instruction goes, I would like to learn more

134

about how to show students that it's a creative process and messy and it's not a method

that's followed in discovery every single time” (Vanessa).

Table 4.4 offers a summary of data that was coded as relating to incidents of

participants either planning to incorporate NOS instruction or participants implementing

NOS instruction in their classrooms. The data was collected from participant interviews,

post-professional development evaluation forms that each participant completed,

coaching forms completed by the participants throughout the professional development

program, artifacts collected from the participants, observations of participants and

informal conversations between the participants and the principal researcher throughout

the program.

In looking for evidence that the planning necessary for incorporation of NOS

principles and concepts into teaching was taking place during the professional

development program, I looked first to the forms of evidence gathered during the

program. Coaching forms submitted by participants during the program contained

participant self-report relating incidents of planning NOS instruction with coaching

partners. Pat and Anne described a newly developed laboratory investigation designed

to help students learn nomenclature rules for ionic compounds and which incorporated

the empirical nature of science as students collected data and then the creative nature of

science as students had to use observations from various reactions to develop the

nomenclature rules. Crissy incorporated the NOS tenets related to empirical, the

141

tentative, the creative, and the theory-laden nature of science into a series of activities to

introduce gifted biology students to the structure of DNA. The development of these

investigations and activities also generated artifacts, which evidenced that the planning

for NOS instruction was taking place.

Informal conversations, in which I took part also strongly indicated that planning

for NOS instruction was taking place. Alan, for instance, talked with me informally on

many occasions about how to best incorporate questioning into his laboratory

investigations to incorporate explicit NOS instruction. I am a part of both the chemistry

instructional team and the biology instructional team, therefore I was able to witness and

take part in informal conversations including Alan, Anne, and Pat in chemistry and

Crissy in biology which involved the planning necessary to incorporate NOS into

instruction. The fact that NOS instruction was being discussed, even informally, in those

settings, helped legitimize its inclusion in the classroom practice for these teachers.

In examining data collected after the professional development had been

completed, it is noted that all five participants stated on their post-professional

development evaluation forms that they were either likely or very likely to continue

incorporating NOS into their teaching after the professional development is completed.

In post-professional development interviews, Anne indicated that she wanted to bring

NOS to the forefront of planning. Pat stated that she wanted to work towards

incorporating more NOS into instruction.

A theme that stands out clearly in the data sets mentioned above is that planning

for NOS instruction was happening during the professional development program of this

study. Additionally, these particular conversations regarding incorporating NOS into

142

instruction were not taking place prior to the professional development program.

Conversations regarding inclusion of scientific inquiry were a part of the culture of these

teachers, but not the explicit instruction of NOS concepts. Numerous studies examined

in the literature review of this study have shown that implicit instruction of NOS through

only scientific inquiry is not as effective in developing knowledge of NOS as explicit

instruction (Akerson & Cullen,2007; Cochrane, 2003; Gess-Newsome, 2002; Khishfe &

Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004; among others). The

next step in the study was to determine if explicit instruction of NOS concepts was taking

place in the participant’s classrooms.

Table 4.5 represents a summary of data analysis related to NOS instruction taking

place in the classrooms of participants during the time of the professional development

program. These analyses were part of the same data corpus collected as stated above and

in chapter 3. There are several overlaps of the data between that which was coded

representing planning NOS instruction and that which was coded representing incidents

of NOS instruction actually taking place in the participants’ classrooms. This is due to

the fact that in most cases, the planning led directly to the implementation (See Figure

4.12). Figure 4.13 shows Crissy’s plan for incorporating NOS instruction was coded

“NIP2” as it represented the necessary planning stage of NOS instruction. The

observation of the activity was then coded “NTe2” because it was evidence of actual

teaching of NOS during the professional development program. As with the analysis

described above, there were some data sources, which were self-reported (e.g. coaching

form, post-professional development interviews) and some data sources were direct

observation (e.g. artifacts, observation by principal researcher or agent).

143

Alan and Vanessa reported the modification of several physics laboratory

investigations, involving concepts such as projectile motion, in which they included

direct questioning to explicitly teach the creative nature of science as well as the

empirical nature of science. Alan specifically spoke to some of the ways he was

incorporating NOS during his post-professional development interview.

I’ve included some of the labs that I've done especially with how two

people can arrive at a different conclusion looking at a certain set of data. I have

students compare their data to other groups or compare their conclusions if I give

them a set of data and if they come up with a different reason, you know, "Why

do you think your group concluded this compared to this group?" Or, "Why do

you think you concluded this to this person over here? Why do you think it's

different?" I think some of them, especially when we talk about atomic theory,

that's easy to talk about. You know, science is a tentative structure and that it can

change. (Alan)

Along with reporting that she had been encouraging her chemistry students to

approach inquiry from different view points, explicitly teaching that science used

multiple methods, Pat and Anne modified or developed several chemistry investigations

that focused both on the empirical and creative nature of science. In her post-

professional development interview, Pat explained her thought process when she is

planning to include NOS as well as suggestions for how to continue to do so even into the

following school year.

144

Figure 4.12. Overlap of Evidence for Planning and Implementing NOS Instruction

Just making sure that [I’m] looking at the nature of science when I'm doing my

planning, especially when we have more time to actually focus on planning like

when we do summer planning, or when we do day planning when we have

substitutes in our room where we can actually focus just on planning, and being

more aware of the fact that we are trying to incorporate that, and especially next

school year when we are at the second year. (Pat)

Crissy developed a lesson to introduce a biology unit on the structure of DNA.

Her lesson incorporated six areas of NOS, which were explicitly exposed to her students

as they worked through the activities of the lesson (see Figure 4.13 for Crissy’s model).

Figure 4.13 illustrates a sample lesson that was developed and used during the

course of the professional development program. The lesson, represented in Figure 4.12,

145

was developed by Crissy, for use with freshman biology students. The lesson started

with the prevailing belief that protein was the agent of heredity. By having students

examine the methods and data of the bacterial transformation experiments done first by

Griffith and then modified by Avery, Crissy explicitly incorporated the NOS tenets that

science is empirical and it is tentative as these experiments were instrumental in showing

that DNA, not protein was the agent of heredity.

After gaining an understanding of the new knowledge developed by the Griffith

and Avery experiments, students were given simulated data from Chargaff’s experiments,

which demonstrated a 1:1 pairing of adenine to thymine and guanine to cytosine. These

Figure 4.13. A NOS Centered Introduction to the Structure of DNA

146

ratios led to the base pairing rules of DNA structure (adenine pairs with thymine and

guanine pairs with cytosine). This data was in the form of percentages of each of the

four nitrogen bases found in samples of DNA from several organisms. Students had to

struggle with the data to find patterns. They had to exercise their scientific “creativity,”

after which, it was pointed out to them that development of scientific knowledge involves

creativity. Students then examined x-ray crystallography images taken by Rosalind

Franklin, during which time the class held a discussion of how science can approach

problems in multiple ways. Finally students examined early models of DNA by Watson

and Crick, built some models themselves, and ultimately examined the model published

by Watson and Crick. To end the activity, a discussion of the interactions between

Chargaff, Franklin, Wilkins, Watson and Crick was shared between Crissy and the

students. This discussion helped students to understand that science is a human

endeavor and is socially constructed.

Through examples and artifacts from participants, observation of participants,

conversations with participants and self-report from participants, the data seemed to

converge on an answer for research question number two, What incidents of teaching


their classroom practice are discernable after a semester-long professional

development on teaching the nature of science? The presented data analysis has

provided evidence that the participants were willing to carry out the purposeful planning

necessary to incorporate NOS instruction into their classrooms and that they were willing

to bring NOS instruction to their classrooms. This finding is in keeping with previous

research such as Herman, Clough, & Olson, (2012) and Schwartz & Lederman (2002).

147

The findings presented in this section clearly demonstrate that, during the time of this

professional development, the participants were planning science instruction that

highlighted the tenets of NOS and were also taking the next steps and incorporating

instruction that included the tenets of NOS into their classroom practice.

Research Question 3

To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching dyad


changes in their views of the nature of science?

In looking for insight into research question three, a specific set of coded data was

retrieved. These data were the subset of the full data analysis that had been coded as

being connected to perceptions held by the participants regarding the various aspects of

the professional development program. Of specific interest were the data analyses that

connected each of the participants to the parts of the professional development program

that he or she felt were the most beneficial in supporting the learning of NOS and the

skills necessary to teach NOS.

After initial coding to identify “chunks” of data that related to research question 3,

a second round of coding, as described in chapter 3, was completed to determine

categories within this initial coding. From the data that was related to research question

3, the categories that were used to further group the data were Coaching, Direct

Teaching, Readings/Discussion, Group Activities, and Community of Practice. Figure

4.14 illustrates the conceptualization described above to determine the categories used to

group data related to research question 3. The categories on the right are different sizes

148

indicating their relative importance as support mechanisms in the professional

development as reported by the participants.

From the five categories, data were combined into two larger super-categories.

One of the super-categories contained the two categories that represented events that took

place specifically during the face-to-face time of the professional development. This

super-category, composed of the categories Direct Teaching, Readings/Discussion,

Group Activities, I have referred to as Supports During Face to Face Meetings. The

other super-category I called Coaching v. Community of Practice, because the analysis of

the data indicated the participants tended to respond to these things in an either/or

manner, one or the other being preferred more by the participants, suggesting an overlap

in perceived benefit from these two activities. In other words, the two original categories

do not represent mutually exclusive events in the mind of the participants. A summary

of this data is shown in Table 4.6 as a matrix organized to indicate how each participant

reported the relative benefits of the different aspects of the professional development.

This matrix shows those things that the participants found beneficial in helping them gain

knowledge of NOS.

149

Four of the participants directly stated that the readings during the face-to-face

sessions helped support their learning more than other aspects of the professional

development. The fifth participant made a related comment, though less connectable to

the professional development, that professional conversations with like-minded people,

helped to support their learning and these conversations are what took place during the

time the professional development sessions were discussing the reading assignment from

the previous meeting. One could interpret this to mean that all five participants valued

the time spent in professional discussion about the reading. Two of the participants put

more emphasis on benefits arising from the community of practice concept rather than

the coaching concept. Alan essentially defined community of practice when he was

asked to clarify why he preferred working with the entire group rather than with just the

coaching partner during his post-professional development interview. He called the

group of participants “a group with common goals working together to improve

ourselves” (Alan). Pat, in her post-professional development interview, also mentioned

working with the group as a community, but she first indicated that the coaching was

very helpful to her. Anne mentioned coaching, but tended to refer to it as “working with

a buddy” and thus the event she described was more an example of collaboration than

coaching in the strictest sense. Crissy also mentioned working with another participant in

a one-on-one manner, but like Anne, she did not call it coaching.

150

Participant Coaching v. Community of Practice

Supports during Face to Face Meetings

Alan Collaboration with the group was important to get used to using NOS Literally defined community of practice – group with common goals working together to improve

Readings and group discussions helped understanding of NOS

Vanessa Community of practice is beneficial because we can generate consistency between the grade levels so that students see NOS throughout high school science.

Reading the articles and having follow up discussions with colleagues

Crissy Working with a partner was important. Camaraderie

Reading the articles and discussing concrete examples

Pat Coaching is very helpful because partners can build off of each other’s thoughts. Discussing and bringing things back to the group helped us learn new ways to incorporate NOS.

Reading and discussing the articles with the rest of the group

Anne Coaching was mentioned but the meaning was actually working with a buddy and being placed outside of her comfort zone

Professional conversation with a group of like-minded people with similar goals

Crissy referred to the time spent with her coach as “working with a partner.”

The three participants who mentioned something that might have been interpreted as

“working with a coach” were vague in their responses and therefore gave no clear answer

to the question regarding the perceived efficacy of peer coaching.

Table 4.6 Elements of the Professional Development Most Beneficial

151

From the data summary in Table 4.6, one finding that becomes clear from the

description above is that during the face-to-face meetings of this professional

development, professional reading followed up with professional discourse as a group

(which could be described as reflecting on the reading) was perceived by the participants

as the aspect of that part of the program that best supported their knowledge development

of NOS. Vanessa explained why she felt that the professional reading and follow up

discussions were valuable.

I really like the readings and then the discussions based on the readings. I felt like

that really kind of went through all the different pieces of the tenets [of NOS] so

that we could kind of pick out which ones stuck out to us. (Vanessa)

Alan also explained his view and why he felt that the professional reading and group

discussions were instrumental in helping him to understand NOS. In this statement from

Alan, he is describing the article “Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science:

Modifying activities to enhance student understanding of science” (Lederman &

Lederman, 2004).

I think the single thing that was the most beneficial was that second article that we

read and I don't remember who wrote it off the top of my head. But I think they

did the best job of kind of going through each tenet and kind of giving these

examples that you could then relate to. So you can try and explain, you know, the

difference between a law and theory and you have this vocabulary and it's kind of,

152

you know, set to this sentence that you've said forever, you know, while laws are

this, the theories is this.

They did a really good job of explaining, "All right. Well, you know, this theory

is this inference that you make about this. Your observations or your laws are

these relationships that are created to explain. I think they did a really good job of

kind of breaking down tenets and adding clarity where there wasn't before, for

me. (Alan)

From the other category of data, coaching v. community of practice, the idea that

comes into focus is that peer coaching in the strict sense of one teacher observing another

and critiquing specific events was not taking place. Another aspect of coaching was,

however, taking place.

Saldana (2016, p. 22) in discussing questions to consider as one codes qualitative

data, offered several questions. Among them were three that were particularly

meaningful to me in this analysis. (1) What are people doing? (2) What are they trying

to accomplish? (3) What do I see going on here? To get a clearer picture of “what these

people were doing” and “What I saw going on,” I examined the data from the post-

professional development interview with each participant, the program evaluation form

that each participant completed at the end of the program, and lastly notes that I made

during informal conversations at the end of the program. Writings or utterances that

related to community of practice, coaching, or working with one other participant, were

coded and sorted based on their type of data source (e.g. post-PD interview, program

evaluation, informal conversation). This data is shown in Table 4.7.

153

In Table 4.7, a conglomerate of phrases appear such as “a group works better than

solo,” “coaching was helpful,” “two heads are better than one,” “collaborating with a

partner helps,” “we collaborated every day,” as do reports of observations such as

“conversations with Crissy moved to pedagogical planning,” and “Pat and Anne

demonstrated great use of their coaching and collaboration time.” In analyzing this data,

what are people doing and what are they trying to accomplish? The analysis indicated

that they are working together to gain understanding, to help each other, and working

toward better teaching.

Participant Stated in interview From program evaluation

Informal conversation

Alan A group works better than solo The group works well for understanding

(no mention of coaching) group collaboration and the reading (explicit instruction)

Alan indicated that he enjoyed the coaching aspect, but that the full group interaction was more valuable in developing ways to incorporate NOS.

Vanessa Coaching was very helpful

(no mention of coaching) Articles and follow up discussion with the entire group

Conversation with Vanessa tended toward the positive aspect of collaborating with the whole group.

Crissy Collaborating with a partner helps you because there is too much to keep up with on your own.

(no mention of coaching) Reading articles and discussion with the group, particularly discussing different ways to incorporate NOS into classroom practice

Conversation with Crissy invariably moved to pedagogical planning

Pat We collaborated every day

(no mention of coaching) Completing

Both Pat and Anne indicated and also demonstrated that they

Table 4.7 Summary of Data Related to Coaching and Community of Practice

154

activities together and discussion with the group regarding how to implement the learned skill as well as follow up discussion on the articles

made great use of their coaching/collaboration time. Conversations with either typically moved to collaboration, both between the two of them and the entire group indicating that full group collaboration was just as important as the one-on-one collaboration to Pat and Anne.

