The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center The Effect of Educational Field Trips to Professional Research Labs on Students' Understanding of NOS The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center Dina Tsybulsky, Jeff Dodick, Jeff Camhi Good morning I’m Dina Tsybulskaya from Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Today I’m presenting a part of my PH.D work made in partnership with Dr. Jeff Dodick and Professor Jeff Camhi. The title of my research is: “The Effect of Educational Field Trips to Professional Research Labs on Students' Understanding of Nature of Science”. This research is supported by a grant from the Israeli Ministry of Education and by the Ariane de Rothschild Fellowship

INTRODUCTION The Nature of Science “Science as Inquiry” Visits to PRLs Students in the University’s campus As it is known, NOS is one of the most important and complicated elements of science education. In my research I designed and evaluated an inquiry-learning unit, according to which students visited university labs, which we call professional research labs: PRLs. Through the unit the students deal with what we like to think of as “the real thing” of science: carrying out advanced research. We implemented this unit during a three year period. Our research question is: To what extent does the unit improve the students' understanding of NOS? In my PH.D work I addressed additional research questions, for example, the influence of our unit on students' attitudes towards science. But today I’m going to concentrate on their understanding of NOS. Students in the University’s lab. Research question: To what extent does the unit improve the students' understanding of NOS?

INTRODUCTION Core elements of NOS of our study Methodological diversity Aims of research (basic vs. applied research) Socio-cultural embeddings Science as a complex social activity Tentativeness There is no universal agreement concerning the specific components of NOS. In building our learning materials and instruments I focused on 5 core elements that students can learn through the unit. These are: 1. Science is a complex social activity – where the scientists work either alone or in groups, discuss their work with colleagues and present their works at conferences. 2. Socio-cultural embeddings –science is influenced by society and culture. 3. Tentativeness – scientific knowledge is subject to change based on new observations or experiments and the reinterpretations of earlier observations and experiments. 4. Aims of research – here we refer to the general aims, ranging from basic research to applied research. 5. Methodological diversity— there is no universal scientific method.

”Students meet authentic science” INTRODUCTION Curriculum design ”Students meet authentic science” PRLs visits Summary Preparation Students in the ecology lab. The unit which we designed is called “students meet authentic science”. It’s based on the three part model of Orion for teaching field trips. It includes: In-class preparation, Lab visits and In-class summary. The in-class preparation, carried out by the students’ teacher, included Power Point Presentation about the two labs to be visited, materials for students to read and discuss with their teacher. Also, the students prepared questions to ask their guides during the lab visits. The lab visits were to the cell biology lab. and to the ecology lab., subjects the students were studying in school. The students spent 1 ½ hours in each lab, guided by a graduate student working in the lab, whom we trained in advance by means of guiding workshops. The summary included historical investigations that summarizes the NOS elements experienced in the lab visits. To carry out preparation and summary the teachers had attended a workshop we created for them. Students work on historical investigations Teacher presents the laboratories Students in the cell biology lab.

METHODS Sample Grade 11 students from Jerusalem learning an advanced biology program Control n Experimental 15 14 Total groups 10 8 schools 263 234 students Experimental group in the University Lab Our student sample were Grade 11 students learning an advanced biology program. The study included 14 experimental groups and 15 control groups. The experimental groups include students who participated in the unit’s implementation, whilst the control groups include students who did not participate in its implementation (the regular school learning group). Control group in the classroom

Students’ understanding of NOS METHODS Research design: Pre-Post control design Students’ understanding of NOS t-test, Wilcoxon and Sign tests Likert questions in the questionnaire Observations Shkedi’s (2004) constructivistic method of qualitative research based on grounded theory Open questions in the questionnaire Interviews To evaluate the students’ understanding of NOS, I’ve used both quantitative and qualitative instruments. They include: A pre-post questionnaire with both Likert and open questions, post interviews and videotaped observations. The Likert questions were analyzed by t-test, Wilcoxon and sign tests. The open questions, observations and the interviews were analyzed by Shkedi’s method based on grounded theory. Data collection: 2009-2012

RESULTS Quantitative analysis of Likert questions NOS elements p Comparison of pre-post differences in the understanding of NOS between the experimental (n= 234) and control (n= 263) groups NOS elements Control group mean post-pre differences (s.d) Exp. group mean t-test p Sign test Aims of research 0.9 (1.70) 3.69 (2.61) .01 Methodological diversity 0.5 (2.35) 3.20 (2.50) .03 .02 Socio-cultural embeddings 0.8 (1.56) 1.77 (2.90) .04 Science as complex social activity 0 (1.80) 1.45 (1.76) .05 Tentativeness 0.2 (1.14) 1.32 (1.70)

RESULTS Quantitative analysis of Likert questions NOS elements p Comparison of pre-post differences in the understanding of NOS between the experimental (n= 234) and control (n= 263) groups NOS elements Control group mean post-pre differences (s.d) Exp. group mean t-test p Sign test Aims of research 0.9 (1.70) 3.69 (2.61) .01 Methodological diversity 0.5 (2.35) 3.20 (2.50) .03 .02 Socio-cultural embeddings 0.8 (1.56) 1.77 (2.90) .04 Science as complex social activity 0 (1.80) 1.45 (1.76) .05 Tentativeness 0.2 (1.14) 1.32 (1.70)

