Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding The Impact of an Apprenticeship-Based Scientific Research Program on High School Students’ Understanding of Scientific Inquiry

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of an apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry. Data related to seventeen students’ understanding of science and scientific inquiry were collected through open-ended questionnaires. Findings suggest that although engagement in authentic scientific research helped the participants to develop competency in experimentation methods it had limited impact on participants’ learning of the implicit aspects of scientific inquiry and NOS. Discussion focuses on the importance of making the implicit assumptions of science explicit to the students in such authentic scientific inquiry settings through structured curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman NG (2000) Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 22(7):665–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams E, Southerland SA, Silva P (2007) Inquiry in the classroom: challenges and possibilities. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy: a project 2061 report. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydeniz M (2007) Understanding the challenges of implementing assessment reform in science classrooms: a case study of science teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee

  • Barab SA, Hay KE (2001) Constructivism in practice: a comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. J Learn Sci 10(1):281–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell RL, Blair LM, Crawford BA, Lederman NG (2003) Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 40(5):487–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard MR, Southerland SA, Granger DE (2009) No silver bullet for inquiry: making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Sci Educ 93(2):322–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher RE (1996) High school students learning science in university research laboratories. J Res Sci Teach 33(10):1115–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SL, Melear CT (2006) Investigation of secondary science teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. J Res Sci Teach 43:938–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18:32–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney J, Hmelo-Silver CE, Sofer W, Neigeborn L, Coletta S, Nemeroff M (2007) Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. Int J Sci Educ 29(2):195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S (2006) Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Sci Educ 90:803–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn CA, Hmelo CE (2002) Authentic inquiry: introduction to the special section. Sci Educ 86:171–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86:175–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar K (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: Sternberg RJ, Davidson J (eds) Mechanisms of insight. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, pp 365–395

  • Dunbar K (1997) How scientists think: online creativity and conceptual change in science. In: Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid S (eds) Conceptual structures and processes: emergence, discovery and change. APA Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar K (2001) What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In: Crowley K, Shunn C, Okada T (eds) Designing for science: implications from everyday classroom and professional settings. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmond N (2005) Report on the relationship of the scientific method to scientifically valid research and education research. Available [Online] http://www.scientificmethod.com/normanbooklet.pdf

  • Eick CJ (2000) Inquiry, nature of science, and evolution: the need for a more complex pedagogical content knowledge in science teaching. Electron J Sci Educ 4(3):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher JJ (1991) Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Sci Educ 75:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germann PJ, Haskins S, Auls S (1996) Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 33(5):475–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba E, Lincoln Y (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA

  • Harding P, Hare W (2000) Portraying science accurately in classrooms: emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. J Res Sci Teach 37(3):225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein A, Lunetta VN (2004) The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century. Sci Educ 88:28–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu PL, Roth WM (2009) From a sense of stereotypically foreign to belonging in a science community: ways of experiential descriptions about high school students’ science internship. Res Sci Educ. Published online 26 Feb 2009: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u2865r04h8271456/

  • Hsu PL, Roth WM, Mazumder A (2009) Natural pedagogical conversations in a high school students’ internship. J Res Sci Teach 46(5):481–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe R, Abd-El-Khalick F (2002) The influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39(7):551–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni D, Simon HA (1988) The processes of scientific discovery: the strategy of experimentation. Cogn Sci 12:139–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific fact, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman NG (2007) Nature of science: past, present, and future. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 831–880

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F (1998) Avoiding de-natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In: McComas W (ed) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 83–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS (2002) Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39(6):497–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H-S, Songer NB (2003) Making authentic science accessible to students. Int J Sci Educ 25(8):923–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino H (1990) Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  • Loving C (1997) From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: science education’s journey through positivist-postmodern territory. Am Educ Res J 34(3):421–452

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas WF (1996) Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Sci Math 96:10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative research and case study applications in education (rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

  • National Academies of Sciences [NAS] (2005) America’s lab report: investigations in high school science. Committee on high school science laboratories: role and vision. The National Academies, Washington, DC

