Prospectus

EXPLORING AMERICAN INDIAN STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES, PERCEPTIONS, AND MISCONCEPTIONS OF SCIENTISTS AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE




ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions that middle and high school American Indian students possess with regard to scientists and the nature of science. American Indians are the least represented group in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors and careers, both proportionally and in total numbers. The results of this study may be used as a baseline or “snap shot” to gauge the effectiveness of the current and future variety of initiatives addressing the under-representation of American Indians and other minorities in science, mathematics, engineering, and health care. VOSTS, VNOS, and DAST-C instruments will be used to characterize the attitudes and perceptions of approximately 100 students in one or more tribal schools in Oklahoma. Data is to be gathered in winter and spring 2009, with analysis to follow.



CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The director of the education department of a large American Indian tribe in northeastern Oklahoma recently related an informal and unpublished study carried out by a former superintendent of Bell School in Adair County in Oklahoma. The school is small, rural, comprises prekindergarten through eighth-grade levels, and is a dependent district with a student population that is almost 100% American Indian. Over several years the superintendent surveyed fourth graders as to what they wanted to be when they grew up. Their answers ranged across the spectrum of vocations, from teachers and professional athletes to firefighters and cowboys. When the students were asked the same question 4 years later as eighth-graders, their responses were mostly limited to one of two; chicken pullers at the nearby Tyson Foods facility or line workers at the Mrs. Smith’s pie and cake factory in Stilwell.
This revelation was startling and disconcerting, and coupled with the fact that American Indian student drop-out rates and tendencies to not attend or complete college (especially in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics [STEM] majors) are high (Demmert, 2001), propelled this investigation of the role of science education in addressing this dilemma. In fact, American Indian students are the least represented group in STEM majors and careers, both in sheer numbers as well as proportionally (Demmert).
Strong science education for students before entering higher education is a critical foundation of America’s technological and intellectual strength, which arises from its talented workforce trained in STEM majors (Babco, 2003). According to Babco, for Science and Engineering (S&E) degrees in the year 2000, only 2,782 (0.7% of S&E degrees) of American Indians earned S&E bachelor’s degrees, 340 (0.4%) earned S&E master’s degrees, and 88 (0.3%) earned doctoral degrees. Moreover, most of these majors are concentrated in the social sciences and psychology, as opposed to the hard sciences encompassed under the STEM umbrella. In addition, Babco noted that American Indian STEM degree attainment has not kept pace with the growth of the American Indian population in the past 30 years.
My personal experience after attending the Summer Science Institute at Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History at the University of Oklahoma in Norman 2 years ago was that my students (mostly American Indian) responded very well to inquiry-based science instruction in the form of learning cycles. Inquiry-based science instruction refers to science instruction that is focused on critical thinking and problem solving while emphasizing the need to evaluate teacher strategies to ensure that they align with the particular learning styles of particular students (Tomlinson, 2004). I witnessed greater student enthusiasm and achievement in science in my third through eighth grade classes, and many more moments of student comprehension, especially during the concept development and expansion/application phases of the learning cycle. This was especially true when we could relate a concept to something from the students’ real-world environment and interests, including sports, cars, or music, and organize the concept amongst their prior knowledge. This partially led to the school adopting the Carolina Biological Company’s Science and Technology for Children (STC) program, which I helped to implement as the school’s unofficial science coordinator. More science instruction, and specifically more inquiry-based science instruction followed, and the faculty had a degree of latitude to modify the kits to more of a true learning cycle teaching approach.
In fact, it was this anecdotal success and progress in my own classroom that prompted me to apply to the PhD program at the University of Oklahoma in Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum (ILAC) with an emphasis in Science Education. I wanted to learn more about this teaching approach, help communicate this information, develop programs, and train other teachers. Although existing research indicates that all students tend to learn better with an inquiry-based approach to science education (Lee, Greene, Odom, Schechter, & Slatta, 2004; Marzano, 2003), this study was prompted at least partially by the question of whether American Indian students are somehow uniquely suited for this teaching approach. This study takes into account many sources of research concerning science education, indigenous or Native science educational perspectives, perceptions and misconceptions of science and scientists, socioeconomic status, opportunities for informal learning, and cross-cultural evaluation instruments.
Several years ago, the Cherokee Nation (CN) government recognized the deficit in CN students undertaking STEM majors and careers, and took steps in initiating programs to address the problem (Lemont, 2001). Among these are the CN science fair, STEM camps, robotics workshops, scholarships, and an emphasis on science and mathematics in schools with large American Indian populations. There is growing emphasis nationwide on similar programs. Examples include the SOARS Program at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the South Dakota Space Grant Consortium. Professional organizations such as the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) are currently initiating several STEM programs as well. Quantitative studies such as this one that attempt to describe how American Indian students feel about science, science instruction, and scientists are important components in addressing these deficits. The research will take place at Sequoyah Schools. According to the Cherokee Nation official web site, it is an Indian boarding school, and originated in 1871 when the Cherokee National Council passed an act setting up an orphan asylum to take care of the many orphans of the Civil War. In 1914 the Cherokee National Council authorized Chief Rogers to sell and convey the property of the Cherokee Orphan Training School, including 40 acres of land and all the buildings, to the United States Department of Interior for $5,000. In 1925 the name of the institution was changed to Sequoyah Orphan Training School in honor of Sequoyah, a Cherokee who developed the Cherokee syllabary. After being known as Sequoyah Vocational School for a time, it was renamed Sequoyah School. From a school with one building and 40 acres of land, it has grown into a modern institution covering more than 90 acres and a dozen major buildings situated on a beautiful campus five miles southwest of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. In November 1985 the Cherokee Nation resumed the operation of Sequoyah School from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is now operated through a grant and is regionally and state accredited for grades 7-12.

