views about scientific inquiry: a study of students’ understanding...

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Views About Scientific Inquiry: A Study of Students’Understanding of Scientific Inquiry in Grade 7 and12 in Sweden

Jakob Gyllenpalm , Carl-Johan Rundgren , Judith Lederman & NormanLederman

To cite this article: Jakob Gyllenpalm , Carl-Johan Rundgren , Judith Lederman & NormanLederman (2021): Views About Scientific Inquiry: A Study of Students’ Understanding of ScientificInquiry in Grade 7 and 12 in Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup

Published online: 11 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=csje20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=csje20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-01-11http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-01-11

Views About Scientific Inquiry: A Study of Students’Understanding of Scientific Inquiry in Grade 7 and 12 in SwedenJakob Gyllenpalma, Carl-Johan Rundgren a, Judith Ledermanb and Norman Ledermanb

aDepartment of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; bDepartment ofMathematics and Science Education, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA

ABSTRACTThis paper analyses data from the Swedish sample of the internationalVASI (Views about scientific inquiry) study (Lederman et al. [2019]. Aninternational collaborative investigation of beginning seventh gradestudents’ understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512). Understandings about scientific inquiry involveknowledge about the processes of inquiry, and are not the same asbeing able to do inquiry although these are related domains. This paperfocuses on what students know about scientific inquiry and whatimpact school science may have on this knowledge. Data werecollected using the VASI instrument developed previously and wasadministered to 126 students at the beginning of year seven and 145students at the end of year 12 in a cross-sectional design. Resultsindicate that the majority of students do not have an informedunderstanding of key aspects of scientific inquiry in either grade.Although students in year 12 are more informed, the average is still lessthan 50% as measured by the VASI and with a large spread.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 19 March 2020Accepted 18 December 2020

KEYWORDSScience Education; inquiry;scientific inquiry; secondaryschool; Sweden

Introduction

Inquiry in science education is one of the few overarching themes that cut across school curricula allover the world (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004). Scientific inquiry (SI) refers to the combination of gen-eral science process skills with science content knowledge, creativity, and critical thinking in orderto investigate nature (Lederman et al., 2014). Helping students develop informed views about scien-tific inquiry is a significant part of scientific literacy and has been and continues to be a goal ofscience education (Roberts, 2008). However, there is a difference between learning to do inquiryand learning about inquiry (Bybee, 2000). Learning to do inquiry involves acquiring knowledge,habits and skills related to planning and conducting scientific investigations. Learning aboutinquiry involves being able to describe, motivate and compare different investigations and whatthe different aspects of the process of scientific inquiry are and how they are related— not onlyin laboratory work in school, but in relation to accounts of science in the media and public debateetc. The ability to critically scrutinize science-related claims has become a central aspect of scientificliteracy in the age of digital communication (Wiblom et al., 2020).

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

CONTACT Carl-Johan Rundgren [email protected] Department of Mathematics and Science Education,Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00313831.2020.1869080&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-01-11http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-1628http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/mailto:[email protected]://www.tandfonline.com

Although research has shown that even students in primary school can develop an informedunderstanding of many central aspects of inquiry when given the right educational circumstances(Lederman et al., 2013), there is presently significantly less research on students’ understanding ofSI than on their doing of inquiry. Part of the reason may be the tacit assumption that students willdevelop an understanding of inquiry by engaging in inquiry practices, However, this is a misconcep-tion: students do not necessarily learn about inquiry implicitly simply by doing inquiry, explicit atten-tion to inquiry as conceptual content is needed (Wong & Hodson, 2009, 2010). In school, however,scientific inquiry is probably more often associated with a pedagogic strategy for teaching science,rather than a learning content in its own right, and by conflating these the goal of learning about scien-tific inquiry is compromised (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2004; Gyllenpalm & Wickman, 2011a).

Furthermore, learning about the inquiry process is often regarded as part of learning about thenature of science (NOS) (Lederman et al., 2002). However, Lederman et al. (2014) argue that thereis an important distinction between scientific inquiry and NOS. They stress that NOS are thecharacteristics of scientific knowledge as derived from how that knowledge is produced, while SI isthe process of how scientists do their work and how the resulting scientific knowledge is generatedand accepted. In the Swedish curricula this distinction is expressed (Johansson & Wickman,2012), but often not emphasized by teachers (Gyllenpalm & Wickman, 2011b), similar to findingsby e.g., Windschitl (2004) in the US. So in addition to the risk of conflating inquiry as a contentwith a pedagogical strategy, there is also a risk of conflating SI with NOS as a learning content.

Another reason for the limited research on students’ understanding of inquiry may have beenthe lack of valid instruments for meaningful assessment of students’ views of SI. This has motivatedthe development of a reliable instrument for assessing students’ views of SI; the VASI (Views aboutScientific Inquiry)— questionnaire (Lederman et al., 2014; Lederman et al., 2019). This studyfocuses on students’ views of SI as subject matter knowledge. We study students’ views of SIbased on what students are able to express in writing about this content. This is complementedby interviews, in which students also can add oral explanations to their written answers. In thispaper, we analyze both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the Swedish results from the inter-national VASI study, with a focus on what students learn about scientific inquiry between grades7 and 12. These results are discussed in relation to the curriculum, teaching traditions and edu-cational context in Sweden.

Scientific Inquiry in Schools in Sweden

Doing scientific inquiry in the form of practical, most often laboratory work, has a long tradition inschools in the Scandinavian countries (Kaiserfeld, 1999; Lunde et al., 2015). However, the focus onstudents’ learning of scientific inquiry as content knowledge has traditionally been less emphasized(Gyllenpalm et al., 2010; Högström et al., 2012). In the Swedish school system, various aspects of SIare part of the curriculum at different stages (Swedish National Agency of Education, 2011). In thecurriculum for the early years (up to year three), the focus is on the doing of SI, providing childrenwith the possibilities to experience simple investigations. However, from year four, the concept ofsystematic investigation is introduced. The curriculum for the lower secondary school states that allstudents should be able to perform systematic investigations, the formulation of (simple) questions aswell as plans for the systematic investigation and assessment of them (Swedish National Agency ofEducation, 2011). Thus, the Swedish curriculum for the lower secondary school does not explicitlyfocus on the understanding of SI or how and why scientists go about their work. In lower and uppersecondary school, the knowledge requirements of both scientific inquiry and nature of science areprogressively more detailed in the curriculum. Here a shift can be seen towards a more explicit andnuanced expression on these topics in the five major curriculum reforms that have taken place inSweden from 1960 to the present (in 1962, 1969, 1980, 1994, and 2011) (Johansson & Wickman,2012). Yet, in many cases, the tradition of school teaching in science tends to lag behind the

2 J. GYLLENPALM ET AL.

development of curricular documents and major textbooks used often contain very little to supportteachers (Lunde et al., 2015).