Anne Having a partner holds you accountable. Two heads are better than one.

Only mention of coaching – “having a buddy for accountability”

See above.

In thinking of Saldana’s third question (2016), “What do I see going on here?” I

see evidence of collaboration and cooperation as the participants work in pair and when

they work together as a whole group. In table 4.7, summaries show that all of the

participants mentioned coaching or working with one partner in some way and indicated

that it was helpful and productive. Neither my observations nor the descriptions by the

participants matched descriptions of peer coaching (i.e. one teacher, as an observer,

watching specific behaviors in another teacher for the purpose of helping the watched

teacher improve that specific behavior). The summaries indicated, however, that

coaching for these participants had moved to a different form. As summarized in Table

4.7, Vanessa described the experience as collaboration (teachers working together to

accomplish some plan or task). Crissy shifted the conversation to planning pedagogy

together (i.e. collaboration). Pat and Anne worked together very well. Both reported

that they collaborate every day.

155

As stated in the literature review of this study, Robbins (1991) defined peer

coaching in the following manner: “Peer coaching is a confidential process through

which two or more professional colleagues work together to reflect on current practices,

expand, refine and build new skills, share ideas, teach one another” (p.1). With this

definition in mind, the participants were involved in peer coaching.

With the data analysis from Table 4.6 and the above analysis of the data in Table

4.7 research question three can be addressed. That question was, To what parts of the

professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching dyad relationship, reflection,

demonstration) if any, do the participants attribute any changes in their views of the

nature of science?

What aspects of the professional development were perceived as providing

support for teachers as they learned NOS? The analysis of the data by categorizing,

condensing, and regrouping (Saldana, 2016) indicated that the participants perceived the

professional reading followed by reflection on the reading with the group to be the aspect

that best supported their growth in the knowledge of NOS.

What can be said of peer coaching? The data described from Table 4.6 indicated

that peer coaching, in some form, was taking place. Additional examinations of all the

data to extract any references to coaching and/or community of practice resulted in the

summaries in Table 4.7. From the summaries in Table 4.7, it can be said that, all of the

participants in some way mentioned the importance of working with another participant.

They were making use of the relationship to “refine and build new ideas and to teach

each other” (Robins, 1991, p. 1). If peer coaching were only defined as one teacher

observing another to critique a particular event, then the assertion would have to be that

156

peer coaching was not an important factor supporting the professional development. If

peer coaching is defined as Robins does, the assertion changes. The participants changed

the peer coaching experience into one that was meaningful to them and created a

cooperative, collaborative relationship that was beneficial to them in supporting the learning of

NOS.

Individual Cases

To get a more developed picture of the data collected to address the questions of

the current study, a case was developed around each participant. Below are descriptions

of each case. By examining the details that make each case, (each of the participants),

differences and similarities between and among the participants became apparent. These

similarities and differences can be used to offer possible explanations for the outcomes

observed in each of the participants during the professional development. The quantized

data from the VNOS-C was used to describe how informed the views of the nature of

science were for the participants, before and after the professional development. The

difference in the scores provided an idea of how each participant changed during the time

of the professional development. Each case includes a table with the quantized scores

from both administrations of the VNOS-C (see Chapter 3 for an explanation of how each

score was developed). For interpretation of the numbers, as stated in chapter 3, 0 equates

to “uninformed”; 1 equates to “emerging”; 2 equates to “more informed”; and 3 equates

to “robust” (Capps & Crawford, 2013). Additionally, analyses of the collected data

from interviews, evaluations forms, coaching forms and anecdotes, artifacts, informal

conversations, and observations were used to complete the description for each case.

157

Alan

Alan was the youngest participant, being 29 years old at the time of the study. He

also had the least teaching experience, having taught for 6 years. He is a White male who

is married and has no children. Alan taught a mixed schedule of chemistry and physics

during the study. For the peer coaching, Alan was paired with Vanessa, who also taught

physics. Alan studied chemistry at a large state university as an undergraduate where he

earned a Bachelor of Science in chemistry and then a Master of Arts in Teaching. Alan

was unique among the participants given that he graduated from a high school in the

same district as the school in the study.

Pre- Professional Development

Post- Professional Development

Tentative 2.29 2.40 Empirical 2.53 2.89

Theory Laden 1.63 2.65 Inference and Creativity 2.23 2.79

Socially Constructed 2.33 3.00 Observations v. Inferences 3.00 3.00

Laws v. Theories 3.00 3.00 Multiple Methods 1.00 1.50 Overall Average 2.25 2.65

Table 4.8 shows Alan’s scores from both the pre-professional development and

post –professional development VNOS-C administration. Scores represent the quantized

VNOS- C data as described above and in chapter 3 of this study. Alan started the

professional development having a generally “more informed” conception of the nature

of science. He showed growth in each of the tenets of NOS and ended the professional

development closer to having a “robust” conception of the nature of science. The only

Table 4.8 Summary of Alan’s VNOS-C Scores

158

area in which Alan ended the program with a conception that was lower than “more

informed” was the area of NOS dealing with multiple methods of science. He ended the

program with three areas of NOS at the “robust” level. Alan’s scores were all 2.4 or

higher (“more informed (2.0)” to “ robust(3.0)”) for each tenet of NOS, except the tenet

dealing with multiple methods of science.

Alan did not have any explicit instruction in the nature of science as an

undergraduate or as a graduate student. Although he was not specific as to which areas

of NOS, Alan reported that various areas of NOS were alluded to in his science education

graduate classes as they focused on scientific inquiry, but direct instruction on NOS or

the skills to teach NOS were not addressed.

Alan was an avid reader regularly setting goals for himself each year for certain

numbers of books to be read during the course of the year. This self-reported trait

corresponds to his reporting that reading the assigned articles for the professional

development and then coming together as a group to discuss them was most instrumental

for him as he learned the substance of NOS and developed the skills necessary to teach

NOS. He specifically mentioned the article, Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of

Science: Modifying Activities to Enhance Student Understanding of Science (Lederman

and Lederman, 2004). “I enjoyed the Lederman article a great deal. It really helped me

understand the tenets of NOS” (Alan).

Alan tended to speak primarily of the group interaction rather than interaction

with the partner with whom he was paired for coaching.

I think a group always works better than solo. I think a lot of us worked well

together in this. I mean, specifically, I was working with another teacher in the

159

Physics department. She was kind of my buddy [coach]. But as far as planning,

the chemistry teachers, as we're planning these things, [we] would bounce ideas

off of one another and, "All right, this sounds good," or, you know, "Maybe tweak

this," or I would end up talking to you [principal investigator] about something

and you would ask question, "All right. Well, how could you relate that back to

one of these tenets?" As far as planning with Physics, we did a little bit here and

there; it was more for us. (Alan)

Alan was enthusiastic throughout the program and showed a great desire to learn

more and figure out ways to incorporate more NOS instruction into his classroom

practice. Of the five participants, Alan showed the most reflection, often approaching

me on the day after a face-to-face session of the professional development to ask

questions that he had thought about from the previous day’s NOS topics and to share

ways that he had thought about to incorporating NOS instruction into something he was

doing that day. This was not something the other participants did. In looking to the

future, after the professional development program, Alan gave an example of how he

would like for the group to proceed.

I think it would be beneficial to have, sessions where we can maybe bring in a

lesson that we're planning to do in the future or one that we have done that we

say, "We think this would be good--." One that would be, you know, fairly easy to

tweak into, something relating back to the nature of science or one of the tenets of

the nature of science. It would be nice to have a set time where we could get

together and plan collaboratively to try and implement (Alan).

160

Vanessa

Vanessa was the only participant whose undergraduate degree was not in pure

science. She studied engineering at a highly ranked state school of technology and

engineering. She earned a degree in chemical engineering and worked in industry for a

time before deciding to earn a Masters of Business Administration. She continued to

work in the chemical industry for a time and then decided to pursue a career in teaching

science. She completed a secondary science teaching certificate in chemistry through an

alternative certification program at a large state university.

At the time of the study, Vanessa was in her early 40’s and had 7 years of

teaching experience. She is a White female who is married and has three children, all of

whom attend schools in the community of the high school in the current study. She was

teaching only physics at the time of the study.







Table 4.9 shows Vanessa’s scores from both the pre-professional development

and post –professional development VNOS-C administration. At the onset of the

professional development program, Vanessa held a view of the nature of science that

Table 4.9 Summary of Vanessa’s VNOS-C Scores

161

would be categorized as “emerging” level with the theory laden tenet of NOS being the

closest to “not informed.” Of her views of the nature of science, Vanessa ‘s conception

of the laws v. theories tenet of NOS, which was numerically between “emerging (1.0)”

and “more informed (2.0)” (1.5) was her highest scoring conception of NOS. Her

lowest scoring conception of NOS was the theory laden NOS, for which she scored 0.5,

which was numerically between “uninformed (0.0) ” and “emerging (1.0).” Before

the professional development program, Vanessa’s VNOS scores were the closest to

“uninformed” of the participants across all of the NOS tenets with the exception of the

multiple methods of science tenet of NOS. In that NOS tenet, although her score was

numerically considered “emerging”, she did not have the least informed conception.

After the professional development program, Vanessa moved into the “more

informed” to “robust” end of the NOS spectrum in all areas of the nature of science with

the exception of two. Those two areas were observations v. inferences, and multiple

methods of science. In both of those areas, at the end of the professional development,

Vanessa’s scores were numerically between “emerging ” and “more informed” (1.5 and

1.3 respectively). Vanessa showed an increase in the level of sophistication in all eight

of the NOS tenets. She demonstrated the most growth of all the participants as measured

with the VNOS-C.

Vanessa came into the program having had no explicit education in the nature of

science, although she reported having had exposure to the concepts implicitly through

instruction in scientific inquiry during her science teacher certification program. She

demonstrated high levels of creativity at different times when completing activities in the

classroom sessions of the professional development program, often suggesting different

162

approaches to solving a problem or different ways to look at a problem. This was

evidenced by her “more informed” to “robust” conception of the inferential and creativity

tenet of NOS (2.68). This seemed at odds, however, with her “emerging” level

conception of multiple methods of science (1.30). The apparent disconnect between

Vanessa’s NOS score in multiple methods of science tenet and the inferential and

creative tenet was perhaps due to her background in engineering, which would require

development of highly creative ideas to solve problems, but then follow a standard

engineering cycle for testing a design or product. Figure 4.10 illustrates the engineering

cycle as it moves from problem identification through research, testing, and redesign.

When viewed in this light, what initially seemed to be a conflict actually became part of

the model describing Vanessa.

Figure 4.15 Engineering Cycle Model

163

Over the course of the program, Vanessa was a major proponent of planning and

moving forward. She indicated that she wanted to continue learning about NOS and how

to incorporate NOS instruction into her classroom practice.

I would like to learn more about how to show students that it's a creative process

and it's messy and it's not a method that's followed in discovery every single time.

(Vanessa)

Vanessa indicated that she was drawn to the decontextualized activities that the group

completed in the face-to-face meetings of the professional development program because

she felt they would help students see that scientific thinking is not beyond any student.

She proposed a plan regarding this sort of instruction for the group in order to move

forward with incorporation of NOS instruction as a school.

You can do simple things but tie it back into [the classroom], "Look, this is what

we're doing. This is rigorous content but we're really just kind of doing this. We're

really just making these observations and were inferring this and that," because I

think sometimes students kind of get overwhelmed with the content plus the

nature of science, like doing that at the same time is a lot. I would just maybe like

to see us put together some more activity to use in my subject area of physics.

Similar to what we did in here when we were letting them explore and letting

them put patterns together and see things. (Vanessa)

164

Vanessa indicated that she found coaching helpful, however, she also indicated

that working together with the entire group to identify the key elements of the nature of

science was the most helpful to her. Additionally, Vanessa stated that the professional

reading and follow up discussions with colleagues were helpful in supporting the growth

of her knowledge in the nature of science.

Like Alan, Vanessa was always very enthusiastic and ready to learn more and to

learn to apply what was being done in the professional development program in order to

incorporate NOS instruction into her classroom.

Crissy

Crissy had the most science content background of all the participants. She

earned a Bachelor of Science in environmental science and a Master of Science in

biology, both from universities outside of the United States. Both of these degrees

required large capstone (end of degree) research projects. The experiences completing

two large research projects provided Crissy with a large amount of scientific research

skills to take into her teaching career. Crissy also earned an Educational Specialist

degree from a large state university in the United States. At the time of the study, Crissy

was in her early 50’s and had taught for 19 years. She is a White female who is divorced

and has two daughters. At the time of the study, she was teaching introductory biology

and Advanced Placement Environmental Science (APES).

165







Table 4.10 shows Crissy’s scores from both the pre-professional development and

post –professional development VNOS-C administration. Crissy began the study with

an overall average concept of NOS that was 1.95, which is close to the “more informed”

(2.0) point. The NOS tenet in which Crissy scored the highest at the beginning of the

program was multiple methods of science (2.50) and the tenet of NOS in which she

scored the lowest at the beginning of the program was observations v. inferences (1.00).

In the case of multiple methods of science, Crissy’s score was numerically between

“more informed” (2.00) and “robust” (3.00). The observations versus inferences tenet,

however, was only at the “emerging” (1.0) level. At the beginning of the professional

development program, across all of the NOS tenets, Crissy’s scores clustered around the

2.00 point, with half of her NOS scores being between “emerging” (1.00) and “more

informed” (2.00) and half were between “more informed and “robust” (3.00).

Crissy, at the end of the professional development program, scored between 2.00

and 3.00 (2.00 < X < 3.00), which corresponded to “more informed” (2.00) and “robust”

(3.00). Scores for six of the tenets were closer numerically to “robust” (3.00) than to

“more informed” (2.00). The tenet of NOS in which Crissy had the most increased score

Table 4.10 Summary of Crissy’s VNOS-C Scores

166

was the NOS tenet, observations v. inferences. As stated above, Crissy’s score for this

tenet was “emerging” (1.00) at the beginning of the program. At the end of the program,

Crissy’s score for this tenet was 2.33, numerically between “more informed” and

“robust.” Crissy reported, in the post-professional development evaluation, that she felt

that she had improved her understanding of the laws v. theories NOS tenet more than the

other tenets. For Crissy, the laws and theories tenet did increase in score from below

“more informed” to “robust” (1.67 to 3.00).

Crissy stated in conversation that she had an interest in the interaction between

scientific inquiry and the nature of science. The activities that she created to include

explicit NOS instruction almost always had elements of inquiry as well. She reported in

the post-professional development interview that she loves the “aha” moments that occur

when students figure something out. During the course of the program, she developed

several instructional activities framed by inquiry that featured explicit instruction of one

or more of the NOS tenets. Many times per week, Crissy would collaborate with the

principal investigator and ask, “what will we make our inquiry factor in this

investigation?” (Crissy). She stated that she enjoyed the planning aspect and she

indicated that she knew that incorporating NOS instruction into classroom practice would

require planning. When discussing ideas about NOS incorporation, Crissy would

typically get very excited, which would result in her talking very rapidly and quickly

moving from one topic to another. In the statement below, Crissy displayed her

excitement during the post-professional development interview, as she is talked about

including bioethics in a unit on biotechnology.

167

“I like that. That was really good. For me, thinking "Well, yeah, this is right,

exactly right, we should be doing this." Also with bioethics coming up and

science being influenced by, you know, politics and culture and all that, that's

something [creating a NOS centered unit] we've never done before. When you say

bioethics or even ethics to students, they don't really, totally know what that is.”