Problem Statement
The problem motivating this study is that American Indian attainment of STEM degrees in higher education is not keeping pace with the growth of the American Indian population (Babco, 2003). In addition, this problem is compounded by a lack of research on the perceptions, attitudes, and misconceptions of American Indian middle and high school students. Without understanding how American Indian middle and high schools students feel about science and science education, teachers cannot instruct these students to their optimal ability. Because America relies on a strong and highly educated technical workforce, the attainment of STEM degrees within the American Indian population is ultimately important to the progress of the American economy in general and American Indians in particular.

Research Question
My experiences in the field and a recognition of the problem of low rates of American Indian attainment of STEM degrees in higher education led to the development of the following central research question: What attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions do American Indian middle and high school students possess with regard to scientists and the nature of science? Similar studies have been performed previously with other ethnic nationalities (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Ebenezer & Zoller, 1993, Seiler, 2001); however, to the author’s knowledge no research has ever been done specifically on American Indian students’ perceptions of scientists and the nature of science. This research question will guide the study’s exploration of American Indian students’ perceptions of science, and with the aid of statistical analysis of student responses to selected components of three chosen survey instruments, will measure a wide range of the students’ beliefs, knowledge, and perceptions of science, scientists, and science education.
Research Approach
This study will attempt to answer the central research question using a quantitative comparative approach. Three survey instruments have been chosen for this study to measure American Indian students’ perceptions, attitudes, and misconceptions of scientists and the nature of science. The three survey instruments are (a) the Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS) (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992), (b) the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST-C) (Chambers, 1983), and (c) the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS) (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). All three survey instruments have undergone extensive testing and have been deemed to be both valid and reliable research instruments for measuring student perceptions of science.
An anticipated group of approximately 100 American Indian middle and high school students will complete the surveys. The results of the seventh grade surveys will be compared with those of the twelfth grade surveys (as will all the grades/ages involved), and statistical analyses will be employed to determine if any significant patterns emerge between the datasets. An attempt at an overall characterization of the data will be made, and the results may be broken down by gender and other factors. The results will also be analyzed overall within the context of the existing research on inquiry-based education and the education and achievement levels of American Indian students to determine whether and in what meaningful ways student perceptions, attitudes, and misconceptions of science education might exist and compare to other populations. Ultimately this data may serve as a baseline for comparison as more STEM and inquiry-based science initiatives are implemented throughout Oklahoma and the rest of the country. The results may also yield clues as to help guide and define such programs in order to heighten their effectiveness concerning American Indian students in particular. It also may lead to more qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies involving informal learning, knowledge of science content, and other related areas in science education for American Indian students.
Importance of the Study
This study is important to further research on the educational trends of American Indian students. There is a large gap in the literature with regard to this subject, particularly concerning the science education of American Indian students and its connections to achievement in higher education and STEM majors. The results of this study will be important to middle and high school educators, leaders of institutions of higher education, governmental policy makers, and leaders of the American Indian community because they will provide a foundation for tailoring science education to American Indian students. Further, such a foundation may provide the basis for improved science education for American Indian students, and, in turn, greater achievement levels in higher education, particularly in STEM majors. All resulting data and analysis will be shared with the Cherokee Nation through the Education Department and Sequoyah Schools.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The former superintendent at my previous school in northeast Oklahoma believed for years that American Indian students tended to be active, right-brained learners who responded well to learning through tactile, kinesthetic, auditory, and visual experiences. He developed a “psychomotor” approach to learning for younger students that coupled activity with concepts, such as counting in both English and Cherokee while jumping rope. Partially because of this, his school was designated by the U. S. Department of Education as a National School of Excellence, and also received the James Madison Elementary School Award for Outstanding Curriculum in 1988 (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1995).
I attempted to connect my own classroom experiences with other observations from the literature to link Native culture and learning styles to the utilization of learning cycles in the classroom, as in the “border crossings” of the literature (Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999). For instance, traditional American Indian viewpoints of the world and environment are mutualistic and holistic, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the universe and all its living and non-living components (Cajete, 1999). Furthermore, Cajete noted, “Presenting educational material from a holistic perspective is an essential and natural strategy for teaching Indian people” (p. 142).
