Understanding the Nature of Science through Writing Assignments

1. Undergraduate Writing Assignments on the Nature of Science using the NSF-funded “The Story Behind the Science” Carrie Wright University of Southern Indiana IRB Approval Ref. # 2017-171-SEE

2. www.storybehindthescience.org

3. TSBTS Goals • What science is and how it works • Science epistemology • Humanize science

5. Pre- and Post-Curriculum Writing Prompt What is the process of science like? What happens during this process? What is the result, in general? What do you consider to be the key characteristics of science? Please sit quietly and write for 10 minutes about your perceptions of science as a process, and a way of knowing the world.

6. Pre- to Post- curriculum writing scores

7. NOS Misconceptions and Preconceptions • “THE” scientific method • All experimental in pre-curriculum writings, 11 acknowledged other approaches in post-writings • Very little about experimental design, data analysis or interpretation (4 out of 65)

8. Rock Formation 1. Choose one rock you have learned about in this class. Name it. 2. Describe its features that enable geoscientists and geology students to distinguish it from other rock types. 3. Explain how this rock forms, relating the formation to the features you just described. 4. How does this reasoning illustrate (or exemplify) part of the nature of science (or one of the characteristics of science) as a way of knowing the natural world?

9. “I have learned so much about science as a whole this semester, and these writings have enabled me to reflect on my own views of science and have challenged me to think more deeply about science.” –Education major

10. Results • Average scores from pre- to post-curriculum writings increased, but were not statistically significant • Statistically significant gains after teacher feedback • Positive perceptions of WTL the NOS • Low stakes WTL assignments reveal misconceptions/ preconceptions • Formative assessments

11. Writing on the NOS in Historical Geology (Majors Course) • Develop and evaluate a writing curriculum to: • Address gaps in majors’ NOS knowledge • Address argumentation issues in their writing • Emulate and illuminate elements of science epistemology

12. Multidisciplinary Foundations of the Curriculum: Why writing? • Parallels effective learning strategies—connective, active, engaging, reinforcing, analysis and synthesis; (Emig 1977) • Students see science writing as an afterthought; (Yates, et al. 2005) • Discourse communities of knowledgeable peers; collaborative learning through peer review (Bruffee 1984) • NOS instruction doesn’t change from lower to upper division geology courses, needs to be explicit; (Nadelsonand Viskupic2010) • Argumentation Pedagogy; (Trend 2009)

14. Argumentation in Drafts

15. Students who discussed each COS on first and last writings

16. Survey on Final Exam (N=22)

17. Results • Number of students who discussed COS increased for 8 of the AAAS standards from pre-curriculum writing to question on final exam • Argumentation improved in most students’ writing from the early to final draft • Discourse communities at work during peer review and field presentations • Epigenetic nature of the writing curriculum • Positive perceptions of WTL the NOS

18. Conclusions • TSBTS writing assignments: lessons learned • Discussion after informal writing • Higher stakes, greater student investment • Scaffolding of assignments • Science is communication • Implications for future research • Build on IWA research (feedback and revision) • Where are the women? Ethnic minorities?