(Crissy).

Crissy continued to speak regarding possibilities for incorporating NOS into units on

genetics, evolution, and several other specific topics in biology. She was the only

participant who spoke without being questioned about incorporating NOS into the

different specific upcoming units in her subject’s instructional calendar (biology).

Crissy reported that she appreciated the coaching experience and stated that,

rather than working alone, she preferred to, “collaborate with someone because there’s a

lot to keep up with on your own” (Crissy). Additionally, she acknowledged that,

“working with a partner was definitely helpful” (Crissy). Although she did report

enjoying working with a partner, primarily Crissy spoke of the interaction of the group as

a whole, mentioning, “the camaraderie” of the full group, as well as coming together as a

group to share ideas, getting “validation for what you are doing” (Crissy). The group

discussions that focused on ways to incorporate NOS into classroom practice were what

Crissy, in the post-professional development interview, identified as being the most

helpful to her in developing NOS knowledge. Crissy also noted that the professional

readings and group reflections on the readings helped her to think more deeply about

each tenet.

168

Crissy demonstrated that she was very passionate about science and science

education. Evidence of her desire to continue planning and include NOS instruction in

classroom practice was observed as she expressed a desire to expand implementation of

NOS teaching by using the members of this professional development group as experts.

She continued by stating that the professional development group of this study could go

to curriculum team meetings - teachers who teach the same subject (e.g. biology,

chemistry, physics) – within the school’s science department in order to share

information about NOS instruction. She expressed this in a conversation with the

principal researcher.

Because we have people from chemistry, biology, and physics, they could each go

to their own little worlds. And they could start off with some of the activities that

we did, like the periodic table thing. (Crissy).

Crissy demonstrated a great deal of creativity by creating new teaching activities.

She was always willing to learn and to share which was evidenced by her conversations

with the principal researcher and with other group members. She worked well

internalizing the skill necessary to teach NOS, which she showed as her lessons were

observed showing that she was implementing NOS instruction in her classroom.

Pat

Pat, an African American female, was in her 14th year as an educator at the time

of the study. She was in her late 30’s, married and has two children. Pat did not start

169

her own university education with plans to go into education. She began her

undergraduate program working on a combined bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in

chemistry at a small private university. Her plans, at the time, were to enter an MD/PhD

program as a graduate student in order to earn both a medical degree and a PhD because

her goal was to go into medical research. Pat’s course work in science was focused in

biochemistry. As part of her scholarship requirements, she worked with university

scientists on research projects during the academic year and also assisted university

scientists with quality control in their laboratories during the summers.

During her undergraduate program, Pat tutored undergraduate students and

realized that she enjoyed working with those students. In her post-professional

development interview, Pat explained how she felt regarding working with college

students.

A lot of kids, including my brother and my husband, that were in college, were

very intelligent but weren’t prepared for college, and that’s why they weren’t as

successful as they should have been. And I decided that I wanted to help people

get ready for that. (Pat)

After working with university undergraduate students, Pat decided that she would change

her career goals. She transferred to a large state school and earned a Masters of

Education in science education. At the time of the study, Pat was teaching only

chemistry.

170







Table 4.11 shows Pat’s scores from both the pre-professional development and

post –professional development VNOS-C administration. At the beginning of the

professional development program, on the VNOS-C, Pat’s scores for each of the eight

tenets ranged numerically from 0.50 (“uninformed”) to 2.75 (“”more informed” almost

“robust”). Four of the eight tenets rated 2.00 (“more informed”) or higher, with the tenet,

inference and creativity being the highest. Numerically very close to the inference and

creativity tenet was the tentative nature of science and the theory laden nature of science,

both of which were scored at 2.67. The tenet of NOS in which Pat scored the lowest

on the initial VNOS-C was the tenet, multiple methods of science. That score was 0.50,

which is between “uninformed” (0.00) and “emerging” (1.00). This particular tenet,

multiple methods of science, remained Pat’s lowest score on the post-professional

development administration of the VNOS-C, although on the post-professional

development administration, Pat scored a 2.00 (“more informed”) on this tenet of the

nature of science.

After the professional development program, Pat scored 2.00 (“more informed”)

or higher in every area, with four areas being scored 3.00(“robust”). Those tenets on

Table 4.11 Summary of Pat’s VNOS-C Scores

171

which Pat scored 3.00 (“robust) were tentative nature of science, theory laden nature of

science, socially constructed nature of science, and observations v. inferences. The

empirical nature of science and the inferential and creative nature of science were scored

2.89 and 2.94, respectively, both of which are numerically very close to 3.00 (“robust”) at

the end of the program. Pat made the greatest improvement in the NOS tenet, multiple

methods of science (0.50 to 2.00). This tenet, multiple methods of science, was,

however, both Pat’s lowest starting score and her lowest ending score

Throughout the professional development program, Pat and Anne set an example

of how to collaborate with a partner. They were observed working together four to five

days each week. Both Pat and Anne stated in their post-professional development

interviews that they held high opinions of their partnership. Pat stated in the post-

professional development interview that the collaboration relationship was beneficial.

It [collaborating with Anne] is very helpful because sometimes I think of things

that she doesn't think of or she thinks of things that I haven't thought of. Or I

might have the beginning of a thought and I don't know where to go from there

and, you know, she can finish it or the other way around. (Pat)

Pat did not, however, indicate through written evidence (e.g. coaching form,

evaluation), conversation, or interview, that she attributed her growth in knowledge of

NOS or in NOS instruction to her coaching or collaboration relationship with Anne.

She indicated that doing activities together as a group and talking about how those

activities would work in the classroom, along with the professional reading and reflective

172

group discussion of the articles were the most beneficial to her in gaining knowledge of

NOS.

Although the group might come up with an idea, different people decide to

incorporate it in different ways and sometimes you can come back and say, "Well,

you know, in this setting, you know, with the regular level group, I did this, and

with the gifted group, I did that," and maybe I should, you know, I should change

it because you can talk to other people, did you do it this way also and how did it

work for you? And then adjust what you did based on what worked better for

different people. (Pat)

Collaboration with the full group, gathering insight from teachers teaching different

levels and different subjects, along with collaborative follow up discussion after common

reading was what Pat cited in her post-professional development interview as well as her

post-professional development written evaluation, as the part of the program that most

helped in her understanding of the tenets of the nature of science.

Pat described herself at the end of the professional development as being, “in the

middle as far as being ready to implement large amounts of NOS.” (Pat) She stated in

her post-professional development interview that she felt like she needed more work

incorporating NOS into her teaching. Prior to the end of the professional development,

both conversation and observation provided evidence that Pat was explicitly planning for

NOS instruction and implementing NOS instruction. In her post-professional

development interview, she pointed out ways that she and the other chemistry teachers

173

could move forward with including more NOS instruction in regular classroom practice.

She also stated specifically how she would.

[By] looking at the nature of science when I'm doing my planning, especially

when we have more time to actually focus on planning like when we do summer

planning, or when we have day planning with substitutes in our room where we

can actually focus just on planning, um, to be more aware of the fact that we are

trying to incorporate that, and especially next school year when we are at the

second year and set the standards. (Pat)

Anne

Anne, a 40 –year- old White female, had 17 years of classroom experience as a

teacher at the time of the study and was the department chair for the science department

at the high school of the study. She is married and has one child. Like the participants,

Anne did not study education as an undergraduate. She earned a bachelor of science in

chemistry at a large state university, as Alan had done. After completing her

undergraduate degree, Anne entered graduate school, worked toward earning a master of

science in chemistry, and took a position doing quality control testing in the laboratory of

a large corporation that produces beverages. During her tenure in corporate laboratory

work, Anne decided that she would rather teach chemistry. With teaching chemistry as

her goal, Anne completed a certification program at a large state school to gain teaching

credentials. In an interview with Anne, she indicated that the laboratory position was not

where she wanted to stay. “It wasn’t my favorite environment so then I decided I

would teach with a chemistry degree” (Anne).

174







Table 4.12 shows Anne’s scores from both the pre-professional development and

post –professional development VNOS-C administration. At the beginning of the

professional development program, Anne demonstrated on the VNOS- C that she already

possessed a sophisticated view of the nature of science. She scored 2.00 (“more

informed”) or higher on every tenet of NOS. Overall, Anne’s scores were the highest

beginning scores of the five participants. Two tenets of NOS, observations v. inferences

and laws v. theories, were scored 3.00 (“robust”) from the onset. The NOS tenet in

which Anne scored the lowest during the initial VNOS-C administration was the socially

constructed tenet of NOS, which was scored a 2.00, which corresponds to the “more

informed” point.

After the professional development program, two of the NOS tenets were scored

as 3.00 (“robust”). These two tenets were the socially constructed NOS and observations

v. inferences. Four were numerically very close to 3.00 (“robust”). These tenets were

the tentative NOS (2.84), the empirical NOS (2.80), the theory laden NOS (2.84), and the

inferential and creative NOS (2.85). The remaining two tenets, laws v. theories (2.67)

and multiple methods of science (2.50), were both scored numerically higher than “more

Table 4.12 Summary of Anne’s VNOS-C Scores

175

informed” (2.00). The tenet in which Anne scored the lowest during the post-

professional development VNOS-C administration was multiple methods of science.

This score was 2.50, numerically placing it half-way between “more informed” (2.00)

and “robust” (3.00).

Of the participants, Anne’s VNOS-C scores, when compared between pre-

professional development and post-professional development, were the most consistent.

At both the beginning and the end of the professional development program, Anne’s

scores related to each tenet of the nature of science were generally higher than those of

the other participants.

As with the rest of the participants, Anne reported having no explicit training in

the nature of science, but as with Alan, Crissy, and Pat, Anne reported that she did have

implicit experience with the nature of science. That is to say that because she was

working with scientific inquiry, she was exposed to the nature of science, though there

was no direct instruction into the nature of science. Her intuitive knowledge of the nature

of science stood out above the rest of the participants. Evidence of Anne’s insight into

the nature of science was her beginning VNOS scores. Anne’s insight into the nature of

science was shown as she expressed the importance of the group in helping nurture

growth in both NOS knowledge and NOS pedagogy.

I really enjoyed the talks, when we talked about the social constructs,

because people always think science is just universal and while I do agree and see

that aspect of it and there's validity in that statement, I always think your social

norms and your experiences kind of color and influence how you see science and-

and the -- And I guess just the lens through which you see everything and

176

interpret the data. So, to me that was the most interesting discussion because one

participant saw everything from the engineering aspect, you know, and so that

was very different from how I see things. And then, you know, somebody else

saw it through the biology lens which is very different because I'm not a biology

person, so I just thought it was very interesting to see the different perspectives

about how they approach things. (Anne)

Anne went further in her post-professional development interview. She

described the professional conversations held with colleagues who were like-minded as

being highly effective in clarifying the tenets of NOS as well as helpful in developing

pedagogical strategies to include NOS in classroom practice. “I really liked being able

just to talk professionally with colleagues of the same mindset about instruction.” (Anne).

As stated above in the section describing Pat, Anne and Pat were observed to

collaborate almost every day. Both Anne and Pat used similar language in interviews

when describing their collaboration. They both indicated that the collaborative

relationship holds them accountable. Anne described this type of relationship when she

stated that, “two heads are better than one” (Anne).

Anne reported that a large portion of her collaboration with Pat involved

planning for laboratory investigations. Anne produced several artifacts such as

classroom laboratory activities, which included references to NOS. The creation of these

laboratory investigations served as evidence that Anne had a desire to include both NOS

instruction and scientific inquiry in the chemistry laboratory experiences of her students.

She recognized, as prior research has shown, that inclusion of NOS instruction requires

177

prior planning (Herman et al. 2013). Anne also indicated in her post-professional

development interview that both inquiry and NOS would need to be at the forefront of

instructional planning.

Looking toward the future, Anne suggested that it would be beneficial to include

more time for teachers in partnerships to be able to visit each other’s classrooms and help

each other develop skills. She was actually describing coaching when she suggested this

in her post-professional development interview (Zwart, Wubbles, Bergen, & Bolhuis,

2009). Anne expressed that her experience as department chair had given her insight

into the downfall, however, of forcing individuals to participate in such partnerships or

communities of practice. She explained this downfall.

I think there has to be buy-in for them to work. I think if you try to force people to

go into it and try to force them to do inquiry when there is -- When they're not

really buying into it, it waste their time. It wastes everybody else's time. (Anne)

She added that hand picking people to continue and expand the group would be a more

beneficial way to proceed than to simply include everyone.

Anne was very enthusiastic, always willing to share, eager to plan instruction and

create new pedagogical tools, and ever interested in professional growth, not just for

herself, but for all of the teachers that she supervised. When asked what she felt was the

most beneficial part of this professional development, Anne stated that the most

beneficial part was the fact that it moved her out of her comfort zone. This statement

illustrated Anne’s commitment to professional growth.

178

Using Cross Case Analysis to Elaborate on Findings

To gain a deeper understanding of the results of the VNOS-C scores as well as the

assertions that have come from the qualitative data, the five participants were compared

and contrasted as five separate cases. Table 4.13 summarizes key components of the

cases. The purpose of this part of the analysis was to determine which characteristics

were similar and which were dissimilar between the participants. By examining

similarities and differences between the participants, an understanding of the differences

can be gained and could provide insight into the differences observed in development of

NOS knowledge and teaching strategies (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002).

In examining the data summary on Table 4. 13, one can see that none of the

participants have undergraduate degrees in education. All but Vanessa held

undergraduate degrees in a science field. Vanessa held an undergraduate degree in

chemical engineering. Of the four that held science degrees, three, Alan, Pat, and Anne,

held undergraduate degrees in chemistry. Crissy was the lone participant with a degree

related to the biological sciences; as noted above, Crissy’s undergraduate degree was in

environmental science. Each of the participants, other than Vanessa, reported during

interviews, that they had experiences with NOS implicitly through inquiry in laboratory

settings as undergraduates.

The areas of NOS in which higher numbers of misconceptions were found at both

the beginning and the end of the study were (1) multiple methods of scientific and (2)

observations and inferences. The type of scientific background did not seem to be a

factor for initial conceptions which is similar to findings of Schwartz, Lederman, and

Crawford (2004), whose study involved pre-service science teachers all of whom held

179

previous science degrees. As with Schwartz et al. (2004), the science backgrounds of

the participants also did not seem to have an impact on the final views of the nature of

science with the exception of the construct of multiple methods of science, which will be

discussed.

The quantized scores of the NOS construct, multiple methods of science, at the

end of the professional development, appeared to have a wider range of numerical values

from “emerging” (1.0) to “robust” (3.0) when compared to the other seven NOS tenets.

The NOS tenets, other than multiple methods of science, tended to have scores at the end

of the professional development with numerical values above “more informed” (2.5). In

the multiple methods of science NOS tenet, Crissy, the only biology representative, had

the highest numerical score, which was “robust” (3.0), while the other participants earned

scores for this NOS tenet of “more informed” (2.5) or below.

The results stated above generated a question. Might the discipline of science

studied by a person have an effect on or act as a filter for the way that the person

perceives some of the tenets of the nature of science? Given the nature of the biological

sciences, or at least the areas of biological sciences related to ecology, zoology, or other

macrobiological fields, the concept of being able to add to scientific knowledge without

the use of a controlled experiment would seem very plausible. If a primatologist were

developing a new theory about chimpanzee social behavior in the wild, a controlled

experiment would not be a viable option. The same would be true for an ecologist

studying interactions of various biotic and abiotic factors in a particular ecosystem.

