THE IMPACT OF CONTEXTUALIZED NATURE OF SCIENCE ON STUDENT EPISTEMOLOGICAL MISCONCEPTIONS IN NATURE OF SCIENCE, BONDING AND REACTION CHEMISTRY

Abstract

Nature of science is a vital part of science classrooms. Students and educators often hold misconceptions and uninformed views of science and how it works. High school science classrooms are often remiss to embed nature of science within the content, especially in more abstract courses, such as chemistry. Furthermore, ambiguity exists regarding the efficacy of its incorporation within more abstract content (bonding or reaction chemistry). Students also enter chemistry with alternative understandings of content which are persistent and resist remediation. The goal of this action research study was to mitigate foundational misconceptions in these three area: nature of science, bonding and reaction chemistry, while assessing the benefit of nature of science on content comprehension. During the two-part action research study, student participants first received decontextualized nature of science instruction, followed by two unit chapters on bonding with nature of science embedded within the content in an explicit-reflective manner. In the second part, an introductory unit on reaction chemistry was presented in the absence of contextualized nature of science. All student-participants and non-participants received the same intervention. Three established instruments (pre and post interventional) were administered (Views of Nature of Science Form B, Bonding Representative Inventory and Representational Systems and Chemical Reactions Diagnostic Instrument). In addition, a delayed Views of Nature of Science Form B, with subsequent semi-structured interview were completed. Evidence suggests growth in bonding comprehension which correlates with the apparent academic achievement levels; unanticipated understanding demonstrated by high and medium achieving participants and average to below average understanding demonstrated by the lower achieving student-participants. The introductory chapter on reaction chemistry demonstrated a similar trend in growth; reflecting apparent achievement levels and reduction in common misconceptions. The evidence has suggested that high and medium achieving students are more successful with the short term intervention while lower achieving students may benefit from earlier iterations of nature of science during less abstract chemistry content.