The VASI Questionnaire

The Views about Scientific Inquiry (VASI) questionnaire has been used to test the presumption thatdoing inquiry is sufficient for developing understandings of scientific inquiry and initial findingsindicate that it is false (Lederman et al., 2014; Lederman et al., 2019). In the international VASIstudy, the VASI questionnaire was administered to students in year 7 in a cross-sectional designinvolving 18 countries, and a sample size of 2,634 students (Lederman et al., 2019). It is being fol-lowed by an identical study with students from year 12 including 3,917 students. The results arehoped to further examine presumptions about how students learn about scientific inquiry, andto provide both classroom teachers and researchers with more powerful means for assessing stu-dents’ understandings about essential aspects of scientific inquiry.

Aspects of Scientific Inquiry in the VASI QuestionnaireThe VASI questionnaire is based on the following propositions describing aspects of SI about whichthere is general agreement, and that are both possible and relevant for school children to learn(Lederman et al., 2014; Lederman et al., 2019). For a more detailed description and motivationfor these eight aspects we refer the reader to the original article by Lederman et al. (2014).

Aspect 1: Scientific investigations all begin with a question and do not necessarily test a hypothesis.Aspect 2: There is no single set or sequence of steps followed in all investigations (i.e., there is no single scien-tific method).Aspect 3: All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results.Aspect 4: Inquiry procedures can influence results.Aspect 5: Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected.Aspect 6: Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked.Aspect 7: Scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence.Aspect 8: Explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known.

Purpose and Research Questions

This study presents the results from the Swedish sub-study of the international VASI-study (Leder-man et al., 2019) and provides a deepened qualitative analysis of these results. As stated in the inter-national study, the purpose was not to compare nations but rather to describe a global baseline instudents’ understanding of inquiry. Our purpose is also simply to describe students’ views of SI inSweden today in order to better understand how this important topic can be addressed by teachers,curriculum developers, national test designers and text book authors. In particular, our researchquestions are:

(1) What are students’ views about scientific inquiry in year 7 and 12 in Sweden, as measured bythe VASI-instrument?

(2) In what ways are students’ views of scientific inquiry different in year 12 from in year 7?

Method

Translating the Instrument

The VASI questionnaire was translated from English into Swedish by the first author and indepen-dently back-translated from Swedish into English by the second author. The back-translated versionwas scrutinized by the creators of the original English instrument. Only minor discrepancies were

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3

noted. These were discussed and solved in consensus between the first and second author. SeeAppendix 1 for the VASI in English, Appendix 2 for the VASI in Swedish, and Appendix 3 forhow the 8 aspects of scientific inquiry enter into the items on the VASI questionnaire.

The Participants and Research Procedures

This study follows a comparative cross-sectional design with one cohort of students from year 7compared with another cohort from year 12. The sample in the Swedish VASI study consisted of126 lower secondary school students (in the first semester of year 7) from five different schoolslocated in the Stockholm area (see Table 1), and 145 upper secondary school students (the lastsemester of year 12) from six different schools located in the Stockholm area (see Table 2). All stu-dents in the upper secondary school were enrolled in the natural science program, a national pro-gram with compulsory courses in physics, chemistry and biology.

The schools were chosen to represent a spread of socioeconomic variables and students’ generalaptitude. This choice was based on the socioeconomic indices provided by the municipality, and theaverages scores on national tests in math and Swedish (there was no complete data for tests in anynatural science subject available), and the geographic spread of schools across the Stockholmregion.

The schools contributed between 12 and 41 students. To make sure that this did not bias thesample significantly the distribution within the total sample was compared to the distributionobtained through an average of the schools’ individual distributions after these were normalized.No large deviations were found and the total sample followed the same trends as the normalizedaverage.

Data Collection and Analysis

Each student was given a VASI questionnaire to complete in a 60-minute time period. Most stu-dents finished within 30–45 min, and only a handful of students needed slightly more than 60min to complete and were accommodated. The first author was present at each location to answerquestions and, as was discovered, at times to remind the teacher from not providing students withhelp to understand central concepts of ideas being tested, but only to understand the question ingeneral terms when needed.

The questionnaires were coded by the authors and initiated by reaching consensus for a sampleof five questionnaires. The coding was holistic, meaning that each questionnaire was taken as awhole and if a student expressed an understanding of an aspect of SI on an item not intended totest this particular aspect this was taken into account. The first author also coded four translatedquestionnaires together with the principal investigators of the international VASI study (authorthree and four). Each student was given a code of: No Answer, Naïve, Mixed or Informed foreach aspect of scientific inquiry. If a respondent provided a response consistent across the entirequestionnaire that was wholly congruent with the target response for a given aspect of scientific

Table 1. The number of students from each school and the school characteristics in the Swedish year 7 VASI study.

N Socio-economic level Type

School A 22 Above average Public school with profile classes in natural science, social science, music and sports.School B 26 Average and above

averagePublic school with a technical profile.

School C 23 Average Public school with a culture profile, i.e., a focus on artistic expression is supposed tobe the theme in all subjects.

School D 19 Average and belowaverage

Public school, no particular profile.

School E 36 Below average Public school with a stated focus on helping students from different culturalbackgrounds and Swedish language learners.


inquiry they were labeled as “informed”. If, by contrast, a response was either only partially expli-cated, and thus not totally consistent with the targeted response, or if a contradiction in theresponse was evident, a label of “mixed” was given. A response that was contradictory to acceptedviews of an aspect of scientific inquiry, and provided no evidence of congruence with accepted viewsof the specific aspect of scientific inquiry under examination, was labeled as “naïve”. The coding ofstudents’ responses was not always easy and when difficult cases were encountered these were dis-cussed among the two principal investigators to reach a consensus. Yet other interpretations mayhave been possible and this should be regarded as a source of error in the data presented in theresult section, although this uncertainty is difficult to quantify. This is further illustrated in the pres-entation and commentary of the qualitative data presented here. For a more detailed description ofthe interpretation and coding of students’ answers we refer to the original article on the VASIinstrument by Lederman et al. (2014).

Additionally, 16 students were interviewed (12 in the seventh grade and four in the 12th grade),partly to ensure that the coding of the VASI was accurate, but also to obtain a deepened qualitativeunderstanding of the students’ views on scientific inquiry. Students were chosen among those whohad consented to do so, with help from their teachers for us to select a spread of aptitudes. Thelower number of students interviewed in year twelve was due to the fact that they were conductedduring the last part of their last semester in upper secondary school and most students wanted tofocus on their final exams. All students in year 7 had an informed consent form signed by theirguardians and were reminded before the interview that they were free to quit at any time if theyso choose. Students in year 12 signed an informed consent form and were also given the sameinformation.

During the interviews, students were given a copy of their own questionnaire and each answerwas then reviewed briefly and discussed. Students were asked if they wanted to change, modify orelaborate on their answers, and if they could remember if central ideas or concepts had beenaddressed in class. This insured face validity for the questionnaire and an expanded qualitative con-text for their answers. The interviews lasted for approximately 20 min and were audio recorded.