180

By contrast, for the physical sciences, controlled experimentation is much more the

normal method. Crissy’s background was environmental science, which is different

181

from all of the other participants, who had chemistry backgrounds. The difference in

the scientific backgrounds of each of the participants could offer a possible explanation

for the differences in conception of this NOS tenet. In comparing the lowest level of

conception in the NOS tenets for each of the participants, three of five held their lowest

NOS conception level in this particular tenet, multiple methods of science. Schwartz and

Lederman (2008) sought to examine the views of the nature of science of practicing

scientists to determine if the discipline of a scientist (e.g. biology, chemistry, geology,

physics) had a relationship to the scientists’ views of the nature of science. Their finding

was that there was a much variation within disciplines as there was between disciplines

and that there was no relationship. In a search of the literature, no study was found that

specifically examined and compared views of NOS of teachers in different science

disciplines.

Vanessa, the participant who held an undergraduate engineering degree, was

consistent in having less sophisticated views of NOS tenets than were held by the other

participants. In five of the eight NOS tenets, Vanessa’s post-professional development

VNOS-C scores were lower than the other participants. In the remaining three tenets,

Vanessa’s scores were the second lowest scores of the group. The nature of an

engineering background when compared to the science background of the other

participants could have been a contributing factor in this. Stevens, O’Conner, Garrison,

Joncus, and Amos (2008), in discussing the dimensions of becoming an engineer,

described characteristics such as defining problems, and designing ways to solve

problems. Cunningham and Carlsen (2017) compared practices of scientists and

engineers. They stated that engineers define problems, design solutions, and tend to have

182

goals that involve useful, novel technology. They continued by stating that scientists

ask questions, construct explanations and tend to have a goal that is theoretical or

explanatory in nature. The differences in the practices of engineers versus the practices

of scientists could affect the way a person views the tenets of the nature of science.

When compared to the other participants, Vanessa showed the greatest amount of

growth in her knowledge of NOS as measured with the VNOS-C. She did, however,

maintain relatively low numerical scores for each of the eight tenets of NOS when

compared to the other participants at the end of the professional development program.

With the exception of the two NOS tenets, observations v. inferences and multiple

methods of science, although her numerical scores were relatively lower than the others,

Vanessa’s scores were still between “more informed” and “robust” (2.00 and 3.00) for

the remaining six tenets of NOS. Of Vanessa’s post-professional development VNOS-C

scores, the NOS tenet in which she scored her highest was the NOS tenet, inference and

creativity. This, too, would seem to fit the engineering mind set according to

Cunningham and Carlson (2017). Engineers are often trained to be creative problem

solvers.

The number of years that each participant had been teaching was also examined

as a possible factor that might lead to differences between the levels of sophistication of

NOS concepts (“uniformed” to “robust”). Alan and Vanessa were the least experienced

teachers of the group with six and seven years experience respectively. Both had

backgrounds in chemistry, although Vanessa’s was in chemical engineering. When

compared to Vanessa’s conceptions of NOS, Alan’s NOS conceptions, as measured by

the VNOS-C, were less like Vanessa’s and were more similar to those of the other

183

participants who had backgrounds in chemistry, even though they had much more

teaching experience than Alan. Crissy, who had the most teaching experience (19 years)

of the participants as well as the highest level of university degree in a science area (not

an education degree) of the participants, had NOS conceptions at the end of the study that

ranged from 2.00 (“more informed”) to 3.00 (“robust”). In five of the eight NOS tenets,

other participants scored higher than Crissy. Alan, in contrast, with the least amount of

teaching experience, scored 3.00 (“robust”), which is the highest, or very close to 3.00 in

five of the eight tenets. This described result relating teaching experience to knowledge

of NOS as measured with the VNOS-C, seemed to suggest that the amount of teaching

experience did not play an important factor as teachers developed knowledge of NOS.

This finding fell in line with several studies reviewed by Abd-El Khalick and Lederman

(2000), including Billeh and Hasen (1975) and Lavach (1969), which indicated that

conceptions of NOS were independent of the number of teaching experience years.

Schwartz and Lederman (2002) indicated that in order for effective translation of

NOS into classroom practice, science teachers would have to have 1) belief that they can

teach NOS and that their students can learn NOS, 2) a knowledge base of NOS and the

skills necessary to teach NOS, and 3) the intent to teach NOS. Using these three factors

together as a lens to examine the five participants, a profile of how each is prepared to

take NOS into their classrooms can be generated.

Alan, Crissy, and Anne showed that they belief that they can teach NOS. The

following statement of Alan is indicative of his position: “Questioning in the lab would

be the one area that has changed the most” (Alan). Crissy and Anne both demonstrated

their belief that they can teach NOS through creating NOS centered activities and then

184

using them in their classes as described above. Vanessa and Pat wanted to move forward

but were both a little more hesitant than the others and indicated that they felt they

needed more work to bring NOS into their classrooms. Pat indicated this by stating in

her post-professional development interview, “I still need more work incorporating it

[NOS] into my teaching” (Pat). All five participants increased their knowledge of NOS

as measured with the VNOS-C and developed NOS conceptions, which were “more

informed” to “robust” (2.00 to 3.00 as the quantized VNOS-C data was measured). The

NOS tenet, multiple methods of science was “emerging” to “more informed”(1.00 – 2.00)

for Alan and Vanessa, and the tenet of observations v. inferences was also “emerging” to

“more informed” for Vanessa.

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) indicated that knowledge of NOS is

necessary but is not sufficient for incorporating NOS into classroom practice. Along with

knowledge of NOS, knowledge regarding the skills necessary to teach NOS must be

present (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Shulman, 1986; 1987). In examining the

data table 4.4, which summarizes data related to participants teaching NOS in the

classroom, it is seen that classroom activities that were NOS centered were taking place

in the participants’ classrooms, indicating that all five of the participants developed at

least a rudimentary base of skills necessary for teaching NOS.

The third component of teaching NOS identified by Schwartz and Lederman

(2002) was “intent to teach NOS.” The data summarized in tables 4.3 and 4.13 and

described above suggested that all five participants showed indications that they

possessed intent to teach NOS. Anne and Pat developed chemistry laboratory activities

that incorporated NOS through direct questioning and which were subsequently used in

185

class. Alan and Vanessa developed physics laboratory activities, which also

incorporated NOS and which they have used. Crissy helped develop an introductory

biology unit, described above, focusing on the discovery of the structure of DNA, which

was based on NOS and included explicit instruction in several NOS tenets. The

development, by the participants, of instructional materials incorporating NOS indicated

that they have intent to teach NOS.

With the belief that they can teach NOS, the belief that their students can learn

NOS, the knowledge base of NOS, knowledge of the skills necessary to teach NOS, and

the intent to teach NOS, the participants of this professional development have shown

that they have the requirements to purposefully translate their knowledge and skills into

incorporating NOS into their classroom practice (Schwartz and Lederman, 2002).

Meta-Inference





With both quantitative and qualitative data having been examined, an answer can

be constructed to address the primary research question. The quantitative data (see

explanation earlier in this chapter) indicated that a statistically significant difference was

detected in the NOS knowledge that participants were able to show, as measured by the

VNOS-C instrument, when pre-professional development results were compared to post-

186

professional development results. Supporting the participants as they developed more

informed conceptions of the nature of science was the community of practice that formed

within the group. Part of the community of practice included working with a partner in

the group as a peer coach to help develop knowledge of NOS and the skills to teach NOS

as well as to encourage the teaching of NOS in the classroom.

The research question of this study focused on what aspects of a professional

development build around peer coaching and NOS instruction effectively support the

development of NOS knowledge and the teaching of NOS in the classroom. The

evidence gathered from multiple sources suggested that peer coaching in the form of a

cooperative collaboration between participants was taking place and that it was a

beneficial relationship supporting the learning of NOS. The qualitative data indicated

that this group of participants highly valued the community of practice as a support

mechanism in that they valued group interaction/reflection after professional reading.

Lastly, the data further indicated that the professional development was effective in

supporting not only the development of knowledge of NOS and the skills necessary to

teach NOS, but that it also supported occurrences of incorporating NOS into the regular

classroom practice of the participants.

Summary

In this chapter, I have made an effort to answer the three research questions of the

current study, (1) - What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of

science during the course of the professional development? (2) - What incidents of

teaching nature of science or willingness of teachers to include nature of science

187

instruction in their classroom practice are discernable after a semester-long

professional development on teaching the nature of science?

and 3 - To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching

dyad relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants attribute any

changes in their views of the nature of science? Both the quantitative and qualitative

data collected during the study was analyzed and presented. Qualitative data from two

administrations of the VNOS-C (Lederman et al., 2002), which was quantized, after

being collected from the participants was shared. The data was quantized according to

methodology described in chapter 3 (Capps & Crawford, 2013; Posnanski, 2010; Scogin

& Stuessy, 2015). These data were shared both as group data and as individual

participant data. These data represented the pre-professional development and post-

professional development knowledge of the nature of science that each of the participants

held. Differences between the pre-professional development and post-professional

development knowledge of the nature of science held by the participants for each tenet of

NOS, as measured by the VNOS-C instrument, were shown along with results of a

Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011). The Wilcoxon test indicated

that differences between pre-PD and post-PD quantized scores for each tenet of NOS on

the VNOS-C were not likely due to chance (p<.05), addressing research question 1.

That is to say that the professional development program supported development of

knowledge of the nature of science.

Qualitative data, collected from multiple sources, was summarized in multiple

matrices organized by categories and sources. The sources of data included interviews,

evaluation forms, coaching forms and anecdotes, informal conversations, and

188

observations of the participants. The matrices and accompanying explanations indicated

how data collected from multiple sources was used to generate assertions related to

research questions 2 and 3.

The data suggested that the professional development supported increased

planning for teaching the nature of science and inclusion of teaching the nature of science

concepts in classroom practice. Further, the data indicated that peer coaching in the

form of a cooperative collaboration between participants was perceived as a beneficial

component of the professional development supporting the development of knowledge of

NOS.

The participants were presented as five cases, which were individually defined

and described (Yin, 2014). Each of the cases was first described demographically, then

with quantitative data from the VNOS-C which indicated the changes in their views of

the nature of science, and finally with qualitative data relating to their experiences during

the professional development program. These descriptions were used to compare and

contrast across the cases in order to elaborate on the findings detailed in the quantitative

and qualitative analysis. Specifically, the cross case analysis allowed the exploration of

possible explanations for differential outcomes with the participants (e.g. age, years of

teaching experience, science discipline background). Lastly, the quantitative analysis and

the qualitative analysis were combined to develop an overall meta-inference (Teddlie &

Tashakkori, 2006) for the current study addressing the overarching research question,

which was that the professional development built around peer coaching and instruction

in the nature of science was successful in supporting the growth of knowledge in the

189

nature of science and successful in supporting the enactment of participants teaching

NOS in their classrooms.

In the next and final chapter of the current study, implications from this study for

both for science teacher education and K-12 science teacher professional development

will be discussed. Limitations will be presented and questions for additional research that

grew from this study will be discussed.

190

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A crucible is a small porcelain dish often found in analytical chemistry

laboratories. It is used to heat substances so that parts of mixtures evaporate leaving the

desired precipitate behind. If I were to put this study into a crucible for heating, the

precipitate that would remain would be the desire to support teachers as they develop (1)

their own knowledge of the nature of science and (2) the ability to teach the nature of

science. Capps and Crawford (2013) found that supporting teachers’ development of

pedagogy and helping them connect their own learning to classroom practice are

important factors in effective professional development for science teachers. Loucks-

Horsley et al. (2010) have stated that effective professional development provides

opportunities for teachers to develop pedagogical content knowledge , increase content

knowledge, and to reflect on their practice. In the closing chapter of this study, I look to

the meaning of what is left in the crucible and its connection to the research questions

posed in chapter one.

In this study’s introduction, it was stated that the following questions would be

addressed:





191






science?




This chapter focuses on concluding the discussion of the data analysis and the

inferences that were presented in the previous chapter. Conclusions were drawn from

the quantitative data regarding research question one. Qualitative data served as the

bases for addressing and generating assertions for research question two and three. A

cross case analysis was presented in order to elaborate on the findings for the current

study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006). Alternative explanations will be discussed as well

as possible biases and the principal researcher’s subjectivity statement. The chapter will

conclude with recommendations for practice that one could infer from the current study

regarding both the K-12 classroom and science teacher education. Finally,

recommendations for future research building on the current study will be discussed.

Discussion of Research Questions

Research Question 1 - What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of

science during the course of the professional development?

192

Addressing this research question, as stated earlier, each of the participants was

given the VNOS-C at the beginning of the professional development program and again

at the end of the professional development program. As described in Chapter 3 and

reiterated to some degree in Chapter 4, the data collected from the two administrations of

the VNOS-C (Lederman et al., 2002) was quantized in order to make quantitative

comparisons (Capps & Crawford, 2012; Posnanski, 2010). Also, as described in Chapter

3, each of the items on the VNOS-C serves as an indicator of the respondent’s partial or

full knowledge of one or more of the tenets of the nature of science. An average score

for each tenet could be calculated for each participant and each administration of the

VNOS-C. These data points were graphed in order to discern if any pattern could be

observed. Additionally, the data was analyzed using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test

(Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011) and Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance to

determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the results of the pre-

professional development VNOS-C results and the post-professional development

VNOS-C results. As stated previously, both the Wilcoxon test and the Friedman test

were appropriate to analyze the quantized data in this study because the tests are non-

parametric test that does not require the assumption of normal distribution of the data.

The data can be seen in Table 4.2 and the graph of the pre-professional development

points is seen in Figure 4.7 and the post –professional development data can be seen in

Figure 4.8.

As stated in chapter 4, the quantized data suggested that the participants had

increased their knowledge of the nature of science as it is measured with the VNOS-C.

The data also seemed to show that one tenet, multiple methods of science, received scores

193

by the participants with a larger range after the professional development than the other

NOS tenets.

Schwartz et al. (2004) demonstrated with pre-service secondary science teachers

that an internship with practicing scientists along with explicit instruction in the nature of

science could result in growth in views of the nature of science including the tenet

dealing with multiple methods of science. The current study did not include a segment

of scientific inquiry with practicing scientists. Not including scientific inquiry with

scientists could be a possible factor explaining the VNOS-C results for this particular

tenet. Another factor that could explain the results for this tenet could be the

backgrounds of the participants. With regard to multiple methods of science, Crissy, the

participant, whose VNOS-C score for the items indicating knowledge on this NOS tenet,

was the highest, possessed more background in biological sciences when compared the

participants. Vanessa, the participant, whose VNOS-C score for this NOS tenet was the

lowest, had a background in chemical engineering. The participants, whose scores were

in between the other two participants all had backgrounds in chemistry. The difference in

background of the participants offered a plausible explanation of the resulting scores for

that tenet, although, Schwartz and Lederman (2008) offered findings that do not seem to

support the idea of science discipline influencing one’s view of NOS. Other studies that

have addressed developing more sophisticated concepts of the nature of science in

science teachers, including Abd-El-Khalick (2005), and Abd-El Khalick, Bell, &

Lederman (1998) did not address the multiple methods of science tenet of the NOS at all.

A future study could be developed addressing the differing views of the nature of science

of science teachers working in different scientific disciplines.

