Tea 21296

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 53, NO. 1, PP.
31–59 (2016)
Research Article
Learning Nature of Science Concepts Through a Research Apprenticeship

Program: AComparative Study of Three Approaches
Stephen R. Burgin1 and Troy D. Sadler2
1
Department of Curriculum & Instruction, College of Education & Health Professions,
University of Arkansas, 216 Peabody Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701
2
The ReSTEM Institute, College of Education, University of Missouri, 321C Townsend Hall,
Columbia, Missouri 65211
Received 30 May 2013; Accepted 23 September 2015
Abstract: The merits of three approaches (explicit, reflective and implicit) to Nature of Science (NOS)
teaching and learning in the context of a summer research experience on high school student participants’
NOS ideas were explored in this study. The effectiveness of explicit over implicit approaches has been
demonstrated in school contexts, but less empirical evidence exists regarding the comparative merits of these
approaches when the practices that learners engage in are highly authentic in terms of their alignment with
professional science and the context where they take place. The Authentic Experiences in Science Program
(AESP), a summer program at a major research university, offered a unique context for an investigation of
these issues. In the AESP, high school students worked for an extended period of time in a research laboratory
on an authentic research project accompanied by out-of-laboratory seminars. A modified form of the Views
of Nature of Science (VNOS) Questionnaire was administered to 30 participants of the AESP at the beginning
and again at the end of the program. Additionally, six participants experiencing one of the three approaches
were interviewed and observed as they participated in laboratory research. Results revealed that the explicit
approach was generally more influential in this context. However, some students experiencing one of the
other two approaches did exhibit changes in NOS understandings, and these changes seemed to be associated
with favorable dimensions of the laboratory placements. These results support the argument that engaging
students in highly authentic forms of scientific and engineering practices can be influential as a context for
reflecting on NOS. Our results also speak to the power of explicit approaches to NOS teaching and learning
when accompanying learner involvement in highly authentic science and engineering research. # 2015
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 31–59, 2016
Keywords: authentic; research apprenticeship; nature of science
According to science education reform documents published over the last 20 years,
participating in the practices of science by engaging in scientific inquiry has the potential to
influence learners’ conceptions of nature of science (NOS) (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 2007; 2012). In
these documents, it is clear that many science education stakeholders believe that “doing” science,
This article first appeared online on 31 October 2015 and has since been changed.
Correspondence to: Stephen R. Burgin; E-mail: srburgin@uark.edu
DOI 10.1002/tea.21296
Published online 31 October 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
# 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