The analysis of the qualitative data from students’ written responses and the interviews has beeninformed by Wolcott’s (1994) distinction between analysis, description and interpretation. Thesethree processes of transforming qualitative data into a meaningful account can never be fully sep-arated, but the emphasis can shift. Here we have focused on description and interpretation bychoosing written responses to illustrate the range and type of answers for each aspect of theVASI, and then by elaborating on the interpretation of these by drawing on the interview data.Although the interviewed students cannot be said to represent the entire sample due to the natureof the selection, their comments provide valuable insight into how students can relate to scientificinquiry as presented in school science.

Results

The result of the analysis of the total Swedish sample of 271 VASI questionnaires is shown in Table3. The first thing to be noticed is the generally low scores for informed views of scientific inquiry inboth year 7 and year 12. Only in two aspects in year 12 do we find that 50% or more of the answers

Table 2. The number of students from each school and the school characteristics in the Swedish year 12 VASI study.

N Socio-economic level Type

School F 21 Above average Public school with a science research profileSchool G 41 Above average Public school with a subject integration profileSchool H 22 Average Public school, no particular profileSchool I 27 Average Public school, no particular profileSchool J 22 Average and below Public school, no particular profileSchool K 12 Below average Charter school, no particular profile


are informed: in aspect 3, the same procedures may not yield the same results, and in aspect 6, thatprocedures are guided by the questions asked. The lowest rate of informed answers is found in aspect7, that data and evidence are not the same, in both year 7 (2.4%) and year 12 (19%). This is not sur-prising given the ambiguous status of these two words in Swedish as discussed below. Although stu-dents exhibited a more informed understanding of all eight aspects of inquiry in year 12, theincrease was not dramatic considering that these students were separated by almost six years ofscience instruction. Given the comparative cross-sectional design we cannot knowanything about individual students’ learning trajectories, yet it indicates a general trend worthpointing out. The only aspect that has increased considerably was aspect 8, that conclusions aredeveloped from data and prior knowledge. However, there is the possibility that the lower rate ofinformed answers in the year 7 sample on this item may have been caused, at least in part, bythe fact that it corresponds to the last item on the instrument and students may have becomeslightly fatigued during the process of answering all previous items. Observations during theadministration of the VASI suggests that this may be the case, and was explicitly stated in oneinterview.

Some General Trends in the Year 7 Sample

To get an overview of the characteristics within the sample in year 7, aspects of understandingsabout scientific inquiry were sorted from less to more informed. The top three informed aspectsin the year 7 sample were of relatively similar magnitude around 30%:

Aspect 1: Starts with a question (29,4%)Aspect 5: Conclusions must be consistent with the data collected (28,6%)Aspect 6: Procedures are guided by the questions asked (27,8%)

The three most naïve views are found in:

Aspect 7: Data and evidence are not the same (55.6%)Aspect 6: Procedures are guided by the question asked (42.9%)Aspect 8: Explanations are developed from data and what is already known (36.5%)

Aspect 3, that the same procedures may not yield the same results and aspect 2, that there aremul-tiple methods exhibited mostly mixed answers with 35.7% and 32.5% respectively. And aspect 4 wasrelatively evenly distributed between informed, mixed and naïve. Interestingly, aspect 6, that pro-cedures are guided by the questions, exhibited both relatively informed and naïve views. The fact

Table 3. The distribution of VASI scores in percentages (%) for the different aspects of year 12 (N = 145) compared with year 7 (N= 126).

Aspects of scientific inquiryNaïveyear 7

Naïveyear 12

Mixedyear 7

Mixedyear 12

Informedyear 7

Informedyear 12

N/Ayear 7

N/Ayear 12

1 Starts with a Question 30.2 39.0 17.5 19.0 29.4 41.0 22.9 1.02 Multiple Methods 30.2 34.0 32.5 30.0 20.6 33.0 16.7 3.03 Same Procedures May notYield Same Results

30.2 34.0 35.7 3.0 19.8 58.0 14.3 5.0

4 Procedures InfluenceResults

31.0 40.0 21.4 23.0 21.4 37.0 26.2 0.0

5 Conclusions Must beConsistent with DataCollected

30.2 39.0 11.1 19.0 28.6 40.0 30.1 2.0

6 Procedures are Guided bythe Question Asked

42.9 17.0 3.2 29.0 27.8 50.0 26.1 4.0

7 Data and Evidence are notthe Same

55.6 41.0 14.3 35.0 2.4 19.0 27.7 5.0

8 Conclusions are Developedfrom Data and PriorKnowledge

36.5 21.0 20.6 29.0 8.7 44.0 34.2 6.0


that so few answers related to aspect 6 were labeled as mixed (3.2%) may be due to how this par-ticular item on the questionnaire was formulated. The correct answer that connects the questionposed with the corresponding investigation of car tires may be deduced by logical reasoningalone. However, many students seem to have misread or not read the question carefully, jumpingdirectly to express their ideas of what in their opinion would be the most useful test of tires; which isnot what was asked.

Some General Trends in the Year 12 Sample

To get an overview of the characteristics within the sample in year 12 the different aspects of under-standings about scientific inquiry were also sorted from less to more informed. The spread wasmore even than in the year 7 sample, but for a comparison the top three informed aspects in theyear 12 sample were:

Aspect 3: The same procedures may not yield the same results (58%)Aspect 6: Procedures are guided by the questions asked (50%)Aspect 8: Conclusions are developed from data and prior knowledge (44%)

In contrast, the most naïve views in the year 12 sample were:

Aspect 7: Data and evidence are not the same (41%)Aspect 4: Procedures influence results (40%)Aspect 5: Conclusions must be consistent with data collected (39%)Aspect 1: Starts with a question (39%)

Aspect 2, that there are multiple methods, was spread evenly across informed, mixed and naïveanswers.

A Comparison Between Year 7 and Year 12

The students in year 12 are more informed than the year 7 students on all aspects of SI (see Table 3).The increase is especially pronounced for aspects 3, that the same procedures may not yield the sameresults, aspect 7, that data and evidence are not the same, and aspect 8, that conclusions are developedfrom data and prior knowledge. Beyond that, there is no clear pattern in how the relative ranking ofinformed aspects change from year 7 to 12 except that aspect 7, data vs evidence, is the leastinformed aspect in both cases, and that the no answer (N/A) decreases from on average 24.8%in year 7 to 3.3% in year 12.

For a rough estimation of the total increase in informed views of scientific inquiry after six years ofschool science, we can use a simple average across aspects in year 7 (20%) compared with year 12(40%). This could be interpreted as saying that students in year 12 are twice as informed as studentsin year 7 in relative terms. Another way to look at the data is to compare the spread of informedanswers in year 7 and 12. In year 7 the spread is 27 percentage points between 2.4% of informedanswers in aspect 7 and 29.4% in aspect 1.While in year 12 the spread is 39 percentage points between19% informed answers in aspect 7 and 58% informed answers in aspect 3. This indicates that studentsin year 12 are more informed in all aspects but that the spread is also increasing compared with year7. Still, going back to the simple average across all aspects we note that less than half of the answers inyear 12 indicate an informed view, hardly a satisfactory result. Perhaps it would be too optimistic toexpect 100% informed answers, but a reasonable good result may have been above 50%.