194

In answering the first research question, “What changes occur in teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science during the course of the professional

development?” the data indicated that there was a change. The data suggested that the

participants’ knowledge of the nature of science developed positively during the course

of the professional development. Using the scale in this study, which labeled lower

levels of NOS knowledge as “not informed” and higher levels of NOS knowledge as

“robust,” all of the participants’ scores, measured on the VNOS-C, moved toward the

“robust” end of the scale

The results of the first part of the current study was in line with other studies

designed to enhance teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science which included

explicit instruction in NOS (Abd-El- Khalick & Akerson, 2004; Cochrane, 2003;

Schwartz, Westerund, Garcia, & Taylor, 2010; Smith & Scharmann, 2008; among others)

as well as studies that were built around a community of practice ( Akerson & Abd-El-

Khalick, 2003; Akerson, Donnelly, Riggs, & Eastwood, 2012; Akerson & Hanuscin,

2007).

Research Question 2 - What incidents of teaching nature of science or willingness of

teachers to include nature of science instruction in their classroom practice are

discernable after a semester-long professional development on teaching the nature of

science?

The second research question of the current study related to the degree to which

participants were incorporating NOS instruction into their classroom practice. Abd-El-

Khalick and Lederman (2000) described several factors that have an effect on teachers

195

incorporating NOS into their regular classroom instruction. Among those factors, the

items of interest in this study were teaching experience, discomfort with their own

understanding of NOS, and a lack of resources for teaching NOS to students. Teaching

experience was addressed in the comparison across cases. Both discomfort with their

own understanding of NOS and lack of resources for teaching NOS were addressed

during the face to face portion of the professional development program. Lederman

(1999) pointed out that teachers’ informed conceptions of NOS are necessary, but not

sufficient for teachers to teach NOS to students. Instructional intention is a major factor

in determining whether a teacher incorporates NOS into his or her classroom practice

(Lederman, 1999). The intention that participants had to include NOS instruction into

their classroom practice was addressed as part of the analysis for research question two.

Having the intent to include NOS instruction extends beyond the direct planning to do so.

As stated before, Herman et al. (2013) described afforded opportunities when discussing

the moments that a teacher has the insight to include NOS instruction in classroom

practice, fostering growth of NOS knowledge in students, even if it were not previously

planned. It was further indicated that when inquiry investigations, science history in

readings or video clips, or current science are included to classroom instruction, there are

more opportunities to incorporate the constructs of NOS.

Table 4.3 and its related discussion summarized the data analysis related to

incidents of participants planning for NOS instruction. The data indicated that the

participants of the professional development were planning for the inclusion of NOS

instruction in their classroom practice. Planning ahead to include NOS instruction

greatly increases the likelihood that NOS instruction will take place (Schwartz and

196

Lederman, 2002). In mentioning ways in which NOS instruction could be incorporated

into new topics, during times that were not specifically set aside for NOS planning, the

participants demonstrated that they were gaining the ability to recognize opportunities to

include NOS instruction.

Table 4.4 and its related discussion summarized data related to incidents of NOS

instruction taking place in participants’ classrooms. Observations, participant self-

report, observations submitted by peer coaching pairs, and informal discussions all

converged and indicated that the participants were including - to varying degrees - NOS

concepts in their classroom practice. With increased planning for NOS instruction as

indicated by participant conversations and production of NOS centered instructional

material, increased knowledge of NOS as shown with the VNOS-C, and indicators that

the participants had intent to teach NOS, such as conversations regarding NOS

instruction and coming to me with questions regarding how NOS might be incorporated

into instruction of this or that concept, it followed that due to this prior planning and

preparation that the participants would be more likely to include NOS instruction in their

classroom class room practice (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002).

Research Question - 3 To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal

peer coaching dyad relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants

attribute any changes in their views of the nature of science?

Before the study began, due to my own previous experiences with peer coaching

and due to the literature supporting the added value of peer coaching (Goker, 2006;

197

Huston & Weaver, 2008; Zwart, Wubbles, Bolhuis, & Bergen, 2008), I believed that the

peer coaching component of this study would be the factor that best supported

development of more informed views of the nature of science, greater knowledge of NOS

by the participants and an increased likelihood that the participants would include NOS in

their classroom practice. As the study progressed, the peer coaching events with

participants, both as reported by the participants and observed by me, became

collaboration events between the two teachers involved in the peer coaching. In looking

again to Robins (1991), a broader view of peer coaching appears. He described peer

coaching as a “process through which two or more professional colleagues work together

to reflect on current practices, expand, refine and build new skills, share ideas, teach one

another” (p.1). The participants of the study had reshaped their coaching events from a

strict interpretation of coaching into one that worked for them and provided what they

needed to be successful in developing knowledge of NOS. This change in coaching

format, incidentally, followed the Robins (1991) model and definition of peer coaching.

The analysis indicated that they are working together to gain understanding, to help each

other, and working toward better teaching.

In addition to the coaching experiences, in addressing this question, the analysis

indicated that during face-to-face meetings of this professional development, professional

reading followed up with professional discourse as a group was perceived by the

participants as the aspect of that part of the program that best supported their

development of knowledge of NOS.

The theoretical framework of the study was Community of Practice (Lave &

Wenger, 1991) and development of a community of practice was reported by the

198

participants as being a valued aspect of the professional development. This

corresponded to previous studies that have implicated the importance of community of

practice in supporting the development of and maintenance of new skills (Akerson &

Abd-El- Khalick, 2003; Akerson, Cullen & Hanson, 2009; Akerson, Donnelly, Riggs, &

Eastwood, 2012; Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007). As the principal investigator, it was

interesting for me to observe that the group of teachers who participated in this study

reported gaining more from group interaction than one on one interaction.

This study provided evidence suggesting that a professional development program

for secondary science teachers, which includes explicit instruction in the nature of

science, with opportunity for participants to reflect on what they learned, and that

provides an opportunity for the participants to work with a peer coach for collaboration,

while putting the developed skills into practice, can be effective in developing knowledge

of the NOS. Further, developing a community of practice among the participants of the

professional development program can serve as an effective support system for helping

participants develop new knowledge and skills, such as knowledge of NOS.

Implications for Science Teacher Education

There are many studies that have focused on development of a more informed

conception of the nature of science among pre-service teachers (Abd-El- Khalick &

Akerson, 2004; Cochrane, 2003;; Lin & Chen, 2002; Matkins, Bell, Irving, & McNall,

2002). Some of these studies have followed the pre-service teachers into their induction

years (1-5 years) of teaching to make determinations regarding whether or not the

teachers whose pre-service teacher education included instruction in the NOS were

199

incorporating NOS into their classroom practice (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002).

Teachers in their first five years of classroom teaching often have a multitude of other

factors to contend with (e.g. curriculum, new duties, acclimation to classroom

management), any one of which could overshadow incorporating NOS into instruction

(Herman et al., 2013; National Academies, 2015). Akerson, Morrison, and McDuffie

(2006) demonstrated with pre-service science teachers that one class in NOS while in

pre-service was not enough to sustain changes in the views of NOS by the pre-service

teacher.

None of the teachers in the current study were in the induction years of their

career. Of the two participants with the least amount of experience, one was in year six

and one was in year seven, which is generally long enough to be considered a veteran

teacher. The rest of the participants fell between 10 and 19 years of teaching

experience. None of the participants reported any experience with explicit teaching of

NOS during their pre-service education. If the participants had taken part in pre-service

programs that incorporated NOS instruction with a community of practice being used as a

support system for helping pre-service teachers develop an informed view of NOS and

skills in teaching NOS, then results on the pre-professional development VNOS-C taken

by the participants would likely have been higher. Akerson, Donnelly, Riggs, and

Eastwood (2012) were successful in using community of practice as a support system

with pre-service teachers in order to develop more informed views of NOS. Akerson et

al. (2012) did not report any data collection from the participants of their study to

determine if those participants were incorporating NOS into classroom practice after they

became in-service teachers.

200

Each of the participants in the current study mentioned that being able to get

feedback from the other participants whose backgrounds and disciplines varied was part

of what made the community of practice within the group successful. Daniel, Aubl, and

Hastings (2013) reported positive results in the development of professional knowledge

by pre-service teachers when they employed community of practice in their teacher

education program and the pre-service teachers were able to receive collaborative

feedback from the other members of the community of practice. Pre-service science

teachers, if grouped in cross-curricular (biology, chemistry, physics) groups, would

benefit from being able to receive collaborative feedback from other community of

practice members of varied disciplines. The targeted professional knowledge would be

knowledge of NOS. This sort of grouping would not likely be feasible all of the time,

but it is reasonable to suggest that the cross curricular mixing would be beneficial as it

could give the pre-service teachers a wider perspective of how NOS could be

incorporated across the science fields, which leads to a greater understanding of NOS

concepts as well as a larger repertoire of skills for teaching NOS.

Implications for K-12 Science Teacher In-Service Professional Development

There are also implications from this study for how one would design an in-

service professional development for secondary science teachers to improve their

knowledge of the nature of science. As has been shown by multiple studies (Abd-El-

Khalick & Akerson, 2004; Akerson & Cullen, 2007; Cochrane, 2003; Gess-Newsome,

2002; McDonald, 2008; Posnanski, 2010; Smith & Scharmann, 2008) a professional

development meant to increase knowledge level in NOS should include explicit

201

instruction in NOS. It should include opportunities for the participants to reflect on what

they have learned about the nature of science (Faikhamta, 2013; Schwartz, Lederman, &

Crawford, 2004). From the findings of the current study, it can be suggested that,

forming cross curricular (biology, chemistry, physics) study groups of six –eight teachers

from the participants, with two or three teachers from each of the three core science

curricula would be beneficial in terms of developing a community of practice. Within

each study group, pairs of teachers who teach the same subject could work together to

support their learning of NOS and the skills to teach NOS by observing one another,

conferencing together, and revising lessons (Lotter, Singer, & Godley, 2009). As with

pre-service science teacher education, grouping of this sort would not always be feasible

but it is reasonable to suggest that this grouping could provide the type of cross-curricular

community of practice that the participants in the current study found to be a beneficial

support system for learning NOS and the PCK for NOS. The cross-curricular

community of practice widens the vision of the participants, allowing them to see how

NOS concepts can be incorporated into science teaching across science disciplines, as

well as increases the repertoire of PCK for teaching NOS that each teacher could use to

incorporate NOS into his or her classroom practice.

Limitations

Given that there was a small number of participants and the fact that the

participants were not a random sampling of the population nor were they placed into

random groups serving as experimental and comparison groups in this study, even for the

202

quantitative data collection, direct generalizability is not possible. Generalizability was

not the goal of this study. The findings should be suggestive of what might occur in

similar situations and settings. Additionally, given that the volunteers were not a

representative random section of the population, generalization to other populations will

not be possible. The participants were self-selected volunteers all from the same school.

They were all teachers in the science department at the location of the study. They came

with the predisposition to want to learn new concepts and participate in educational

research. The high level of desire of the participating teachers could have had a skewing

affect on the findings. The target audience of the professional development program in

this study was limited by county level administration of the school system where the

study occurred. The limitation imposed by administration was that only teachers, who

were at the location where I, the principal investigator, am a faculty member, were

permitted to participate.

Portions of the data collected relied on information that was self-reported by the

participants. It must be assumed that the participants were truthful and forthcoming when

providing interview data, information on evaluation forms, coaching event reports, and

during informal conversations. This assumption places some limitation on the data.

One hopes that all participants will be completely truthful, but there is always the

possibility that some participants may augment their reported data or tell the investigator

what it is believed that they want to hear.

Additionally, it might be seen as a limitation that I, the principal investigator,

teach biology and chemistry at the school that was the location of this study. I work in

the science department with the participants of the study and am on the same chemistry

203

instructional team with three of the participants, and on the same biology instructional

team with one of the participants. This created a completely emic situation for me as

the principal investigator. Besides being the principal investigator, I was also an insider,

a part of the group. The limitation is that given my status as an insider, there was the

possibility that the participants, with whom I already had a working relationship, might

not take me seriously as their instructor for the professional development program. The

alternate issue that might have occurred as a result of my being an insider was the

possibility that participants could have reported what they felt like I wanted to hear

during their interviews or on any of the several reporting forms used for data collection.

To combat this limitation, continual and random member checks were completed in order

to make sure that what the participants were saying is what I was understanding, and to

increase the likelihood that the participants’ reported information remained consistent.

The VNOS-C instrument presents three issues that could precipitate limitations

for the current study. The VNOS-C was designed as a qualitative instrument and meant to

generate profiles from the interpreted meanings of responses to the instrument items

(Lederman et al., 2002). Although the VNOS-C has been quantized in previous studies

(Capps & Crawford, 2013; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick ,2002; Posnanski ,2010), the initial

purpose of the instrument was not to label learners or to generate a numerical scores for learners.

In quantizing the interpretive data, some of the data’s meaning could be lost, specifically with

situations in which multiple questions on the VNOS-C are connected to the same or to multiple

tenets of NOS. The quantizing method used does not allow for the teasing apart of components

of the VNOS-C items that relate to individual tenets of NOS (i.e. VNOS-C item #2 connects to

the empirical nature of science as well as to the difference between observations and inferences).

204

In generating an average for each tenet, each item was taken in its entirety rather than partially

scored for one tenet of NOS and partially for another.

Additionally, the quantizing of the qualitative data from the VNOS-C could precipitate a

second limitation. By using the developed scale, 0 – uninformed, 1- emerging, 2 – more

informed, and 3- robust, the upper limit in the scale, 3- robust, created a possible ceiling effect.

Participants who scored highly on the pre-test had little or no room to increase their score, yet

their scores were high on the post-test as well. This could generate a Type I error – a false

positive - in the conclusion (Austin & Brunner, 2012).

The third limitation that could arise from the VNOS-C is from the wording of item#3,

(Does the development of scientific knowledge require experiments?). This item

addresses the myth of “one scientific method.” It is possible that science teachers of

different disciplines would interpret this question in different ways. Schwartz and

Lederman (2008) gathered data with practicing scientists to determine their views of

NOS. The study indicated that there was as much variation within each discipline with

regard to responses as there was between disciplines. It should be noted that Schwartz

and Lederman (2008) did not use any version of the VNOS, but instead used a

quantitative instrument in that study. Additionally, it is possible that learners (students

or teachers) might not make the connection between this question and the concept that

scientific investigations can be approached from many directions. A learner could

understand that there is no single method that scientists follow while still believing that a

controlled experiment must eventually happen in order to gain the evidence necessary to

develop new scientific knowledge.

205

Thoughts on Being an Insider Researcher

In working on this study, I was a participant observer, an “insider.” Being an

insider gave me some specific advantages. Along with those advantages also came some

disadvantages. Bonner and Tolhurst (2002) stated three specific advantages that

would come from researching from an insider perspective: (1) having a greater

understanding of the culture being studied, (2) not altering the flow of social interaction

unnaturally, and (3) having an established intimacy with the subjects which would

promote sharing truthfully as well as being able to judge when what is being shared is

truthful. Bonner and Tolhurst were speaking of nurses doing research with other

nurses, but these advantages are applicable to a teacher studying other teachers.

Researching teachers with whom I work, I did have a greater understanding going into

the research of the culture of the district, the school, and the department than if I were an

outsider rather than an insider (Adler & Adler, 1994). As we continued to work

together throughout the project, my status as an insider did not appear to alter the natural

interactions that took place among the participants, between the participants and students

or other teachers, or between the participants and me.

Hermann (1989) indicated that being an insider also held the advantages of

knowing the personalities of the participants, speaking the same language, and knowing

the formal and informal power structure of the organization. Knowing the personalities

of the participants gave me a more trusting view of the participant reported data,

believing that they would be truthful in the sharing of their information. As both the

colleague and accepted member of the “group”, who did not have authority or power of

206

any type over the participants, I was able to take on the role of both instructor of the

professional development and researcher.