32 BURGIN AND SADLER
can result in the development of more informed conceptions regarding how scientific knowledge
is produced by the professional scientific community. This position is clearly articulated in Taking
Science to School (NRC, 2007). The NRC report concludes that, “with appropriate supports for
learning strategies of investigation, children can engage in designing and conducting inves-
tigations that enable them to understand science as a way of knowing” (p.182). It is further
suggested that engaging in these sorts of investigations are most impactful when they are highly
authentic in terms of their similarities to the actual workings of Science, Technology, Engineering
and Math (STEM) professionals. “If students themselves participate in scientific investigations
that progressively approximate good science, then the picture they come away with will likely be
reasonably accurate” (AAAS, 1993, p.4). A similar argument is made in the framework that
guided development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) suggesting that the
practices students engage in “should reflect those of professional scientists and engineers” and
that “engaging in the practices of science helps students understand how scientific knowledge
develops” (NRC, 2012, p. 42).
Despite the potential for inquiry learning experiences to serve as rich contexts for the
development of NOS understandings, extensive research suggests that engaging in science
practices alone produces limited impacts on learners’ NOS understandings (e.g., Abd-El-
Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Aydeniz, Baksa, & Skinner, 2011; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder,
2011; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJoaude, 2010). This body of
literature suggests that impacting students’ NOS understanding through engagement in
science practices requires explicit attention to dimensions of NOS and reflection opportuni-
ties. This approach to NOS teaching and learning has been referred to as explicit and
reflective and is often juxtaposed against implicit approaches which are based on the often
unstated assumption that engaging in science practices alone can be sufficient to support
development of sophisticated NOS understandings. Recently some have argued that engaging
in the practices of science can itself be an explicit approach to the teaching of NOS (Duschl
& Grandy, 2013) in that students encounter epistemological underpinnings of science as they
do so. This position aligns with the ideas of those who believe that inquiry and NOS overlap
so significantly that they ought not be separated when defining one or the other (Hodson,
2014). Others have suggested that implicit approaches to NOS teaching and learning ought
to complement other approaches such as the examination of historical cases in science
(Allchin, Anderson, & Nielson, 2014). Still others have been emphatic that such approaches
can not replace explicit attention to NOS ideas as deliberatively planned for learning
objectives (Abd-El-Khalick, 2012). While acknowledging the multiple positions outlined
above, we would be remiss not to mention the clear area of agreement among all of these
parties: the notion that engaging in authentic scientific research is a desirable venue for
reflection on NOS ideas.
As suggested above, much of the NOS literature produced in the past decade refutes the
assumption for implicit NOS learning; however, some scholars have questioned the extent to
which learning opportunities in school science support the kinds of practices evident within
professional science communities (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Hogan, 2000; Osborne, 2002;
Sandoval, 2005). If the “science practices” in which students engage in school have limited
connections to practices enacted in scientific communities, then the findings from previous studies
regarding the impact of implicit approaches may need to be reconsidered. Lack of student learning
of NOS through implicit approaches may relate to the fact that the learning contexts provided
limited opportunities to engage in authentic science practices. In other words, the contention that
NOS teaching must include explicit and reflective components in order to support NOS learning
may not be as strongly supported as some recent literature has suggested and may need to be
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
LEARNING NATURE OF SCIENCE THROUGH RESEARCH 33
reconsidered in the context of learning environments that offer students opportunities to engage in
more authentic science practices.
Out-of-school research apprenticeship experiences offer a uniquely authentic context with
the potential to impact participants’ understandings of the epistemological roots of science. While
studies of apprenticeship programs have investigated the impact of participation on learners’ NOS
conceptions, they have not systematically compared various approaches for NOS teaching.
Apprenticeship programs tend to make the assumption that students will learn NOS through
engagement in research activities facilitated by the program without additional instructional
supports. We refer to this as an implicit approach to NOS teaching. We refer to programs that
incorporate intentionally designed instructional supports for participant learning of NOS ideas as
following an explicit/reflective approach.
The current study was developed to comparatively investigate the impacts of explicit/
reflective NOS instruction, reflective journaling (often used as a component of explicit/reflective
approaches in school settings), and implicit influences from participation in STEM practices on
the NOS conceptions of high school participants in a research apprenticeship program. Bell et al.
(2003) studied NOS learning in a research apprenticeship program that adopted an implicit model
and concluded that the program was generally not successful in supporting students’ NOS
understandings. However, they found that one participant demonstrated improved NOS under-
standings and connected these gains with high quality mentorship. This motivated our interest in
exploring ways in which students’ experiences within their research placements, in association
with programmatic attention to NOS learning, may support development of students’ NOS
understandings. We designed a study that would allow us to investigate the NOS understandings
of students from the same program who were experiencing varying levels of supported NOS
development through both instruction and reflection. This afforded a level of consistency across
our research design that has not been achieved in other research that has explored the nuances of
how participation in the practices of science may interact with and influence the development of
more sophisticated conceptions of NOS.
Research Apprenticeships as Authentic Contexts
Science educators have recognized the value of experiences beyond formal curricula for
introducing secondary students to scientific practices (Braund & Reiss, 2006), and research
apprenticeships are one such opportunity. In these experiences, learners are typically embedded
within a university science or engineering laboratory for an extended period of time where they
receive mentoring and contribute to authentic investigations. Due to the professional context in
which these inquiries are conducted, we suggest that these are among the most authentic
experiences in which a secondary learner can participate within STEM.
A recent review of the literature presents an overview of empirical evidence available on
research apprenticeships. This synthesis suggests that research apprenticeships have the potential
to impact secondary student discourse practices, understandings of NOS, scientific content
knowledge, science motivation and confidence, and career aspirations (Sadler et al., 2010).
However, the review authors suggest that this literature base tends to suffer from an overreliance
on self-reported data particularly regarding constructs such as NOS. Of particular interest to the
present study are those studies that investigate the impact of participation in research apprentice-
ships on learner conceptions of NOS (Barab & Hay, 2001; Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman,
2003; Bleicher, 1996; Charney, Hmelo-Silver, Sover, Neigeborn, Coletta, & Nemeroff, 2007;
Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999; Schwartz, Lederman,
& Crawford, 2004). NOS aspects that are reported to be positively impacted in the context of
research apprenticeships include ideas related to the socially constructed nature of scientific
knowledge and the tentativeness of science (e.g., Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano,
1996). While the majority of these studies indicate some positive impacts of participation in
research apprenticeships on participant NOS understandings, one study indicates no such
relationship (Bell et al., 2003). Research published since the review cited above has provided
additional evidence (albeit fairly limited) for the link between participation in research
apprenticeships and student understandings of social aspects of science (Cartrette & Melroe-
Lehrman, 2012), the tentative nature of science, and the role of creativity in science (Burgin,
Sadler, & Koroly, 2012). Other recent literature on research apprenticeships and other
undergraduate research experiences documents relationships between self-efficacy, identity and
undergraduates’ desire to pursue careers in science (Adedokun, Bessenbacher, Parker, Kirkham,
& Burgess, 2013; Robnett, Chemers, & Zurbriggen, 2015) and that even brief apprenticeship
experiences can help high school students develop a sense of belonging within science (Burgin,
McConnell, & Flowers, 2015).
Reasons for NOS, Methods for Teaching NOS, and the Role of Reflection
Numerous arguments for the significance of NOS learning have been offered. Some have
suggested that students with more sophisticated NOS ideas are better positioned to develop deeper
scientific content understandings (Songer & Linn, 1991). Others have argued that holding
sophisticated views of NOS are important for making meaningful contributions to society at large
and are a necessary aspect of the science-related dimension of democratic citizenship (Driver,
Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Zeidler, 2003). This position is supported by evidence that informed
NOS conceptions are related to decision-making in the context of socio-scientific issues
(Eastwood et al., 2012; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004). Additionally, empirical literature
suggests that K-12 learners tend to hold na€ıve conceptions of NOS (reviewed in Lederman, 1992;
2007), a finding that has motivated numerous studies of how to support NOS learning. In summary,
leaders in the field of NOS have consistently indicated that consensus exists regarding the
importance of focusing on NOS as an important outcome of effective science education when
citing the rationale provided above (e.g. McComas, 2014).
The prevalent model for teaching NOS in school has been referred to as the explicit/reflective
approach (Lederman, 2007). This approach highlights aspects of NOS through questioning,
discussion, and reflection as students negotiate inquiry experiences, activities, or historical cases
(Schwartz et al., 2004). The approach has been shown to be effective in school science settings for
promoting NOS learning (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe, 2008; Khishfe
& Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010). Fewer studies have examined the
merits of the explicit/reflective approach in apprenticeship contexts (Charney et al., 2007;
Schwartz et al., 2004). In contrast, implicit approaches to NOS teaching have not been particularly
effective in traditional school settings (Moss, 2001; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003). Few studies
have compared directly the merits of different approaches to NOS teaching and learning, and those
that do exist have been conducted in traditional classroom settings and demonstrate the strength of
explicit approaches (e.g., Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Yacoubian & BouJaoude, 2010).
Explicit approaches to NOS teaching tend to incorporate an emphasis on learner reflection
(Lederman, 2007). Reflection (metacognitive thought) has long been acknowledged as an
important component of learning (Dewey, 1933). Sch€on (1983) describes reflection as either being
in-action or on-action. In scientific investigations and their relationships to NOS, the reflective
processes can be thought of as being reflection on-action. Learners “do science” and then they
reflect on their involvement in science practices and subsequent NOS connections (Lederman,
2007). Reflective assessments and journaling in the context of inquiry have been demonstrated to
be effective in promoting science learning (Davis, 2003; White & Frederiksen, 1998), and
research in the context of apprenticeship programs suggests that reflection is positively associated
with NOS learning (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). However, in the apprenticeship
studies, reflection was often embedded with other explicit NOS activities, so it has not been
possible to surmise the potential impact of reflection decoupled from explicit NOS activities. In
the context of apprenticeships, it is possible to prompt learner reflection on their experiences and
potential connections to NOS without engaging the learners in more extensive explicit NOS
activities. In this study, we sought to further explore this possibility.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is based on cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins
& Duguid, 1989) and situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The idea behind both of
these perspectives is that learning and cognition are situated and cannot be understood apart from
the context and culture in which they take place. Brown et al. (1989) discuss authentic experiences
as, “coherent, meaningful and purposeful activities. . .defined as ordinary practices of the culture”
(p. 34). Such authentic experiences are typical of research apprenticeships. Lave and Wenger
(1991) describe how a learner transitions from an outside observer to an insider with the full rights
and responsibilities of any other member within a “community of practice.” Within the cognitive
apprenticeship model, teaching involves modeling, coaching, reflection, and exploration (Collins,
Brown & Holum, 1991), and recent research has documented ways in which these practices are
carried out in research apprenticeships (Feldman, Divoll & Rogan-Klyve, 2013).
Sandoval (2005) suggests that learners of science may hold practical epistemologies
regarding their own participation in scientific research and formal epistemologies related to their
conceptions of how knowledge is formed by professional scientists. This theoretical orientation
could account for the limited impact of school-based scientific inquiry on NOS understandings,
particularly if students perceive an existing disconnect between what they are doing in school and
the practices in which scientists engage when conducting research. We hypothesize that as
learners engage in legitimate and authentic participation within research apprenticeships, their
practical and formal epistemologies of science begin to converge. Indeed, our earlier work has
provided evidence of overlap between participants’ personal understandings of NOS related to
their apprenticeship work and understandings of NOS related to professional science (Burgin &
Sadler, 2013).
Research Questions
The following questions guided the research reported in this study.
1. What are the impacts of various approaches (i.e., explicit, reflective, implicit) to NOS
teaching and learning on participants’ NOS ideas in the context of a research
apprenticeship program?
2. How does involvement in authentic laboratory research relate to changes in participants’
NOS ideas?
Method
Context
The setting for this study was a research apprenticeship program designed for secondary
students, the Authentic Experiences in Science Program (AESP). The AESP is a seven-week
residential summer experience offered at a major research university in the Southeastern United
States. The AESP was designed for high achieving students interested in math and science.
Applicant screening included reviews of standardized test scores, letters of recommendation, and
essays. Eighty-eight rising juniors and seniors were accepted for and enrolled in the program. The
cost for the program was approximately $3500 per student, and some scholarship funds were
available for students with demonstrated financial needs.
Participating students worked for nearly 30 hours per week conducting research in a science
or engineering laboratory. They worked under the guidance of a professional scientist or engineer
and the graduate students working in her or his laboratory. Most students were placed individually
in a laboratory but some were paired. Mentors were from a variety of departments including
astronomy, biology, biomedical engineering, chemistry, physics, and materials science. Students
were immersed in the everyday activities of the laboratory including group meetings, planning
research, using specialized equipment to collect and analyze data, writing a research paper, and
giving an oral presentation. Typically, students worked with a graduate student on a pre-existing
project. In addition to the research component, students attended lectures and seminars and
participated in discussion groups with other program participants who were researching similar
topics. All students were required to enroll in one of eight interdisciplinary science seminar
courses that met twice weekly with the option of receiving dual enrollment credit.
Participants
The participants for this study were drawn from the total population (n¼88) of students
enrolled in the AESP during one summer. From this population, a subset, consisting of the
participants from three (of eight) seminars was identified. The main difference between the three
seminars was the NOS teaching approach employed. Approximately ten students participated in
each of the three seminars. Table 1 lists each participant along with her or his seminar, gender,
race/ethnicity, and the departments to which she or he was assigned. Six of the 30 students (2 per
seminar) were selected as case study participants. These participants were selected based on the
nature of their laboratory research and their willingness to contribute data to our study. An asterisk
in Table 1 is used to identify the six case study participants.
Approaches
The three approaches to NOS teaching (explicit, reflective and implicit) were implemented
through three of the eight content seminars. The three approaches can be thought of as additive in
that all students experienced implicit instruction through participation in the authentic research
activities. In addition to implicit messages that may have been received through laboratory
participation, students in the reflective seminar were provided with regular opportunities to reflect
on NOS. Students in the explicit seminar had the same reflection opportunities and participated in
a series of planned NOS activities. Each seminar was co-taught by two graduate students who
possessed expertise in biological sciences and/or science education. The lead author co-taught the
explicit seminar. Students selected a seminar from among eight topics. The three seminars from
which students were sampled were presented as biology-related seminars informed by
evolutionary perspectives. Table 2 identifies the three seminars along with their content and
format. Students were not provided with information regarding NOS teaching approaches as they
made their selections. Observations were conducted periodically in each of the seminars to
monitor implementation.
Genetics from an evolutionary perspective was the content focus of the explicit seminar.
Explicit NOS activities were used to foster discussions on NOS aspects as they related to the
science being examined in the seminar (Cobern & Loving, 1998; Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick,
1998; Loundagin, 1999) (see table S1 for a listing of specific NOS activities). These activities have
Table 1
Participants
Participant Seminar Gender Race/Ethnicity Laboratory Department

1 E F Caucasian Materials Science & Engineering
2 E F Caucasian Applied Physiology & Kinesiology

3 Jennifer E F Caucasian Biology

4 Jane E F Asian Indian Chemistry
5 E F Hispanic Microbiology & Cell Science
6 E F Asian Indian Agricultural & Biological Engineering
7 E M Asian Materials Science & Engineering
8 E M Caucasian Chemistry
9 E F Caucasian Materials Science & Engineering
10 E F Asian Biology
11 E M Caucasian Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
12 R F Asian Indian Materials Science & Engineering
13 R M Caucasian Materials Science & Engineering
14 R M Asian Indian Chemistry

15 Isabel R F Hispanic Forest Resources & Conservation
16 R F African American Medicine
17 R M Hispanic Physics

18 Joseph R M Multiracial Chemical Engineering
19 R M Hispanic Computer & Information Science & Engineering
20 R M Caucasian Computer & Information Science & Engineering
21 I M Caucasian Geological Sciences
22 I F Caucasian Geological Sciences
23 I F Caucasian Astronomy

24 Tom I M Hispanic Chemistry
25 I F Caucasian Biology
26 I F Caucasian Molecular Genetics & Microbiology

27 John I M Hispanic Biology
28 I M Asian Indian Large Animal Clinical Sciences
29 I M Caucasian Biomedical Engineering
30 I M Asian Indian Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