  • National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond G, Kurth LA (1999) Moving from outside to inside: high school students’ use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. J Res Sci Teach 36(6):677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie SM, Rigano DL (1996) Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project. J Res Sci Teach 33(7):799–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff B (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-M (1995) Authentic school science. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth KJ, Garnier HE (2007) What science teaching looks like: an international perspective. Educ Leadersh 64(4):16–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-M, Roychoudhury A (1993) The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. J Res Sci Teach 30(2):127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph J (2005) Epistemology for the masses: the origins of ‘the scientific method’ in American schools. Hist Educ Q 45:341–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russ R (2006). A framework for recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore

  • Ryan AG, Aikenhead GS (1992) Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Sci Educ 76(6):559–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD, Birgen S (2009, January) Authentic science research experiences for students and teachers: a review of empirical literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Hartford, CT

  • Sadler T, Burgin S, McKinney L, Ponjuan L (2010) Learning science through research apprenticeships: a critical review of the literature. J Res Sci Teach 47(3):235–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval WA, Reiser BJ (2004) Explanation driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Sci Educ 88(3):345–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunn CD, Anderson JR (1999) The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cogn Sci 23(3):337–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz RS, Crawford BA (2003, January) Critical elements for teaching the nature of science in the context of authentic scientific inquiry: practical guidelines for teacher educators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. St. Louis, MO

  • Schwartz R, Lederman N (2006, April) Scientists’ epistemological views of science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco

  • Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Crawford BA (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. Sci Educ 88(4):610–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Khishfe R, Lederman J, Matthews L, Liu SY  (2002, January) Explicit/reflective instructional attention to nature of science and scientific inquiry: impact on student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC

  • Schwartz RS, Lederman N, Lederman N (2008, March) An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: the VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD. March 30–April 2

  • Stake JE, Mares KR (2001) Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls and boys: predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1065–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake JE, Mares KR (2005) Evaluating the impact of science-enrichment programs on adolescents’ science motivation and confidence: the splashdown effect. J Res Sci Teach 42(4):359–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang X, Levin DM, Coffey JE, Hammer D (2008) The scientific method and scientific inquiry: tension as in teaching and learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, vol 2, pp 374–381

  • Templin MA, Engemann JF, Doran RL (1999) A locally based science mentorship program for high achieving students: unearthing issues that influence affective outcomes. School Sci Math 99(4):205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace CS, Kang NH (2004) An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: an examination of competing belief sets. J Res Sci Teach 41:936–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl M, Thomson J, Braaten M (2008) Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Sci Educ 92(5):941–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachos P (2000) Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. J Res Sci Teach 37:938–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, College of Education, Health and Human Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Mehmet Aydeniz

  2. Farragut High School, Knox County Schools, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Kristen Baksa & Jane Skinner

Authors
  1. Mehmet Aydeniz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen Baksa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Skinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Aydeniz.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Understanding Nature of Science Survey

Directions

Please use the following likert scale for your answers to the survey questions/statements.

figure a
figure b

Appendix 2: Science Academy Students Only

Instructions for Students

We kindly ask you to describe your experiences as a high school scientist by answering the following questions. Select students who participated in the science internship program may be invited to write a chapter for the monograph.

Please answer the following questions as honestly as it is possible.

  1. 1.

    Can you please describe how you heard of this program? Who encouraged you to seek out for this opportunity?

  2. 2.

    How did you feel when you knew that you were accepted into the program? How did people around you (teachers, friends, family members) reacted to your decision to participate in this program?

  3. 3.

    What were your motivations for joining this program? Like, what were you expecting to get out of this program before joining?

    1. (a)

      Can you elaborate on what you actually learned through this program compared to what you were expecting to learn? Any disappointments, surprises?

  4. 4.

    How long were you involved in this internship program?

  5. 5.

    Where at did you conduct your research project?

  6. 6.

    Can you tell us whether you conducted an original research project or did you work on an existing project? How was this decision made?

  7. 7.

    If you worked on a project that you designed yourself, how did you become interested in the topic that you researched in your project?

  8. 8.

    How did you go about designing your research, what questions were you interested in answering?

    1. (a)

      How did you go about answering your question(s)?