Disadvantages of being an insider are also found in literature (Unleur, 2012). As

an insider, there is a risk of losing objectivity, which would jeopardize one’s credibility

as a researcher. The insider researcher could also make assumptions about what he

believes is the meaning of what participants have said or he may make assumptions based

on prior knowledge of the participants. The way that I countered these possibilities, as

stated above, was to continually check data and findings with the participants to confirm

that what I interpreted to be the meaning of writings or utterances was what the

participant actually meant.

Finally, carrying out this research in my own school, with my colleagues was a

growth experience for all involved. Those who participated in the study developed a

more informed conception of the nature of science. I, as the insider researcher, grew in

my experience of what support systems teachers perceive as helping them learn. I also

grew to appreciate a different perspective of being an educator as I observed participants

include skills and knowledge that they gained in this professional development in their

classroom practice.

Recommendations for future study

The results from this study have led me to several questions for future study. The

data from the VNOS-C indicated with the participants of this study that perhaps there is a

difference in the way that the nature of science is viewed and learned by teachers

depending on the discipline of science in which the teacher was educated. Is there a

207

difference between the way that biologists, chemists, and physicists conceptualize the

nature of science? Would teachers who are trained or who have backgrounds in these

areas hold the same conceptions as practicing scientists of each of these areas? The

VNOS-C data seemed to indicate that, at least for one tenet of NOS, multiple methods of

science, there was a difference between the teachers in the physical sciences and the

teacher of biological sciences. Further, with the question of what differences might exist

in conceptions of the nature of science relative to the science discipline of the

practitioner, would there be a difference between the sub-categories within a discipline.

Would a microbiologist view the nature of science in the same way that a zoologist, or an

environmental scientist views the NOS?

In this study, Vanessa seemed anomalous when compared to the other

participants. She was also the only participant who held a bachelor’s degree in

engineering rather than a science degree. Was she an anomaly or do engineers view the

nature of science differently than those who studied traditional science? The education

of engineers is different from the education of scientists. Engineering tends to be more

practical problem solving in focus, while science tends to be more theoretical and

explanatory in focus. From personal experience with both engineers and scientists, I

would venture that there is a difference between the way that engineers see the nature of

science and the way that scientists see the nature of science.

Two logical extensions to this study would be to (1) revisit the participants in the

following school year to determine if they are still both planning for NOS instruction and

including NOS concepts and issues in their classroom practice, and (2) extend the study

to include what students are learning as a result of their teachers including NOS concepts

208

in science instruction. Would there be a discernable change in student knowledge of

NOS after a year of instruction by the participants of this professional development

program? It has been shown in the research literature that the amount of NOS

knowledge possessed by teachers alone does not have an effect on student knowledge of

NOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Given that this professional development

program focused as much on skills to teach NOS as it did knowledge of NOS, I would be

hopeful that students would show an increased knowledge of NOS. Given that, for this

particular group of teachers, I remain there to encourage them to include NOS in their

instruction and that they developed a functional community of practice, I am also hopeful

that they would be including NOS concepts in their instruction in the following school

year.

Finally, an inquiry for future study would be to carry out this same study without

the limitations or restrictions that were on the current study so that a much larger sample

size could be used, with two groups: a group that uses peer coaching as a support and a

comparison group that does not use peer coaching as a support system for developing

knowledge of NOS and the skills necessary to teach NOS. This would allow for a more

quantitative comparison between those using peer coaching and those who are not as well

as more data for an extensive qualitative study. Would the larger comparison uncover a

difference in knowledge development based on the type of support mechanisms were are

in place? I believe that it would. Even though all of the participants of the current study

indicated that the professional reading and group reflection on that reading were the most

beneficial components of the professional development as far as supporting their NOS

learning, with the large amounts of literature that point to the benefits of peer coaching

209

(Benson & Cotabish, 2015; Huston & Weaver, 2008; Thijs & van der Berg, 2002), I

believe that there would be a discernable difference between the group using peer

coaches and the group that would serve as the comparison group.

Subjectivity Statement

Having been a public school educator for 27 years, I brought with me to this study

the possibility of subjectivity in findings that may confirm ideas about teacher education

that I personally hold. Early in my career, I was exposed to peer coaching and

collaboration in science education and these strategies resonated with me. In this study

I examined how different aspects of a professional development program (e.g. peer

coaching, reflection, professional reading) could facilitate growth in teachers’ views of

the nature of science and their ability to teach the nature of science to their students. I

was also the lead instructor teaching the professional development in this study.

I am a science teacher and have been teaching in a secondary classroom in the

suburbs of Atlanta. I am a Caucasian male who is the product of large state university

undergraduate education. I work in the school system and at the school where I

conducted this research. Conducting research in my own school was a matter of

convenience as I have a working relationship with county level administrators, who were

in a position to approve or disapprove this project in the county. Given that I work in the

county where my research took place, I also have a vested interest in the well-being and

improvement of science education in this system as well as a desire to aid in that

improvement.

210

Maxwell (2013) spoke of three levels of goals that a researcher may have in a

study: personal goals, practical goals, and intellectual goals. My personal goal in this

study was to produce information that could possibly help science teachers (not just those

in my system but others as well) improve their own views of the nature of science and

improve their ability to teach the nature of science and thereby contribute to the body of

knowledge in science education. My practical goal was to produce knowledge that

might help my school system, particularly the science education that takes place in my

school system. We have, I believe, an obligation to help others - in this case, others in

our profession - to improve their craft. As pedagogical strategies improve in classrooms,

the school system itself improves.. Intellectually, I wanted to gather evidence to explore

the relationship between different aspects of a professional development program and the

development of new pedagogical skills. As a scientist, I was curious to find out if the

data would have allowed me to accept or force me to reject some initial thoughts. As it

turned out, the data caused me to re-evaluate my initial thoughts.

Peshkin (1988) warns us to “avoid the trap of perceiving just what [our] own

untamed sentiments have sought out and served up as data.” Being aware of this “trap,”

is the first step to avoiding it.

Final Thoughts

This chapter began by comparing the current study to a substance in a crucible.

In examining the contents of the crucible after heating and sorting through the substance

that is left, I find that through a professional development built around peer coaching and

the instruction in the nature of science, I can help science teachers develop a greater

211

knowledge of the nature of science and I can help teachers gain skill in the ability to

teach the concepts and issues of the nature of science to their students in their classrooms.

Additionally, I can expose teachers to the strength that can be found to learn and improve

when teachers of equal status help each other rather than one teacher acting in the expert

role. Although I have, at the time of this writing, 27 years of experience in the science

classroom, from the experience of completing this study and all that led up to it, these

findings and the experiences that went into generating them have given me a wider field

of vision as an educator and a greater appreciation for what it means to be an educator.

212

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science:

the impact of a philosophy of science course on pre-service science teachers’

views of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education,

27(1), 15-42.

Abd-El-Khalick F. (2012) Nature of Science in Science Education: Toward a

Coherent Framework for Synergistic Research and Development. In:

Fraser B., Tobin K., McRobbie C. (eds) Second International Handbook of

Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24.

Springer, Dordrecht

Abd-El- Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and without the nature of science and

science teacher knowledge domains. Science and Education, 22, 2087-2107.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Akerson, V. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors

mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of

nature of science. Science Teacher Education, 88(5), 785-810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on

preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science.

International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-2184.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base

for science teaching, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673-699.

213

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and

instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education,

82(4), 417-436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. (2000a). Improving science teachers’

conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature.

International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7), 665-701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. (2000b). The influence of history of science

course on students’ view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 37 (10) 1057-1095.

Akerson, V., Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: a

yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049.

Akerson, V., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. (2000). Influence of a reflective

explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of

nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (4), 295-317.

Akerson, V., Buzzelli, C, Donnelly, L. (2008). Early childhood teachers’ views of

nature of science: the influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and

explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6),

748- 770

Akerson, V., Donnelly, L. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and

preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of

Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 45-58.

214

Akerson, V., Donnelly, L., Riggs, M., Eastwood, J. (2012). Developing a community of

practice to support preservice elementary teachers’ nature of science

instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1371-1392.

Akerson, V., Cullen, T., & Hanson, D. (2009). Fostering a community of practice

through a professional development program to improve elementary

teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 46 (10) 1090-1113.

Akerson, V., & Hanuscin, D. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry:

Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680.

Akerson, V., Hanson, D., Cullen, T. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and

explicit instruction on k-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of

Science Teacher Education, 18, 751-772.

Akerson, V., Morrison, J., McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: pre-service

elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213.

Akerson, V., Townsend, J., Donnelly, L., Hanson, D., Tira, P., White, O. (2009).

Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers’ network (SMIT’N): The influence

on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 21-40.

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science

Studies and Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.

215

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for

science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press

Anderson, G., Herr, K., Nihlen, S. (2007). Studying your own school. Thousand Oaks

California: Corwin Press.

Anderson, K. (1950). The teachers of science in a representative sampling of

Minnesota schools. Science Education, 34 (1), 57-66.

Anderson, S. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting concerns based

adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.

Austin, P., & Brunner, L. (2012). Type I error inflation in the presence of a ceiling

effect. The American Statistician, 57(2), 97-104.

Aydeniz, M., Baska, K., & Sninner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an

apprenticeship-based scientific research program on high school students’

understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education Technology,

20, 403-421

Bagheridoust, E., Jajarmi, H. (2009). Peer coaching to boost up teacher efficacy and

professional development: a case study in teacher education. Journal of

Teaching English as a Foreign Language and Literature, 1 (2), 3-20.

Banilower, E., Heck, D., Weiss, I. (2007). Can professional development make the

vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science

foundation’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 375-395.

216

Bartos, S., & Lederman, N. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of

science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 51 (9), 1150-1184.

Behnke, F. (1961). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements

bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science

and Mathematics, 61, 193-207.

Bell, R., Matkins, J., Gansneder, B. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit

instruction on pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of the nature

of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436.

Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science

instruction along a context continuum: Preservice secondary science

teachers’conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of

Science Education, 38, 493–520.

Benson, T., & Cotabish, A. (2014). Virtual Bugs: An Innovative Peer Coaching

Intervention to Improve the Instructional Behaviors of Teacher

Candidates. SRATE Journal, 24(1), 1-9.

Bergman, M. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE.

Bianchini, J. & Cavazos, L. (2007). Learning from students, inquiry into practice, and

participation in professional communities: Beginning teachers’ uneven

progress toward equitable science teaching. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 44 (4) 586-612.

217

Bianchini, J., Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to

prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. JRST, 37(2), 177-

209.

Bonner, A., & Tolhurst, G. (2002). Insider-outsider perspectives of participant

observation. Nurse Researcher, 9(4), 7-19.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the

terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teacher beliefs about nature of science and their relationship

to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.

Buysse, V., Sparkman, K., & Wesley, P. (2003). Communities of practice: connecting

what we know with what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263 – 277.

Cakiroglu, J., Dogan, N., Bilican, K., Cavus, S., & Arslan, O. (2009). Influence of In-

Service Teacher Education Program on Science Teachers' Views of Nature of

Science. International Journal of Learning, 16(10).

Capps, D. & Crawford, B. (2013). Inquiry-based professional development: What

does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of

science. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (12), 1947-1978.

Capps, D., Crawford, B, Constas, M. (2012). A review of empirical literature on

inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and

critique of findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 291-318.

Carey R. & Stauss, N. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers’

understanding of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 366-

376.

218

Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S.N. Hesse-Biber &

P. Leavy (Eds), Handbook of Emergent Methods. (155-17). New York: The

Guildford Press.

Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science

and attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90(5), 803-819.

Chinn, C. & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A

theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86,

175-218.

Clough , M. & Olsen, J. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science; An

introduction. Science and Education, 17, 143-145

Cochrane, B. (2003). Developing pre-service elementary teachers’ views of the

nature of science: Examining the effectiveness of intervention types. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of

Teachers of Science, St. Louis, Mo.

Coughlan, D. (2003). Practitioner research for organizational knowledge:

Mechanistic- and Organistic-oriented approaches to insider action research.

Management Learning, 34 (4), 451-463.

Collins, K. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed methods research: Current

practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.

Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social

and Behavioral Research (pp. 353-377). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

219

Collins, K., Onwuegbuzie, A., Sutton, I. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale

and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education.

Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, J. & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Crowther, D. & Cannon, J. (2002). Professional development models: A comparison

of duration and effect, presented at the annual international conference of

the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Charlotte, NC.

Cullen, T., Akerson, V., Hanson,D. (2010). Using action research to engage k-6

teachers in nature of science inquiry as professional development. Journal of


Daniel, G., Aubl, G.,& Hastings, W. (2013). Collaborative feedback and reflecting for

professional growth: Preparing first year pre-service teachers for

participation in the community of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education, 41(2), 159-172.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support

professional development in an era of reform. Phi delta kappan, 76(8), 597.

220

delMas, R., Garfield, J., Ooms, A., & Chance, B. (2007). Assessing students’

conceptual understanding after a first course in statistics. Statistical

Education Research Journal, 6, 28-58.

Donnelly, L., Argyle, S. (2011). Teachers’ willingness to adopt nature of science

activities following a physical science professional development. Journal of


Duschl, R. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science: Twenty-five years

of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathemtics, 85(7),

541-555.

Eastwood, J., Sadler,T., Zeidler, D., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum,

S. (2012) Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific

Issues, International Journal of Science Education,34:15, 2289-2315.

Eick, C. (2000). Inquiry, nature of science, and evolution: The need for more complex

pedagogical content knowledge in science teaching. Electronic Journal of

Science Education, 4(3).

Faikhamta, C. (2013). The development of in-service teachers’ undestandings of and

orientations to teaching the nature of science within a PCK-based course.

Research in Science Education, 43, 847-869.

Feilzer, M. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for

the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 4 (1), 6-16.

Foltos, L. (2013). Peer coaching: Unlocking the power of collaboration. Thousand

Oaks, CA:Corwin.

221

Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normalcy implicit

in analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 37,

675-701.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., Yoon, K. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of

teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), p. 915-945.

Gamst, G., Meyers, L., Guarino, A. (2008). Analysis of variance designs. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the

nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods

course. Science and Education, 11, 55-67.

Gibbons, J. & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Non parametric statistical inference. In

International Encylcopedia of Statistical Science (p. 977-979). Berlin:

Springer.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

Goldman, E., Wesner, M., & Karnchanomai, O. (2013). Reciprocal peer coaching: A

critical contributor to implementing individual leadership plans. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 24 (1), 63-87.

Goker, S. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional skills in

TEFL teacher education. System, 34(2), 239-254.

Gottesman, B. (2000). Peer coaching for educators. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow

Press, Inc.

222

Greene, J. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Imprint.

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and

Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4).

Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective. Phi Delta

Kappan, 84(10) 748-750.

Guskey, T. & Yoon, K. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta

Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.

Hanuscin, D. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content

knowledge for teaching the nature of science: a perspective elementary

teachers’ journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933-956.

Hanuscin, D., Akerson, V., Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science

instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary

teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912-935.

Hanuscin, D., Lee, M., & Akerson, V. (2010). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical

content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Teacher

Education, 95(1), 145-167.

Harrison, C., Hofstein, A., Eylon, B., Simon, S. (2008). Evidence –based professional

development of science teachers in two countries. International Journal of

Science Education, 30(5), 577-591.

Herman, B., Clough, M. & Olson, J. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science

implementation practices 2-5 years after having completed an intensive

science education program. Science Teacher Education, 97 (2), 271-309.

223

Herrman, A. (1989). The participant observer as “insider”: Researching your own

classroom. Paper presented at the 40th annual meeting of the Conference on

College Composition and Communication, Seattle, Washington.