Case study participant, pseudonyms are used.
Seminar: Explicit (E), Reflective (R), Implicit (I).
been used by others when implementing explicit/reflective approaches (e.g., Akerson et al., 2000;
Bell et al., 2011). Following participation in NOS activities, instructors engaged participants in
reflective discussions relating various NOS aspects to seminar topics and experiences within their
laboratories. Students also responded to reflective journal prompts at the beginning of each
meeting. The prompts are available as supplementary material. The prompts were designed to
engage the participants in reflecting on the links between their own research and various NOS
aspects. For example, in week three, one of the reflective journal prompts asked students the
following: “Are you using the scientific method to answer the question that is driving your
research? Why or why not? Which parts of the scientific method are you using? Would you have to
use the scientific method in your research? Could there be other ways of answering your question?
Explain using specific examples.” Participants took approximately ten minutes per session to
respond to the prompts in composition notebooks. The lead author collected the notebooks at the
end of each seminar and provided written feedback. This feedback was used to encourage students
to reflect on the connections between their research and NOS ideas. This resulted in written
Table 2
Seminar details
Seminar Theme Sample Content Topics Course Format

Explicit Population Genetics Mutation Reflective journaling (each meeting)
from an Genetic variation Content lectures (most meetings)
Evolutionary Natural selection Explicit NOS activities related to
Perspective presented content- see Table 3 (most
meetings)
Genetic drift Group discussions (most meetings)
Migration Culminating group presentation of a
peer-reviewed research study
Non-random mating
Speciation
Reflective Conservation from an Captive populations Reflective journaling (each meeting)
Evolutionary Fragmented populations Content lectures (every other meeting)
Perspective Endangered species Discussion of related research papers
(every other meeting)
Invasive species Culminating group presentation of
peer-reviewed research
Genetic and stable isotope
analyses in conservation
approaches
Implicit Animal Behavior from Natural selection
an Evolutionary Genetics and behavior Reading quizzes (each meeting)
Perspective development
Communication Content lectures (most meetings)
Reproductive behavior Student led presentations and
discussions of peer-reviewed
research studies (most meetings)
Sexual selection Activities related to content topics
(most meetings)
Mating systems Culminating individual paper on a
peer-reviewed research study
Parental care
exchanges between the lead author and the participants that resembled a conversation in which
ideas were shared and requests for clarification and additional detail were made.
The second seminar, which focused on conservation from an evolutionary perspective,
utilized a reflective approach but did not feature explicit NOS activities. As in the explicit seminar,
participants were provided with reflective prompts and given feedback on their responses as
described above. These participants did not receive explicit NOS instruction, nor were explicit
connections made between NOS aspects and the scientific content being studied within the
seminar.
The final seminar from which participants were drawn took an implicit approach to NOS
teaching. This approach was labeled implicit because each participant in the seminar (and all of
the seminars) was concurrently participating in authentic research. The featured content was
animal behavior from an evolutionary perspective. NOS activities and reflective journaling were
not part of this seminar. In both of the seminars that did not take an explicit approach, more time
was devoted to discussions of content in lieu of time devoted to explicit NOS activities and/or
journaling.
Data Collection
This study made use of an open-ended NOS questionnaire, a modified form of the Views of
Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS; Lederman et al., 2002), administered to participants at
the beginning of the AESP and at its conclusion to document potential changes in NOS ideas.
Others have used open-ended questionnaires in pre/post designs to investigate the impact
of various approaches to NOS teaching and learning (e.g. Bell et al., 2003; Khishfe &
Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2007). The primary rationale for selecting the VNOS as a
data source was the fact that there is a documented track record of using these data in pre/post
analyses. We also wanted to compare our findings with those from the above studies, and using a
similar means for assessing NOS understandings was an effective way to do so. The questionnaire
consisted of items from the VNOS-Dþ, plus two items from the VNOS-C, and an item from a
modified version of the VNOS-B utilized by Bell and colleagues (2003). We made the decision to
modify the questionnaire by incorporating questions from a variety of VNOS versions due to our
earlier experiences using various versions of the questionnaire (Burgin et al., 2012; Eastwood
et al., 2012). We decided that items from the VNOS-Dþ were appropriate for the study but that a
few additional prompts from other versions of the questionnaire could help elicit student ideas
related to dimensions of NOS in which we were most interested. For example, the item from the
modified VNOS-B, used in the Bell et al. (2003) study of an apprenticeship program, prompted
student responses about the scientific method, a NOS aspect that is particularly relevant for our
study context.
Student participants initially responded to the questionnaire in the first week of the AESP. Six
(20%) of the 30 participants (two from each seminar; case study participants) completed follow-
up interviews regarding their initial responses to the questionnaire. These semi-structured
interviews were used to supplement interpretations of the questionnaire responses. As such, an
interview protocol was used to allow participants to elaborate on their questionnaire responses.
This protocol was drawn from the works of Abd-El-Khalick (1998) and Bell and colleagues
(2003). The questionnaire was administered a second time to all 30 participants during the sixth
week of the program. Again, the six case study participants were interviewed regarding their
written responses.
Data from other sources were collected and analyzed from the six case study participants.
These students were interviewed three times (in addition to the VNOS interviews) about their
involvement in laboratory research. The interview protocols were informed by our earlier
investigations of the AESP (Burgin et al., 2012). The participants were also observed six times
(once a week) in their laboratories. Finally, we interviewed each faculty mentor and graduate
student mentor that worked with the case study participants. The purpose of these data was to
examine the nature of the laboratory work in which students and their mentors engaged. This
information is useful in that it situates changes in NOS understandings among the case study
participants in the context of their practical engagement within their research placements. The
complete VNOS questionnaire and interview and observation protocols are available as
supplementary material.
Data Analysis
The analysis of participant responses to the questionnaire was guided by the recommenda-
tions of the VNOS developers (Lederman et al., 2002). Student responses to the questionnaire
items were holistically rated as na€ıve, mixed, informed or unknown for the following targeted
NOS aspects: empirical, creative, subjective, and tentative NOS; theory/law distinctions, social
embeddedness of science, and myth of the scientific method. This analysis was consistent with
typological data analysis in that a-priori categories were employed as the questionnaires were
analyzed (Hatch, 2002). Ratings of either na€ıve, mixed, informed or unknown were made based on
the degree to which students’ understandings of NOS aligned with current consensus under-
standings of NOS by a variety of stakeholders in science education (e.g., Lederman et al., 2002;
McComas, Clough, & Almazroa, 1998; Sandoval, 2005). Na€ıve ratings were assigned when all
responses related to a particular NOS aspect were not aligned with current consensus under-
standings of NOS. When a learner’s responses did align with consensus views for a given NOS
aspect, their understanding was rated as being informed. If participant responses related to a NOS
aspect contained statements reflective of both na€ıve and informed understandings, then a mixed
rating was applied. Ratings of unknown were reserved for instances when a participant’s responses
did not provide enough information for the research team to assign a clear rating. Exemplar quotes
representing na€ıve and informed responses are presented in Table 3.
In order to support the trustworthiness of the analysis, multiple raters scored the
questionnaires. Two investigators worked collaboratively to code one participant’s responses to
develop a common analytic process. Then they independently coded responses to nine of the 60
questionnaires. After correcting for rater error, the inter-rater consistency on these nine
questionnaires was 95.8%. The lead author then analyzed each of the remaining 50 questionnaires.
A third investigator independently reviewed the 50 questionnaires. Discrepancies between the
two investigators were discussed and ultimately 100% consensus was achieved on all ratings. The
accompanying VNOS interviews conducted with six case study participants were transcribed and
analyzed in a manner similar to that used for the written data. Two investigators analyzed four of
twelve total interviews independently. After discussing and resolving initial areas of disagree-
ment, the consistency between their ratings was 97%. The first researcher then independently
analyzed all VNOS interviews. For the six case study participants, ratings derived from the
interview data were used instead of the written responses to the modified VNOS when
discrepancies existed.
Data sources related to the second research question (semi-structured interviews and
observations of laboratory work) were analyzed using processes consistent with constructivist
grounded theory including open coding followed by more focused coding as theoretical
understandings emerged related to the case study participants’ experiences (Charmaz, 2006).
Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. These interviews along with field notes
collected during observations were analyzed utilizing HyperRESEARCH. Specifically, 188 initial
codes were identified and then collapsed into 121 more focused codes to better describe the data
and avoid redundancy. The focused codes were organized based on their relation to three
overarching themes that emerged from the collective case study data. These themes were the
action students were engaged in during their laboratory placements, the ways in which they
interacted with and were treated by their mentors, and the feelings of self that the participants had
regarding their place within the laboratory groups and within scientific fields more broadly.
Mentor interviews were analyzed in order to add to the understandings that were emerging
from the case studies. In addition to the emergent themes, we paid careful attention to
responses provided in interviews about how the students’ NOS understandings might have
changed and factors influencing those changes. Given the relevance of these ideas to the research
questions, we highlight many of these direct responses in our presentation of the cases. The first
author was the primary analyst and engaged the second author in continual peer debriefing,
discussions, and justifications of interpretations as findings emerged. The second author assumed
a role of challenging initial interpretations as well as the extent to which themes generated in the
initial open coding and focused coding rounds of analysis fit with the three emergent, organizing
themes.
Table 3
Examples of written science questionnaire responses and ratings
NOS Aspect Na€ıve Example Informed Example

