Frameworks of NOSI conceptions as lenses for data analysis

There are several frameworks which can be used as lenses to categorize an individual’s NOSI conceptions. Examples include; the unidimension framework, the argumentative resource framework and the multi dimension framework.

The unidimension (UD) framework

The unidimension (UD) framework is a lens which perceives conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry as a continuum ranging from empiricist through mixed to constructivist perspectives. The unidimension framework has its foundation in two schools of thought, the empiricist and the constructivist philosophies. According to Pomeroy (1993), the empiricist stance presumes that scientific knowledge can be discovered through observation, experimentation or application of a universal scientific method. To Tsai (2000), the constructivist stance posits that scientific knowledge should be seen as contracted tentative reality. The latter view (constructivist) is preferred by researchers who adopt the unidimension framework because they assume views of the nature of scientific inquiry as rather single components (Hammer & Elby, 2002) of stable personal epistemology. Closed form instruments and statistical analysis methods are used by researchers who employ the UD framework. The questionnaire-instruments mostly comprise of bipolar agree-disagree statements on a 5-point Likert scale for both non- traditional (constructivist) and traditional (empiricist) views of the nature of scientific inquiry. High scores indicate constructivist views, whereas low scores point to the empiricist views. Looking at the research questions posed by this study, the methodological

47

approach employed and research methods (instruments for data collection); the unidimension framework was found inappropriate because the framework does not describe robustly learners and teachers NOSI conceptions from this thesis’s perspective. Furthermore, the instruments (probes instrument and LUSSI questionnaire) employed for data collection in this thesis go beyond eliciting views using an empiricist or constructivist stance given that they are structured in a different way compared to instruments usually utilized by unidimension researchers. Regardless of the unidimension framework’s strength that it allows quick assessment of an individual’s conception of the NOSI, the unidimension framework conceives views of the nature of scientific inquiry as properties of an individual that are independent of the context. This becomes a problem in that contexts vary and are detrimental to a person’s views or perceptions, conceptions, preconceptions, dispositions and convictions of the scientific process and enterprise. Perceiving responses to the survey items as a reliable representation of individuals’ conceptions of the NOSI in all but different contexts is problematic in that it might not be true. The unidimension framework’s treatment of NOSI conceptions is therefore too simplistic and an overgeneralization of reality hence inappropriate for this study.

The argumentative resource (AR) framework

The argumentative resource (AR) framework is another lens which can also be used to analyze NOSI conceptions. The argumentative resource framework posits that conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry should be seen as discursive achievements (Roth & Lucas, 1997) that are illustrated through argumentative resources drawn in practice. The focus on whether learners argue scientific claims in an appropriate manner rather than whether they possess informed declarative knowledge of the NOSI is the foundation in which argumentative resource framework is grounded. The source of the interpretations from which the AR framework has its roots is two-fold. First, Gilbert and Mulkay (1984) content that the term argumentative resource can be treated as interpretative repertoires (IR) which has its origins in pioneering sociological studies. The concept of interpretative repertoires has later been developed in some forms of discourse analysis (Potter &

48

Wetherell, 1987) as both a theoretical and analytical process. Second, term argumentative resource can be interpreted as a grasp of practice (GOP) (Deng, et al., 2011). The grasp of

practice can be defined as knowing how to produce coherently acceptable claims. This

practice is in line and consistent with other sociocultural learning theories such as internalization (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978) and enculturation (Rogoff, 1990) that emphasize the dynamic interactions between an individual and his or her social environment. Interview and observation methods are used by researchers who employ the argumentative resource framework. Most argumentative resource framework researchers treat language as a cultural tool. According to Rortry (1989), language mainly constitutes, maintains and reconstitutes reality rather than represent it.

Again, looking at the research questions posed by this study, the methodological approach employed and research methods (instruments for data collection); the argumentative resource framework was found inappropriate because this thesis is exploratory and as such it was not known whether there was argumentation at all in the science classrooms on how science works. Furthermore, when analyzing data, argumentative resource researchers concentrate more on how the discourse is constructed rather than the content of the discourse itself. This is not the focus of this thesis. Regardless of the argumentative resource framework’s emphasis on the role of context in informing an individual’s views of the NOSI, this thesis’s focus is not on discourse construction but on an individual’s conceptions of the NOSI in relation to instructional practice. Thus the argumentative resource framework was found inappropriate for use in this thesis.