Examples of How Students Responded on the VASI

Here we provide some examples of how students responded on the VASI in both grades and foreach aspect of scientific inquiry. Although the VASI was scored in a holistic manner so that students


may indicate an understanding of some aspect on an item not directly related to it, we here followthe order in which the eight aspects appear on the questionnaire. This also illustrates how the orderof the questions on the instrument itself may have influenced the answers. Students’ answers areprovided in whole to provide a context for our interpretations and comments. We have chosento only include examples of informed and naïve understandings, and in particular informedexamples because we feel that these are more useful for teachers and teacher educators to get accessto as they illustrated what can be expected from students. Our intention is to provide a, for teachersand teacher educators, useful account of some interesting qualitative aspects in the data.

All transcripts have been translated to preserve as far as possible any language idiosyncrasiesexpressed in students’ written and oral responses as students’ word choices or sometimes lack ofterminology also reflects their ability to describe the knowledge content. The students are heregiven pseudonyms.

Aspect 2, Multiple MethodsThe first aspect to appear on the instrument in question 1a concerns the myth of a single scientificmethod, approached through an example of observing birds’ beaks and eating habits where studentsare asked if this is a scientific investigation. Here is Anthony in year 7:

Yes I think it has to do with science because he found something he thought was strange and so he looked foranswers and it turned out that he was right. (Anthony, year 7, school A)

And he continues his answer in question 1b which asks if this particular investigation is anexperiment:

No this is not an experiment because experiments last a certain time and you test several times. Here hesearched for data. (Anthony, year 7, school A)

And for the last part, question 1c regarding the existence and if so examples of more than onescientific method, Anthony provides two examples of different types of scientific investigations.

1, First I guess you could take DNA from two different animals and see if they have anything in common. 2,You can do an experiment. You take like 4 birds and feed 2 with the same and the two other with the same andsee what the result is after a while. (Anthony, year 7, school A)

This illustrates how an informed understanding of aspect 2 could be expressed by a rather articu-late seventh grader. Anthony indicates some understanding of a controlled experiment, however;many students’ answers indicated an understanding that there is not just one way to do science,but with some confusion as to what exactly would constitute an experiment. For instance, Phoebein year 12 wrote for question 1c:

Yes, for example, a person who studying the birds he did an experiment out in nature by observing the birds.The person could also do an experiment in a laboratory, where he collects some birds and have different kindsof food and observes what happens. (sic) (Phoebe, y12, School J)

The term “experiment” does not seem to have a particular meaning to this student other than assynonymous with “investigation”, in parity with what has been reported previously about the use ofthis important concept (Gyllenpalm & Wickman, 2011a). Phoebe’s answers on the other question(not included) indicated an informed understanding of aspect 2, yet the response above illustratesthe overlap in the quality of the responses from year 7 and year 12. There are many examples whereit is difficult to distinguish year 7 students from year 12 student’s written responses, and this couldbe interesting to analyze further.

Answers that indicated that there is only one way to do scientific investigations, and were there-fore labeled as naïve, did not, however, express a uniform and clear image of “the scientific method”as a set sequence of steps. One student wrote on the questionnaire for question 1c:


No. I believe that it can only be done in one way. There are probably alternatives, but it is not exactly correct.(Victor, y7, School D)

Victors responses taken together indicated a naïve understanding of aspect 2. Later, in the inter-view, Victor seemed to indicate that his answer referred to the investigations of the birds in particu-lar (question 1), and that for this given question there would probably be a right way to approach it.In general, he seemed to suggest that there is more than one way though. What he was certain of,however, was that the topic of multiple scientific methods had never been addressed explicitly by histeachers.

Another student, Walfred, also coded as expressing a naïve understanding of aspect 2, seems toindicated that there is only one way to perform a scientific investigation in his written response toquestion 1c:

It feels as if there is only one way that folks do in different ways, but that it is still the same technique. Thedifferent ways have sort of a connection. (Walfred, y7, School D)

This example illustrates the sometimes difficult to interpret ambiguity in students’ writtenresponses; he first states that there is only one way to do science, but then goes on to suggestingthere are different ways and that they are connected. In the interview, this view was not changedbut reiterated in different words. However, he was certain that this was not a topic they had talkedabout in class.

Even when providing informed answers in terms of multiple methods, students often had trou-ble giving examples. The examples given tended to be versions of (a) collecting data or informationand (b) doing an experiment, and in this way the answers mirror what the previous questions on theinstrument already suggest (the person in the example “collects data” and question 1b asks if this isan “experiment”). The students often described collecting information or data as consisting of usingbooks or the Internet. Francis, with an informed understanding of aspect 2, expressed the possibilityof multiple methods in the following way in the written response:

Yes, you can do investigations in different ways, for example experiments and the collection of data. Becausewhen you experiment you look at what can take (achieve) what and when you collect data you collect infor-mation, but both come to a conclusion. (Francis, y7, School S)

And Ibrahim, also informed, gave the following more elaborate example and explanation in thewritten response:

Yes, one is that you investigate for example food, environment, animosity of the wolf. The other is that you forexample change the environment the first is (unreadable word) that you collect data without interference ofsome kind and the other you make differences for the wolf so they are different both of them can be consideredscientific because in both you collect data about an event, and results. (Ibrahim, y7, School R)

In the interview, Ibrahim elaborated a little on this answer by clarifying that you can study thewolf in its natural environment by just collecting data, or you could make change and for exampletake away a food source so that its behavior would change. However, all students in year 7 stated inthe interviews that aspect 2 was not something they had talked about explicitly in their scienceclasses.

Aspect 1, Starts with a QuestionAn example of an informed answer related to aspect 1 was given by Isabell in year 7 to question 2 onthe VASI, concerning if a scientific investigation always begin with a question:

I agree with the student who says yes. Because to be able to do an investigation you need something you wantan answer to. (Isabell, y7, School C)

During the interview, however, she modified her answer slightly by saying that it does not haveto be formulated as a question explicitly but that it has to be about something you want to find out


more about otherwise you have nothing to guide the investigation. In contrast, Tanya, in the sameclass, stated in her written response:

No, because you don’t know if it is scientific until you have tested or researched it. (Tanya, y7, School C)

This was evaluated as a naïve answer. However, in the interview she was not as certain but indi-cated that it would probably be easier if you were given a scientific question to begin with and that itwould be difficult otherwise. Thus, she was clearly reasoning within a school context of being givensome assignment by the teacher. Similar reasoning was expressed by Sandra, this time in year 12,but not necessarily from within a school context:

Of course, it will be easier if you have a question first, but then if you notice that you get a completely differentresult than expected you can change the question. So, I probably don’t agree with the first one. Some inves-tigations that lack a question when you are about to begin the investigation can “get” a question during thecourse of the investigation. (Sandra, y12, School F)

This was also evaluated as a naïve answer according to the criteria for the VASI scoring. Yet, itinvolves more complex reasoning and illustrates an understanding of the pragmatic nature ofresearch in which it is quite common that research questions change as new results are uncovered.