Empirical When asked why scientists disagree When asked how scientists could
about dinosaur extinction: “Because convince other scientists of their
they don’t have scientific proof or theory: “Evidence, solid evidence
remains today to prove it.” (Student and counterarguments to every
6, Pre-Questionnaire) possible criticism that is thrown
their way.” (Student 10, Post-
Questionnaire)
Theory/Law “A law comes after the theory is “A scientific theory is a well-tested . . .
proven to be undeniably true after explanation of how a scientific
much evidence/data analysis.” phenomenon occurs.” (Student 20,
(Student 29, Pre-Questionnaire) Pre-Questionnaire)
Creative “When in the process of an experiment When asked if scientists use their
you should just mark what you see, imagination and creativity: “[Yes,
no creativity or imagination.” because] analysis and interpretation
(Student 9, Pre-Questionnaire) go hand in hand, and you must think
about how the data relates to life and
why it matters and what it means.”
(Student 26, Post-Questionnaire)
Subjective “Science is objective. It draws from “The differing cultures, backgrounds,
data that is collected under and beliefs of scientists cause them
controlled conditions. This is unlike to leap to differing conclusions
subjective disciplines, in which about even the same situation.”
much can be left for interpretation.” (Student 1, Post-Questionnaire)
(Student 5, Pre-Questionnaire)
Social-embeddedness “[Science is universal] because the use “Science is usually around in time of
of logic in cultivating greater need. The needs of certain cultures
understanding of our world is not are different from others. So yes,
limited to a single country or bound science can reflect social and
by culture.” (Student 7, Post- cultural values.” (Student 13, Pre-
Questionnaire) Questionnaire)
Tentative “Science, unlike art, history, “Scientific knowledge will inevitably
philosophy and other similar change. New technology and bright
subjects, has a set answer for new ideas cause science to
everything.” (Student 3, Pre- evolve. . .Theories change as new
Questionnaire) evidence changes the perception of
the subject” (Student 23, Post-
Questionnaire)
Myth of the Scientific When asked if all scientists used the “The method according to high school
Method scientific method: “Yes, to be is state problem, research,
completely sure of a set pattern to hypothesis, experiment, collect data,
follow.” (Student 29, Post- analyze and form conclusion. I
Questionnaire) believe this is wrong. There is no
one way to conduct the scientific
method.” (Student 25, Pre-
Questionnaire)
Findings
We refer to participants by their identification numbers from Table 1 and pseudonyms for case
study participants. Data sources are identified as follows: Pre-Questionnaire (PreQ), Post-
Questionnaire (PostQ), Pre-Questionnaire Interview (PreQI), Post-Questionnaire Interview
(PostQI), semi-structured interviews 1, 2 and 3 (SSI1, SSI2, SSI3), faculty mentor interview
(MI1) and graduate student mentor interview (MI2). Results related to research question 1 are
presented first followed by a presentation of the cases.
Pre- and Post-Experience NOS Ideas
We briefly present an overview of the pre and post-experience NOS understandings as
revealed by the VNOS. At the beginning of the experience, participant understandings of the
distinction between theories and laws as different forms of scientific knowledge, and the myth of
the scientific method were the least well informed with 80% and 60% of all of the participant
perspectives rated na€ıve respectively. Participant understandings of the empirical and tentative
natures of scientific knowledge were the most informed with only 10% and 7% of responses rated
na€ıve respectively. Pre-experience views regarding the creativity involved in conducting scientific
research, the subjective nature of scientific knowledge, and the social-embedded nature of
scientific knowledge were more varied in that a balanced mixture of na€ıve, informed, and mixed
views permeated the ratings for all of the participants regardless of the seminar in which they were
enrolled.
At the end of the experience, participant understandings of the distinction between theory and
law still showed the lowest ratings, but only 60% of the responses were na€ıve (compared to 80%
from the pre-experience data). Only 33% of the post-experience responses related to the myth of
the scientific method were rated na€ıve (compared to 60% from the pre-questionnaires). It is clear
from an examination of the pre and post ratings of these two NOS aspects that participant
understandings improved over the course of the program. Other NOS aspects had less pronounced
differences between the pre and post ratings for the 30 participants.
Changes in NOS Ideas
Table 4 summarizes changes in individual participant NOS understandings by seminar. It
should be noted that the degree of change is not represented in Table 4 as both a change from a
na€ıve to a mixed view and a change from a na€ıve to an informed view are both represented as
positive changes. Unknown ratings are not represented in the table. A complete accounting of
individual ratings is presented in the supplementary materials in table S2. Participants in the
explicit seminar exhibited more positive changes in NOS understandings than participants in
either of the other two seminars. Positive changes in understandings of a single NOS aspect
Table 4
Frequencies of known changes in NOS understandings by aspect and by seminar as revealed through
written VNOS and follow-up interviews
NOS Aspects
Emp. T/L Cre. Sub. Soc. Tent. Meth. Total
Seminar þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
E 1 0 6 0 3 0 4 0 6 1 3 0 8 0 31 1
R 2 2 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 1 3 1 2 3 14 8
I 4 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 4 1 1 3 1 14 9
Total 7 3 6 1 10 1 7 1 9 6 7 2 13 4 59 18
Seminar: Explicit (E), Reflective (R), Implicit (I); Participant (P.); NOS Aspects: Empirical (Emp.), Theory/Law (T/L),
Creative (Cre.), Subjective (Sub.), Social-Embedded (Soc.), Tentative (Tent.), Myth of the Scientific Method (Meth.);
Change in NOS Understandings: Positive change (þ), Negative change ()

occurred 31 times for the explicit seminar participants. In comparison, there were 14 instances of
positive change in NOS understandings for members of the reflective seminar and 14 instances of
positive change for members of the implicit seminar. There was only one instance in which a
member of the explicit seminar demonstrated a decrease in NOS understandings. Decreases in
understandings occurred eight times among the members of the reflective seminar and nine times
for the members of the implicit seminar. These data suggest that participants in the various groups
experienced different degrees of change regarding their understandings of NOS. For some aspects,
patterns of change among the seminar groups were similar. For example, three participants from
the explicit and implicit seminars and four from the reflective seminar demonstrated positive
changes related to the creative nature of science (and only one student across all three groups
revealed a negative change). However, patterns of change for other NOS aspects were notably
different. Differences between scientific theories and laws, the social and cultural embeddedness
of science and myth of the scientific method showed the most distinct differences across seminars.
For these aspects, most participants in the explicit seminar demonstrated positive changes;
whereas, participants in the other seminars demonstrated few positive changes and some negative
changes. At least some changes in understandings were documented across all of the NOS aspects,
but in the sections that follow we present data highlighting aspects that demonstrated the greatest
distinctions among the seminars: theory/law distinction, social/cultural embeddedness, and myth
of the scientific method.
Theory/Law Distinction. Understandings of the distinctions between theories and laws
in science were only positively impacted for participants in the explicit seminar. Six of the
11 explicit seminar participants demonstrated positive changes in their understandings of
this aspect. Prior to the experience, these students suggested that theories and laws were
hierarchically related to each other and that theories were less reliable and less true than
laws. By the end of the experience, they talked about theories and laws serving different
purposes and that theories were reliable because of the abundance of evidence that lead to
their acceptance. The following is an example of a student from the explicit seminar
whose understanding improved during the course of the AESP.
A theory can be proven or made fact. A law is accepted as fact. (P8, PreQ)
Theory-supported with lots of evidence. May not be proven. Law-something accepted as
true while we can’t prove it. By definition they are different. (P8, PostQ)
Socially and Culturally Embedded. Six students in the explicit seminar exhibited positive
changes in their understandings of the socially and culturally embedded nature of science. These
students went from thinking that scientific knowledge is universal to a view that scientific
knowledge is situated within cultural and societal contexts. The following student went from a
mixture of beliefs about this aspect to an informed view.
Science is more about the facts. In which case it is universal. . .However, methods used in
science can be affected by cultural and social values. (P1, PreQ)
Everything reflects social and cultural values. These differences can lead scientists to
come to different conclusions. Different backgrounds lead to different choices and
thought processes, which are part of everything we do. (P1, PostQ)
While clear differences in the amount of impact on this aspect are evident when comparing
the explicit seminar with the other seminars, there were individual students in all three seminars
that experienced positive and negative changes in their understandings of the social and cultural
embeddedness of scientific knowledge. An example of a negative change is provided below.
Religion philosophy, and other aspects of culture have contributed to science since the
beginning of time. (P2, PreQ)
Science is universal. My lab this summer had Asians, Hispanics, Whites, and Europeans
in it. We all worked toward clearing up the mysteries of certain neurodegenerative
diseases. Science cannot be social or cultural because it is very impersonal. (P2, PostQ)
Myth of the Scientific Method. Student understandings of the diversity of methods employed
by scientists were most positively influenced among members of the explicit seminar. Many of
these students entered the AESP believing that all scientists followed a standard scientific method
and that by so doing their findings would be validated. Some of these same students left with more
informed understandings that scientists may employ a variety of methods depending on the nature
of their research and the questions they are asking. The following example of positive change is
from a case study participant who referenced that she did not employ the scientific method in her
research context during the AESP.
All scientists should use the scientific method if they want their research to be seen as
credible. It is universal and ensures a correct procedure and results when carrying out an
experiment. (P4, Jane, PreQ)
Well a good example [of how “the scientific method” does not characterize all scientific
research] was in my lab. . . we didn’t really have a hypothesis, we were just kind of trying
to figure out how to get the conclusion that previous research had come to [in a different
way]. So I mean, we couldn’t follow the set rules. (P4, Jane, PostQI)
Students in the other two seminars also exhibited changes in their understandings of the
diversity of methods employed by scientists; however, these changes were not all positive. Data
excerpts from a member of the reflective seminar who did demonstrate a positive change in his
understanding this aspect are presented below. It appears likely that this student’s understandings
by the end of the experience were informed by what took place in his laboratory.
The scientific method is a series of steps that a hypothesis has to go through in order to
become a valid part of the scientific community. . .All scientists must use the scientific
method because it is the unifying steps of procedure that help validate a scientific model.
(P18, Joseph, PreQ)
No, [we didn’t use the scientific method], because we just used a trial and error method. . .
it wasn’t conventional. . . it was just a quick and dirty trend that we saw. . . trial and error
and experiment after experiment and just seeing what happened. (P18, Joseph, PostQI)
Relationship Between Authentic Research Involvement and NOS Ideas