RESULTS Quantitative analysis of Likert questions Long term effect (six month): In all of the NOS elements students still showed significant differences (at least at the p<.05) based on the sign and t-tests. The effect of background variables: Factors of gender, school type, discipline preference and specific subject preference did not significantly affect the results (as tested by the Wilcoxon test). I found that the students’ gender, school type, discipline preference and specific subject preference did not significantly affect the results (as tested by the Wilcoxon test). I checked our results in the experimental groups six month after the students had completed the unit. In all 5 NOS categories the students still showed significantly greater understanding than they had shown in the pre-test questionnaires. This result is based on both sign and t-tests. This suggests that the unit has a long-term effect on students’ understanding. 9

RESULTS Qualitative analysis Interviews (n=35) Open questions in the questionnaire (n=230) As NOS is a deep philosophical construct, it’s very important to check the students' understanding of this subject through the interviews and open questions. By these means, I tried to analyze more deeply the students’ understanding of each of the NOS elements.

RESULTS Qualitative analysis Aims of research Basic research Pre: 7% Post: 26% Basic and applied research Pre: 34% Post: 63% Applied Research Pre: 59% Post: 11% “Beauty” of research Knowledge advancement Human benefit Improving quality of life For each NOS elements I built a map (like this) with main and sub categories in the students’ understanding. As I’m very much pressed for time I’ll deal only with the main categories. As concerns the “aims of research” - before the unit most students (59%) thought that science research must be directed mostly to applied research (practical application). After the unit the students significantly changed their views: most of them accepted the value of basic research either alone (26%), or in combination with applied research (63%). Importance of scientific research Practical implementations lead to basic research Basic leads to practical applications "Now I think that basic research is also important […] like DNA which from the outset was the basis and in modern science they found many practical applications thanks to this research.” [Rivka, post-questionnaire].

RESULTS Qualitative analysis Methodology of biology Methodological diversity Methodology of biology Every science has its own method Pre: 10% Post: 11% Methodological diversity Pre: 46% Post: 82% Unified scientific Method Pre: 44% Post: 7% Experimental research Field-based research Cell biology Field-based Ecology Methodological diversity - before the unit only 46% of the students understood that different scientific methods are used in different fields of biology, whilst after the unit 82% of the students understood this. “Research in different domains are suited to different investigative methods, for example each one will have different types of objects that they are investigating, the place where they are conducting research [is different] and more.”. [Racheli, post-interview].

RESULTS Qualitative analysis Science Socio-cultural embeddings Science Affected by the socio-cultural sphere Pre: 51% Post: 86% Unaffected by the socio-cultural sphere Pre: 49% Post: 14% Economics of research funding Role of state law Role of ethics Role of society Regarding socio cultural embeddings - through the unit the students improved their understanding of the fact that science is a part of society life and such factors as law, ethics etc can influence science and scientists in one way or another. After the unit 86% of the student understood this idea. “Scientists are influenced by factors such as the law. For example in the U.S. scientists cannot involve themselves in research with stem cells, if the government does not permit them.” [Ayal, post-interview].

RESULTS Qualitative analysis Scientists Cooperation amongst scientists Science as a complex social activity Scientists Cooperation amongst scientists Pre: 71% Post: 93% The absence of cooperation Pre: 29% Post: 7% Validity and accuracy Multidisciplinary nature of science Exchange of knowledge Concerning the science as a complex social activity - through the unit the percentage of students understanding this element increased from 71% to 93%. Papers and books Conferences “Scientists write papers and participate in conferences for both cooperation and advancement.” [Daniel, post-interview].

RESULTS Qualitative analysis Science knowledge Accumulation Change Tentativeness Science knowledge Accumulation Pre: 31% Post: 11% Change Pre: 69% Post: 89% The role of improving technology And the last element – the tentativeness - the percentage of the students understanding this idea increased from 69% to 89%. ‘Final for the time being' Reinterpretations of existing observations New observations “Scientific knowledge develops and changes ... Every scientific discovery throws light on phenomena that we see; in science all is 'final for the time being'.” [Anat, post-interview].

The unit has a significant effect on students’ understanding of NOS. CONCLUSIONS The unit has a significant effect on students’ understanding of NOS. The unit has a long term effect on students’ understanding of NOS. Background factors (gender, school type, discipline preference and specific subject preference) do not significantly affect the students’ understanding. Our evaluation study shows that our unit has a significant effect on students’ understanding of NOS. The unit has a long term effect and background factors—gender and others -don’t significantly affect the students’ understanding.

IMPLICATIONS Visits to PRLs is a type of authentic experience that could become a model with wide spread applications for different disciplines, societies and cultures. Visits to University research labs is a type of “real thing” experience that could became a model with wide spread applications for different disciplines, societies and cultures. 17

Thank you! Dina.tsybulsky@mail.huji.ac.il jeff.dodick@mail.huj​i.ac.il jeff@vms.huji.ac.il Thanks for your attention.