19. References Abd-El-Khalick, F. 2006. Over and over again: college students’ views of nature of science. In Flick, L.B., and Lederman, N.G., eds., Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p. 389-426. Abell, S.K. and Smith, D.C. 1994. What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16:475-487. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 2009. Benchmarks for scientific literacy: the nature of science. Available at http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=1 (accessed 6 April 2017). Balgopal, Meena and Alison Wallace. “Writing-to-Learn, Writing-to-Communicate, & Scientific Literacy.” The American Biology Teacher 75.3 (2013): 170-175. JSTOR. Web. 1 April 2015. Berlin, James. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.” College English 44.8 (December 1985): 765-77. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 3rd Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristen L. Arola. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2011. Print. 235-250. Berlin, James. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English 50.5 (1988): 477-494. JSTOR. Web. 10 November 2013. Berthoff, Ann E. “Is Teaching Still Possible? Writing, Meaning, and Higher Order Reasoning.” College English 46.8 (December 1984): 743-55. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 3rd Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristen L. Arola. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2011. Print. 309-323. Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’.” College English 46.7 (November 1984): 635-52. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 3rd Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristen L. Arola. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2011. Print. 395-416. Clough, Michael P. and Jerrid W. Kruse. “Characteristics of science: understanding scientists and their work.” www.StoryBehindTheScience.org The Story Behind The Science. c. 2009. Web. 12 August 2015. Connolly, Paul. “Writing and the Ecology of Learning.” Eds. Paul Connolly and Teresa Vilardi. Writing to Learn Mathematics and Science. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989. Print.1-14. Conrad, S.H. and R.H. Macdonald. Balancing teaching and learning geology on the writing fulcrum. Journal of Geological Education, 39:230-231. Delpit, Lisa. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children” Harvard Educational Review 58.3 (1988): 280-298. Rpt. in Landmark Essays on Basic Writing. Eds. Kay Halasek and Nels P. Highberg. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Inc., 2001. Print. 83-101. Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print. Elbow, Peter. “High Stakes and Low Stakes in Assigning and Responding to Writing” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 69 (Spring 1997): 5-13. Print. Emig, Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” College Composition and Communication 28.2 (May 1977): 122-28. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 3rd Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristen L. Arola. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2011. Print. 7-15.

20. References Fang, Zhihui. “Scientific Literacy: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective” Science Education 89 (2005): 335-347. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Web. 30 March 2016. Flynn, Elizabeth A. “Composing as a Woman.” College Composition and Communication 39.4 (December 1988): 423-35. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 3rd Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristen L. Arola. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2011. Print. 581-595. Hildebrand, Gail. “Diversity, values and the science curriculum.” The Re-Emergence of Values in Science Education. Eds. Deborah Corrigan, Justin Dillon and Richard Gunstone. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers, 2007. Print. 45-60. Lehr, Jane. “Democracy, scientific literacy and values in science education in the United States.” The Re-Emergence of Values in Science Education. Eds. Deborah Corrigan, Justin Dillon and Richard Gunstone. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers, 2007. Print. 29-44. Leydens, J.A., and Santi, P. 2006. Optimizing faculty use of writing as a learning tool in geoscience education.Journal of Geoscience Education, 54:491-502. Millar, Robin. “Twenty First Century Science: Insights From the Design and Implementation of a Scientific Literacy Approach in School Science” International Journal of Science Education 28.13 (2006): 1499-1521. Print. Nadelson, L.S. and Viskupic, K. 2010. Perceptions of the nature of science by geoscience students experiencing two different courses of study. Journal of Geoscience Education. 58:275-285. National Research Council (NRC). 1998. National science education standards. Available at National Academies Press https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/chapter/1 (accessed 6 April 2017). National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 2000. NSTA position statement: the nature of science. Available at http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx (accessed 6 April 2017). Norris, S. and Phillips, L. “How Literacy in its Fundamental Sense is Central to Scientific Literacy” Science Education 87.2 (2003): 224-240. Print. Pinet, P.R. 1989. Understanding the language of argument and the methods of science. Journal of Geological Education, 37:197-201. Russell, David R. “Contradictions Regarding Teaching and Writing (or Writing to Learn) in the Disciplines: What We Have Learned in the USA.” Revista de DocenciaUniversitaria 11.1 (2013): 161-181. JSTOR. Web. 1 April 2015. Schneiderman, J.S. 1991. Learning geology by writing about the history of geology. Journal of Geological Education, 39:185-187. Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication 31.4 (December 1980): 378-88. Rpt. in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 3rd Eds. Victor Villanueva and Kristen L. Arola. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2011. Print. 43-54. Trend, Robert. “Commentary: Fostering Students’ Argumentation Skills in Geoscience Education” Journal of Geoscience Education 57.4 (2009): 224-232. Print. Yacobucci, M. “Integrating Critical Thinking About Values Into an Introductory Geoscience Course” Journal of Geoscience Education 61.4 (2013): 351-363. Print. Yates, S.J., Williams, N., and Dujardin, A.F. “Writing Geology: Key Communication Competencies for Geoscience” Planet 15.1 (2005): 36-41. Print.