While we do not have empirical evidence regarding the specific nature of laboratory
experiences for all 30 participants, we have extensive information on the placements for the six
case study participants. We now present the kinds of experiences these participants had and
highlight possible connections between these experiences and changes in NOS understandings.
Analyses of interview data as well as observations provide insights into how the participants
engaged in their laboratory communities including the scientific practices they enacted and
whether/how this related to changes in NOS understandings. Table 5 provides a summary of case
study participants’ research project, the action they performed within the laboratory, the ways in
which they were treated by their mentors, the feelings of self that they expressed, and their
understandings of NOS aspects that changed.
While pronounced differences were noted between the changes in NOS understandings as
evidenced by members of the three different seminars (participants in the explicit seminar
demonstrated more positive changes than their peers in other seminars), we noted positive changes
in NOS understandings for some participants across all three seminars. We posit that growth in
these understandings for students in the reflective and implicit seminars was related primarily to
experiences in their laboratory placements coupled with journaling for those in the reflective
seminar. This conjecture is supported through analyses of the case studies.
We now highlight three of the six case study participants (Jane, Isabel, and Joseph).
We organize the presentation of cases based on the degree to which students contributed to
and were involved in authentic scientific practices beginning with Jane, who experienced
very limited involvement, and ending with Joseph, who engaged extensively in scientific
practices. The remaining case study participants had experiences that fell between Jane
and Joseph in terms of the extent of their involvement in authentic research practices.
Because of page constraints we present only one of these middle ground cases in the
manuscript but we offer a second middle case (John) in the supplemental materials. In
presenting the cases, we begin by highlighting changes in each participant’s NOS
understandings and the ways in which each participant discussed factors that influenced
her or his thinking about NOS. Next, we present data and analyses within each case that
reflect the three overarching themes that emerged from the analysis: the action students
were engaged in during their laboratory placements, the ways in which they experienced
mentorship, and the feelings of self that participants had regarding their place within the
laboratory groups.
Jane: Effectiveness of explicit NOS approaches despite limited engagement.
NOS. Of all the case study participants, Jane, a member of the explicit seminar, exhibited the
most growth in understandings of NOS aspects. She demonstrated positive changes in her
understandings of the empirical, subjective, social, and tentative NOS in addition to ideas about
scientific methods, and theory/law distinctions. In the post VNOS interview, she discussed how
her NOS understandings changed. The excerpts below are representative of the ideas she shared:
The main difference [in my NOS understandings] had to do with like how a person is
involved in, like how their personalities and how their creativities are involved in their
science. . .I thought science was totally objective, but now I see how. . .your cultural and
social differences can play a factor in science. (PostQI)
I thought unless you do the scientific method you weren’t really doing science, but
especially since my lab involved like science without the scientific method, I can see how
that’s not true. (PostQI)
She identified the explicit activities and reflective journaling experienced through the seminar
as influencing her understandings, but she also talked about her experiences in the lab playing a
role.
I think a lot of the activities [influenced my perceptions]. Like the one with the strings and
the tube, just seeing how everyone had different ideas of what it could be, like there are
just so many ways you could think of things or interpret things. (PostQI)
Table 5 46
Action, mentorship, and feelings of self of case study participants and positive changes in NOS understandings
Positively Impacted NOS
Participant Seminar Research Topic Action Mentorship Feelings of Self Understandings
Jane E Nonribosomal protein No personal design Low levels of collaboration; Did not position herself as a Empirical, Theory/Law,
synthesis contributions; Limited interactions; full member of her Creative, Subjective,
Somewhat negative laboratory group Socially-embedded,
impressions of each other Tentative, Myth of the
Scientific Method
Limited involvement in data
analysis
Isabel R Vectored fungal diseases in No personal design High levels of Felt like a trusted member Creative, Subjective,
trees contributions; collaboration; Mentor of the research team and Tentative
Involvement in data treated them like high fully included
collection and analysis school students

Tom I Protein-lipid interactions as No personal design High levels of Felt fully included as a Empirical
a function of pH contributions; collaboration; Mentor member of his research
Involvement in data frustrated at times with team; However he
collection and analysis the presence of a high thought the research
school student project was tailored to a
high school student
Jennifer E Genetic evolutionary Limited personal design High levels of Felt fully included as a Subjective, Myth of the
development of leaves on contributions; collaboration; Strong member of her research Scientific Method
a carnivorous plant Involvement in data relationship with mentors team; Expressed a sense
BURGIN AND SADLER
collection and analysis of belonging within the

laboratory group
John I Fish behavior related to Limited personal design High levels of Felt fully included as a Empirical, Creative,
nesting habits contributions; collaboration; Strong member of his research Socially-embedded,
Involvement in data relationship with team; took ownership of Tentative
collection; Substantial mentors; Invited into his project
involvement in data research team meetings;
analysis Definite hierarchy
present
Joseph R Self-assembly of silica Extensive personal design High levels of Felt on equal footing with Creative, Subjective, Myth
particle monolayers at contributions; Substantial collaboration; Strong the other members of the of the Scientific Method
low temperature involvement in data relationship with research group;
collection and analysis mentors; Mentors gave Strengthened his identity
him the freedom to of himself as a scientist
explore his own
questions
Seminar: Explicit (E), Reflective (R), Implicit (I).

They [the journal prompts] just made me think, like as I was writing. . .I would maybe
write something down and think oh it could also be this other thing, so it made me see like
two different sides of what I was saying and the two sides of the argument. (PostQI)
Definitely my lab [was the most influencing factor], because my lab didn’t have a
hypothesis and it involved changing the method instead of using a specific method to
come to the conclusion. So just seeing like how we worked with that [influenced my
ideas]. (PostQI)
Action. Jane was the participant whom we observed to be the least engaged in authentic
scientific work. She participated in the least amount of data collection and analysis among the
case study participants. In fact, on multiple laboratory observations, Jane was uninvolved in
laboratory work but was often working on her research paper at a computer. Additionally, we
never observed Jane working with anyone other than her graduate student mentor and even those
collaborations were limited. Jane and her graduate student mentor described this in the following
ways.
I think I got a little bit less interested as the summer went on because there wasn’t as much
for me to do. Like especially lately, because my project finished pretty quickly because I
just kind of added on to this project. (SSI3)
She [Jane] hasn’t singlehandedly collected any data. . . So it doesn’t look like [she
contributed to] any significant progress or significant research in my work. She was doing
parts that I explained to her; led her in some process. (MI2)
From a situated learning and cognitive apprenticeship perspective, Jane was positioned as
more of an observer of the laboratory community than as an apprentice engaging in legitimate
peripheral participation. That being said, she did recognize that some of her work would be of
value beyond her experience in the AESP.
I was transferring worms, which I’ve been doing for a couple weeks now. At first it was
very like. . .okay it’s just a learning process. We’re not going to use these. These are going
to become contaminated after you do them. But now it’s like we’re really doing it so be
really careful. And like I had to count worms and he [Brad, her graduate student mentor]
actually used that in his data. (SSI2)
The PI in Jane’s lab felt that part of the lack of active involvement was due to limited initiative.
To tell you the truth, she didn’t seem very engaged. You know I’m not going to force
engagement upon her. You know, she’s here to take advantage of the resources and if she
doesn’t want to take advantage, then yeah. (MI1)
Mentorship. Jane was treated like a visitor in laboratory by her graduate student mentor and
was not provided with opportunities to adopt a more central role in the community. Her graduate
student mentor saw his role as providing her tasks to complete and instructing her accordingly.
I tried to interact with her as. . .someone who does teach you what is supposed to be done
and what you know is supposed to not be done in the lab. . .She came in as a high school
student to learn. So she hasn’t come here with a project. So she was basically following
what I teach her to do and what I explained to her to do. It’s not like she’s here with a
project that should be comparable to mine or something like that. (MI2)
Some of these mentorship patterns seem to relate to a lack of communication between Jane
and her mentors (which stands in stark contrast to John’s experience—see supplemental
materials). Additionally, Jane and her mentor were on different schedules which resulted in her
mentor working late into the evening after Jane was away at other program activities.
Feelings of Self. Jane personally saw herself falling somewhere in between a working
contributor to her laboratory and someone who was just visiting. That being said, at the beginning
of the apprenticeship she felt like she was closer to being a working contributor than not. She said,
“I feel like I’m a pretty big part of the lab at the moment” (SSI1). Her position changed somewhat
by the time of her second semi-structured interview. “I guess I am a little bit more of a contributor,
but I still feel in between [a contributor and a visitor]. . .I don’t feel fully like [a scientist], I feel like
what I do isn’t used much, but it’s just kind of to show me how to do things” (SSI2). Jane did not
develop a full scientist identity over the course of her experience in the AESP. She felt like the
work that she was doing was artificial to a certain extent in that it was designed for her benefit
rather than for the benefit of the professional scientists in her laboratory.
Summary. While Jane did identify her lab as the most significant reason for her NOS changes,
we believe that her experiences in the seminar, which supplemented her laboratory placement,
were the most likely source of changes in her NOS understandings. This speaks to the potential of
the explicit/reflective approach combined with a laboratory placement on which to reflect. For
example, Jane experienced what in her own words was research that did not involve a hypothesis.
When she heard explicitly about the idea that not all scientific research is guided by a hypothesis in
the seminar, she recognized the consistency of this idea with her own experiences. While she
didn’t participate in authentic action, she appears to have witnessed it. This embeddedness in a
working laboratory apart from authentic action, quality mentorship and strong self-identification
within the laboratory group could then impact NOS understandings when coupled with more
traditional explicit approaches to NOS instruction.
Isabel: The impact of witnessing and engaging with scientists at work.