Hewett-Taylor, J. (2002). Inside knowledge: Issues in insider research. Nursing

Standard, 16(46), 33-35.

Horn, S., Dallas, F., Strahan, D. (2002). Peer coaching in a professional development

school: The value of learning together as teachers and professors.

(ED471177)

Houseal, A., Gillis, V., Helmsing, M., & Hutchison, L. (2016). Disciplinary literacy

through the lens od the next generation science standards. Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(4), 377-384.

Hughes, R., Molyneaux, & Dixon, P. (2011). The role of scientist mentors on teachers’

perceptions of the community of science during a summer research

experience. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9231-8

Huston, T. & Weaver, C. (2008). Peer coaching: Professional development for

experienced faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 5-20.

Iqbal, H., Azam, S., Rana, R. (2009). Secondary school science teachers’ views about

the ‘Nature of science’. Bulletin of Education and Research, 31(2), 29-44.

Jao, L. (2013). Peer coaching as a model for professional development in the

elementary mathematics context: challenges, needs and rewards. Policy

Futures in Education, 11(3). 290-299.

224

Jeanpierre, B., Oberhouser, K. Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional

development that effect change in secondary science teachers’ classroom

practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 668-690.

Johnson, R. & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm

whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed

methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Joseph, D., Griffin, M., Hall, R., & Sullivan, E. (2001). Peer coaching: an intervention

for individuals struggling with diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 27 (5), 703-

710.

Kent, B. (2000). Peer coaching: A viable form of professional development (doctoral

dissertation University of British Columbia).

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, 551-575.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a

controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 43 (4), 395-418.

Khishfe, R. & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and

views of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29

(8), 939-961

King, B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and

philosophy of science. Science Education, 75 (1), 135-141.

225

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Krathwold, D. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An

integrated approach. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.

Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., Grosemans, I., & Donche, V. (2016). Teachers’ everyday

professional development: Mapping informal learning activities, antecedents,

and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4) 1111-1150.

Ladyshewsky, R. (2006). Peer coaching: a constructivist methodology for enhancing

critical thinking in postgraduate business education, Higher Education

Research & Development, 25 (1) 67-84.

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

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a

review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331-

359.

Lederman, N. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and

classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929.

Lederman N. (2006) Syntax Of Nature Of Science Within Inquiry And Science

Instruction. In: Flick L.B., Lederman N.G. (eds) Scientific Inquiry and

Nature of Science. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 25.

Springer, Dordrecht

226

Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of the nature

of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of

learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

Lederman, N. & Lederman, J. (2011). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific

inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development.

In B. Frazier, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (eds) Second International Handbook

of Science Education. (335-359) New York,NY: Springer.

Lederman, N. & Lederman, J. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of

science. In N. Lederman, S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science

Education Volume II (600-620). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lederman, N., Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Bell, R. (2001). Pre-service

teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: an intervention

study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1

(2), 135-160.

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature

of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of

learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39 (6), 497-521.

Lederman, N., Wade, P., Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of

science: A historical perspective. In McComas (Eds) The Nature of Science in

Science Education. Dordrecht: Kluwar Academic Publishers

227

Lin, H., & Chen, C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers' understanding

about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39(9), 773-792.

Linneman, S., Lynch, P. , Kurup, R, Webb, P., & Bantwini, B. (2003). South African

science teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science. African Journal of

Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7 (1), 35-50.

Liu, S., Lederman, N. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and

conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science

Education, 29(10), 1281-1307.

Lotter, C., Singer, J., Godley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and

reflection on preservice teachers’ views of inquiry and nature of science.

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20 (6), 553-582.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing

Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand

Oaks, California: SAGE.

Luft, J. & Pizzini, E. (1998). The demonstration classroom in-service: changes in the

classroom. Science Education, 82 (2), 147-162.

Luft, J., Firestone, J., Wong, S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning

secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed methods study.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10) 1199-1224.

Luft, J. & Hewson, P. (2014). Research on teacher professional development

programs in science. In N. Lederman and S. Abell (Eds.) Handbook of

Research in Science Education Vol II, (p. 889-909). NY, New York: Routledge.

228

Lumpe, A. (2007). Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in

professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18,

125-128

Lyndon, S. & King, C. (2009). Can a single, short continuing professional

development workshop cause change in the classroom?. Professional

Development in Education, 35 (1), p. 63-82.

Ma, H. (2009). Chinese Secondary School Science Teachers’ understanding of the

nature of science – Emerging from their views of nature. Research in Science

Education, 39, 701-724.

Machi, L. & McEvoy, B. (2012). The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand

Oaks, California: SAGE.

Matkins, J., Bell, R., Irving, K., McNall, R. (2002). Impacts of contextual and explicit

instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature

of science. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the

Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Charlotte, NC.

Matthew, M., Huberman, A., Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive design (3rd ed.).

Los Angeles: Sage.

Mazurkiewicz, G., Fischer, J. (2013). Crossing the frontiers: Peer coaching and self-

management in the process of the professional development in multicultural

environment. Journal of Intercultural Management, 5(3), 49-61.

229

McComas, W. (1998). The nature of science in science education rationales and

strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McDonald, C. (2008). Exploring the influence of a science content course

incorporating explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on

preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science (Doctoral dissertation,

Queensland University of Technology).

McDonald, C. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation

instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9) 1137-1164.

Miller, P. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students

of biology to understand science. Iowa Academy of Science, 70, 510-513.

Morrison, J., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and

secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 46(4), 384-403.

Mulvey, B., Bell, R. (2017). Making learning last: Teachers’ long term retention of

improved nature of science conceptions and instructional rationales.

International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 62-85.

Murray, S., Ma, X. , Mazur, J. (2009). Effects of peer coaching on teachers’

collaborative interactions and students’ math achievements. The Journal of

Educational Research, 102 (3), 203-212.

National Academies (2015). Professional development programs. Science Teacher

Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creating Supportive Contexts.

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

230

National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of

science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). Framework for K-12 science and

engineering practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council [NRC]. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For

States by States. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

National Science Foundation [NSF]. (1962). The role of the National Science

Foundation in course content improvement in secondary schools. The School

Review, 70, 1-15.

Ogunniyi, M. (2006). Effects of a discursive course on two science teachers’

perceptions of the nature of science. African Journal in Mathematics,

Science, Technology Education, 10(1), 93-102.

Onwuegbuzie, A. & Combs, J. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed

methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of

Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 397-430). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Johnson, R. (2006). The validity issue in mixed methods

research. Research in Schools, 13(1), 48-63.

Pajak (1993). Robert goldhammer’s clinical model. In Acheson, K. & Gall, M. (Eds.)

Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers. Harlow, U.K.: Longman,

Inc.

231

Parker, P., Kram, K., Hall, D. (2012). Exploring risk factors in peer coaching: a multi-

level approach. Journal of applied behavioral science, 49(3), 361-387.

Pavez, J., Vergara, C.,Santibanez, D.,& Cofre, H. (2016). Using a professional

development program for enhancing Chilean biology teachers’

understanding of the nature of science and their perceptions about using

history of science to teacher NOS. Science and Education, 25, 383-405.

Pegg, J. & Gummer, E. (2010). The influence of multidisciplinary scientific research

experience on teachers views of nature of science. The Mathematics

Enthusiast, 2(7).

Penuel,W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes

professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum

implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (4) 921-958.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity - One’s Own. Educational Researcher,

17(7), 17-22.

Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of scientific discovery. NY, New York: Routledge.

Posnanski, T. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a

professional development program for inservice elementary teachers:

Project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 21, 589-621.

Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking say

about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1) 4-15.

232

Rajab, S. (2013).Peer coaching in the kingdom of Bahrain: Exploring the

implementation of a professional development programme for primary

teachers. (doctoral dissertation University of East Anglia).

Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peer coaching program.

Alexandria, Va.:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Robbins, P. (2015). Peer coaching to enrich professional practice, school culture, and

student learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Ross, J. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement.

Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.

Rubba, P. & Harkness, W. (2007). A New scoring procedure to the views on science

–technology instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4),

38-400.

Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks,

California: SAGE.

Schwab, J. (1962). Teaching science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds).

The Teaching of Science (p. 1-103). MA: Harvard University.

Schwartz, R., & Crawford, B. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as a context for

teaching nature of science. Inquiry and Nature of Science, 331-355.

Schwartz, R., Lederman, N. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast.”: The influence of

knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching the nature of science.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 205-236.

233

Schwartz R. & Lederman, N. (2008). What Scientists Say: Scientists’ views of nature

of science and relation to science context, International Journal of Science

Education, 30:6, 727-771.

Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of

science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap

between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Teacher Education.

doi: 10.1002/sce.10128

Schwartz, R., Westerund, J., Garcia, D., Taylor, T., (2010). The impact of full

immersion scientific research experiences on teachers’ views of the nature of

science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14 (1).

Scogin, S. & Stuessy, C. (2015). Encouraging greater student inquiry engagement in

science through motivational support by online scientist-mentors. Science

Education, 99, 312-349.

Scott, B. (2015). Perceptions of elementary school teachers preparation in peer

coaching, reflective practices, and the effect on student learning. (doctoral

dissertation The University of Alabama).

Sekerka, L., & Chao, J. (2003). Peer coaching as a technique to foster professional

development in clinical ambulatory settings. The Journal of Continuing

Education in the Health Professions. 23, 30-37.

Seung, E., Bryan, L., Butler, M. (2009). Improving preservice middle grades science

teachers’ understanding of the nature of science using three instructional

approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20 (2), 157-177.

234

Showers, B. (1982) Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching . Eugene,

Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Showers, B. (1984) Peer Coaching: A strategy for facilitating transfer of training.

Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 43-

48.

Showers, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for

future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational leadership, 45(3), 77-

87.

Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational

Leadership, 53 (6), 12-16.

Silva, D., & Dana, N. (2001). Collaborative supervision in the professional

development school. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(4), 305-321.

Sinkinson, C. (2011). An assessment of peer coaching to drive professional

development and reflective teaching. Communications in Information

Literacy, 5(1), 9-21.

Slater, C. L., & Simmons, D. L. (2001). The design and implementation of a peer

coaching program. American Secondary Education, 67-76.

Smith, M., Scharmann, L. (2008). A Multi-year program developing an explicit

reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by

ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219-248.

235

Snow-Gerono, J. (2005). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS

teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 21, 241-256.

Southerland, S., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers' conceptual

ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education, 90(5), 874-906.

Swafford, J. (1998). Teachers supporting teachers through peer coaching.

Supporting Learning, 13(2).

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods

research: Calling for an integrative framework. In M. Bergman (Eds)

Advances in Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Thijs, A., van den Berg, E. (2002). Peer coaching as part of a professional

development program for science teachers in Botswana. International

Journal of Educaitonal Development, 22, 55-68.

Tobin, K. (2007). Improving science teaching practices. International Journal of

Science Education, 10(5) 475-484.

Thye, T., Kwen, B. (2004). Assessing the nature of science views of Singaporean Pre-

Service Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2).

Tschannen-Moran, B. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2010). Evocative coaching:

Transforming schools one conversation at a time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass

Tsai, C. C. (2006). Reinterpreting and reconstructing science: Teachers’ view

changes toward the nature of science by courses of science

education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 363-375.

236

Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study

research. The Qualitative Report, 17 (29), 1-14.

Van Driel, J., Beijard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform

in science education. Journal of Research in Science Education, 38 (2) 137-

158.

Vidmar, D. (2006). Reflective peer coaching: Crafting collaborative self-assessment

in teaching. Research Strategies, 20(3) 135-148.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning Meaning and Identity. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, S. (2012). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340, 310-

314.

Wong, K. & Nicotera, A. (2003). Enhancing teacher quality: Peer coaching as a

professional development strategy. A preliminary synthesis of the literature.

Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Yacoubian, H. & Boujaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following

inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of the nature of

science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,47(10, 1229-1252.

Zwart, R., Wubbels, T., Bergen, T., & Bolhuis, S. (2007). Experienced teacher learning

within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers and Teaching:

Theory and Practice, 13(2), 165-187.

Zwart, R., Wubbels, T., Bergen, T., & Bolhuis, S. (2009). Which characteristics of a

reciprocal peer coaching context affect teacher learning as perceived by

teachers and their students. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 243-257.

237

Zwart, R., Wubbles, T., Bolhuis, S., & Bergen, T. (2008). Teacher learning through

reciprocal peer coaching: An Analysis of activity sequences. Teacher and

Teacher Education, 24, 982-1002.

238

APPENDICES

239

APPENDIX A

VNOS –C

1. What, in your view, is science? What makes science (or scientific discipline such

as physics, biology, etc.) different from other disciplines of inquiry (e.g. religion,

philosophy)?

2. What is an experiment?

3. Does the development of scientific knowledge require experiments?

a. If yes, explain why. Give an example to defend your position.

b. If no, explain why. Give an example to defend your position.

4. After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g. atomic theory,

evolutionary theory), does the theory ever change?

a. If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why. Defend

your answer with examples.

b. If you believe that scientific theories do change: (1) explain why theories

change (2) Explain why we bother to learn scientific theories. Defend

your answer with examples.

5. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Illustrate

your answer with an example.

6. Science textbooks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of

protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (neutral particles) with

electrons (negatively charged particles) orbiting the nucleus. How certain are

240

scientists about the structure of an atom? What specific evidence do you think

that scientists used to determine what an atom looks like?

7. Science textbooks often define a species as a group of organisms that share

similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile

offspring. How certain are scientists about their characterization of what a

species is? What specific evidence do you think that scientists used to determine

what a species is?

8. It is believed that about 65 million years ago the dinosaurs became extinct. Of the

hypotheses formulated by scientists to explain the extinction, two enjoy wide

support. The first, formulated by one group of scientists, suggests that a huge

meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago and led to a series of events that cause

the extinction. The second, formulated by another group of scientists, suggests

that massive and violent volcanic eruptions were responsible for the extinction.

How are the different conclusions possible if scientists in both groups have access

to ad use the same set of data to derive their conclusions?

9. Some claim that science is infused with social and cultural values. That is,

science reflects the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and

intellectual norms of the culture in which it was practiced. Others claim that

science is universal. That is science transcends national and cultural boundaries

and is not affected by social, political, and philosophical values, and intellectual

norms of the culture in which it is practiced.

a. If you believe that science reflects social and cultural values, explain why.

Defend your answer with examples.

241

b. If you believe that science is universal, explain why. Defend your answer

with examples.

10. Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to find answers to the

questions they put forth. Do scientists use their creativity and imagination during

their investigations?

a. If yes, then at which stages of the investigations you believe scientists use

their imagination and creativity: planning and design, data collection, after

data collection? Please explain why scientists use imagination and

creativity. Provide examples if appropriate.

b. If you believe that scientists do not use imagination and creativity, please

explain why. Provide examples if appropriate.

242

APPENDIX B

Professional Development Evaluation form

Teaching the Nature of Science in the Classroom

Evaluation of a professional Development

Fall 2017

1. How many face-to-face sessions did you attend? 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Roughly how many times between staff development sessions did you and a partner discuss

/work on instruction with NOS and/or SI? 0-1 2-3 3-4 5 or more

3. How would you rate your understanding of the nature of science before the professional

development? 0 – not at all 5 – very well 0 1 2 3 4 5

4. How would you rate your understanding of the nature of science after the professional

development? 0 – not at all 5 – very well 0 1 2 3 4 5

5. How helpful did you find the demonstrations in the face-to-face sessions?

0- not helpful 5 – very helpful 0 1 2 3 4 5

243

6. How helpful did you find the collaboration on other ways to incorporate the nature of science

into the curriculum?