The multidimension (MD) framework

The third framework which can be used as a lens to categorize an individual’s conceptions of the NOSI is the multidimension (MD) framework. As discussed in Chapter 1, the MD framework advocates that an individual’s conceptions of the NOSI consist of multiple dimensions. An examination of different dimensions of individuals’ conceptions of the NOSI can be done in relation to constructs such as the learning of science, instructional

49

practice and implementation of various curricular using the MD framework. Various studies utilizing the MD framework have stressed various dimensions. Commonly investigated dimension include: (1) theory-laden nature of science (e.g., Liu & Tsai, 2008), (2) nature of and distinction between observation and inference (Ackerson & Donnelly, 2010; Kim & McKinney, 2007); (3) imagination and creativity in science (e.g., Tsai & Liu, 2005b); (4) socially and culturally embeddedness of science (Constantinou, Hadjilouca, & Papadouris, 2010); (5) nature of scientific methods (e.g., Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008) among others. In depicting views of the NOSI that do not satisfy natural curriculum documents, some MD framework researchers have used term misconception (e.g., Afonso & Gilbert, 2010). Some MD framework researchers have used the conceptual change model to design curricular interventions for the purpose of changing learners’ incorrect views of the NOSI to the correct one (Hsu & Roth, 2010). The MD studies unlike the unidimension framework rely less solely on closed form instruments and statistical analysis. Instead, the roles of both data triangulation and method triangulation have gradually been underlined. Among MD studies, three formats of instrumentation have been used for data collection namely; closed form instruments (e.g., Likert scale and multiple choice questionnaire), semi-open form instruments (e.g., multiple choice questionnaire with self generated options), and open form instruments (e.g., open-ended questionnaire, interviews, essay). In their review of studies on the NOS and NOSI, Deng et al. (2011) found that very few MD studies, 11 investigations out of 85 (13%) (e.g., Liang, Lee, & Tsai, 2010) have relied solely on closed form instruments. The argument is that closed form instruments may fail to capture the respondent’s real perspective that may be distinct from those predesigned options. Looking at the research questions posed by this study, the methodological approach employed and research methods (instruments for data collection); the MD framework was found appropriate because it allowed use of semi-open form instruments combined with instruments from other formats as opposed to close instruments only. Semi- open form instruments usually provides sets of alternative respondent position statements and sometimes an additional others option to capture viewpoints beyond the instrument.

50

A further look at the research instruments employed in this study to elicit NOSI conceptions shows that six dimensions are contained in each of the instruments. These include the five dimensions stated in the preceding paragraph investigated by other MD researchers. This study however named the dimensions tenets. Tenets operationalized here as the ideas, principles, opinions or doctrines about the scientific process and enterprise generally believed or held to be true by members of the science education community. According to Bell (2006), the tenets/dimensions can be conceptualized as a continuum from positivist/empiricist to constructivist/relativist perspectives; this conceptualization was adopted in this study. Usually, positivist/empiricist conceptions are labelled as naive or inadequate views, whereas the constructivist/relativist views are labelled as informed or adequate. This was adopted with the view that holding empiricist views does not mean one is naive as commonly stated in literature. In addition, since the MD framework treats conceptions of the NOSI as a system of more-or-less independent dimensions, this gave again an avenue of looking at the data and how the dimensions were going to be analyzed. To Deng et al. (2011), a large number of MD studies (55%) have used both qualitative and quantitative measures of data collection and analysis. Given that this study falls within the mixed method exploratory realm, the MD framework became relevant. One limitation of the MD framework is that it posits that individuals possess relatively stable conceptions of the NOSI that may be expressed coherently across different contexts. To ensure that analysis was credible and valid, the researcher used a triangulation of research methods, moving into science classrooms to assess if individuals’ conceptions (learners and teachers) were not affected by situational factors such as the nature of learning context (see, e.g., Khishfe & Lederman, 2006), the roles of teachers (see, e.g., Meichtry, 1992) and the interactions among learners and teachers (see, e.g., Bell, et al., 2003). Thus the MD framework was adopted as an analytic lense by this thesis.