NOS. Isabel, who participated in the reflective seminar, demonstrated growth in her
understanding of the creative, tentative, and subjective NOS. For example, the responses below
demonstrate a shift in her understanding of the role and extent of creativity in the processes of
science.
I think that when a scientist is planning and developing a hypothesis is when they use their
imagination. (PreQ)
[Scientists] most definitely use [creativity] when they are interpreting their results
because they have to think of all the reasons why the results came out that
way. . .sometimes they have to think the impossible or least possible thing could have
happened. (PostQ)
When Isabel discussed her laboratory placement, she mentioned how scientists with whom
she worked had to collaborate to generate explanations to account for their results. It seems likely
that experiences like these were related to growth in her understandings of the subjective NOS.
I thought they [scientists] only worked by themselves. . . [But], apparently they have a
whole bunch of people they hire. Well, they’re not perfect either. . .they make mistakes,
but they still find a way. . .they were trying to found out why it [the results] had come out
with that fungus, or what had happened. (SSI2)
When asked what was the most influential factor in influencing her NOS understandings,
Isabel responded: “It was the laboratory experience. . .because it gave me a hands-on experience
with it [science]. Like I really didn’t think about it, I actually was part of it” (PostQI).
Action. Isabel experienced a science in action that was characterized by a lack of truly
authentic involvement in that she was not involved in the conceptualization or modification of her
research regarding forest pathology. She said of her project, “The project has sort of been ongoing,
so they already know what to expect or what to try and find out a certain way” (SSI1). While that
was the case, the PI of her lab pointed out how Isabel and the other program participant who had
been placed with her quickly became proficient with laboratory techniques to the point where they
reached a level of independence. “Eventually they knew where all the reagents and equipment was
and learned how to use it independently. They didn’t need somebody standing over them
constantly and we didn’t” (MI1). At the end of the experience Isabel acknowledged that the work
that took place in her laboratory was one marked by a collaborative spirit in which mentors and
students alike were helping each other and that this was not just limited to her own mentor.
At first I worked with Kevin [Isabel’s graduate student mentor] and Kevin only. The grad
students were there just doing their own things, [but] towards the end, we would help
them along in some of the parts of their experiments. Like we helped them. . . set up a
PCR [Polymerase Chain Reaction] and they also helped us in doing Kevin’s project.
(SSI3)
Mentorship. The mentorship that Isabel and the other program participant placed with her
received could be characterized by honest and open communication about the importance of their
project which resulted in an inclusive environment in which the participants were treated as part of
the team. Both the faculty and graduate student mentors mentioned that the work that the high
school students completed was valued.
I tried to make them feel that their project had a real world implication. That the results
that they get would actually be used for something and that it was not just for academic
exercise. It was actually something that had a real world application and we were very
interested in what the results were going to be. I think that helped them feel like they were
part of a team and they were doing work. (MI1)
They did the processing, and they did the plating, which was huge for me to be able to
back off and go work on something else while they were doing the legwork of the
research. They were certainly not a hindrance at all. They were a big help. (MI2)
Additionally, the faculty mentor explained intentional conversations and tasks that he
engaged in with Isabel that in his mind could have impacted her views on ideas related to the
tentative NOS.
Yeah well, one of the concepts that I had to get across to them was that we don’t have all
the answers. I think they assumed you know I had them do some literature searches to
look for the background information that was needed to do their study. And they looked at
it and said, “We couldn’t find any answers to these questions” that I gave them. And I
think that exercise was really to show them that it [scientific research] is ongoing. . . That
makes it exciting working in biological sciences. That you are working on something
new, emerging. There is no established paradigm that can’t be challenged. . . I think
sometimes they think of these things as being absolute. That may be because they read
textbooks. That’s how the teaching of high school students goes. (MI1)
Finally, the graduate student mentor, himself a former high school teacher, felt that the level
of scientific writing of the students was such that he felt the need to spend a lot of time revising and
editing their research papers. In fact, we observed Isabel (as we did Jane) using laboratory research
time to work on writing her final paper for the program.
Feelings of Self. Isabel felt that she and the other program participant in her lab were true
members of the laboratory group in which they had been placed. This resulted in feelings of
confidence. She told us, “they don’t have a separate experiment for us. [We] actually do their
experiment. I guess they can trust us a bit, because we know what we’re doing” (SSI2). Her
graduate student mentor thought this impacted the ownership they took over the project.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they felt to some degree that they were taking ownership of that
idea that they were not just there to take up space, but they were there to get immersed and
experience something that they were an active part of. (MI2)
Summary. Isabel, while not involved in the development and design of her project, did
participate in authentic action as she was valued and treated as a true member of her research team.
She also engaged in conversation/activities designed by her mentor scientist that may have had an
influence on her NOS ideas. She experienced a science in action that was tentative, subjective, and
creative. However, she did not seem to appreciate a diversity of scientific methods as she was
doing what could be typified as experimental hypothetico-deductive research. Despite oppor-
tunities to reflect on the variety of scientific methods through journal prompts, she received no
explicit instruction regarding the myth of the scientific method or any other NOS aspects for that
matter. The reflection she did only reinforced the myth of the scientific method that she was
observing in her laboratory placement.
I [had] like little checklists in mind to see if it really is, like if it really was true that they do
use [the scientific method]. So I did observe. . .I thought he [grad student] would skip the
hypothesis, like the hypothesis part. We actually did make one and he continued like
throughout the whole steps in order. (PostQI)
Joseph: The impact of ownership and individual decision-making.

NOS. Joseph, a member of the reflective seminar, exhibited growth in his understandings of
the myth of the scientific method, and the creative and subjective NOS. It appears that Joseph’s
extensive contributions to the design of his research fostered more sophisticated ideas about the
role of creativity in science and the myth of the scientific method. In the post VNOS interview, he
seems to confirm this conclusion.
I think they [my NOS views] did change, because I really didn’t have this clear of a view
as what science was per say, but again my view really was pretty limited too. I didn’t
know that scientists could be so impartial and I thought that they used a scientific method
for virtually everything and that there were extended operating procedures. Where in our
lab, we didn’t have a standard set of operating procedures and our methods were very
sloppy too. And I didn’t think that was allowable in science, so that really changed my
idea. (PostQI)
It was clear that Joseph believed that his practical experiences in the laboratory during the
program had resulted in these changes in his NOS understandings.
A scientific textbook really prepares you by saying, “If you’re a scientist your job
can be very monotonous.” Experiments are supposed to be like this, this and this
with very little error too. Whereas in this program here, this is completely the
opposite. Science is much more risky, and if there is error in your results that’s
fine. . . you can change things on the fly more if you know what I mean. You can
change things very quickly. (SSI3)
Action. Joseph was unique relative to other participants in terms of the previously mentioned
extent of his involvement in research design. Whereas other students (e.g., Jane, Isabel and
John), had little or no say in research design issues, Joseph made extensive personal design
contributions to his project. From a situated learning perspective, Joseph seemed to move toward
more central repertoires of practice in terms of his laboratory community as compared to his
peers who tended to participate more peripherally in their placements. Joseph was observed
working independently on his project and through mentor interviews it was revealed that he had
been given the freedom and flexibility to generate ideas regarding the project and pursue them by
using the methods that he saw fit. The following quotes from Joseph’s mentors illustrate this
point.
Yeah, actually it [Joseph’s research project] came out of a new idea, a brand new idea. I
had never thought of that before, but it seems like a very important thing that we have
missed before. . . The temperature. Lower temperature. Higher temperature. Seems like
the temperature plays a very important role. So my graduate student will continue his
[Joseph’s] work. I believe we will publish this work later on when we get enough data.
(MI1)
So we have a process and we were trying to think of ways to improve it. So his [Joseph’s]
suggestion was to vary the temperature of the process, and. . . bring it down as low as
possible to see the effect it would have on the crystal arrangements on the monolayer
coated on a wafer. . . I was just kind of winging it. I didn’t really have a plan or anything.
(MI2)
None of the other case study participants made as substantive contributions to their studies or
laboratory communities. We heard from both students and their mentors about the much more
limited roles the apprenticeship students assumed in their placements.
Mentorship. Joseph’s mentors recognized his abilities to design his own research and
gave him the freedom and flexibility to do so. According to Joseph’s graduate student mentor,
“Because [he] is really good at coming up with ideas. That is one of his strengths. So if he
had an idea, sometimes even if it was way out there, I would let him go after it just to see if there
was something there” (MI2). This treatment surprised Joseph from the first weeks of his
experience.
I thought they wouldn’t accept my ideas as much. . . But I’m surprised that my colleagues
and my professor have been rather adaptive and extremely responsive to my ideas and
such. . . I thought they [my ideas] would be reviewed and be reviewed and be reviewed
until they were basically shot down. (SSI1)
Feelings of Self. Joseph very quickly recognized that he was an important contributor to his
laboratory group.
It feels like I am a very important part [of my research group]. . . A person of that team
actually said that they were surprised with how quickly I caught on with the material and
that I’m doing a very good job too and many people in the chemical engineering
department thought that I was like a graduate student there because I had a few good ideas
(SSI1).
Additionally, Joseph felt that he was truly in the process of becoming a professional. He told
us, “this program has really allowed me to become a better scientist in general, if I can call myself
that more” (SSI3). He thought that he would not experience the degree of equality that he ended up
feeling: “I thought I would be just another glorified research assistant, but I’m actually doing stuff
here and like an equal almost. Yeah, an equal” (SSI3).
Summary. Joseph is an example of a student upon whom was placed a high level of
expectation regarding the development of his research project, consistent with his assumption of a
legitimate and relatively central participatory role in the lab environment, as he was afforded the
opportunity to meaningfully engage in decision making regarding the questions he would pursue,
the methods he would employ, and ultimately the interpretations that were made. Joseph was able
to appreciate a science in action that was creative throughout the research process and not just in
the beginning stages. His mentors recognized that he was capable of contributing at this level and
gave him the freedom to do so. This then resulted in Joseph personally feeling valuable. While
Joseph’s work was hypothetico-deductive in nature, he personally contrasted this with a rigid
scientific method in that he recognized the creativity that is involved as a scientist pursues ideas
with whatever methods they choose to employ.
Discussion
In initiating this research project, we sought to empirically test some of the ideas that are at
odds in the NOS teaching debate. The perspective that favors explicit teaching of NOS points to
studies conducted over many years suggesting that inquiry-oriented learning without explicit
instruction targeting NOS will not lead to NOS learning. We argue from a situated learning
perspective that the disconnect between science as practiced in most school settings and more
authentic forms of scientific practice could explain some of the results associated with NOS
teaching and learning. We explored NOS learning among students involved in learning
experiences as closely aligned to authentic science as possible: research in which learners are
embedded within scientific communities. Our findings problematize what, in our view, has
typically been an overly simplified and generalized argument that explicit approaches to NOS
teaching and learning work and implicit approaches do not. In contrast, our results demonstrate
that not all NOS aspects are equally impacted by different approaches implemented during a
research apprenticeship program. The results also suggest that explicit instruction about NOS can
interact with ideas students generate through participation in research communities in ways that
might be mutually reinforcing in some cases and contradictory in others. We conclude that
participation in authentic scientific research can support student learning of some NOS aspects
and that coupling these opportunities to “do science” with explicit NOS instruction including
reflecting on the ways in which students’ research experiences connect with more general NOS
themes maximizes NOS learning outcomes. We unpack this conclusion in terms of three important
points: (1) the effectiveness of explicit approaches in authentic contexts, (2) limitations of
reflection-only and implicit approaches, and (3) dimensions of research experiences that support
NOS learning. We will discuss each of these points in turn.
Effectiveness of Explicit Approaches in Authentic Contexts