Aspects 3 and 4, How Procedures May Influence the ResultsBecause of their close association and how aspects 3 and 4 were tested in the VASI we illustratestudents’ answers to these together. In these items students are asked if scientists seeking to answerthe same question and use the same (3a) or different (3b) methods to collect data necessarily mustarrive at the same conclusions. Here is Yolanda from year 12 expressing an informed understandingof how interpretation plays a role in science and that different methods may influence the results:

3a) No. Researchers are influenced by their view of the world, what they expect to see and what they want tosee, that’s why it is possible that their conclusions deviate from one another. However, not necessarily.3b) No. In part for the same reason as above and in part because different methods risk affecting the inves-tigation in different directions. Possibly they may reach the same conclusions, but not necessarily. (Yolanda,y12, School G)

In year seven, more students asked about the wording in this item than any other and sometimesseemed to have a bit of trouble separating them asking why the two questions were the same. Yet, anexample of an informed answer could look like this by Erik in year 7:

3a) It is not certain because several different researchers can think in different ways and then the risk is prettylarge that they don’t draw the same conclusions.3b) It is not certain because different ways to collect data can mean different data and then they probably won’tget the same results. (Erik, y7, School C)

Aspect 6, Procedures Are Guided by the Questions AskedItem five tested aspect 6 of understanding inquiry by posing a question about which brands of tireswere more likely to get a flat and then providing two suggested investigations to find out. This is anexample of an informed response from year 12:

In relation to their research question that you should test different brands, then team A’s investigation is bet-ter. Then you actually test three different car tires in comparison with team B who test three different roadsurfaces on one tire. Their investigation however, is not unnecessary, it’s just about the relevance to theirresearch question. (Kaira, y12, School H)

Kaira begins by explicitly making the connection between the research question posed and theinvestigation suggested. She then motivates what this means in relation to the variables in question:type of tire and different road surfaces. In the last sentence, the relationship between the questionand the method is emphasized while showing that she can see the relevance of the other method tothe larger issues.


In contrast, here is an example of a naïve answer to the same question also from year 12:

Team B is better as they use several different road surfaces and their investigation is a lot more realistic becausethere are more than one road surface. The more experiments that are done and you get the same results, thestronger the theory that the investigation is correct. (Nathan, y12, School K)

This is incorrect in relation to the question on the VASI, but it still has a certain amount ofinternal coherence. However, sometimes naive responses from year 12 were found to be of aninferior quality even compared with naive responses from year 7 as the following naïve and inco-herent response illustrates:

Team B because they did correctly here that they should know the probability to have a flat tire. (Banras, y12,School K)

These three examples illustrate the range of quality of answers on item 5, and there is no need toshow more examples from year 7, since the naive answers were relatively similar in both years.

Aspect 7, Data and Evidence Are Not the SameWe were aware from the beginning that the question about data versus evidence would raise pro-blems as the translation of these terms is ambiguous. The Swedish word bevis, can be translatedboth into “evidence” and “proof” depending on the context, and the issue of context is not asstraightforward as it might seem. In fact, the distinction between data and evidence is not self-evi-dent even in a research context in Sweden. The most common association in the natural sciences inSweden is probably that “evidence” is the same as “proof”, i.e., as in a mathematical proof. However,“to prove” (bevisa) is perhaps more commonly used colloquially as to provide solid support for anargument. In the transcripts, we have included the word “proof” in parenthesis to remind the readerof the fact that there is often no clear way to choose between these words when translating the Swed-ish word bevis into English. This is perhaps a weakness with the VASI since the actual item on theinstrument is devoid of context, yet one can also argue that a certain context is given by the previousquestions already answered.

The distinction between the terms was often expressed in the written responses by students interms of their relative truth-value, often stating that “evidence” is more true or certain. Thesewere evaluated as naïve:

Data is different facts and evidence (proof) is when you know that something is true. (Francis, y7, School D)

“Data” was sometimes associated with “facts” as students often go online to find facts/data/infor-mation (with blurry distinctions) and these “facts” are sometimes true, sometimes not. Mariaexpressed it this way, also labeled as a naïve response:

They are different. Evidence (proof) is something you can prove to be right or wrong. Data is something youcannot be fully sure of that it is correct or not. If you for example check facts on the internet it is good if youcheck if the fact is true and that there is evidence (proof) for it. (Maria, y7, School A)

Data were often described as information and in particular digital information, including that itis not tangible. This is not surprising as the word “data” also means “computer” and is often used assynonymous to “digital information” in Sweden.

Evidence (proof) is something real, something you can touch while data is unreal cannot be touched because itis in the computer. (Alex, y7, School G)

This was also evaluated as naïve. Another confusing aspect is that data were sometimes describedas possible to “prove” to be true and could then be considered “evidence”.

Data is something that is written somewhere and evidence (proof) is something that is proven. So they aredifferent. But there can also be proven data which is then written somewhere (internet) and is proven.(Ada, y7, School B)


All students indicated in the interviews that they had not perceived these terms as significant orused in any systematic way in their science classes. The term “evidence” was often associated withinvestigations of crime as seen on TV (often something tangible like fingerprints), which is perhapsthe most common use of this word students would normally encounter. A few students referred toSwedish (the school subject) and seemed vaguely to relate these terms to discussions in class aboutthe reliability (truth value) of sources such as Wikipedia. In any case, these terms were not specifi-cally associated with scientific inquiry to the students. And, yet there were a few answers indicatingthe sought-after distinction and therefore labeled as informed, as this one by Martin:

They are different from one another. Data is all the information you gather during the investigation whileevidence (proof) is when you get data that shows that your theory is wrong/right. (Martin, y7, School B)

And an even more sophisticated answer is given by Urma in year 12:

Data are observations that are collected, for example: There are 1000 fish in this lake, and there are only 100fish in the polluted lake. Evidence (proof) is data + data + conclusion. For example: Evidence for that fish diesin polluted lakes can be constructed using the “data” above, but demands an analysis. That is to say, if it onlydepends on if the lake is polluted or if there are more variables. (Urma, Y12, School F, underlining in the orig-inal answer)

Here the student provided a context herself for the answer, which is exceptionally explicit. Thisparticular student also attended the natural science program in a School with a special researchprofile.

Aspect 5, Conclusions Must Be Consistent with Collected DataItem 6 (testing aspect 5) shows a table with the relationship between plant growth in cm per weekand the number of minutes of light received each day, and then asks students to agree with one ofthree conclusions based on this data, and to motivate their answer. In the typical naïve answer stu-dents choose alternative “a”, i.e., that plants grow higher if they get sunlight, motivating theiranswers with arguments based on their general knowledge about plants and sometimes photosyn-thesis. This ignores the question and the data given in the question. A succinct formulation of aninformed response, on the other hand, is exemplified by Anders in year 7:

b) The table shows that the less sunlight the more it grows. (Anders, y7, School G)

A more elaborate answer, also informed, is here shown from Helge in year 12:

The growth rate diminishes in proportion to that the number of minutes of light per day increase. You couldargue for c) as it deviates at 15 min sunlight per day, but this probably depends on a measurement error orother source of error and can therefore be neglected. (Helge, y12, School D)

In this answer, Helge also makes a point of the number that deviates from the trend showing howevidence to support a conclusion should take into consideration all available data.

Aspect 8, Conclusions Are Developed from Data and Prior KnowledgeThe last item on the VASI seeks to create a context to test aspect 8. It shows the fossilized bones of adinosaur as found by a group of scientists reassembled in two different ways and then asks (a) whymost scientist would say that figure 1 is the best arrangement, and (b) what types of informationscientists use to explain their conclusions. Here most students, and virtually all in year 7, answeredquestion b in terms very close to the context given by part a, even though the question asks for ageneralization about how scientific inquiry is done. This makes the answers a bit difficult to inter-pret. In these cases, it was important to evaluate the answer to both parts a and b together. Forexample, Maximilian, gave two valid reasons for part a relating to what would be a reasonable struc-ture of the body and that it has sharp teeth and therefore should be a carnivore and thus need stron-ger back legs. Then on part b he simply states that scientists use:


Other facts that they already know, they look at other dinosaurs. (Maximilian, y7, School A)

This answer was labeled as informed given that he had already stated two valid conclusions basedon both the available data and previous knowledge, then emphasizing the latter.

Yet there were also students who went straight to the point. A highly effective answer to the lastquestion of the VASI was provided by Zoey from year 12, she simply listed the “types of infor-mation” as the question asks for, that scientists use to reach their conclusions:

previous research, empirical observations, logical connections. (Zoey, y12, School G)

But even in year 7 some quite elaborate arguments would be provided by students, as this one byCattis, also in School E:

Fossils, cave paintings, the theory of evolution. By aid of fossils they can obtain all the part of the dinosaur andwith the theory of evolution they can draw conclusions about what part should go where by looking at howthey are adapted to nature and what food they hunt. Through cave paintings they can perhaps make sure theirimage of what the dinosaur would look like. (Cattis, y7, School A).

Apart from the erroneous overlap in time between cave paintings and dinosaurs, this answer is quitethoughtful for a twelve-year-old in relation to the practice of scientific inquiry.

Discussion

Summarizing these results in relation to our first research question the majority of students in thissample do not have an informed view of scientific inquiry, as measured by the VASI questionnaire.In relation to our second research question the results show that students generally develop moreinformed views during the six school years separating the cohorts, but also that the spread increases.Even though the students in year 12 participating in this study had chosen to study the science pro-gram, many of them did not produce more sophisticated answers than the students in year 7. On thecontrary, many year 7 students give both informed and articulate answers, while many year 12 stu-dents give neither. Generally, Swedish students’ understandings of SI are lower than we may havehoped for, but are nevertheless in line with the data from the international study (Lederman et al.,2019). Sweden does not stand out as doing particularly bad or well. However, we need to rememberthat this study only aims to develop a baseline of knowledge about students’ views on SI in Sweden.Furthermore, curricula, pedagogy, school culture etc. vary across nations, making comparisons ofresults from different countries difficult.

Given the careful demographic and academic composition of our sample, and our experiencewith the Swedish school system, we believe that the students in this study fairly and accurately rep-resent the national student population in Sweden to a fair degree. But for a more statistically validconclusion, a larger sample would be needed as well as a larger regional spread. Methodologicallywe also need to consider the context of the data collection. The VASI questionnaire is constructedusing concrete examples (in most but not all items), which give a certain context in which the stu-dents ought to understand the question. Of course, there is still the possibility that students inter-pret the questions differently, or that the coding may have flaws in its consistency. Interviewingsome students made it possible to validate the coding of the questionnaire, and also to get a dee-pened picture of the students’ thoughts on SI. However, the context of the interview can also influ-ence the data generated. For instance, Schoultz et al. (2001) have shown that the kinds of answersthat children give in an interview situation can vary depending on e.g., the presence of certain arti-facts. Nevertheless, the VASI-questionnaire and subsequent interviews are in parity with the formsof communication normal at work in the school milieu, make the results reasonably accessible forteachers to relate to and interpret in relation to their own practice and teaching context.

Although we acknowledge that learning to do scientific inquiry is important as such, oneinterpretation of these results is that students may have opportunities to do inquiry to some extentbut without learning about scientific inquiry, as also described by e.g., Bybee (2000). However,


learning about scientific inquiry may also take place but only idiosyncratically in the context ofdoing inquiry, provided that students get support to build a conceptual “grammar of inquiry”.Lager-Nyqvist et al. (2011) argue for teaching SI through practical investigations, while supportingstudents in making conceptually relevant distinctions. In their study, upper primary studentsshowed low ability to make relevant conceptual distinctions in a paper- and pencil test on SI,while being able to do this when confronted with concrete problems of inquiry. This is in linewith the findings in Lederman et al. (2013), that it is possible to start building a conceptual grammarof inquiry already in primary school. The results presented here are also congruent with previousresearch on teachers’ purposes with including lab work and inquiry in Sweden, which havedescribed a tradition in which teaching about scientific inquiry and building a conceptual grammarof inquiry is mostly nonexistent (Gyllenpalm et al., 2010; Högström et al., 2012). This is in contrastto the long-standing tradition of inclusion of SI in the Swedish curricula (Johansson & Wickman,2012). The ability to verbalize an understanding of SI is, however, significant for scientific literacy(Roberts, 2008).

A result that stands out in the present study is the particularly poor result on students’ under-standing of the difference between data and evidence. This may partly be explained by the absenceof context for the item on the VASI, or issues of translation, but more likely reflects the situationthat this distinction is not common or emphasized at any level of schooling in Sweden. These termsare not mentioned in the curriculum (Swedish National Agency of Education, 2011), but this studysuggests that they may be included and that they deserve more attention in Sweden, as teachers havebeen shown to struggle in incorporating SI in meaningful ways in their teaching (Lunde et al., 2015).Seemingly small details can matter a great deal. For example, in a recent study it was found that byfocusing on finding ways to quantify and control the effect of measurement errors in a high schoolphysics laboratory, new possibilities for learning about more general aspects of scientific inquiryand the nature of science were made available (Gyllenpalm et al., 2018). Likewise, the distinctionbetween data and evidence could help to demystify the common expression when students areasked to “draw a conclusion”. A more educative way of formulating this could be to ask studentsto interpret their data to generate evidence to support a conclusion. At a first glance, this mayseem to be more complicated, but this logically ties together the three important concepts ofdata, evidence and conclusions. Potentially, this could contribute to students’ development of scien-tific literacy and their ability of critical evaluation of science-related claims (Wiblom et al., 2020).