0- not helpful 5 – very helpful 0 1 2 3 4 5

7. How likely are you to continue to look for ways to incorporate NOS into the science

curriculum that you teach?

0- not likely 5 – very likely 0 1 2 3 4 5

8. In which area of NOS do you think you grew the most? What makes you think this?

9. Which area of NOS do you feel that you understand the least?

10. Which part(s) of this professional development program do you feel were the most effective?

Why?

11. Which part(s) of this professional development program helped your understanding of

inquiry and the nature of science and insight into teaching the nature of science and inquiry?

244

APPENDIX C

Interview Protocol for Participants POST Professional Development

Topical Area Interview Questions What I want to know Background

1) How long have you taught science? 2) Tell me about your educational background? 3) What did you know about the nature of science before taking this professional development course?

General background Might a difference in background precipitate differences in NOS growth? Any misconceptions that participants came to the study with

Experience with NOS in the Professional Development

4) Which part of NOS did you find the most interesting? 5) Tell me about the areas of NOS that you feel like you learned the best 6) What do you think helped you learn about this area better than others? 7) Which area of NOS do you feel like you still need some work with? 8)What do you think would help you with that area of NOS? 9) Which part or parts of the program did you find most

What areas of NOS did the participants most identify with Of demonstrations, collaborations, and peer coaching, to which does the participant attribute most of his/her learning?

245

useful in learning about NOS? 10) How was/were that/those part(s) useful?

After the Professional Development

11)Describe for me where you think you are with regard to incorporating more NOS into your teaching? 12) What type of follow up training would you like to see regarding NOS? 13) Have you increased the amount of NOS and SI in your classroom practice? Describe how your class planning and classroom practice have included NOS and SI. 14) Tell me about how you might incorporate NOS into your teaching now that the professional development is over. 15) What support would make you more likely to incorporate NOS into your teaching?

Now that the program is completed, how much does the participant feel that he or she has learned and how comfortable does he/she feel with NOS? What ideas do they participants have for future professional development? How comfortable the participant feels about incorporating NOS into regular instruction. An idea of what further support I might be able to give.

General Closing 16) Is there anything else that you would like to tell me about your experience in this professional development program?

General “did I leave out anything” question.

246

APPENDIX D

Data Collection Matrix





Research Question

Pre-Study Data Collection

Mid-Study Data Collection

Post Study Data Collection

1. What changes occur in teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during the course of the professional development?

VNOS C administration for all domains VNOS C structured interview with all participants (same questions to clarify answers)

Conversations and group sharing during the professional development sessions. Observation/interaction sheets completed by teachers as they coach each other Video and transcripts of PD sessions Additional observer taking notes during PD sessions

VNOS-C administration for all domains VNOS structured interview (same questions to clarify answers) This is to compare overall change for all participants of the program as well as individual changes in each domain of NOS. Additional Interview Questions 4,5, 7,11, 13, 14 Professional development Evaluation form Questions 3, 4, 8, 9

247

2.What incidents of teaching nature of science or willingness of teachers to include nature of science instruction in their classroom practice are discernable after a semester-long professional development on teaching the nature of science?

There is no pre-study data collections for this question.

Conversations and group sharing during the professional development sessions. Observation/interaction sheets completed by teachers as they coach each other transcripts of PD sessions Mid –Study mini-interviews. Artifacts: Lesson plans, Class activities, handouts

Post study interview questions 6, 8, 13,15 Artifacts: lesson plans, class activities, handouts. Professional Development Evaluation Question 7

3.To what parts of the professional development, (e.g. reciprocal peer coaching dyad relationship, reflection, demonstration) if any, do the participants attribute any changes in their views of the nature of science?

There is no pre-study data collection for this question

Conversations and group sharing during the professional development sessions. Observation/interaction sheets completed by teachers as they coach each other transcripts of PD sessions Mid –Study mini-interviews.

Interviews with participants post professional development sessions Questions 5,6, 9,10, 12, 15 Professional development evaluation form Questions 5,6, 10, 11

248

APPENDIX E

Peer Coaching Observation Form

Learning the Nature of Science Coaching Observation Form

Name _______________________________________ Date _____________________ Time _________ Teacher being observed ____________________________________________________________________ NOS Strand Being Taught __________________________________________________________________ Classroom Observation ___________ Video Observation _____________ What did the teacher being observed ask you to focus on today? What sort of teaching strategy is being used? (lecture, lab, project, group discussions, etc.) Was the strand of NOS made clear in the teacher instruction? What evidence supports your response? What are some specific observations that you have regarding this teacher’s instruction of NOS? What suggestions do you have for how the teacher being observed can improve his/her instruction of NOS?

249

APPENDIX F

Outlines for Each Professional Development Session

Inquiry and the Nature of Science

Session #1 - Tuesday, August 15, 2017

• Welcome • Goals of the course • Calendar – The need to change one date due to Gateway class at county office. • Explanation of my study and its relationship to the PD • Walk through the notebook – What’s in there?

o Letter o VNOS o Coaching forms o Evaluation o Articles o Activities and descriptions

• How would you define “Science?” • What is “scientific inquiry”? How we do science. • Let’s take a look at the tenets of the nature of science? What do you think about

these? This is how we understand science. • What are your initial thoughts about these tenets? • How do SI and NOS fit together? • NGSS and reform based teaching (I was going to copy for you, but the document

is huge).. Appendix F – Practices and H- NOS • Taking the training wheels off.. Getting your students used to inquiry

o Science is empirical – what does this mean? o Activity with dice to … predict probabilities o What type of data do we need? What types of controls? o Repetition o Outliers o Collect data, share, and discuss.. In science, we have to repeat, look for

trends, outliers.. etc… o How far away from 25/50/25 would this have to be before we decided

something was wrong? Arbitrary? Who decides? Data is subject to interpretation through your own theoretical filters. This is the kind of thing that it’s important for us to talk to our students about.

o How could this relate to biology, chemistry, physics?

250

• Coaching partner? Helping each other? Feedback o Being objective and positive o Listening to your partner o Not being judgmental o Think about sports coaching… o Collective reflecting

• Complete VNOS and get that back to me. • Before next time, both members of the dyad should incorporate into his/her

classroom practice at least one instance of inquiry and also at least one instance of explicit inclusion of one of the tenets of nature of science. Reflect on this with your partner and record.

• Article for reading for next time: Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science - McComas


Session #2 - Tuesday, September 5, 2017

• Welcome • Housekeeping items

o VNOS o Consent Letters

• Discussion of McComas article o What are some things that stood out? o Why might there be a disconnect between what is going on in the science

classroom and what the author is calling for? o Did it surprise you to see that NOS and Inquiry are not new things?

• Sharing things that we have done in inquiry and NOS since last time o Chem metal/nonmetal lab

§ How was it different from the way we’ve done it in the past? § How was it inquiry? § What was necessary to change it to be inquiry? § How was NOS incorporated? CER is Empirical § How did students respond?

o Biology – bio chem labs § How was it inquiry? § How did the students respond?

o Physics? o APES? o AP Chem?

• Transforming labs that we have done previously to be more inquiry and include the nature of science

o What could we leave out or add in to make a lab more inquiry? § No data table (science is empirical)

251

§ No procedures (science is creative, science approaches problems in a multitude of ways, observations v. inferences)

§ An extension of … “What additional question could we ask?” o Take a few minutes and think about an upcoming lab in your area… How

can it be modified to include inquiry and NOS? o Share a few.

• Cube activity o How does this relate to the nature of science and inquiry? Science is

empirical, science is tentative o What if you don’t ever get to see the bottom face?

§ In science, we may not ever know the actual answer… there is no book of answers to check.

§ We have to go on best inference of best data § Further thoughts?

• Peer coaching update… o Be sure to talk with your buddy about what you’re doing and what he/she

is doing. Record outcomes from conversations and thoughts about the process.

o Decide on a few specific things to try/ target and reflect with each other. • Reading for next time.. Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science -

Lederman and Lederman


Session #3 - Tuesday, September 28, 2017

• Welcome • Housekeeping items

o VNOS o Consent Letters

• Understanding the periodic table activity o What could we do to relate this to NOS? o Creativity? This is probably the hardest area of NOS to teach explicitly.

Why do you think so? What are some other ways? o Lab work that incorporates creativity

§ Biology – Osmosis data § Chemistry – Relate to development of periodic table § Physics? – § APES /AP Chem?

o Tricky Tracks (observation v. Inference) – Creativity “Science is partially the product of human inference, creativity, and imagination.”

252

• What are some things that we have done since our last meeting that involved inquiry and NOS?

• Upcoming lab that can be modified to incorporate inquiry and NOS?

• Discussion of Lederman and Lederman article “Revising Instruction to Teach NOS”

o What are some points that stood out? o Lederman explains NOS a little differently than did McCommas. What

are your thoughts about the way Lederman explains NOS? o Lederman states that we shouldn’t assume that students come to us with

any knowledge of the nature of science. Why do you think that students don’t come to us understanding NOS?



o Decide on a few specific things to try/ target and reflect with each other. • Reading for next time.. Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science -

Michael Clough


Session #4 - Tuesday, October 17, 2017

• Welcome • Housekeeping items • Tricky Tracks (observation v. Inference) – Creativity “Science is partially the

product of human inference, creativity, and imagination.” o Which area of NOS does this fit with the most? o How might this relate to other things we do in class? o What topics are we teaching in our classes that illustrate this same tenet?

• Discussion of Clough article “Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science” o What are some points that stood out? o Bring attention to Fig 1 – discuss o Bring attention to Fig 2 – the list of questions..

§ How could we use these questions? Reflect and share. o Last week, the article focused on ways to modify lessons to incorporate

NOS.. this week, the article focuses more on how to assess whether students are getting it.

§ What are some ways that we can use these strategies? § Everyone think of a question based on the questions in the article

that relates a lab or topic that you’re teaching right now that incorporates NOS. (Share and reflect)

253

• NOS Focus: Science is theory laden as well as socially and culturally imbedded.

o Teach using Argumentation (share ADI books) § Controversial issues.. flat earthers, anti-vaccers, stem cell

research, GMOs, Climate change, Dinosaur extinction, expanding or contracting universe, use of nuclear energy,

§ How do scientists look at the same data and draw different conclusions?

§ Scientific consensus? § Opportunity to include “Claims Evidence, Reasoning”



o Decide on a few specific things to try/ target and reflect with each other. • Take a second and reflect a minute… what are we taking away from this session

that we can use in class this week? • Reading for next time.. Focusing Labs on Nature of Science - Colburn


Session #5 - Tuesday, November 14, 2017

• Welcome • Housekeeping items • Time to share some of the things that we’ve done related to NOS and SI over the

past semester. o What are some ways that you have incorporated NOS into your classroom

practice? o What are some of the ways that what we’ve done in this PD affected how

you think about instruction? • Discussion of Colburn article “Focusing Labs on the Nature of Science”

o What are some points that stood out? No one scientific method. o Draw attention to questions on p. 33

§ Which ones would be good to add to our labs? § Confidence in conclusion à CER

o Bulleted points on p. 34 o Ways to incorporate science and engineering practices in NGSS and our

AKS. o What do you think about the idea of a lab group journalist… along with

individual lab reporting? • NOS Focus: The myth of one scientific method

o What are some ways that we can help clear up this misconception and make sure that we don’t inadvertently contribute to it?

• SI Focus: Giving students more autonomy in laboratory activities

254

• Revisit the tenets of NOS. o Has your thinking about these 8 statements changed since we saw them

during the first session? o How? o We’ve looked at several ways to incorporate NOS into classroom practice. o Do you think that your understanding of the nature of science has changed

over the course of the PD? How? • Peer coaching update…

o Has it been beneficial for you and a partner to talk about and plan use of inquiry and NOS?

o One of the goals of this PD was to facilitate strengthening our community of practice by having a “buddy/coach” to work with? Has that been successful?

• 2 things to complete.. (1) an evaluation, (2) a post PD VNOS-C • Scheduling an interview

o At your convenience o It will take about 45min-an hour.

• Final thoughts?

255

APPENDIX G

Professional Development Proposal to Local Administration


Total number of sessions: 5 (One approximately every 3 weeks during Fall Semester)

Length of each session: 1 hour

Participants will have the opportunity to work form a peer-coaching dyad to help each

other and encourage each other to put the concepts of the professional development into

practice.

Between each session, participants will spend an additional hour putting into practice,

coaching each other and reflecting together (with documentation) on how concepts were

put into classroom practice.

Total amount of time on task for the professional development: 10 hours.

Objectives

- To differentiate between scientific inquiry and the nature of science - To understand how SI and NOS are related to each other and how they are related

to authentic science - To understand why science reform documents have called for the inclusion of SI

and NOS in science classrooms - To develop ways to acclimating students to engage in scientific inquiry - To collaborate /develop a community of practice to help each other generate new

ideas on how to incorporate SI and NOS into daily classroom practices - To learn methods of using peer-coaching as a support for learning new classroom

practices

256

Each session will include:

• Relevant reading related to SI and NOS published in the Science Teacher • Group activities that demonstrate moving from non-contextual to completely

contextual ways to teach SI and NOS • Opportunities to collaborate and develop additional ways to incorporate SI and

NOS into our science curricula.

Participants will receive a notebook with all articles, a schedule, copies of teaching

material for each of the activities that are done in the sessions, information regarding

peer-coaching, copies of relevant sections of the NGSS.

Session 1 August 15

Explanation of what we will be doing in this course and what our goals are.

Introduction to scientific inquiry and the nature of science. Discussion of why SI

and NOS are important, how they fit into our curriculum, and how they fit into

reform based science teaching (NGSS). Introduction to peer-coaching and how

that will be used as a support for learning. NOS Focus: Science is empirically

based. Inquiry Focus: Slowly taking the training wheels off of our labs.

Article: Keys to Teaching Nature of Science - McCommas

Session 2 September 5

Sharing from the last meeting. The Cube (activity related to prediction). How

does this relate to NOS? NOS Focus: Science is tentative. Relate to biology

and chemistry AKS. Use a case for discussion of tentativeness of science.

257

Inquiry Focus: Application of old procedures to add an inquiry component to a

lab.

Article: Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science – Lederman and

Lederman

Session 3 September 26

Sharing experiences since last meeting. Pendulum inquiry. Inquiry Focus:

changing simple things to create an inquiry lab. NOS connections to this inquiry?

Tricky Tracks (activity)… How does this relate to NOS? NOS focus: Science is

partially the product of human inference, creativity, and imagination. How are

observations and inferences different?

Article: Teaching and Assessing Nature of Science - Clough

Session 4 October 17

Sharing experiences since last meeting. Black Box activity. Science answers do

not come from a book. What does scientific consensus mean? Relate to all NOS

concepts so far. NOS focus: Science is theory laden as well as socially and

culturally imbedded. Examples: Flat Earthers, anti-vaccers, lack of support for

stem cell research, GMOs, Climate change. Any controversial issue. Dinosaur

extinction, expanding or contracting universe Using argumentation to address

this.

258

Article: Focusing Labs on Nature of Science - Colburn

Session 5 November14

Sharing experiences since last meeting. NOS Focus: The difference between

scientific laws and scientific theories along with the myth of THE scientific

method. Does true scientific inquiry have to always have hypotheses and

variables? Inquiry Focus: Giving students the autonomy to develop their own

questions.

Article: Understanding Nature of Science Through Evolution - Narguizian

NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTION AND PEER COACHING: A …

Documents

Transcript of NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUCTION AND PEER COACHING: A …