Participants in the explicit seminar demonstrated growth in their understandings of NOS
aspects more frequently than did participants in the reflective and implicit seminars. This finding
is consistent with other research investigating the effectiveness of explicit NOS approaches in
authentic contexts (Charney et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2004). Chief among the positively
impacted NOS aspects were conceptions of the differences between theories and laws in science,
the socially embedded nature of scientific knowledge, and ideas about the scientific method.
Student learning relative to these particular aspects makes sense in light of the ways in which NOS
themes were addressed in the explicit seminar. First, the seminar focus related to the theory of
evolution. As such, whole group discussions were held regarding the evidence behind evolution
and why it is an explanation that is trustworthy and accepted by the scientific community. In
contrast, none of the students in the reflective and implicit seminars, which also addressed
evolution as content but not as an opportunity to consider NOS and the role and status of theory in
science, demonstrated gains in their understanding of theory/law distinction. Second, participants
engaged in a number of explicit NOS activities that forced them to confront how scientists’
cultural and societal values play a role in conducting scientific research particularly as related to
the interpretation of data. Jane, a case study participant from this seminar, specifically identified
some of these activities as being influential. Third, students were engaged in discussions related to
the variety of methods that scientists employ. These discussions, when paired with reflective
journal prompts, were likely influential for participants’ ideas about scientific methods.
Additionally, explicit instruction can help to counteract non-normative ideas that a student may
develop in the context of a less-than-ideal laboratory setting. For example, Jane’s participation in
her laboratory community was quite limited. Her experience could have reasonably led to non-
target NOS ideas such as scientists working in isolation and not connected to community norms.
However, opportunities to discuss and reflect on NOS aspects in the explicit seminar seem to have
counter-balanced the laboratory experiences.
In looking across the complete data set (students from all seminars), there were 70 instances
where post-experience understandings of NOS aspects either had room for growth and remained
the same, or decreased in their level of sophistication over the course of the program. This speaks
to the resistance to NOS learning even in highly authentic contexts like research apprenticeships.
In some cases, the research activities in which students engage may not afford opportunities for
students to think about particular NOS aspects. For example, in this study, students did not seem to
have many opportunities to consider distinctions in scientific theories and laws within their
research settings. In summary, the explicit approach worked well in this context and worked better
than the other approaches employed.
Limitations of Reflection-only and Implicit Approaches