    2. (b)

      What type of data did you collect?

    3. (c)

      How did you know that such data would help you answer your question?

    4. (d)

      How did you analyze and interpret your data? What type of help did you get when you were analyzing data and from whom (prof, graduate student or others)?

    5. (e)

      How did you learn how to use the instruments for collecting your data?

  9. 9.

    What did you learn about the ways in which scientists think, before, during and after data collection and analysis through your participation in this program? How did you learn it?

  10. 10.

    What did you learn about the ways in which scientists do their work (i.e., hypothesis formulation, design of research, data collection and analysis, writing conclusions), as a result of your participation in this program?

  11. 11.

    What did you learn about the topic you studied?

  12. 12.

    If you worked on your project as part of a team, what were your responsibilities? How and at what level did you participate in designing the question, deciding the type of data you needed to collect, how to collect and analyze data, and write the conclusions?

  13. 13.

    If you conducted an original research on your own, describe the parts of research for which you received help and the nature of help your received?

  14. 14.

    If you were to design this program, what would you change/modify to make it more beneficial for the program participants? Like, what would you like the professors to do differently, your teachers to do differently, graduate students to do differently, students to do differently?

  15. 15.

    What type of college degree and career do you plan to pursue? How has your participation in this research experience influenced your career decisions? What are some of the critical moments that influenced your decisions?

PART THREE: Views of Scientific Inquiry Questionnaire (VOSI): ALL GROUPS

Name: ______________________________

Class: ______________________________

Date: ______________________________

The following questions are asking for your views related to science and scientific investigations. There are no right or wrong answers.

Please answer each of the following questions. You can use all the space provided to answer a question and continue on the back of the pages if necessary.

  1. 1.

    What types of activities do scientists (e.g., biologists, chemists, physicists, earth scientists) do to learn about the natural world? Discuss how scientists (biologists, chemists, earth scientists) do their work.

  2. 2.

    How do scientists decide what and how to investigate? Describe all the factors you think influence the work of scientists. Be as specific as possible.

  3. 3.

    A person interested in birds looked at hundreds of different types of birds who eat different types of food. He noticed that birds who eat similar types of food, tended to have similar shaped beaks. For example, birds who eat hard shelled nuts have short, strong beaks, and birds who eat insects from tide pools have long, slim beaks. He concluded that there is a relationship between beak shape and the type of food birds eat.

    1. (a)

      Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Please explain why or why not.

    2. (b)

      Do you consider this person’s investigation to be an experiment? Please explain why or why not.

    3. (c)

      Do you think that scientific investigations can follow more than one method? Describe two investigations that follow different methods. Explain how the methods differ and how they can still be considered scientific.

  4. 4.
    1. (a)

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

    2. (b)

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

    3. (c)

      Does your response to (a) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.

    4. (d)

      Does your response to (b) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.

  5. 5.
    1. (a)

      What does the word “data” mean in science?

    2. (b)

      What is involved in data analysis?

    3. (c)

      Is “data” the same or different from “evidence?” Explain.

  6. 6.

    Occasionally scientists encounter inconsistencies in their data. What do you think scientists do when some part of their data do not fit with what they expect (an “outlier” or inconsistency is found)?

  7. 7.

    Explain how scientists form hypothesis. What makes a good and a bad hypothesis?

  8. 8.

    Do you need to have a hypothesis to conduct a scientific investigation? __Yes__No. Explain your justification in the space provided below.

  9. 9.

    How do you think scientists develop theories? Provide a detailed explanation about the way scientists develop theories

  10. 10.

    Can scientists develop theories without collecting data?—Yes—No. Explain the justification for your answer in the space provided below.

  11. 11.

    Can scientific theories change? If you think the answer is yes, why would scientists change established scientific theories such as Newton’s Laws? If you think the answer is No, explain why?

Appendix 3

See Table 4.

Table 4 Sample data evaluation rubric
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K. & Skinner, J. Understanding The Impact of an Apprenticeship-Based Scientific Research Program on High School Students’ Understanding of Scientific Inquiry. J Sci Educ Technol 20, 403–421 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation