Third Grade African American Students’ Views of the Nature of Science

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 49, NO. 1, PP. 1–37 (2012)

Third Grade African American Students’ Views of the Nature of Science

Leon Walls

University of Vermont, Waterman Building, Rm. 532, 85 S. Prospect St, Burlington, Vermont 05405

Received 13 July 2010; Accepted 30 October 2011

Abstract: This study examined the nature of science (NOS) views of lower elementary grade level

students, including their views of scientists. Participants were 23 third-grade African American students

from two Midwest urban settings. A multiple instrument approach using an open-ended questionnaire,

semi-structured interviews, a modified version of the traditional Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST), and a

simple photo eliciting activity, was employed. The study sought to capture not only the students’ views

of science and scientists, but also their views of themselves as users and producers of science. The

findings suggest that the young African American children in this study hold very distinct and often

unique views of what science is and how it operates. Included are traditional stereotypical views of

scientists consistent with previous research. Additionally, participants expressed excitement and self-

efficacy in describing their own relationship with science, in and outside of their formal classrooms.

Implications for teaching and learning NOS as it relates to young children and children of color are

discussed. � 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 1–37, 2012

Keywords: general science; nature of science; science education; African American; equity

The present study seeks to contribute to efforts in science education to make science

equitable for all students by focusing on one of the most fundamental aspects of science:

nature of science (NOS). In particular, this study investigates young African American stu-

dents’ views of the NOS. NOS can be generally defined as the epistemology of science or the

values and beliefs inherent in the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992).

Operationally this includes, an individual’s beliefs about, how scientific knowledge is con-

structed; where scientific knowledge originates; who uses science (including scientists); who

produces scientific knowledge; and most importantly, where the individuals places themselves

within the community of producers and users of science. An established line of research

connects a student’s understandings of the NOS and his/her science literacy (e.g., Crumb,

1965; Jungwirth, 1970; Meichtry, 1992; Tamir, 1972; Trent, 1965; Welch & Walberg, 1972).

The American Association for the Advancement of Science defines a scientifically literate

individual as,

One who is aware that science, mathematics, and technology are interdependent human

enterprises with strengths and limitations; understands key concepts and principles of

science; is familiar with the natural world and recognizes both its diversity and unity;

and uses scientific knowledge and scientific ways of thinking for individual and social

purposes (AAAS, 1989, p. 4).

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

Correspondence to: L. Walls; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20450

Published online 22 November 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

� 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

With the relationship between NOS understanding and learning science in mind, science

education researchers (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Lederman, 1999;

Smith, Lederman, Bell, McComas, & Clough, 1997) and science organizations (AAAS, 1993;

NRC, 1996) have placed great emphasis on ensuring that all students are provided the

opportunity to attain science literacy. Not all agree with the emphasis on ‘‘science for all’’

however. Mutegi (2011), for example, questions the adequacy of the presently pursued

science reform agenda and its effect on African American learners. He instead favors a

socially transformative approach to science education curricula that is more specific to their

unique sociohistoric needs.

Concurrent with this effort to instill acceptable understandings of NOS in K-12

students, there nevertheless remains disagreement about a universal NOS definition (Alters,

1997; Matthews, 1994; Suchting, 1995). Yet within this contested field of study there

exists a general consensus on a set of tenets characterizing scientific knowledge that should

be taught in the science classrooms (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998). The following list, though

not exhaustive, is representative of the more commonly accepted tenets: (a) scientific

knowledge is tentative, (b) scientific knowledge is empirically based, (c) scientific knowledge

is subjective, (d) scientific knowledge is partly the product of human inference, imagination,

and creativity, (e) scientific knowledge is socially and culturally embedded, (f) and scientific

knowledge necessarily involves a combination of observation and inferences (Abd-El-Khalick

et al., 1998; Lederman, 1992; Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003; Smith &

Scharmann, 1999). It is, therefore, this set of a priori consensus tenets that have been

used in NOS research to date to assess and compare how informed or naı̈ve a

participant’s science views are. Others however, have eschewed the tenet list template and

feel that a more holistic and pragmatic approach to assessing NOS views should be

adopted (Allchin, 2011). Three areas of particular interest and salience to the present

study are: NOS views of K-5 elementary students, race/ethnicity of the NOS research

participants, and the instruments used to assess and collect participants’ views of NOS.

In the following section, I review scholarship related to these four areas of interest.

Research on Students’ NOS Views

The call for including NOS instruction into the K-12 science education curriculum for

the purpose of instilling science literacy did not emerge without cause or provocation. It was

in direct response to research findings that have consistently confirmed that students possess

naı̈ve understandings of NOS (Jungwirth, 1970; Meichtry, 1992; Tamir, 1972; Trent, 1965;

Welch & Walberg, 1972). Additionally, some research has even highlighted the need to

‘‘explicitly’’ teach a core set of NOS tenets to improve these naı̈ve understandings (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Khishfe & Lederman, 2005).

Clough (2007) conversely advocates for addressing NOS issues as questions rather than as

tenets. An individual is said to hold a more mature view of the NOS if they clearly under-

stand a set of tenets characterizing scientific knowledge outlined by science education

researchers (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998). Finally, most researchers concur in advocating for

the use of inquiry-based strategies as the vehicle best suited to teach NOS because, ‘‘. . . thesemimic as closely as possible how scientists go about their work’’ (Akerson & Hanuscin,

2007, p. 655). The most recent research into students’ NOS views has focused on assessing

students’ conceptions at the K-5 elementary level (Akerson & Donnelly, 2009; Akerson &

Volrich, 2006; Lederman & Lederman, 2004).

2 WALLS

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

K-5 Elementary NOS Studies

Given the vast number of studies conducted on students’ views of NOS, few have

examined K-5 elementary children’s views of science, and even fewer on the very young,

8 years and younger (Akerson & Donnelly, 2009; Mantzicopoulos, Patrick, &

Samarapungavan, 2008; Smith, Maclin, Houghton, & Hennessey, 2000). This dearth of

research on lower elementary grade level students was confirmed by a recent study conducted

by Walls and Bryan (2009). In it they examined over 40 years of U.S. published peer

reviewed NOS research in three of the field’s leading journals. Of the 55 studies reviewed,

only 15 (27%) involved investigations of students’ NOS views. Thirteen of these involved

secondary grade level students, with just two focusing on K-2 grade levels. Closer inspection

of those two studies found that one, Akerson and Volrich (2006), actually focused not on the

elementary students, but instead their preservice teacher’s pedagogical skills. The investiga-

tion sought to determine the effectiveness of her explicit science instruction on influencing

the inferential, tentative, and creative NOS aspects of the 1st grade students. Similarly,

Lederman and Lederman (2004) investigated the NOS views of a 1–2 mixed grade level

classroom of students using the VNOS-E questionnaire. Pre-test data indicated generally naı̈ve

views of NOS and scientific inquiry. As in the first study, these students also underwent

explicit NOS teaching throughout the academic year and were then reassessed for any change

in their NOS views. Post-test results indicated that the NOS views of the students improved

as a result of the explicit NOS instruction. The explicit approach employed in both studies

showed some positive results. However, it was not conclusive whether the very young

students involved were developmentally capable of conceptualizing the NOS aspects.

Seeking a Diversity of Voices and Views

In the U.S., different lived experiences have long been associated with unequal outcomes

in almost all social contexts, including education. Using outcomes alone as the point of con-

text, African Americans in particular have unquestionably lived vastly different, and in many

ways, separate experiences than their White counterparts (Steinberg, 2007; West, 1993).

Therefore, understanding how children of different cultures, races and ethnicities see and

interpret the NOS is critical. Though enhancing students’ views of NOS as called for by

science organizations (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996), is ultimately a desired outcome of

this present research as well, assessing those views in the ‘‘traditional’’ sense was not one of

its central goals. With so little research primarily involving populations of color and the very

young, notions of the ‘‘traditional’’ research study were necessarily re-evaluated. Therefore,

assessing the participants’ NOS views for the purpose of ascribing to them an informed or

naı̈ve status was not a study objective. A more organic approach to gaining access to student

views was favored for several reasons.

First, the main goal of this investigation was to document any and all views this selected

population had with regards to science and scientists. As Allchin (2011) highlights, it was

important to, ‘‘. . . allow students to articulate a multifaceted NOS understanding . . .’’(p. 520). Previous research on majority White student populations has consistently observed

them to possess naı̈ve views of science. The assessment of those views however, was estab-

lished along a very narrow set of consensus science tenets (Irzik & Nola, 2011). Intuition,

history, and statistics suggests that it is highly unlikely that a group of very young marginal-

ized African American children of color would hold views of science significantly more

mature and informed than their White peers. The perspective of this researcher is that

assessing this group’s NOS views to see if they fit into these preconceived categories was less

AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS VIEWS OF NOS 3


important for this combined age and racial group of children. One of the reasons for this is

that research into whether children this young are cognitively equipped to hold or even under-

stand many of the aspects of the NOS tapped in traditional instruments, is inconclusive.

Intuitively, it would seem difficult for an 8-, 7-, or 6-year old with a limited history them-

selves, to be able to grasp the somewhat abstract characteristic of science being tentative

(changing over time) for example. Moreover, the salient finding already established is that an

explicit approach to NOS instruction is most effective at improving an individual’s NOS

understanding and ultimately helping them achieving science literacy (Akerson & Volrich,

2006; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011; Khishfe, 2008). In other words, instilling the tenets

through effective NOS instruction is perhaps more critical not just for this historically margin-

alized group, but for all emergent learners, than confirming yet again that their views are

inadequate.

Second, the call for science literacy for all is at least an implicit if not a direct mandate

aimed at equitably confronting the aforementioned disparate outcomes (Lee, 1999). Children

of color, especially those in poverty, have long ranked amongst the poorest performers in

science achievement (Parsons, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). In addition,

according to the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

report, U.S. White and Asian fourth and eighth—graders scored higher in science, on average,

while U.S. Black fourth and eighth—graders scored lowest (Gonzales et al., 2008).

Developing effective methods and strategies to successfully improve the science literacy of an

increasing number of linguistically, culturally, and racially diverse children must be a long-

term goal. To accomplish this, science educators must first gain access to these unique per-

spectives through purposeful and targeted efforts to involve a more diverse population in

NOS research. Presently it does not appear that those individuals being included in NOS

research to date reflect an image of racial/ethnic diversity.

Third, although equitable treatment of all children is an incontrovertible goal, it presently

is not being put into action regarding selections of participants in NOS investigations. It

simply is not enough to include racially/ethnically diverse populations incidentally. This has

most often occurred in the convenience studies performed thus far in which children of color

might be included in small numbers within a larger, predominantly White grouping.

Confirming this sentiment, Walls and Bryan (2009) found very little racial diversity among

the participants during their review of over 40 years of NOS research studies. Though racial

demographics were reported in some of the studies, in others it was not. A clear rationale for

the arbitrary treatment of this data was not evident. Yet a disaggregation of the participants

that were identified by race found that the overwhelming majority (97%) of them were

White. This imbalance over time may have occurred innocently but certainly not unintention-

ally. Researchers themselves select the instruments, research questions to pursue, and the

participants who will be included, none of which happens accidentally. Walls and Bryan

(2009) also found that race/ethnicity played a role in neither the research questions pursued,

nor in the findings that emerged from those examined studies. This pattern of research if

taken to its logical end will continue to yield very little knowledge about diverse populations,

over a very long period of time. It will also ensure that science literacy if at all a potential

byproduct of a mature and informed view of science, will also continue to elude a group long

identified in need of just that.

Finally, if it is an important goal to teach NOS in order to improve scientific

literacy, then it is also of equal importance to know as early as possible the nascent NOS

views of young learners, including children of color. Ausubel and Robinson (1971)

concurred,

4 WALLS


The most important factor influencing the meaningful learning of any idea is the state

of the individual’s cognitive structure at the time of learning . . . if new material is to be

learned meaningfully there must exist ideas in cognitive structure to which this material

can be related. (p. 143).

Determining an individual’s prior cognitive status is a fundamental and necessary step

involved in any inquiry-based constructivist pedagogy. As a result, findings to date generated

via NOS research are in reality a procedural means of accessing prior knowledge from the

individuals investigated. This is especially pertinent given that these findings constitute an

important cornerstone used in developing the K-12 science curricular agenda (Knapp, 1997).

By not insisting upon an inclusive and diverse population in NOS research, we again place

the same students in the same disadvantageous position to fail (McLaughlin, Shepard, &

O’Day, 1995).

Nature of Science Instruments

Since at least the early 1960s, the development of instruments capable of ‘‘validly’’ cap-

turing an individual’s understanding of the NOS has been pursued. In his critique of the state

of NOS research to date, Lederman (2007) includes a thorough summary of the evolution of

assessment instruments thus far. As he points out, many of the early assessment instruments

(e.g. Allen, 1959; BSCS, 1962; Fraser, 1978; Fraser, 1980; Hungerford & Walding, 1974;

Korth, 1969; Moore & Sutman, 1970; Ogunniyi, 1982; Schwirian, 1968; Stice, 1958; Swan,

1966; Wilson, 1954), all likely had poor validity. Still other instruments evaluated were

deemed valid in their assessment of NOS views (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman,

1998; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Aikenhead, Fleming, & Ryan, 1989; Billeh &

Hasan, 1975; Cooley & Klopfer, 1961; Cotham & Smith, 1981; Hillis, 1975; Kimball, 1968;

Lederman & Khishfe, 2002; Lederman & Ko, 2004; Meichtry, 1992; Nott & Wellington,

1995; Rubba, 1976; Scientific Literacy Research Center, 1967; Welch, 1967). Additionally,

the validity of some instruments has been brought into question based on faulty assumptions

supporting them (Aikenhead, Ryan, & Desautels, 1989). One such faulty assumption identi-

fied by Aikenhead et al. (1989) and Lederman & O’Malley (1990) was that individuals inter-

pret an instrument’s items in the same way as the instrument developers. Likewise, Lederman

et al. (1998) adds that standardized instruments usually reflected the NOS views and biases of

their developers.

Khishfe (2008) rightly asserts that the instruments used to assess students’ views of NOS

have influenced the focus of the research studies in their description of the process by which

students’ views of NOS change. However, instruments in and of themselves are merely tools

at the disposal of the researcher. These instruments combined with ‘‘a researcher’s beliefs and

ideologies influence all aspects of the research process, from the design of the research ques-

tions, through to the interpretations that are drawn from the analysis of data’’ (McDonald,

2010, p. 1142). The current dearth of NOS research on the very young is due in part to the

difficulty in developing reliable instruments to do the job. Put simply, the reason that science

educators have focused on individuals in the fourth grade and above is because it is much

easier to do so. Though this may be the reality, it nevertheless contributes very little towards

our collective understanding of the nascent views of science held by the very young. That

being said some important work involving young lower elementary grade level students’

views of science is being conducted (e.g., Akerson, Flick, & Lederman, 2000; Akerson &

Volrich, 2006; Lederman & Lederman, 2004). The design format of the instruments used in

these recent studies all appear to be cognizant of the limited and widely variant writing skill



levels of the very young. Oral interviews are now fairly standard and requisite as part of the

data collection methodology. Even so, more work obviously needs to be done in the area of

assessing young children’s NOS views. Yet if McDonald (2010) is correct about a research-

er’s beliefs and ideologies affecting all aspects of the research process, then the following

two questions must be openly addressed:

� What can be concluded about the validity of instruments that are not equipped to

reflect racial/ethnicity and cultural influences that may play a role in shaping a child’s

NOS views?

� What additionally can we make of an entire research agenda that effectively excludes

the involvement or input of racial or ethnically described individuals?

In summary, the present study is a continued effort in the long history of developing,

testing, and refining adequate NOS research instruments but with a mandate to broaden the

scope and effectiveness of those instruments.

Research Questions

The goals of this study were, (a) to purposefully examine the NOS views of a traditional-

ly under-researched group; (b) to purposefully examine the NOS views of very young

children (8 years old); (c) to purposefully examine the participants’ views of scientists and

the work they perform; (d) to test the effectiveness of novel instruments separately, and in

combination with slightly modified traditional ones, to examine the NOS views of a diverse

population of very young children; and (e) to determine the students’ own personal view of

themselves as learners, users, and producers of science. This is not a perspective of NOS that

has been generally highlighted in previous studies seeking to determine the NOS views of

students. However, it is an important one to consider for this particular group. In light of the

persistent underachievement in science experienced by African Americans (Parsons, 2008);

it was therefore a goal of this study to determine whether any self-exclusion or disengage-

ment (Andre, Whigham, Hendrickson, & Chambers, 1999; Ogbu, 2003), was evident with

these young African American children. Hence, the following research questions guided

this study:

� What are the NOS views of third grade African American students?

� How do African American third grade students view scientists?

� Where do African American third graders place themselves within the community of

science as either learners, users, or producers of scientific knowledge?

� How effective are NOS instruments when used in a combinational study design?

Method

The research methodology guiding this study was critical hermeneutics. Critical herme-

neutics can generally be described as conventional hermeneutics enhanced with the purpose

of identifying as well as rectifying societal inequities. In short, critical hermeneutics is a

blending of critical theory with Gademerian hermeneutics (Gadamer, 1976). Hermeneutic

accounts are renderings of coherent meanings by a reader of a literary text as s/he deliberately

incorporates his or her subjective life perspective with the text’s meaning. Hermeneutic

studies also can involve interpretive readings of people or ‘‘life texts’’ as well (Green &

Hogan, 2005, p. 223). Hermeneutics is further defined as,

6 WALLS


Hermeneutics must start from the position that a person seeking to understand some-

thing has a bond to the subject matter that comes into language through the traditionary

text and has, or acquires, a connection with the tradition from which it speaks

(Gadamer, 1960/1998, p. 295).

When the subjects of research are the very young, stories provide the basis from which a

fuller interpretation can proceed. It is then the responsibility of the adult to use the range and

power of their language to not simply record children’s verbal expressions but to communi-

cate and interpret the sense and contextual situation (Green & Hogan, 2005). Green and

Hogan concluded the following:

Rich description must capture not only words and actions of others, but their intentions,

emotions, or other embodied expressions as well—expressions that may provide impor-

tant intuitions to an overall sense and meaning of the experience for each participant.

Since sensitive readings of children’s experiences are so crucial to hermeneutic phenom-

enology, a researcher as-fully-concerned party might best be able to generate interpre-

tive data. That is, one of those whose subjectivities are vitally engaged, whose lives are

intertwined with children in a pedagogical way, such as parents, caregivers, teachers,

and therapists. (p. 229–230).

Critical theory refers to one of a series of approaches to the study of culture, literature,

and thought that developed during the 1960s. Whereas traditional researchers seek out

neutrality, critical theory researchers frequently announce their partisanship in the struggle for

a better world (Grinberg, 2003; Horn, 2000; Kincheloe, 2001). Critical theory researchers

often use their work as a first step toward forms of political action that can redress the

injustices found in the field site or constructed in the very act of research itself. In other

words, the critical theory researcher is never satisfied with merely increasing knowledge

(Horkheimer, 1972).

Participants

Participants in this study were 24 third-grade African American students (12 females and

12 males), from public school districts (PSD 1 and PSD 2) in two large urban Midwestern

cities. Of the 24 selected, 23 (12 females and 11 males) took part in the interview portion of

data collection. The average age of the participants was eight years. Data collection took

place in a total of four elementary schools involving two schools from each district.

The participants were selected from two high-density African American populations. The

two schools within each school district were selected based on the following factors:

(1) Percentages of African Americans in the school population, and (2) Percentages of

students eligible for school-wide free or reduced lunch. The PSD 1 and 1a schools chosen

were 81% and 94% African American and 79% and 78% receiving free lunch, respectively.

The PSD 2 and 2a schools that were chosen had 84% and 89% African American popula-

tions. Each had 81% receiving free and reduced lunch.

Procedure

Student participants were administered a multiple instrument assessment of their views

of science and scientists. This included an open-ended questionnaire, Views of Nature of

Science-Elementary Version (VNOS-E; Appendix A) in conjunction with semi-structured

interviews; a drawing activity, Modified Draw-A-Scientist Test (M-DAST), a version of

Chambers (1983) traditional draw-a-scientist activity (Appendix B); and a photo eliciting



activity (PEA), Identify-A-Scientist (IAS) activity (Appendix C). Data collection occurred in

three stages. In Stage one, all students in each of the four selected classrooms preliminarily

completed the M-DAST. There were a total of 82 students from the four classrooms that took

part in the drawing activity—PSD 1 [N ¼ 19]; PSD 1a [N ¼ 21]; PSD 2 [N ¼ 25]; and PSD

2a [N ¼ 17]. All M-DAST drawings from all students were analyzed, however, only those

produced by students who returned parental/guardian consent forms, were eligible for possi-

ble inclusion in the one-on-one interviews. The activity was administered by each classroom

teacher, but without the researcher present. This drawing activity took approximately

20 minutes to administer.

In Stage two, the researcher was introduced to the student participants in the first of the

four classrooms scheduled for observations. Two goals were specifically targeted during this

stage: (a) To record field notes relative to general classroom operations and (b) To identify 24

total students (3 males and 3 females from each of the 4 participating classrooms) who would

ultimately take part in the final one-on-one tape recorded interviews. The first classroom

observations also took place at this point, followed by an additional day of observation. All

M-DAST drawings were analyzed for stereotypical image content by this stage. Based upon

the recommendation of the classroom teacher, the number of returned consent forms, analysis

of drawings, and the classroom observations—three males and three females from each class-

room were randomly selected for the one-on-one interviews. An effort was made to select as

wide a range of types of students to undergo the interviews as possible. This included unique

drawings of scientists, and talkative versus less talkative personalities.

Stage three consisted of the individual face-to-face interviews with each of the six

students answering questions from the VNOS-E questionnaire in conjunction with the IAS

scientist PEA. Interviews took place in locations recommended by administration officials at

each school. In most cases the interviews took place in the school library or other designated

quiet areas conducive to quiet discussions and conversation. In an attempt to maintain the

interest level of these third graders, the PEA was introduced to them as a ‘‘game’’ that would

be played while they answered questions about science. Though it was not certain whether

the students believed the PEA to be a game, it was clear that they all willingly and enthusias-

tically cooperated. During this phase students wrapped up the interviews by providing

commentary about their M-DAST drawings they had made prior to the start of classroom

observations. All responses and interactions between the researcher and student participants

taking part in the one-on-one interview were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis.

Instruments

To date, the use of single instruments and audio-taped interviews to investigate the

science views of children is now a fairly standard practice in NOS research (e.g., Khishfe,

2008; Lederman & Lederman, 2004; Lederman & O’Malley, 1990; Meichtry, 1992).

However, studies of this type are inherently limited in their ability to capture the panoply of

NOS perspectives children hold. The open-ended and orally administered VNOS-E question-

naire was used in conjunction with two other instruments, the M-DAST drawing activity and

the IAS PEA, to assess students’ NOS views. All interviews were tape recorded.

Questionnaire. The items for the VNOS-E questionnaire were used in a previous study

(Lederman & Lederman, 2004) that investigated the change in NOS views among a mixed

classroom of 1–2 grade level students. The questionnaire is one in a series of previously

validated instruments (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) used to assess the

NOS views of both students and teachers. Naive conceptions of science and scientists can be

8 WALLS


uncovered through the administration of this questionnaire. The VNOS-E includes approxi-

mately 30 items of which roughly half deal specifically with views of science and the other

half with views of scientists.

Interviews. As in the Lederman and Lederman (2004) study, the decision was made to

orally administer the VNOS-E and audio-tape record the interview. This was done for several

reasons, resulting in a number of benefits. One benefit of audio-taping the interview is that

the researcher was able to ensure that interpretations gathered during the entirety of the study

corresponded accurately to those intended by the participants. Orally administering the

VNOS-E also effectively negated any concerns for those students who did in fact have

vocabulary, reading, or writing deficiencies. Another benefit gained was that it also allowed

the researcher to establish an easy conversational atmosphere and rapport with the student

participants. Finally, given the number of students interviewed, time was also of the essence,

particularly when considering maintaining the interest level of a young child. Each interview

took approximately 35 minutes to complete.

Drawing Activity. The M-DAST required students to draw on paper their idea or concep-

tualization of a scientist. This activity was based on the commonly administered Draw-A-

Scientist Test (DAST) (Chambers, 1983). The DAST has been previously used to uncover

stereotypical views relating to the drawn scientists’ gender; race; physical appearance; tools

of the profession; how they are typically dressed; and how they are imagined to do their work

(Barman, 1996; Finson, 2002). The M-DAST extends the capabilities of the DAST through the

addition of three minor modifications. The first modification involved requiring each of the

participants to provide a name for the scientist they drew. The skill levels, specifically artistic

ones, vary widely within this age group. Requiring that the students include a name for their

drawn scientist provides an additional clue for making a more informed and accurate determi-

nation of the scientist’s gender without introducing additional bias. The value of this addition-

al information was quickly realized when non-gender specific drawings (e.g., fully suited

astronauts) or in some cases, simple stick figures, were encountered.

Second, the M-DAST also included a section in which students could write a story about

their scientist(s). The story section of the M-DAST was designed to provide more opportunity

for the students to share as many conceptualizations about their scientist as possible. The

students were also asked to read their story aloud to provide an additional confirmation of

what they had written in cases of illegible penmanship. Finally, the students were specifically

asked to provide confirmation of their drawn figure’s race whether racial identification (e.g.,

shading of drawing) was in evidence or not. These additions, while taking advantage of the

strengths and flexibility of the DAST, also kept intact the validity of the instrument.

Photo Eliciting Activity. During the interviews and at the end of each set of three ques-

tionnaire items, the students took part in the IAS activity. The objective of this activity was to

gain additional insights into not only whom the participants conceptualize as scientists, but

who they actually see as scientists as well. Whereas the M-DAST activity asks the students

only to draw their conceptualizations of a scientist, the IAS asks participants to select from

photographs of real individuals, whom they believe is a scientist. The IAS was administered

from the screen of a laptop computer. The laptop screen displayed ten folders numbered

1–10. Each of the folders contained eight color photographs. The photographs were of males

and females in the following racial/ethnic categories: African American (AA), White (W),

Latino/a (Lat.), Asian (As), and Asian Indian (AsIn). Along with race, ethnicity, and gender

variance, the individuals in the photographs also varied in age and formality of attire as well.



To limit the number of choices to only eight photographs, one demographic group was

omitted from each folder that the students viewed. The decision to limit the number of photo-

graphs presented to the students was done as a precaution against overwhelming them with

too many choices. This decision was made arbitrarily by the researcher for that reason only.

The IAS was initially introduced to the students as a game. The activity was interwoven into

the larger context of the VNOS-E questionnaire under this pretext. Researchers (e.g., Capello,

2005; Clark, 1999; Horstman & Bradding, 2002) have encouraged the integration of visual

methods of data collection (e.g., photos, drawing) into interviews to make interviews fun and

not like a test in school.

Data Analysis

Qualitative content analysis was the most appropriate method to use for analyzing the

transcribed text obtained from these young children. Content analysis is defined as, ‘‘analysis

of the manifest and latent content of a body of communicated material (as a book or film)

through classification, tabulation, and evaluation of its key symbols and themes in order to

ascertain its meaning and probable effect’’ (Krippendorff, 2004, p. xvii). Stone, Dunphy,

Smith, and Olgilvie (1966) defined content analysis as any research technique for making

inferences by systematically and objectively identifying specified characters within text.

Specifically, the qualitative content analysis approach utilized in this study was directed

content analysis. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) describe the goal of a directed approach as

follows:

The goal of a directed approach to content analysis is to validate or extend conceptually

a theoretical framework or theory. Existing theory or research can help focus the re-

search question. It can provide predictions about the variables of interest or about the

relationship among variables, thus helping to determine the initial coding scheme or

relationship between codes. (p. 1281).

When using direct content analysis, existing theory or prior research is central, thereby

allowing the researcher to begin by identifying key concepts or variables as initial coding

categories (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). The following paragraphs describe the data

analysis procedures used to interpret participant responses to the four research questions

guiding the study, ‘‘What are the nature of science views of third grade African American

students?’’, How do African American third grade students view scientists and the work they

perform?, ‘‘Where do African American third grade students place themselves within the

community of science either as users or producers of scientific knowledge?’’ and ‘‘How effec-

tive are NOS instruments when used in a combinational study design?’’ The data sources

analyzed in this study were 23 full transcriptions of responses resultant from the: (1) VNOS-E

questionnaire; (2) M-DAST drawings and narratives; (3) IAS PEA responses; and (4) all inter-

view transcripts.

This study utilized a qualitative content analysis methodology to analyze and interpret

the responses of 23 third grade student participants on the NOS instruments used in this study.

Neuendorf (2002) described how the individual type responses to open ended questions on a

questionnaire or in an interview such as those in this study, makes contributions to NOS

research in general by generating themes in greater detail than typically obtained in NOS

studies.

Documents were edited to permit coding at the sentence level. Sentence units were

straightforward throughout the interviews given that responses were generally to a specific

question and not extemporaneously or randomly provided. Some sentences were re-edited to

10 WALLS


separate multiple thoughts being supplied in one response. Each student was assigned a pseu-

donym in order to maintain anonymity and confidentiality. Only student participant dialogue

was analyzed, with a focus on their responses rather than the researcher’s comments and

input. After data were segmented according to research questions, coding relative to the three

a priori categories was performed. New codes for subcategories were created using open

coding, which involved naming and labeling units of text to describe the data within a catego-

ry. Focusing on deepening the data, the researcher relied heavily upon the use of multiple

sources to support any assertions or coding decisions. After the coding was completed the

results were compiled. This iterative analysis process was continued throughout this interval.

Through this process of breaking down subcategories within the main category headings, 10

subcategories and 25 themes emerged. Though not all of the themes that emerged from this

investigation were supported by overwhelming percentages of students who cited it, each

theme/view that surfaced was nevertheless considered valid and valuable. All data were com-

pared across the breadth of schools and districts involved in the study. No qualitatively sub-

stantive differences in participants’ views were found and so the findings represent the

participants as one whole group.

Results

Qualitative accounts of students’ views of science are described in the following four

sections. The first section presents the emergent views of science expressed by the third grade

participants. These students generally answered the question, ‘‘What is science?’’ by defining

it in terms of ‘‘what it’s for’’ and ‘‘how it works.’’ For these children, it appears that learning

about the natural world is what it’s for and experimenting, inventing, and discovering are all

descriptions of how it works. Section two describes the students’ images and views of scien-

tists including what they do. Results suggest that the students hold dually opposing images of

scientists in their heads. One based on a drawn conceptualization of a scientist and the other

based on selecting from groups of real photographs who the scientist is and why they chose

him or her. Section three discusses results of the children’s views of science specific to the

intersection of themselves as learners, users, and producers of scientific knowledge. Included

in this personal aspect of the NOS is the student’s emotional connection or disconnection

with science as well. Results indicate they see themselves not only as capable and confident

learners and users of science, they also think that ‘‘doing it’’ is fun. The final section dis-

cusses results relative to the different instruments and how they were used. To obtain these

results, the study’s design as well as the performance and utility of the NOS instruments

themselves were all assessed. The results provide ample evidence suggesting that the multiple

instrument design used in this study was quite effective at capturing complex views held by

the students. The results also show that NOS instruments are limited only by what they are

asked to investigate. Emergent themes represented by the participants’ responses are dis-

played in Table 1.

What Is Science?

In discussing what science is the students often defined what it was by speaking of it in

terms of how it works and what it’s for, or in short, its processes and functions. Whereas

process appears to denote the students’ views that science involves certain unique steps, tech-

niques, and actions, function refers to the students’ views of science as having a specific

purpose. Science as function suggests their vision of it as being specifically designed to ac-

complish certain tasks and needs of humans. Conversely, students who described scientific

processes often referred to the things you ‘‘do,’’ or the active steps involved in science.



Generally speaking they were in effect, describing not only what science is but also how

science works.

What It’s for

Natural World. Even before we are fully developed we humans begin interacting with the

world around us in the only ways possible, through our five senses. It is here that we initiate

our own personal experimentations with the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations that

pique our curiosity and interests as children. These experiential interactions with the natural

world are encouraged through National Science Education Standards (NSES) and are further

reinforced through formalized K-5 science instruction. As a result the most significant theme

to emerge from the assessment of the participants NOS views was their connection of science

with the natural world. This theme was dominant within the group, with the largest majority

of students (91%) making the connection. Their responses indicated a view of science as a

tool used by humans (including themselves), to learn about the world and its surroundings.

They described the natural world in terms of its biotic (animals, plants, and humans); abiotic

(weather, unknown discoveries, and rocks); and astronomic (planets, stars, and universe)

features. It was in the context of studying and learning about these various components that

the students saw science fulfilling its designed purpose.

Table 1

Emergent themes (N ¼ 23)

Categories/Subcategories Themes N %

ScienceWhat it’s for Natural world 21 91How it works Experimentation 17 74

Potions 9 39Invention 13 57Discovery 8 35

ScientistsWhat they look like Glasses 22 96

Professional attire 19 83Gender 17 74Lab coat 13 57

Age/maturity 11 48What they do Problem solver 16 70

Invent 13 57Discover 9 39

Experiment 8 35Teach 7 30

Qualities they possess Intelligence 8 35Studious 7 30Happy 7 30

Students and scienceWhere they learn itIn-school Active learning 13 57

Science textbook 9 39Out of school TV/movies 9 39

Museums/libraries 8 35Home /family members 6 26

How they feel about it Positive 22 96

12 WALLS


How It Works

Experimentation. Whatever questions that may remain unanswered with respect to

these participants’ views of science; they were unambiguous about the intrinsic connection

between the experiment and how science operates. Experimentation as a theme was surpassed

only by the natural world in the frequency it was referenced by the students (74%). As

highlighted previously, children begin their own informal experimentations with the world

around them at a very early stage. The images of, and allusions to experimentation

were consistent across each of the three instruments used to assess the student participants’

views. The numerous references to the term ‘‘experiment’’ prompted an additional query of

‘‘What does experiment mean to you?’’ Because of this additional prompt, it was evident

that their definition was much broader than first intuited by this researcher. To some of

the students the term meant to ‘‘test something out’’ or ‘‘to do something that you think

that you should do to figure out what it is.’’ Dissecting the last comment reveals that

some of the students understand experimentation to be a requisite process or procedure

[to do something], conducted in a specific way or method [that you think you should do],

to gain some scientific knowledge [to figure out what it is]. In a recent study, much

older university students provided almost identical definitions of experiment as the

third graders in the present study (Gyllenpalm & Wickman, 2010). They too defined

it in terms of ‘‘trying or testing’’ something out. A similar conceptualization of the term

can be seen in the following student’s narrative response accompanying their M-DAST

drawing:

Dr. Star was out in the woods once. He seen an ant, ‘‘Hey there is a ant, hey there is a

table the sun is shining bright I want to know if this ant will burn. I’ve got my magnify-

ing glass the sun looks good, and the ant is on the table ready to start. Yes I have my

time 5pm, I have my place the woods, time to go tell the people at the office’’

It is not clear where or when this student first encountered the above steps and

procedures, ultimately internalizing them. Interestingly however, several steps of the well-

known scientific method approach to experimentation are clearly recognizable in her

narrative. A testable question is posed [I want to know if this ant will burn?]; the scientist

takes into account variables [the sun is shining bright], checks equipment [there is a table;

I’ve got my magnifying glass]; notes the time and location [Yes I have my time 5pm, I have

my place the woods]; reporting findings [time to go tell the people at the office]. Again,

I cannot ascribe intentionality to this student’s remarks since it was not confirmed in the

interview whether she was familiar with the scientific method as a process. However, what is

clear is that this third grader and her peers in this study do hold this perceived view of how

science is done.

Potion. Though not overwhelmingly cited by a majority of the students in this study,

a theme that nonetheless provoked considerable interest was the potion (39%). The

striking aspect of this theme is that it appeared not only across more than one instrument

(M-DAST and VNOS-E) but also across both school districts. As a point of reference,

the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) provides a definition of the potion as, ‘‘A liquid,

usually taken orally, with healing, magical, or poisonous qualities.’’ Most commonly,

when these students discussed potions, they referenced the act of ‘‘mixing’’ and the

inclusion of colored liquids. This definition was close to that provided by one student:



Science is like art because you have green stuff, red stuff, black stuff, blue stuff, and all

kinds of different things in science and sometimes you got to mix stuff that you are not

supposed to use for science to get something out of the potions.

The magical component of potions did come through during the interviews as well. One

student explained that her M-DAST drawing was directly taken from a popular Disney

Channel sitcom, ‘‘That’s So Raven.’’ In it the title character uses psychic and magical powers

to alter situations she finds herself in. Potions also play a significant and prominent role in the

pop culture sensation, the Harry Potter book series and movies. This media portrayal of wiz-

ards, potions, magical spells, and science, has been consumed in historic and unprecedented

quantities by children nationally and internationally. Finally, though the instruments and tools

of science students chose to include in their M-DAST drawings were few, bubbling test tubes

filled with colorful liquids was most prevalent. An example of this can be seen in Figure 1,

Sarah’s M-DAST drawing, and in her accompanying narrative made reference to potions as

well:

My scientist name is Ms Rabota, she loves making potions and she likes reading a lot

and she study. Her most favorite thing to do is study about potions. Rabota is 29 and

now she is finding another thing to study about which is the earth. Before Rabota was a

scientist she was a doctor and she got paid a lot, so that’s when she wanted to be a

scientist so she bought her furniture for her scientist room and she bought her own

scientist clothes. Now she is a scientist, oh yeah, she speaks English and a little

Spanish.

Figure 1. Sarah’s M-DAST drawing of scientist/student working with potions.

14 WALLS


The potion is both a stereotypical as well as an iconic image in scientific settings. It is no

wonder then that reference to it would make its way onto the drawn conceptualizations these

students would produce.

Invention. While familiar exclamations such as ‘‘Eureka!’’ were absent from the stu-

dents’ responses, drawings, and narratives, over half of them (57%) did focus on the creation

of something new—an invention, when addressing the question ‘‘What is science?’’ Of partic-

ular interest relating to this theme was the students’ consistent referencing of the following

phrases—never heard of, never made, or never knew to describe it. Invention to these students

appears to be a product or creation of something, where moments before the knowledge or

technology did not exist. The students who spoke of it did so in almost identical language

across both districts. This suggests some degree of common understanding and acceptance of

invention’s role in science among this age group, at least in the minds of these participants.

Discovery. Similar to invention, student participants in the present study also associated

discovery with how science works (35%). As one student informed, ‘‘Science is something

that you do like discover stuff . . .’’ However, a closer examination found that their concept of

discovery was somewhat narrow and especially focused. Specifically, the students most con-

sistently connected the term ‘‘discovery’’ with finding dinosaur fossils. Current guidelines as

outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NSES) and the sheer popularity of

teaching and learning about dinosaurs and their fossilized remains throughout K-5 class-

rooms, may partly explain this phenomenon associated with dinosaurs. Though closely related

to invention, the students made a clear distinction between the two. Unlike invention for

instance, qualifying phrases such as, never heard of, never knew, or never made used with

invention, were absent when the students described science and discovery.

Who Are Scientists?

The students’ views of science also include their views of who they believe are scientists.

Based on their responses, these views appear to be influenced in part by how they physically

look and dress; the innate qualities they possess; and the specific activities, functions, and

roles they fill. The most common descriptors of a scientist provided by these students were:

glasses, professional dress (suit and/or tie), lab coat, mature age, and male. These identifiers

offered by the participants were indicators of a real life, though highly stereotypical image of

scientists. Adding in race/ethnicity and gender and the following composite emerges—A

mature, intelligent, hardworking, White male, wearing glasses, formally dressed or in a lab

coat, who also teaches as part of work they do. Further discussions of the descriptors are

provided in the following sections.

What They Look Like

Glasses. The most prevalent feature that students in this study attributed to scientists was

the wearing of glasses/goggles (96%). Not only was the wearing of glasses/goggles essential

to being a scientist, the students also gave specific reasons why they believed they wore

them. For example, when asked why they selected individuals with glasses/goggles during the

IAS activity, a typical student response was, ‘‘. . . all scientist wear glasses and all scientists

wear glasses cause if they couldn’t see they would mess up everything and like they could

blow up something.’’ This rationale was particularly noteworthy for its implied certainty. Of

course, not ‘‘all’’ scientists do any given thing the same, yet this image is very much alive in

the minds of this group of children. Additionally, the ‘‘blow something up’’ reference made



by this student is just one example of the various outcomes students attributed to scientists

while wearing glasses. Of course, this particular image of explosions and be speckled scien-

tists has enjoyed a long standing, albeit ill informed, relationship with the media for quite

some time.

Professional Attire. The students clearly held strong beliefs about how they perceived

scientists to dress. A majority of them identified formal or professional attire as a hallmark of

being a scientist (83%). Being professionally dressed included wearing a collared shirt, tie, or

jacket, or any combination of the three. Though no females selected wore ties, a collared shirt

and/or jacket was also a consistent part of their attire nonetheless. The idea of the scientist

being professionally dressed was made distinct from those donning the stereotypical lab coat

with responses such as, ‘‘. . . it looks like he’s wearing a jacket and sometimes scientists wear

jackets with a tie.’’ On a few occasions it was not explicitly clear whether the use of ‘‘jacket’’

was in reference to a lab coat or formal suit, the inclusion of the tie helped make the determi-

nation somewhat easier. It is of interest to note that the PEA (IAS) was capable of illuminat-

ing a feature of the scientists’ attire that was not uncovered in previous DAST studies. In

addition, the theme representing scientists in professional attire garnered more support among

this group of participants than did the idea of scientists in lab coats.

Lab Coat. Lab coats have long been associated with the portrait of the stereotypical

scientist (Barman, 1997; Fort & Varney, 1989; Jones, Howe, & Rua, 2000; Rosenthal, 1993;

Schibeci, 1986), a majority of the students in this study made this connection as well (57%).

The fact that these young children identified the lab coat with being a scientist was therefore

neither unusual nor unexpected. It was instead their persistence in making this connection

that was of interest. The IAS instrument was again most responsible for exposing this long

standing stereotype. Data collected using this instrument revealed a number of creative ways

the students described the ‘‘lab coat’’ when attempting to reference it. For example, some

responded that it was, ‘‘. . . because he has on the robe that scientist wears’’ or ‘‘. . . lookslike he has the little apron like a scientist,’’ or ‘‘. . . because scientists wear white capes and

he looks like he got a white cape on.’’ This sentiment persisted even though none of the

individuals in the photographs presented to them wore a lab coat.

Age/Maturity. Contrary to the results obtained from the M-DAST activity in which the

students conceptualized children (see the following section for detail) as scientists, age or the

signs of maturity were key factors in who they selected in the IAS activity. Nearly half (48%)

of the scientists selected were chosen, ‘‘. . . because mostly people that are scientist has gray

hair cause they love the job and they take it seriously and a long way for them’’ or

‘‘. . . because he really old and a scientist be old.’’ This phenomenon was most pronounced in

the IAS activity in which commentary by the students directly addressing age as a component

of being a scientist was.

Gender. The students overwhelmingly identified and associated scientists with being

male. Of the drawings produced during the M-DAST activity, 68% were of males (23% were

produced by females, and 45% were produced by males). No males drew female scientists.

Of the scientists chosen in the IAS activity, 73% were male and was reflected in typical

responses like that given in the following, ‘‘. . . and he’s a man; I think most scientists

are men.’’

Race/Ethnicity. The students again demonstrated a dichotomy in their held images of the

scientists. On the one hand, their M-DAST drawings accompanied by their narratives clearly

16 WALLS


indicated an African American or at the very least, a non-White individual as scientist

(see the following section). Yet when they were allowed to select from ‘‘real’’ photographs in

the IAS activity, the students most often chose a White scientist (35%). African American

scientists were the next highest racial/ethnic group selected at 23%. An additional part of the

data collection involved in the IAS activity affecting gender and race/ethnicity was a Likert

Scale of Certainty. The scale allowed the students to choose a degree of certainty they held

for each scientist they selected. The students were more certain overall about their White

male selections as ‘‘the’’ scientist than they were about any other race/ethnicity and gender

combination. Each of the top five White males selected received an average Likert Scale

score of approximately 3, signifying ‘‘Sure.’’ When considered more closely, out of all 3’s

(Sure) and 4’s (Very Sure) allotted to individual selections, White males received 35% of the

3’s (African American males were next with 23%) and 40% of the 4’s (Indian males were

next with 26%).

Qualities They Posses

Intelligence. A common characteristic that the students attributed to scientists was

intelligence (35%). To this group of students, ‘‘a scientist is a very, very smart person’’

indicating that they viewed intelligence as a positive and reasonable attribute to expect that a

scientist would possess. It is significant that these students collectively associated being

‘‘smart’’ with being a scientist, and did so in a consistently positive light. This view of scien-

tists has implications for students’ views of themselves as capable users of science, which

will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.

Studious. An additional attribute that scientists were believed to possess was studious-

ness (30%). Students acknowledged through their responses that they understood the practice

of science to require hard work on the part of the users. Responses indicate that this penchant

for studying must also be an inherent trait of all scientists. The following student response

was typical of those the students used when describing a scientist,

A scientist is a person that studies really hard and persons that learns new things and

creates new things and invents other things and a scientist is a person that loves science

very much, and that’s it.

Similar to being smart, studiousness is another attribute that the students cast in a

positive nature. Even though students may not be on track at this age for a career in science,

they nevertheless feel positively about those working in the field.

Happy. The final theme produced from the student responses was of a happy scientist

who enjoys his or her work (30%). Participants’ expressed evidence of the ‘‘happy’’ scientist

in their PEA. During the part of the interview in which they had to choose who they thought

was the scientist, they almost unanimously chose individuals who were smiling. Because the

students had to provide a rationale for why they picked the photographs they did, their selec-

tions were not merely coincidental or random. They specifically indicated that this feature is

something they associate with scientists. For example, when asked why she chose a particular

photograph one student indicated it was because, ‘‘. . . how he is smiling, his hair, and his

mustache, and his clothes, and his glasses.’’ The fact that these students see scientists as

smart, hardworking, and happy about their work is an indication of a potentially positive

overall disposition these students have toward them. Though this positive relationship is not



direct proof of an overall positive attitude towards science as well, it is another piece of

evidence pointing in that direction.

What They Do

When discussing scientists, the students clearly identified them as the people who put

science into action. Supporting this notion, a majority of them (70%) connected scientists

with activities associated with problem solving specifically tied to learning about the world

we live in. The following response acknowledges this by clearly conveying the message that

‘‘finding out’’ is what scientists naturally do,

. . . a person who knows a lot about science and they like to go out and find more things

about science that they did not know like say if they did not know ants walk on

concrete they would find that out by going around and looking up stuff out there in the

world.

One of the ways scientists construct scientific knowledge is through their inventions

according to the participants. A majority of them (57%) identified the work of invention as

integral to being a scientist. One student describes Delicious her drawn scientist, in the fol-

lowing manner,

The things Delicious does at work is to try to make new inventions to see if it will

work out right and if it does work out right it is a new product that is made, and no one

ever heard of until then.

Again it is noteworthy that the idea of something, ‘‘no one ever heard of until then,’’

accompanied the act of inventing. Whether the participants were aware of the scientist’s

history of repeated trials leading up to the invention is not clear. Another way the students

described how scientists learn about the world is through the discoveries they make (39%).

One student depicted her drawn scientist, Professor Jim, as the one who, ‘‘. . . discovered the

dinosaur bones and invented the bus; his invention helps me get to school on time.’’ Thirty-

five percent of the students connected the scientists to experimentation. For these participants

a scientist, ‘‘. . . is a person that does experiments . . .’’ Finally, though the students provided

evidence indicating that they encounter scientists in many different settings, 30% of them saw

the scientist as someone who also teaches. The students’ responses indicated that the role of

scientist as teacher is one that they see as normal,

They put um . . . if they making medicine they have to put on gloves so nothing will get

inside of it and when they teaching they gots to give everybody the same thing so that

they don’t get messed up.

As with several of the responses the above statement gives the sense that this student is

familiar with the procedural aspect of scientists (‘‘. . . if they making medicine they have to

put on gloves so nothing will get inside of it . . .’’). Yet it and the following response both

indicate an understanding that scientists use a similar procedural approach when they act as

teachers as well. The context of the teaching appears to, ‘‘. . . be in a class . . .’’ with the

audience taking notes and writing ‘‘. . . the stuff down.’’

He, there’s a man that teach like everybody a lot of stuff and they like have to be in a

class and he shows’em on the thing what you do and they have notebooks and they

write the stuff down.

18 WALLS


Finally, closely connected to the jobs and functions scientists take part in is the place

they perform these jobs and functions. Though not a heavily supported theme, 26% of the

students nonetheless mentioned the laboratory as a specific place where scientist do their

work. The lab has long existed as the stereotypical and iconic work place of scientists, and

this appears to be true for the scientists drawn or described by the participants in this study as

well. This theme emerged even though the students acknowledged in their questionnaire

responses that there are several places scientists do their jobs such as in schools, offices, and

museums. The following student suggests that the only way a scientist can operate is, ‘‘. . . bydoing stuff that they supposed to learn at their job, they stay at their lab every day.’’

Students and Science

A critical goal for this investigation was to determine where and how these participants

oriented themselves within the community of science as learners, users, and producers of

scientific knowledge. It was therefore necessary to determine two things from them: (1) how

they described their own acts of learning and using science; and (2) what their overall emo-

tional status with science was, specifically if they held positive or negative feelings toward it.

The rationale behind these two goals is simple. First, pinpointing origins of science learning

has the potential to provide valuable insight into the construction of children’s naı̈ve notions

of science. The on the ground, practical outcome of this knowledge is the development of

effective K-5 science instruction that is targeted and specific instead of general. Second, hu-

man nature is such that, how successful we are at mastering or accomplishing any task is

directly proportional to the positive or negative emotional attachment we develop over time

toward the task. The more we take part while realizing success along the way, the more

technically skilled we become as a result.

For example, in the early stages of learning to golf there are good experiences (i.e.,

hitting the golf ball as far and in the direction, as you intended it to go); and bad experiences,

for which no explanation is needed. Should the good experiences happen to outnumber the

bad ones, you are apt to return again putting in to motion the cycle of success breeding more

positive feelings toward the game described earlier. If the converse is true, the number of

times you return are likely to be fewer thus initiating the reverse spiral of negative feelings

toward both the task and potentially our own abilities. If a person is convinced by enough

bad experiences on the golf course that their abilities are inherently the problem, it is likely

that they’ll never like, play, or even understand golf. After reaching this final stage, it is not

surprising when the person ultimately stops caring about golf because it has become irrelevant

and a source of negativity. This process is also analogous and applicable to all children

learning science, but is particularly significant for historically underserved children of color

such as those in this study. As a theme many of the students described the extent of their

involvement with science in terms of where they learned or encountered it. Not surprisingly,

the students described the context of their science encounters as either ‘‘in school’’ or a

‘‘non-school’’ setting. Results and discussions pertaining to these.

Where They Learn It

School. Though a majority of the students stated that they had learned about science in

school (65%), eight of the participants stated that they had not. When asked, ‘‘How is science

different from other things you learn about?’’ it was clear that they interacted with it differ-

ently than they did their other curriculum. The difference appears to be their association of an

‘‘active’’ component with learning science (57%), but not necessarily with the other things



they learn in school. The following is one example of the responses identifying active in-

volvement in learning science as a positive and tangible difference from the other learning

they do in school,

In science, we do like projects and we mix stuff, and in math and all that other stuff we

get to do at school we got to use a piece of paper and write down the stuff, and in

science we got to mix stuff together to see what it makes, and in math all you have to

do is just have to write stuff down. Like in science we partner up and do activities with

your friends and talk and in math we got to be quiet and do our work.

The active component of science is something that these students enjoy. The above re-

sponse not only expresses the student’s distinction between science and their other content

disciplines, but it also implies the student’s official endorsement of science as something they

like. For instance, science learning includes a social collaborative component with their peers

that their other learning does not. In addition, there is a notion of inherent curiosity and

inquiry detected when the student highlights, ‘‘. . . we got to mix stuff together to see what it

makes . . .’’ Finally, the student appears to prefer being actively involved in learning as

opposed to ‘‘. . . just have to write stuff down.’’

Science Textbooks. In at least one way, the participants in this study appeared to be

typical products of K-12 environments with respect to textbook usage. Of those who indicated

that they learned science in school, 39% of them further indicated that a prime source for

science instruction and knowledge was their science textbook. The following response

certainly confirms this but also provides an indication that inquiry science instruction may not

be taking place in this child’s classroom,

Because you got to read stuff and sometimes they have a packet that . . . is from science

then you got to look in the science book and you got to see what the questions are then

it’s just going to be in the science book.

The reference to a ‘‘packet’’ that includes pre-determined questions from a textbook

certainly suggests more ‘‘cookbook’’ science than inquiry. Research has shown that K-12

science instruction in U.S. classrooms is heavily dependent upon the science textbook. In

their analysis of science textbooks over the past 100 years, Chiappetta, Ganesh, Lee, and

Phillips (2006) noted how reliant teachers are on science textbooks: ‘‘In order to instruct

students in the NOS with its history, development, methods and application, science teachers

use textbooks as the primary organizer for the curriculum’’ (p. 45).

Non-School. The participants stated that they frequently encountered science in non-

school settings as well as in school. As you would expect, the media portrayals of scientists

have undoubtedly impressed young children such as the third graders in this study.

Accordingly, some students (39%) revealed that they learned science from television shows

and movies. One such learning context appears to be the Crime Scene Investigation—CSI, on

location television dramas (e.g., CSI-Las Vegas, CSI-Miami, and CSI-New York). One female

student quite clearly expressed her pleasure with the science she learns from one of the

shows. When asked where she learns science her response was,

At home watching TV on CSI-Miami, and we’re going today to go get the movie so

cause I tell my mom if we can go get it cause I like watching it, it teaches me different

things about scientists and then there is this one game that’s out, well it’s not a game

it’s actually a movie and it teaches you about how different kind of scientists work on

20 WALLS


dinosaurs then we go to museum, and we go to children’s museum, and then we go to, I

forgot what you call it . . .

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the age appropriateness of 8 year olds watching

adult dramas such as CSI, it is clear that they do and that as this young girl pointed out,

‘‘. . . it teaches me different things about scientists . . .’’ Another group of students (35%)

mentioned museums and libraries as some of the places where they encountered, learned, or

used science, particularly when the topic was dinosaurs. It appears that regardless whether

science was taught frequently or infrequently in the four classrooms taking part in this study,

those that emphasized dinosaurs were clearly lasting for these children. The following is just

one of the ways the students responded to, ‘‘Where do you learn science?’’

Like you learn science at a liberry [sic], at a museum where they make dinosaurs and

they look for ‘em way out there and it’s hot and they dig them up and then they find all

kinds of body parts.

Developers of the VNOS-E instrument used to capture this statement themselves alerted

users about one of its questions concerning dinosaurs. They suggested that the researcher be

ready to redirect the conversation should students dwell too long on the many things they

know about dinosaurs and fossils. The last emergent themes representing where students en-

counter science, was at home from family members (26%). Given that many of the students

had older siblings and relatives, discussions about science in the home were neither unusual

nor unlikely. One student recounted her experience with family members:

S: Well I have an older cousin, two older cousins, and a big sister and they know a lot

about science and they tell me some things, so usually at my house or my cousin’s

house.

R: Anywhere else?

S: Home with my parents.

R: Anyplace besides school?

S: Sometimes me and my friends sometimes talk about what we learned in

science . . . at my mom’s job sometimes, sometimes outside somewhere um . . .school, home, a lot of places.

How They Feel About It

Another important indicator of the relationship the students had with science was

judged by how they described their emotional connection to learning and participating in the

practices and procedures of science. Judging by their responses, the affective or emotional

relationship that these students held towards science was overwhelmingly positive, confident,

and self-inclusive. The participants not only demonstrated an enthusiasm towards science, but

they also expressed positive responses and feelings about their abilities to ‘‘do’’ science. The

majority of the students interviewed spoke positively about their involvement with science

(96%), appeared excited and animated during the interview, or smiled while answering

questions or describing specific science related activities/experiments they had taken part in.

The following response is representative of those expressing the students’ positive interactions

with science,

I like science and it’s different because you learn more stuff than all the other stuff like

spelling, math, and English and it’s more fun and that science is stuff that you really



have to work on and it be hard on you put your mind to and the other stuff you

don’t . . . you have to put your mind to it but don’t be hard, hard.

There is clearly no equivocation or ambiguity in the words of the above student. Science

for her is, ‘‘. . . different . . . more fun . . . stuff you really have to work on . . . but it don’t behard, hard.’’ Not every student went to such lengths to describe their positive disposition and

confidence towards science. One student simply stated, ‘‘I want to be a scientist’’ another

more succinctly proclaimed, ‘‘I love science.’’

The M-DAST instrument provided additional evidence to support the notion that these

students held no reservations when it came to learning and implementing science. For

instance, 41% of the M-DAST drawings produced by the students represented children, a

departure from the traditional adult figure drawn. It is clear that this is reflecting a view that

the students saw themselves as scientists. When asked what skin color their drawn scientist

had, 86% verbally confirmed that the skin color was black, brown, or simply like their own.

The students’ responses were unlike the norm of ‘‘White’’ for the racial categorization of the

drawn scientists in past studies using the traditional DAST activity (Barman, 1996; Chambers,

1983; Finson, Beaver, & Cramond, 1995) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Jamaal’s drawing of an African American child scientist.

22 WALLS


The names that students gave their scientists provided more evidence that the drawings

were not of just any children, but in fact were drawings of themselves as scientists. One

student went so far as to not only draw a figure that was clearly a child, but also gave the

scientist his own name. As with all of the students interviewed, I asked this child specifically

where the name for his scientist came from. He confirmed that the drawing was in fact a self-

portrait (see Figure 3).

Finally, Figure 4 offers some explanation for why the students may conceptualize

themselves as scientist. The images presented are from the science textbooks used in

the participating school districts and the classrooms that were the target of this study. The

majority of the images in these students’ textbook were of children.

NOS Instruments

One of the limiting factors of any research study is the instrument chosen to collect data.

A known limitation of the majority of instruments used up to now in NOS research was that

they lacked the capability of addressing race/ethnicity while evaluating science views. Given

that the participants were an under-researched group of African American children, race/

ethnicity necessarily became an issue. Responding to this reality for the purpose of the

current study required the modification of two previously validated instruments and the devel-

opment of a third. It was therefore necessary to assess the effectiveness and utility of

each instrument upon completion of data collection and analysis. Results suggest that the

combinational configuration of the instruments provided a fuller account of the student’s

science views than could either instrument alone. Results also indicate that race/ethnicity

Figure 3. Greg’s self-portrait of himself as a scientist.



must be incorporated into the instrument purposefully in order to account for it in assessing

science views. In this final section discussions relative to how well the instruments performed

and what they found are presented.

How They Performed

Views of Nature of Science-Elementary Version (VNOS-E). The VNOS-E is a questionnaire

with approximately 30 items within. The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first set

of questions in Part I are used to establish that the child has some knowledge of what science

is as opposed to other disciplines so that when their opinions are asked during the rest of the

interview the interviewer has faith that the child is referring to science. Part I also investigates

the students’ views of scientists as well. In Part II of the questionnaire more specific questions

relative to the students’ knowledge of the NOS were included. None of the items on the

questionnaire were specific to race/ethnicity issues relative to science views. It was therefore

necessary to make modifications to the instrument in order that it be capable of addressing

race/ethnicity as a potential factor in shaping science views. This particular version, of which

there are several others, specifically targets the very young child as a participant. It is sug-

gested that 2 complete days be used to administer all items on the questionnaire. Through

necessity and school time constraints, the complete administration of all instrument items was

done in one day (approximately 30–35 minutes per student). The instrument did an adequate

job of getting at the students’ views of science and scientists, particularly how they defined

each of the terms. It is an effective tool for assessing whether the students’ views were more

informed or naı̈ve, though that was not a focus of this study.

Modified Draw-A-Scientist Test (M-DAST). The Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) has

traditionally revealed stereotypical images children have of scientists by having them draw

what they conceptualize. The instrument is ideal for use with young children because it does

not rely solely on a child’s writing skills. Three weaknesses of the traditional DAST became

apparent prior to beginning this study. First, like the VNOS-E it is limited with respect to its

ability to tap into cultural influences shaping a child’s ideas of a scientist. Second, it only

allowed for conceptualizations of the scientist to be produced by the student, regardless

Figure 4. Images from the students’ science textbook.

24 WALLS


whether they held single of multiple conceptualizations. Finally, for obvious reasons the

instrument does not allow for much access into a child’s overall views of science, only their

views of scientists. The ways in which it was modified for this study included:

(1) Requiring the students to name their scientist. This allowed them to provide

additional information about the gender of the scientist should the drawing itself

prove indistinguishable or non-gender specific. A male or female name though not

definitive, provided additional clues in situations such as that previously described.

(2) Requiring the students to provide a story about their scientist. Having the students

tell a story about their drawn scientist again provides them with an opportunity to

embellish on things such as what the scientist does for his/her job.

(3) Requiring the students to provide some commentary on the skin color of their

scientists, whether they shaded their drawing or not. It is reasonable even to young

children that all humans have a skin color, and having them state the skin color of

their drawn scientist helps pinpoint any latent ideas about race.

Identify-A-Scientist (IAS). The IAS was originally envisioned as being complementary to

the M-DAST in that both dealt with images students had about scientists. The difference being

that the M-DAST allowed the students to draw who could be a scientist, whereas the IAS

allowed them to single out the real individuals they see as scientist in their daily lives and in

the media. The most impressive feature of the IAS is its tremendous flexibility. Depending on

the variable desired to be controlled, the instrument can be adapted to focus on specific

features of interest. For example, should the affect of glasses be a concern, individuals can be

presented photographs in which all individuals or of none are shown wearing glasses. The

same holds true for other features such as race, and gender. Like the DAST, the IAS requires

no writing skills whatsoever, only narration. Triangulation between this instrument and the

M-DAST provided a means for students to present an additional conceptualization of who

they view are scientists, and why. In using the IAS in the present study, the image of the

scientist that emerged was one laden with stereotypes of the kind normally associated with

the DAST activities. This conceptualization may not have emerged had this instrument not

been utilized.

What They Found

The function of the instrument in all research is to act as a camera. If designed correctly

the ‘‘snapshot’’ obtained by the instrument should validly reflect the phenomenon under in-

vestigation. Being a tool of the researcher, the instrument can only capture what the research-

er has designated as its focus. In other words, each instrument has a range of vision beyond

which it is incapable of accessing. This limitation was anticipated prior to initiating the pres-

ent study and made more concrete by the study’s completion. Take for example, the M-DAST

instrument from which the students were simply asked to draw a scientist. Modified to be

able to capture race/ethnicity for this study, the instrument was able to accomplish this goal.

In fact the instrument revealed that these students definitely had race/ethnicity ideas given

that the scientists they drew were overwhelmingly African American children. In and of itself,

this fact alone is significant when the M-DAST outcomes are compared to traditional DAST

products. The usual stereotypical and quite opposite image of a mature, White male did not

materialize for these students. Moreover, because of the instruments limitation of only work-

ing through the medium of mental images and conceptualizations, we get only those filtered

images regardless how many the child may possess. What may have gone unnoticed is the



dually opposite image these students hold of the ‘‘real’’ scientists they see in their lives had

the M-DAST been the sole instrument used.

What the M-DAST could not capture, the IAS instrument was able to do so clearly. The

range of this instrument far exceeded that of the M-DAST in that it was capable of capturing

not only race/ethnicity, but gender, age, and physical appearance as well. The advantage of

the IAS over the M-DAST is that the participant does not have to sort through an assortment

of mental images to try and reproduce on paper, they are responding to real images.

Interestingly, the composite image these students constructed from analysis of their choices

and rationales was of a mature White male, professionally dressed, and wearing glasses. On

the other hand the VNOS-E is capable of securing definitions of who a scientist is but again is

deficient in being able to be reflective of any racial, cultural, or ethnic influences that may be

underling the students’ responses. This problem in many ways is similar to that restricting the

M-DAST. For example, in answering the question ‘‘what is a scientist?’’ the questionnaire is

not equipped to allow the students to provide detail such as the race or gender of the scientist

they may be describing. One modification to address this in the future would be to ask the

students to not only define the word scientist but to have them provide a verbal description of

their conceptualization as well. For very young children it would be simple to first ask

them to imagine a ‘‘scientist’’ and then have them close their eyes and describe the scientist

they have in their heads. By asking the students to state the name of their scientist, and tell

a short story about what they do. As with the M-DAST it may be necessary to ask the

students directly what skin color their imagined scientist has should they not volunteer this

information.

Discussion

Attaining science literacy for all is a central goal of current science education reform

efforts (AAAS, 1990). Implicit in this statement is the unmistakable acknowledgement that

embracing equity is a worthwhile endeavor. Therefore, any attempts at securing ‘‘Science

literacy for all’’, must at the very least involve meaningful attempts at including a diverse

population as part of the process. It was this sense of equity that guided the present study in

investigating the NOS views of two consistently under-researched populations: children of

color and very young lower elementary aged students. The study’s results with respect to the

four research questions are discussed.

Students’ Views of Science

Research question number one was designed to investigate the NOS views of third grade

African American participants. The content analysis used in this study revealed that the

participants’ overall views about science are clearly formed, firm, and quite distinct. Their

ideas and understanding of science operationalized along two themes: function and process.

When asked the question what is science?, students defined it in the function sense as

‘‘something that you do to like discover stuff,’’ the way we go about ‘‘. . . how to make stuff

we never heard of,’’ and how we are able ‘‘. . . to learn about planets and universes.’’ In their

eyes, learning about the natural world is an integral job of science. This coincides with

similar findings made by Carey, Evans, Honda, Jay, and Unger (1989) in their study involving

seventh-grade students. Unlike the students in that study, there was no evidence to suggest

that the current participants understood or even made the connection that, ‘‘. . . ‘doingscience’ means constructing explanations for natural phenomena’’ (p. 520). They did

however, have quite similar ideas as the Carey et al. participants with respect to their mutual

understanding that ‘‘doing science’’ means discovering facts and making inventions.

26 WALLS


For the students in this investigation, science is not simply a tool designed to function in

a specific way or to do certain tasks. They also viewed performing those tasks as inherently

including specific steps, procedures, and rituals one must follow. The third grade students

expressed most clearly their understanding that one of the more important rituals of science

to them is experimentation. This is a finding similar to that uncovered in a study by Fralick,

Kearn, Thompson, and Lyons (2009). In that study, middle school level students were asked

to draw a scientist (Chambers, 1983). One of that study’s goals was to analyze for the inferred

action [what did it appear they were doing?] of the drawn scientist. The scientist’s inferred

action in the largest percentage of the drawings (46%) was of them performing experiments.

The students further explicated their concept of experimentation by identifying with it

the idea of potions. Their consistent description of potions generally incorporated the image

of ‘‘mixing colorful liquids’’ to explain how potions looked. This image of colorful liquids in

beakers and test tubes, sometimes bubbling and boiling, continues to be a staple in the imag-

ery that TV, movies, and print media present to the general public, including children

(Brandes, 1994). Lederman and Lederman (2004) also recounted student usage of the term in

their study using a mixed first grade and second grade class. This partly explains why the

term was consistent across both drawn [DAST] and the narrative [VNOS] descriptions provid-

ed by the students. A further example of the enduring nature of the theme was also its consis-

tency across school districts and neighborhoods hundreds of miles apart. Similar references to

potion were made by students attending both PSD 1 and PSD 2. This consistency is also

testament to the power of popular visual imagery to perpetuate stereotypes.

Finally, it is interesting to note that these students strongly view science in general as

imbued with an inherently ‘‘active’’ characteristic. This sentiment was powerfully conveyed

through an analysis of the students’ own words when describing how learning science in

school differs from other learning. They were very specific about their impression of being

active and socializing when learning science compared to just writing in other classes.

Students’ Views of Scientists

The second research question was directed at investigating the views and conceptualiza-

tions third grade African American students held about scientists and the work they perform.

In some very fundamental ways the students in this study held images and views of scientists

similar to those found in previous research. For example, the students in this investigation

were able to produce two distinctly separate images of scientists based upon data analyzed

from the M-DAST and the IAS instruments. The students orally ascribed traditional stereo-

types onto the scientist by way of the IAS, yet they produced drawings and conceptualizations

during the M-DAST activity that for the most part, contained few stereotypes. Research has

previously supported the notion that children may possess more than one definition of the

word ‘‘scientist’’ as well as maintaining more than one conceptual image of a scientist

(Farland & McComas, 2006; Maoldomhnaigh & Hunt, 1989). Perhaps for these students,

conceptualizing who can be a scientist is indeed different than who they really do see as

scientist in their daily lives. Yet Driver, Leach, Millar, and Scott (1996) point out that:

School-age students are unlikely to have direct experience of the working of scientific

communities, but will almost certainly have been exposed to images of science and

scientists in the media, through conversations with adults and peers, and through the

images of science portrayed both explicitly and implicitly in school science. (p. 44).

The places that the students in this study encountered, learned or used science were

typical. However, confirming these contexts of learning for larger samplings of young



children can shed light on where students’ science ideas originate. Knowing conceptual

origins of science ideas also provides an avenue to address sources that may be contributing

to misconceptions that children form and keep. This was not an unusual result based on

past research in which males drew females less frequently than males (Losh, Wilke, & Pop,

2008).

Students’ Views of Themselves as Learners, Users, or Producers of Scientific Knowledge

Research question number three sought to investigate what relationship these students

had with science and to what degree they viewed themselves as users and producers of

scientific knowledge. The overall positive nature these students expressed toward science is

an important consideration to take into account. Learning science both in school and outside

of school appeared to impress the participants quite favorably. They felt that engaging in

science enabled them to socialize with their classmates while they learned, whereas other

learning did not afford them this opportunity. They saw science as generally being fun and

unanimously spoke positively about it in their responses. Yet, when asked if they learned

science in school, 8 of 23 students (35%) claimed they had not. It is unclear what to make of

this statistic given that the same students provided ample evidence that they had encountered

science in school. Perhaps these students were reflecting a paucity of science instruction

rather than it being not carried out at all by their teacher. A prime concern relative to African

American learners of science has consistently centered on apathy and disengagement. The

effects of such negative attitudes have contributed to the low overall achievement experienced

by many African American children throughout K-12 science education. Accompanying

this academic record is the negative stigma that African Americans inherently cannot ‘‘do’’

science. At least until third grade, the African American students in the present study

view themselves as full participants in learning and using science. This naturally begs the

question of how soon after third grade will the self-efficacy in science begin to dissipate for

these children?

Assessment of the Instruments

The final research question focused on evaluating the effectiveness of a multiple instru-

ment approach to NOS research. In an effort to capture as complete a picture of the student

participant’s science views as possible, a study design utilizing multiple instruments in con-

junction was employed. In the present study the value of multiple instruments became readily

apparent once all data analysis was complete. For instance, through triangulation it was found

that the M-DAST and the IAS each uncovered aspects about the students’ views of scientists

that the other could not. Thus combined, each was able to provide a more detailed and lay-

ered assessment of the children’s overall views of scientists. A stronger case can be made

from a validity standpoint when consistency between multiple data collection sources is

attained.

Additionally, the IAS was being tested as a novel instrument designed to be easily and

effectively used with very young children. A major strength of the IAS is its flexibility

and ease of implementation. The IAS can easily be adapted to test for specific variables

if need be. For instance, instead of having the photographs consist of a heterogeneous assort-

ment of age, race, gender, style of dress, facial appearance, etc., each variable could be

controlled for. It would be interesting to see who the students would select if all of the photo-

graphs were of one racial group, or none had facial hair, or if they were all females, or

if none wore glasses.

28 WALLS


Limitations of the Study

There are two major limitations that need to be acknowledged and addressed regarding

the present study. The first limitation has to do with the extent to which the findings can be

generalized beyond the participants studied. The number of individuals sampled is too limited

for broad generalizations. The results of this study are applicable to the 23 participants select-

ed for inclusion in this investigation. As such, any factors contributing to the development of

participants’ NOS views were determined from data obtained from these participants only.

Therefore, these factors are directly applicable to these participants, and additional research is

required before determining whether they apply more broadly to other participant groups.

The second limitation concerns the IAS instrument used to assess the views of scientists

held by the young students. A crucial test of the instrument is its ability to identify racial and

gender trends based on who the participants selected and why. The responsibility for provid-

ing racial designations of the individuals in the photographs was solely within the purview of

the researcher. My designation of who qualified as African American, Latino, Asian Indian,

Asian, and White in many cases relied on non-scientific parameters such as visual inspection

and surnames. This subjective process is an obvious weakness of the instrument that must be

considered when it is employed. This limitation extends through to the manner in which the

individuals were dressed and how old or young they appeared in the photographs.

Implications and Future Research

The results of this study provide implications for improving elementary students’ under-

standings and conceptions of NOS, elementary teacher preparation and instructional practice,

and NOS research. I will discuss these implications in the sections below.

Implications for Student Learning

A primary contribution of this study is that it deals specifically with a designated popula-

tion of color and one who is developmentally 8 years old or younger. First, the study repre-

sents an initial step in determining specific influences on how children’s views of science are

formed. An implication of this finding is that classroom teachers of science must become

more invested in explicit NOS instruction to very young students. This even though previous

studies have questioned whether students this young are developmentally ready to attain more

informed NOS views (Akerson & Volrich, 2006). For example, a student possessing the state

of mind that holds science to be tentative is necessarily one that has developed this condition

over time.

Prior research has also shown that culture does play a role in shaping students’ views of

the NOS (Farland-Smith, 2009). What the findings in this study may indicate is that under-

standing the cultures that impact the formation of children’s thinking is perhaps more impor-

tant than the racial/ethnic category they are assigned to. An initial hypothesis of the present

study was that NOS views of children of color are shaped in some ways by the fact that they

belong to a particular racial group. This hypothesis is faulty from the perspective that race is

an artificial construct with no biological basis whereas culture or the conditions under which

a child is raised is ever present and enduring. Finally, these young African American students

are eager to learn science and see themselves as full participants in the enterprise of science.

Failure to capitalize on this enthusiasm with consistent quality instruction throughout their

K-5 years may be one reason that interest is lost beyond those early years. Lederman and

Lederman (2004) provide encouraging support for precisely the explicit NOS instruction in

the K-5 setting this study suggests.



Implications for Future NOS Research

With respect to future NOS research, the present study itself stands as a template for

where the field needs to head if indeed science literacy for all is a serious goal and not merely

a platitude. First, researching children’s views of science cannot continue to operate as a

‘‘one size fits all’’ operation. On the issue of race, culture, and ethnicity, this is especially

true. For instance, researchers in the field use many of the same instruments for each study

with little consideration of the racial, cultural, or ethnic orientation of the individuals they are

working with (Walls & Bryan, 2009). It can be argued, for example, that from the moment

that African slaves became African American citizens, their lived experiences have been, not

just different than Whites, but significantly different. No more relevant example of this diver-

gence exists than in the area of science education and science career choices historically

afforded to African Americans. The same inequities bestowed upon this group by society in

general, also extended into the science classrooms and science work places. NOS researchers

themselves appear to understand this disparity, and subsequently the need to be inclusive of

‘‘all’’ as their stated goal in the pursuit of science literacy. Yet the majority of studies con-

ducted to date have eschewed research questions, study designs, or instruments capable of

ascertaining whether race, culture, or ethnicity play any role in shaping NOS views. I contend

that they do and not just for students of color, but for White students as well.

Through the modification of traditional instruments and the creation of a novel one, the

present study was successful in going beyond ‘‘tradition’’ in pursuing student views of

science. Traditional NOS studies for instance, have been primarily interested in assessing

students’ understanding of the epistemology of science or the values and beliefs inherent in

the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992), for the sole purpose of ascribing

some level of adequacy to their NOS understandings. Where the student places him or herself

in that context appears to be of little consequence. However, that specific reference point was

more central to the present study and its participants than even determining the adequacy of

their views. The reasoning behind this is simple. A gap between the science achievement of

African American and White students has existed since the time such assessment data began

being recorded. The consistency of this gap can be explained by only one of two things,

either intellectual inferiority is intrinsic to African American students or the modes or

methods in which they have been assessed are to blame. My personal experience with diverse

populations as a former middle school science teacher, combined with an abundance of socio-

logical and anthropological research data clearly refutes the former. Yet questions surfaced

prior to the design of this study. ‘‘What if African American students have actually internal-

ized and believe what centuries of those modes, methods, and even society have told

them . . . that they really cannot ‘do’ science?’’ ‘‘What if they have self-excluded themselves

from learning science or as users and producers of scientific knowledge?’’ This line of think-

ing is supported by previous research related to identity issues facing African Americans.

Clark (1955) for instance, in his renown ‘‘black doll, white doll’’ study; Steele and Aronson

(1995) in their study of stereotype threat; and Fordham and Ogbu (1986) on African

American students avoidance of appearing smart for fear of being accused of ‘‘acting white,’’

have all written of this particular phenomenon. NOS research to date on predominantly White

student populations have for whatever reason, regarded this ‘‘personal view of science’’ as

outside the ‘‘traditional’’ scope. More studies targeting children of color, specifically Latinos,

African Americans, and Native Americans, must be conducted. As previously highlighted,

though race is less important than culture, race appears to have garnered the most attention.

In order for the field to become more conscious of the influences race, culture, and ethnicity

30 WALLS


may have on shaping NOS views, a more diverse population must first be studied. The ques-

tion of whether these children share the same science views as the White majority so often

selected as participants, is one that NOS researchers are unable to answer with any degree of

certainty at present. Some would contend, and I agree, that this is in fact the wrong question

to ponder. A more urgent and pressing question might instead be, ‘‘Why have they been

excluded from NOS research?’’

Second, the present research also stands in response to the reality that so few NOS studies

to date have involved very young children (Walls & Bryan, 2009). The previously described

one size fits all mode of research also applies to the age and developmental stages of those

whose NOS views are being assessed. Therefore, based upon the investigation just completed

it is suggested that a two tracked process of research, one for children 8 years and younger

and one for those older than 8 years of age, should be purposefully and vigorously pursued.

The two research agendas should also be conducted with distinctly different expected out-

comes in mind as well. The rationale for this recommendation is supported by research that

has repeatedly concluded that: (a) students older than 8 years have been consistently shown to

possess naı̈ve views of science (Jungwirth, 1970; Meichtry, 1992; Tamir, 1972; Trent, 1965;

Welch & Walberg, 1972); and (b) the few studies that have attempted to assess the NOS views

of the very young with respect to accepted NOS ‘‘tenets’’ have been inconclusive in their

impact on producing conceptual change (Akerson & Volrich, 2006). It was primarily for these

two reasons that the present study avoided assessing only for adequacy relative to NOS tenets,

but instead opted for gathering any and all views of science the participants might express.

Given the unique makeup of this group of participants (very young and persons of color), I

wanted to provide as large a canvas upon which to capture their views as possible. An addi-

tional reason for not assessing for NOS adequacy had to do with a sense of urgency specifical-

ly surrounding African American students and science education. Conducting a traditional

NOS study was deemed less important than ascertaining the origins of nascent views of sci-

ence of the very young. For this age group, the expected outcome from researching their views

of science should be for the purpose of better preparing preservice and inservice teachers to

institute the rich targeted science instruction all children deserve. Expected outcomes for

assessing older students’ views of science should then be for the purpose of evaluating NOS

adequacy in order to determine the effectiveness of foundational K-5 science instruction. In

theory, each research agenda would be operating in a symbiotic fashion to inform the other.