While some positive changes in NOS understandings among the members of the reflective
and the implicit seminars were documented, there were also instances of negative changes that
counteracted the effectiveness of these approaches as a whole (see Table 4). A number of studies
have demonstrated a similar weakness of implicit approaches in how they impact learner NOS
conceptions in both school science settings (e.g., Moss, 2001; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Wu &
Wu, 2011) and in authentic science contexts (e.g., Aydeniz et al., 2011; Bell et al., 2003; Hsu et al.,
2010). In our study, negative changes among the implicit and reflective seminar members were not
manifest in systematic ways suggesting that opportunities to learn about NOS that emerge through
individual laboratory contexts can be idiosyncratic and oppositional to learning goals.
The similarities between the impact of the reflective and the implicit seminars lead us to
conclude that journal reflections apart from more explicit activities and discussions had limited
influences on participants’ NOS understandings. For example, reflection apart from explicit
instruction seems to have actually reinforced negative understandings of the myth of the scientific
method in the case of Isabel when she observed a strict scientific method being followed. However,
Schwartz et al. (2004) documented the value of reflective journaling in combination with other
explicit instruction. In other words, there is a benefit when students have the opportunity to reflect
on activities explicitly designed to impact their NOS understandings. The experiences students
had in laboratory environments may or may not have been similarly impactful on NOS
understandings and hence reflection on them apart from other explicit activities was hit or miss
depending on the kinds of experiences students had within their laboratory environments.
Dimensions of Research Experiences That Likely Support NOS Learning
Our data support the conclusion that explicit NOS instruction was more effective in
supporting NOS learning than reflection-only and implicit approaches. The finding that some
students who were not enrolled in the explicit seminar demonstrated some growth in NOS
understandings is consistent with other research conducted in authentic research settings
(Bleicher, 1996; Richmond & Kurth, 1999; Ritchie & Rigano, 1996; Ryder & Leach, 1999;
Sabatini, 1997). By examining the experiences and laboratory contexts of the case study
participants in relation to what they learned about NOS, we can offer conjectures about the
characteristics of research experiences and laboratory environments that likely supported NOS
learning. The following dimensions of the students’ research experiences likely supported NOS
learning: 1) the witnessing of and participation in a variety of methods being employed to conduct
scientific research, 2) making genuine and valuable contributions to the research as part of a
collaborative team, and 3) NOS-related mentor conversations and interactions.
Participating in research that did not follow a fixed “scientific method” was helpful for some
of the students in terms of constructing more informed ideas about how science is done and the fact
that the pursuit of scientific knowledge does not follow a standard procedure. For example, Joseph
entered the program with the idea that research had to follow a set scientific method, but in actually
doing science, he came to understand the need for flexibility when making decisions to stray from
a predetermined method. Even though Jane was not extensively involved in the research being
conducted in her laboratory, she was able to at least observe science that was not necessarily driven
by hypotheses which seemed to help her come to understand that not all science followed a
common procedural framework. In contrast, Isabel was in a lab that seemed to emphasize a
traditional hypothetico-deductive approach, and her notions of the significance of following a
prescribed stepwise procedure that she could label as “the scientific method” were only reinforced
when she was asked to reflect through journal prompts on what she was doing in the laboratory.
Combined, these results speak to the importance of placing students in laboratories where a variety
of practices are being conducted even if they only have an opportunity to observe those practices.
Making authentic contributions to research was an important aspect of the research
experience for Joseph, and the ability to make these kinds of contributions seemed to contribute to
his evolving NOS understandings. Joseph experienced a true apprenticeship as he was
enculturated into a laboratory community in which he became a “knowledge producer” (Feldman
et al., 2013). His mentors gave him the freedom to pursue ideas and this allowed him to experience
the creativity that is inherent to science. Being treated like an important part of a collaborative
team of researchers also seemed to influence students’ NOS ideas. Isabel and Joseph were valued
by their mentors and were quickly assimilated within their laboratory groups. This resulted in
them taking ownership over the work that they were conducting, and it allowed them to see science
as both collaborative and subjective.
Finally, mentor conversations and other intentional interactions such as those held between
Isabel and her mentors in the context of authentic scientific practice were related to the
development of informed NOS perspectives. This supports findings like those by Bell and
colleagues (2003). For example, Isabel’s mentor had her and another program participant engage
in a literature review to see that not all questions had previously been answered by prior research
and then talked with them about the task. Interestingly, this dimension of the experience that we
are suggesting contributes to NOS learning begins to blur the distinctions between what
constitutes explicit and implicit approaches to NOS teaching. Isabel was not in the explicit
seminar, but she had opportunities to explicitly consider NOS themes because of conversations
that occurred with her mentor. We see this as an important practical implication: faculty and
graduate student mentors working within research apprenticeship program can be encouraged to
highlight NOS themes in their discussions with mentees. An examination of the supplemental
material will reveal that John experienced similar explicit conversations regarding the tentative
NOS with his mentor and subsequently left the program with a more informed perspective. For
students like John and Isabel, these interactions happened naturally, but there is ample evidence
that these NOS related mentor conversations/interactions do not always occur particularly if
students are working independently (e.g., Burgin et al., 2012); therefore, research programs that
aim to impact students’ NOS ideas should consider ways to support their mentors in being more
intentional about communicating the NOS inherent to their research.
Limitations
Assessment has long been recognized as a challenging issue for NOS research (Lederman,
Wade, & Bell, 1998). Our approach involved use of a modified version of the VNOS as a primary
data source. Some have suggested that the VNOS measures understandings of science that are
decontextualized from learners’ own experiences and is overly focused on consensus lists of NOS
aspects (Allchin, 2011; Sandoval, 2005). Despite these critiques, we chose to use items from the
VNOS because we recognize its value in detecting changes in NOS understandings and we wanted
to be able to make clear comparisons between this research study and others that have used similar
assessment tools. While we are confident in the trustworthiness of the analyses of ideas offered by
students, it seems unlikely that the VNOS responses provided a complete representation of
participants’ NOS ideas, particularly when participant responses to the written prompts were
brief. This limitation ought to be considered in the interpretation of our findings.
This study involved many variables (i.e., uniqueness of laboratory placements, diversity of
seminar content topics). Unfortunately, we were unable to observe or interview students and
mentors apart from the six case study participants. Therefore, a limitation of this study is that we
do not have data to speak to the impact of certain types of laboratory research (i.e., various
disciplines of science versus engineering), or the reasons for NOS changes for participants other
than the case study participants. A related limitation is that while all three seminar content topics
were biological in nature, they were not identical. The fact that a primary focus in the explicit
seminar was on evolutionary theory, could have been, in fact, probably was a factor influencing
those participants’ understandings of the distinctions between theories and laws in science.
Finally, there is a potential interaction between assessment as conducted through the research
and instruction. Jennifer, one of the case study participants, attributed her gains in NOS
understandings to the interview process itself rather than her experiences in the program.
Therefore, our methods themselves may have had an impact on NOS understandings.
Significance
Despite an extensive body of research related to student understandings of NOS and
approaches for NOS teaching, this is the first study to systematically compare explicit and
implicit NOS teaching approaches in the context of an authentic research experience.
Ultimately, our results confirm findings from similar research conducted in classroom settings;
that is, explicit NOS teaching is more effective for supporting NOS learning than implicit
approaches. However, because of the unique design of the study, we are able to address some
questions that have emerged as persistent points of debate. One critique of the classroom-based
NOS studies is that school environments often fail to adequately reflect authentic scientific
inquiry; therefore, the failure of implicit NOS approaches may be related more to the inquiry
environment than the NOS teaching approach. Our study featured an inquiry environment that
is as authentic as possible: learners were embedded in practicing laboratories. Even in this
highly authentic context, the explicit teaching approach was more effective than an implicit
approach. We were also able to examine the impact of directed reflection isolated from other
explicit supports. Our results suggest that reflection alone is not particularly effective in
shaping NOS ideas; in fact, we have evidence that reflection in isolation of other explicit
instructional supports actually reinforced NOS misconceptions rather than helping learners to
construct more sophisticated NOS ideas. Other important contributions of this work are
findings that emerged from the case studies. Contrasts in the cases presented offer new insights
in our understandings of NOS teaching and learning in the context of apprenticeship
experiences. The study provides evidence of explicit messages about NOS embedded in the
context of the students’ research experiences and the teaching effectiveness of these messages.
In contrast, the study also provides evidence of a student, who benefits from explicit instruction
in a separate seminar, making substantial gains in NOS understandings even when placed in a
research environment not well-suited to support the students’ learning. In conclusion, we argue
that authentic experiences in research environments where students are able to participate
meaningfully in collaborative and creative research are most powerful when complemented by
explicit and reflective approaches to NOS teaching and learning.
We thank Timothy Barko for his assistance in planning and teaching the explicit seminar and
in a portion of the data analysis. We also thank Mary Jo Koroly, for her partnership
throughout the study. Without the scholarships provided by the Frances C. and William P.
Smallwood Foundation, some participants would not have been able to the attend the AESP.
Finally, we thank all program personnel, mentors, and participants for their willing
involvement throughout this study.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the
nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, Oregon.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring
conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of
Science Education, 34, 353–374.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of
science: a critical review of the literature. International journal of science education, 22, 665–701.
Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L., & Burgess, W. D. (2013). Research
skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of
research self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 940–951.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit
activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education,
95, 518–542.
Allchin, D., Anderson, H. M., & Nielson, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching Nature of
Science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practices. Science
Education, 98, 461–486.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A
Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2011). Understanding the impact of an apprenticeship-based
scientific research program on high school students’ understanding of scientific inquiry. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20, 403–421.
Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science
apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science
apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific
inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on
preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching., 48, 414–436.
Bleicher, R. E. (1996). High school students learning science in university research laboratories. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1115–1133.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-
of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373–1388.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Burgin, S. R., McConnell, W. J., & Flowers, A. M. (2015). ‘I Actually Contributed to Their Research’:
The influence of an abbreviated summer apprenticeship program in science and engineering for diverse high
school learners. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 411–445.
Burgin, S. R., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Consistency of Practical and Formal Epistemologies of Science
Held by Participants of a Research Apprenticeship. Research in Science Education, 43, 2179–2206.
Burgin, S. R., Sadler, T. D., & Koroly, M. J. (2012). High school student participation in scientific
research apprenticeships: Variation in and relationships among student experiences and outcomes. Research
in Science Education, 42, 439–467.
Cartrette, D. P., & Melroe-Lehrman, B. M. (2012). Describing changes in undergraduate students’
preconceptions of research activities. Research in Science Education, 42, 1073–1100.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London: SAGE.
Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigeborn, L., Coletta, S., & Nemeroff, M. (2007).
Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practice. International Journal of
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical
framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (1998). The card exchange: Introducing the philosophy of science. In
W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 73–82).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.
American educator, 15(3)), 6–11.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and
directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science &
Education, 22, 2109–2139.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012).
Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science
Education, 34, 2289–2315.
Feldman, A., Divoll, K. A., & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participation of
undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Education, 97, 218–243.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of Science in the Science Curriculum: Origin, Development, Implications
and Shifting Emphases. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching
(pp. 911–970). Springer Netherlands.
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science
Education, 84, 51–70.
Hsu, P.-L., van Eijck, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Students’ representations of scientific practice during a
science internship: Reflections from an activity-theoretic perspective. International Journal of Science
Education, 32, 1243–1266.
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ view of nature of science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching., 45, 470–496.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-
oriented instruction on sixth grader’s view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39,
551–578.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lederman, N. G. (2012). NOS Left Behind. Keynote address presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Science Teacher Education. Clearwater, FL.
Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote
understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education:
Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & 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, 497–521.
Lederman, N., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: What
is the Nature of Our Assessments? Science and Education, 7, 595–615.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do
they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721–734.
Loundagin, J. (1999). The Checks Lab. Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes. Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chec.lab.html.
McComas, W.F. (2014). Nature of Science. In The Language of Science Education (pp. 67–68). Sense
Publishers.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science
in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and
strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Moss, D. M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of

National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades
K-8. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards.
Board on science education, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington DC:
National Academies Press.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education,
32, 203–218.
Richmond, G., & Kurth, L. A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: High school students’ use of
apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 677–697.
Ritchie, S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (1996). Laboratory apprenticeship through a student research project.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 799–815.
Robnett, R. D., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2015). Longitudinal associations among
undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
52, 847–867.
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and
their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 945–956.
Sabatini, D. A. (1997). Teaching and research synergism: The undergraduate research experience.
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 123, 98–102.
Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research
apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 235–256.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of
science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on
learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change
after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.
Sch€on, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing view of nature of science in an
authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge
integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science
accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3–118.
Wu, H.-K., & Wu, C.-L. (2011). Exploring the development of fifth graders’ practical epistemologies
and explanation skills in inquiry-based learning environments. Research in Science Education., 41, 319–340.
Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based
laboratory activities on students’ view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
47, 1229–1252.
Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science
education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s web-site.

Tea 21296

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tea 21296

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 53, NO. 1, PP.

Learning Nature of Science Concepts Through a Research Apprenticeship

Received 30 May 2013; Accepted 23 September 2015

# 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Participant Seminar Gender Race/Ethnicity Laboratory Department

Seminar Theme Sample Content Topics Course Format

NOS Aspect Na€ıve Example Informed Example

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Relationship Between Authentic Research Involvement and NOS Ideas

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

collection and analysis of belonging within the

Seminar: Explicit (E), Reflective (R), Implicit (I).

Isabel: The impact of witnessing and engaging with scientists at work.

Joseph: The impact of ownership and individual decision-making.

Effectiveness of Explicit Approaches in Authentic Contexts

Limitations of Reflection-only and Implicit Approaches

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like