Another dimension to consider when interpreting these results is how scientific inquiry is por-trayed in common textbooks. Several different definitions of scientific inquiry and scientific methodcan be found in Scandinavian textbooks. Although simplifications may be necessary when describ-ing scientific inquiry, it is evident that descriptions are often so simplified that they are prone to giverise to misunderstandings, as found for example in a review of Danish textbooks by Estrup andAchiam (2019). In an analysis of chemistry textbooks in Finland and Sweden, Vesterinen et al.(2013) found that chemistry was mainly portrayed without an explicit discussion of the creativeand social aspects of scientific practice. They conclude that such descriptions may support anaïve view of science, in which it is seen as a highly systematic, asocial, and uncreative practiceof applying the scientific method. Similarly, Hedrén and Jidesjö (2010) found in an analysis ofthree major physics textbooks for secondary school in Sweden, that scientific inquiry is not treatedsystematically as a content in either of these and only briefly mentioned together with scattered his-torical examples of scientific discoveries. Here more research is needed, but the publishers of text-books are generally not driven by a desire to drive educational change but rather to sell textbooks.Thus, the real initiative must come from teachers who make demands on better textbooks.

In sum, we can conclude that it is possible to use the translated VASI questionnaire in Swedishschools to study students’ views on SI. These initial findings give us a baseline for students under-standing of SI, and suggest topics for teachers to address explicitly in order to improve the teachingand learning of SI, especially in relation to the objective of scientific literacy for all. It also provides aqualitative sample of what teachers can expect from students. Although many factors may be


relevant to explain the results presented here, we believe that two of these stand out: the low level ofinclusion of explicit descriptions of scientific inquiry in science textbooks, and how this content istested in national tests. Both of these tend to be normative to what teachers focus on in their teach-ing and assessment practices. Therefore, we hope that textbook publishers, and national test con-structors in particular, take notice and seriously consider the results presented here and theirramifications.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID

Carl-Johan Rundgren http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-1628

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M.,Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118

Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learningand teaching in science (pp. 20–46). American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Estrup, E., & Achiam, M. (2019). The potential of paleontology for science education. NorDiNa (Nordic Studies inScience Education), 15(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.5253

Gyllenpalm, J., Christiansson, U., & Friggebo, P. (2018). Connecting two laboratory tasks under an umbrella ofuncertainty: Hooke’s law and simple harmonic motion. Physics Education, 53(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aad279

Gyllenpalm, J., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011a). “Experiments” and the inquiry emphasis conflation in science teachereducation. Science Education, 95(5), 908–926. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20446

Gyllenpalm, J., & Wickman, P.-O. (2011b). The uses of the term hypothesis and the inquiry emphasis conflation inscience teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 1993–2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.538938

Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O., & Holmgren, S.-O. (2010). Teachers’ language on scientific inquiry: Methods ofteaching or methods of inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902977457

Hedrén, J., & Jidesjö, A. (2010). Kunskap utan kunskapens användning: En studie av fysukläromedel i grundskolanssenare år. Skolinspektionen.

Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2012). Laborativt arbete i grunskolans senare år: Lärares perspektiv[Laboratory work in secondary school: Teachers perspectives]. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 80–91.https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.332

Johansson, A.-M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Vad ska elever lära sig angående naturvetenskaplig verksamhet? - Enanalys av svenska läroplaner för grundskolan under 50 år [What should students learn about scientific inquiry? Acomparative study of 50 years of the Swedish national curricula]. NorDiNa (Nordic Studies in Science Education), 8(3),197–212. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.528

Kaiserfeld, T. (1999). Laboratoriets didaktik: Fysiken på läroverken i början av 1900-talet. In S. Widmalm (Ed.),Vetenskapsbärarna: naturvetenskapen i det svenska samhället 1880–1950 (pp. 188–231). Gidlund.

Lager-Nyqvist, L., Wickman, P.-O., Lundegård, I., Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2011). Vad lär sig elever närde gör naturvetenskapliga undersökningar? Att bedöma begreppsligt vetande och praktiskt kunnande. In R. Säljö(Ed.), Lärande och minne som sociala praktik [Learning and remembering as social practice] (pp. 106–125).Norstedts.

Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartels, S., Jimenez, J., Akubo, M., Aly, S., Bao, C., Blanquet, E., Blonder, R., BolognaSoares de Andrade, M., Buntting, C., Cakir, M., EL-Deghaidy, H., ElZorkani, A., Enshan, L., Gaigher, E., Guo,S., Hakanen, A., Hamed Al-Lal, S.,… Zhou, Q. (2019). An international collaborative investigation of beginningseventh grade students’ understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching. Published online. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512

Lederman, J. S., Bartels, S. L., Liu, C., & Jimenez, J. (2013, April 6–9). Teaching nature of science and scientific inquiryto diverse classes of early primary level students [Paper presentation]. Conference for the National Association ofResearch in Science Teaching, San Juan, Puerto Rico.


http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7679-1628https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.5253https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aad279https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aad279https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20446https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.538938https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.538938https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902977457https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902977457https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.332https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.528https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningfulassessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry— the views about scientific inquiry (VASI) ques-tionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire:Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034

Lunde, T., Rundgren, C.-J., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2015). När läroplan och tradition möts— hur högstadielärarebemöter yttre förväntningar på undersökande arbete i naturämnesundervisningen [How lower secondary scienceteachers meet external expectations on inquiry-based science teaching]. NorDiNa (Nordic Studies in ScienceEducation), 11(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.783

Roberts, D. A. (2008). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndham, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding ofelementary astronomy. Human Development, 44(2–3), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1159/000057050

Swedish National Agency of Education. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school 2011. http://www.skolverket.seVesterinen, V.-M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in

Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science& Education, 22(7), 1839–1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9400-1

Wiblom, J., Andrée, M., & Rundgren, C.-J. (2020). Navigating alarming media messages about nutrition and health:How students engage in critical examination of science in news media. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00099-1

Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices ofan atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage.Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and

scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20290Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social prac-

tice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903104465

Appendices

Appendix 1. Views about Scientific Inquiry

Name: ______________________________Class: ______________________________Date: _______________________________The following questions are asking for your views related to science and scientific investigations. There are no right orwrong answers.

Please answer each of the following questions. You can use all the space provided to answer a question and continue onthe back of the pages if necessary.

1. A person interested in birds looked at hundreds of different types of birds who eat different types of food. Henoticed that birds who eat similar types of food, tended to have similar shaped beaks. For example, birds thateat hard-shelled nuts have short, strong beaks, and birds who eat insects have long, slim beaks. He wonderedif the shape of a bird’s beak was related to the type of food the bird eats and he began to collect data to answerthat question. He concluded that there is a relationship between beak shape and the type of food birds eat.a. Do you consider this person’s investigation to be scientific? Please explain why or why not.

b. Do you consider this person’s investigation to be an experiment? Please explain why or why not.

c. Do you think that scientific investigations can follow more than one method?If no, please explain why there is only one way to conduct a scientific investigation.