Finally, I would also advocate for the use of multiple instrument study designs over the

usual single instrument and interview approach. Had the present study only opted for this

approach, it is clear that some important perspectives of these young children’s science views

would have been missed. For instance, the M-DAST instrument used with these students

revealed a unique finding relative to scientists and the work they perform. The conceptualized

view of scientists outlined via their drawings did not follow the usual stereotypical descriptors

that previous DAST research has consistently uncovered. The students’ drawings were not

populated by White males; with beards/mustaches; wearing glasses; and in lab coats. Instead,

the scientists they drew were of children doing science, but not just any children, they were

drawing themselves as scientists. Had the IAS instrument not been used in tandem with the

DAST a separate contradictory view they also held of scientist would have gone undetected.

While viewing ‘‘real’’ photographs and selecting from them who they believed was ‘‘the’’

scientist these students did a complete reversal on their image of scientists. When asked to

provide the reasons why they made their selections, the students predominantly selected

White males; because they had beards/mustaches; because they were wearing glasses; and

because they appeared to be in lab coats (though none were).



It is certain that developing instruments capable of accurately assessing the views of the

very young is without question no easy task (Lederman & Lederman, 2004). It should also be

a given that children of color too deserve to be full and purposefully included participants in

NOS research that purports advocating science literacy for all (Walls & Bryan, 2009). No

more compelling reason than equity and fairness to all children we serve need be the rationale

for doing so. Yet, an agenda that largely fails to incorporate either as research participants

will succeed only in repeatedly validating what is already known about the science views of a

select group of students. As a result we will continue to miss the rich perspectives that

children of color and the very young can provide. The instruments used, the methods

employed, and the questions pursued in the present study work for all children regardless of

culture, ethnicity, and yes, even race.

Conclusion

The present study sought to contribute to efforts in science education to make science

equitable for all students by focusing on one of the most fundamental aspects of science:

NOS. In particular, this study investigates young African American students’ views of

the NOS. So what conclusions can we take away from this present study? First, with the

‘‘potion’’ theme being the lone exception, the findings that emerged paint a fairly standard

portrait of the participants themselves. Though many of their views of science were quite

unique and interesting, none stood out as unusual. Second, there were no ‘‘minorities,’’ at

risk’, ‘‘disadvantaged,’’ or ‘‘disengaged’’ beings sitting across from me during the one on one

interviews, only children. Subsequently, none of those terms were deemed necessary or even

accurate in describing the unforgettable individuals taking part in this study. Unfortunately

NOS research continues to describe non-White individuals in just these terms when talking

about them, even while failing to talk to them as research participants. The present study

stands as proof that NOS studies can be framed differently and more equitably. Each of the

instruments, techniques, and procedures used in this study can be used effectively with any

group of children, regardless of skin color or ethnicity. Throughout our history African

American children like those taking part in this investigation have been short changed in

science education. NOS research has the potential to have a major impact on the science

literacy achievement of all children like these thereby changing the current script. However, it

can also turn out be just one more in a long line of adults who have failed them once again.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional

practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–476.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on

students’ views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 1057–1095.

Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1989). The development of a multiple-choice instrument for

monitoring views on science-technology-society topics. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities

Research Council of Canada.

Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., & Desautels, J. (1989, April). Monitoring student views on science tech-

nology-society issues: The development of multiple-choice items. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of young children’s ideas in

science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.

Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2009). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What under-

standings can they attain? International Journal of Research in Science Education, 99999, 1.

32 WALLS


Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The

results of a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,

653–680.

Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching the nature of science explicitly in a first grade

internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 377–394.

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95,

918–942.

Allen, H., Jr. (1959). Attitudes of certain high school seniors toward science and scientific careers.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project,

2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Project 2061: Science all

Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive

affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school

subjects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 719–747.

Ausubel, D. P., & Robinson, F. G. (1971). School learning: An introduction educational psychology.

London Holt: International Edition.

Barman, C. R. (1996). Students’ views of scientist and science: Results from a national study.

Science and Children, 35, 18–23.

Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruc-

tion on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 48, 414–436.

Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature

of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 209–219.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study [BSCS]. (1962). Processes of science test. New York: The

Psychological Corporation.

Brandes, A. (1994). Elementary school children’s images of science. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick

(Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Rethinking learning and its contexts. Presented at the National

Educational Computing Conference, Boston, MA, June 1994. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Media

Laboratory.

Capello, M. (2005). Photo interviews: Eliciting data through conversations with children. Field

Methods, 17, 170–182.

Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and

see if it works. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of scientists: The draw-a-scientist test. Science

Education, 56, 255–265.

Chiappetta, E. L., Ganesh, T. G., Lee, Y. H., Philips, M. C. (2006, April). Examination of science

textbook analysis research conducted on textbooks published over the past 100 years in the United

States. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,

San Francisco, CA.

Clark, C. D. (1999). The auto driven interview: A photographic viewfinder into children’s experi-

ences. Visual Sociology, 14, 39–50.

Clark, K. B. (1955). Prejudice and your child. Boston: Beacon Press.

Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students:

Questions rather than tenets. The Panteneto Forum, Issue 25, http://ww.panteneto.co.uk/issue25/

front25.htm.

Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Manual for the test on understanding science. Princeton,

NJ: Education Testing Service.



Crumb, G. H. (1965). Understanding of science in high school physics. Journal of Research in


Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science.

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Farland, D., & McComas, W. F. (2006). ‘‘Deconstructing the DASZ’’ development of a valid and

reliable tool for assessing students’ perceptions of scientists. Paper presented at Association of Science

Teacher Educator Conference, Clearwater, FL.

Farland-Smith, D. (2009). How does culture shape students’ perceptions of scientists? cross-nation-

al comparative study of American and Chinese elementary students. Journal of Elementary Science

Education, 21, 23–42.

Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of draw-

ings. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 335–345.

Finson, K. D., Beaver, J. B., & Cramond, B. L. (1995). Development and field test of a checklist

for the draw-a-scientist test. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 195–205.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden of ‘acting

white’. Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206.

Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How children see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and

mostly benevolent, Science and Children, 26, 8–13.

Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S., & Lyons, J. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers

and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60–73.

Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62, 509–

515.

Fraser, B. J. (1980). Development and validation of a test of enquiry skills. Journal of Research in


Gadamer, G.-H. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. D. E. Lingle (Trans and Ed.) Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Gadamer, G.-H. (1998). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum (Original work

published 1960).

Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights

From TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students

in an International Context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics,

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Green, S., & Hogan, D. (2005). Researching children’s experiences: Methods and approaches.

London: Sage Publications.

Grinberg, J. (2003). Only the facts? In D. Weil & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical thinking and

learning: An encyclopedia for parents and teachers. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Gyllenpalm, J., & Wickman, P.-O. (2010). ‘‘Experiments’’ and the inquiry emphasis conflation in

science teacher education. Science Education, 95, 908–926.

Hillis, S. R. (1975). The development of an instrument to determine student views of the tentative-

ness of science. In Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education: Science Teacher

Behavior and Student Affective and Cognitive Learning. (Vol. 3). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. New York: Seabury.

Horn, R. (2000). Teacher talk: A post-formal inquiry into educational change. New York: Peter

Lang.

Horstman, M., & Bradding, A. (2002). Helping children speak up in the health service. European

Journal of Oncology Nursing, 6, 75–84.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative

Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.

Hungerford, H., & Walding, H. (1974). The modification of elementary methods students’ concepts

concerning science and scientists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science

Teachers Association.

34 WALLS


Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science

education. Science Education, 20, 591–607.

Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, inter-

ests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.

Jungwirth, E. (1970). An evaluation of the attained development of the intellectual skills needed for

understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry by BSCS pupils in Israel. Journal of Research in


Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of the nature of science. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 45, 470–496.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit

inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39, 551–578.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2005). Improving students’ understandings of nature of science:

Explicit, reflective contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, TX.

Kimball, M.E. (1967–68). Understanding the nature of science: Acomparison of scientists and sci-

ence teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/social sciences in the

twenty-first century (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The

dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research,

76, 227–266.

Korth, W. (1969). Test every senior project: Understanding the social aspects of science. Paper

presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lederman, J. S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished paper.

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.

Lederman, J. S. & Ko, E. K. (2004). Views of nature of science, Form E. Unpublished paper.

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago IL.

Lederman, J. S & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Early elementary students’ and teachers understandings

of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from Project ICAN. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Vancouver,

British Columbia.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G.

Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp 831–879). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom: Factors,

that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review

of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of

science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of

nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of the tentativeness in science:

Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.

Lederman, N. G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the Nature of Science: What is the

Nature of Our Assessments? Science & Education 7, 595–615.

Lee, O. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major

reform documents. Review of Educational Research, 69, 83–115.

Losh, S. C., Wilke, R., & Pop, M. (2008). Some methodological issues with ‘‘draw a scientist

tests’’ among young children. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 773–792.



Mantzicopoulos, P., Patrick, H., & Samarapungavan, A. (2008). Young children’s motivational

beliefs about learning science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 378–394.

Maoldomhnaigh, M. O., & Hunt, A. (1989). Some factors affecting the image of the scientist drawn

by older primary school pupils. Research in Science and Technological Education, 6, 159–166.

Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York,

NY: Routledge.

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation on preser-

vice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137–

1164.

McLaughlin, M. W., Shepard, L. A., & O’Day, J. A. (1995). Improving education through stand-

ards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-based Education

Reform. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Academy of Education.

Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case

curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389–407.

Moore, R., & Sutman, F. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of

scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85–94.

Mutegi, J. (2011). The inadequacies of ‘‘Science for All’’ and the necessity and nature of a socially

transformative curriculum approach for African American science education. Journal of Research in


National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Critical incidents in the science classroom and the nature of

science. School Science Review, 76, 41–46.

Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengage-

ment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ogunniyi, M. B. (1982). An analysis of prospective science teachers’ understanding of the nature

of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 25–32.

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘‘ideas about- sci-

ence’’ should be taught in school? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in


Parsons, E. C. (2008). Learning contexts, Black cultural ethos, and the science achievement of

African, American students in an urban middle school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6),

665–683.

Potter, J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis.

Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284.

Rosenthal, D. R. (1993). Images of scientists: A comparison of biology and liberal studies majors.

School Science and Mathematics, 93, 212–216.

Rubba, P. (1976). Nature of scientific knowledge scale. School of Education, Indiana University,

Bloomington, IN.

Schibeci, R. A. (1986). Images of science and scientists and science education. Science Education,

70, 139–149.

Schwirian, P. (1968). On measuring attitudes toward science. Science Education, 52, 172–179.

Scientific Literacy Research Center. (1967). Wisconsin inventory of science processes. Madison,

WI: University of Wisconsin.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ episte-

mologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development.

Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349–422.

Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great

is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 34, 1101–1103.

36 WALLS


Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A

pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493–509.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

Steinberg, S. (2007). Race relations: A critique. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stice, G. (1958). Facts about science test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., Smith, M. S., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1966). The general inquirer: A

computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Suchting, W. A. (1995). The nature of scientific thought. Science & Education, 4, 1–22.

Swan, M. D. (1966). Science achievement as it relates to science curricula and programs at the

sixth grade level in Montana public schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 102–123.

Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science

curricula in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 239–245.

Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept ‘‘understanding science’’ using contrasting physics

courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–1055.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of

Education. (2001). NCES 2001-072. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Walls, L., Bryan, L. A. (2009, April). Awakening a dialog: Examining race in NOS research from

1967 to 2008. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American

Educational Research Journal, 9, 373–383.

West, C. (1993). Race matters. Boston: Beacon Press.

Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society.

Science Education, 38, 159–164.



Third Grade African American Students’ Views of the Nature of Science

Documents

Transcript of Third Grade African American Students’ Views of the Nature of Science