If yes, please describe two investigations that follow different methods, and explain how the methods differand how they can still be considered scientific.


https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.783https://doi.org/10.1159/000057050http://www.skolverket.sehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9400-1https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00099-1https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00099-1https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20010https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20290https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903104465

2. Two students are asked if scientific investigations must always begin with a scientific question. One of the studentssays “yes” while the other says “no”. Whom do you agree with and why?

3. (a) If several scientists ask the same question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarilycome to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

(b) If several scientists ask the same question and follow different procedures to collect data, will they necessarilycome to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

4. Please explain if “data” and “evidence” are different from one another.5. Two teams of scientists are walking to their lab one day and they saw a car pulled over with a flat tire. They all

wondered, “Are certain brands of tires more likely to get a flat?”Team A went back to the lab and tested various tires’ performance on one type of road surfaces.Team B went back to the lab and tested one tire brand on three types of road surfaces.Explain why one team’s procedure is better than the other one.

6. The data table below shows the relationship between plant growth in a week and the number of minutes of lightreceived each day.

Minutes of light each day Plant growth-height (cm per week)0 255 2010 1515 520 1025 0

Given this data, explain which one of the following conclusions you agree with and why.Please circle one:a) Plants grow taller with more sunlight.b) Plants grow taller with less sunlight.c) The growth of plants is unrelated to sunlight.

Please explain your choice of a, b, or c below:7.

The fossilized bones of a dinosaur have been found by a group of scientists. Two different arrangements for theskeleton are developed as shown below.

a. Describe at least two reasons why you think most of the scientists agree that the animal in figure 1 had thebest sorting and positioning of the bones?

b. Thinking about your answer to the question above, what types of information do scientists use to explaintheir conclusions?


Appendix 2. Synsätt på vetenskaplig forskning

Namn: ______________________________Klass: ______________________________Datum: _______________________________

Följande frågor handlar om din syn på vetenskap och vetenskapliga undersökningar. Det finns inga svar som är rätteller fel.

Vänligen svara på var och en av följande frågor. Du kan använda allt utrymme som ges för att svara på en fråga ochfortsätta på papprets baksida om nödvändigt.

1) En fågelintresserad person studerade hundratals olika fåglar som äter olika slags mat. Han märkte att fåglar somäter liknande sorters mat, tenderar att ha liknande form på näbben. Fåglar som äter nötter med hårda skal har tillexempel korta starka näbbar, och fåglar som äter insekter har långa, smala näbbar. Han undrade om formen på enfågels näbb var relaterad till den typ av mat som fågeln äter och han började samla in data för att få svar på denfrågan. Han drog slutsatsen att det finns ett samband mellan näbbens form och den sorts mat som fågeln äter.a) Anser du att den här personens undersökning är vetenskaplig? Förklara varför du tycker det eller varför inte.

b) Anser du att den här personens undersökning är ett experiment? Förklara varför du tycker det eller varförinte.

c) Anser du att vetenskapliga undersökningar kan genomföras på mer än ett sätt?Om du svarat nej, förklara varför det bara finns ett sätt att genomföra en vetenskaplig undersökning på.

Om du svarat ja, beskriv två undersökningar som har olika metoder, och förklara på vilka sätt metoderna ärolika och ändå kan betraktas som vetenskapliga.

2) Två elever får frågan om vetenskapliga undersökningar alltid måste börja med en vetenskaplig fråga. Den enaeleven säger “ja” och den andra säger “nej”. Vem håller du med och varför?

3) (a) Om flera forskare ställer samma fråga och samlar in data på samma sätt, är det då säkert att de kommer framtill samma slutsatser? Förklara varför eller varför inte?(b) Om flera forskare ställer samma fråga och samlar in data på olika sätt, är det då säkert att de kommer fram tillsamma slutsatser? Förklara varför eller varför inte?

4) Förklara om “data” och “bevis” skiljer sig från varandra.5) Två forskarlag går till sitt labb en dag och ser en bil med ett punkterat däck. De undrar: “Har vissa märken på

bildäck högre sannolikhet att få punktering?”Lag A gick tillbaka till labbet och testade olika däcks prestanda på ett slags vägunderlag.Lag B gick tillbaka till labbet och testade ett slags däck prestanda på tre olika slags vägunderlag.Förklara varför det ena lagets undersökning är bättre än det andra lagets.

6) Tabellen nedan visar förhållandet mellan hur mycket en växt växer på en vecka och antalet minuter ljus som denfår varje dag.

Antal minuter ljus per dag Tillväxt (cm per vecka)0 255 2010 1515 520 1025 0

Förklara, med hjälp av datan i tabellen, vilken av följande slutsatser som du håller med om och varför.Ringa in ett alternativ:a) Växter blir högre om de får mer solljus.b) Växter blir högre om de får mindre solljus.c) Tillväxten är inte relaterad till solljus.


Förklara ditt val av a, b, eller c här:

7) Benfossilerna från en dinosaurie har hittats av en grupp forskare. Två olika sätt att sätta ihop skeletten har tagitsfram som visar här nedan.

a) Beskriv minst två anledningar till varför du tror att de flesta forskarna är överens om att djuret i figur 1 är detbästa sättet att sätta ihop benen.

b) Med tanke på ditt svar på frågan ovan, vilka typer av information använder forskare för att förklara sinaslutsatser?

Appendix 3. The Relation Between the VASI Questions and the Eight Aspects of ScientificInquiry

Aspect of scientific inquiry Item1. Starts with a question 1a, 1b, 22. Multiple methods 1b, 1c3. The same procedures may not yield the same results 54. Procedures influence results 3a5. Conclusions must be consistent with data collected 3b6. Procedures are guided by the question asked 67. Data and evidence are not the same 48. Conclusions are developed from data and prior knowledge 7


AbstractIntroductionScientific Inquiry in Schools in SwedenThe VASI QuestionnaireAspects of Scientific Inquiry in the VASI Questionnaire

Purpose and Research Questions

MethodTranslating the InstrumentThe Participants and Research ProceduresData Collection and Analysis

ResultsSome General Trends in the Year 7 SampleSome General Trends in the Year 12 SampleA Comparison Between Year 7 and Year 12Examples of How Students Responded on the VASIAspect 2, Multiple MethodsAspect 1, Starts with a QuestionAspects 3 and 4, How Procedures May Influence the ResultsAspect 6, Procedures Are Guided by the Questions AskedAspect 7, Data and Evidence Are Not the SameAspect 5, Conclusions Must Be Consistent with Collected DataAspect 8, Conclusions Are Developed from Data and Prior Knowledge

DiscussionDisclosure StatementORCIDReferencesAppendicesAppendix 1. Views about Scientific InquiryAppendix 2. Synsätt på vetenskaplig forskningAppendix 3. The Relation Between the VASI Questions and the Eight Aspects of Scientific Inquiry

views about scientific inquiry: a study of students’ understanding...

Documents