This literature review provides a summation of existing research that is relevant to the topics of this study. Inquiry-based education and its utility in science education are discussed, followed by an overview of American Indian learning trends and styles. Next, there is an investigation of American Indians in higher education, as well as an exploration of American Indian trends in STEM education and degree attainment. The literature review concludes with a summary.
Inquiry-Based Education
There are a variety of viewpoints concerning what constitutes inquiry-based education. Lee et al. (2001) defined inquiry-based education as “learning in terms of the four student commitments-critical thinking, independent inquiry, responsibility for one’s own learning, and intellectual growth and maturity” (p. 63). Marzano (2003) believed that science education for middle and high school students is better when using inquiry-based techniques. The National Science Education Standards (NRC, NSES p. 23) defines and recommends scientific inquiry as "the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world." The Oklahoma Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS) are process-oriented and inquiry-based standards which provide the foundation for all elementary and secondary instruction in the state. Inquiry requires critical thinking skills and problem solving, and may contribute to the implementation of a program of instruction that ensures that “what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that student’s readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning” (Tomlinson, 2004, p. 188). The central purpose of American education, as stated in 1961 by the Educational Policies Commission (EPC), is for students to be able to think critically and utilize the rational powers. Furthermore, from their website, The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) recommends that “all K–16 teachers embrace scientific inquiry and NSTA is committed to helping educators make it the centerpiece of the science classroom. The use of scientific inquiry will help ensure that students develop a deep understanding of science and scientific inquiry”.
Existing research indicates a growing belief in the superiority of inquiry-based techniques over more traditional, memorization-based learning. Steinberg (2007) stated,
Too much of today’s science education focuses on making students memorize bits of information that will be outdated within a few years. There is too little emphasis on how to think like a scientist. And there is no substitute for hands-on (inquiry) research experience. (p. 13)
Marzano (2003) agreed that teachers need to “provide students with tasks and activities that are inherently engaging” (p. 149). Inquiry-based education targets the specific learning styles of students to provide engaging and educational activities that integrate with students’ unique educational perspectives.
Educators should be aware of the fact that students have different backgrounds and life circumstances, and that these differences can be profound from the circumstances of mainstream students with regard to minorities, such as American Indians. Differentiation is an important concept in inquiry-based pedagogy, and refers to the tailoring of teaching techniques to the educational needs of students. A program of differentiation is a systematic way of meeting the needs of all students (Tomlinson, 2004). The learning community is not only concerned with meeting needs of learners at different levels but also different learning styles. Willis and Mann (2000) stated differentiated instruction is intended “to deliver instruction in ways that meet the needs of auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learners. And they, (teachers), are trying to tap into students’ personal interests. In short, these teachers are differentiating instruction” (pp. 1-2).
Through the use of programs of differentiated instruction and inquiry-based instructional approaches, teachers can be better prepared to meet the needs of the learners in a diverse learning community. “Educators commonly see one of their major roles as helping students to acquire broader and deeper understandings of the physical and social world around them” (Kuhn, 2005), which describes inquiry instruction. Kuhn also stated that, “Becoming educated, then, means achieving the skills and values that confer an unlimited capacity and inclination to learn and to know” (p. 109), giving strength to the effectiveness and purpose of inquiry instruction and learning. In fact, subject areas other than science may be more effectively taught through inquiry. O’Brien (2006) stated,
Inquiry is given even more credibility by supporting the standards and being part of those published by The National Center for History in the Schools. The standards were published in 1994 and revised in 1996. The first five standards, deal with historical thinking and required students to develop inquiry skills such as the ability to engage in chronological thinking, to interpret primary source material, to pose historical questions within the appropriated context, and to construct historical narrative-all hallmarks of inquiry learning. (pp. 11-12)
Research by the above mentioned authors has confirmed that inquiry-based education is an effective mode of teaching science, particular to groups of students with learning techniques and perspectives of science that may differ from those of the mainstream, which are typically forwarded in science education in the United States though the Western modern tradition.
American Indian Learning
Although students tend to learn better using an inquiry-based teaching approach, it is important for research to determine if American Indian students are particularly suited for socially based, constructivist/transactional teaching and learning (Lee, 2004; Marzano, 2003). Traditionally, American Indian children learned about the world around them by actively exploring it on their own, as well as through the passing down of knowledge by oral story-telling and hands-on instruction (Cajete, 1999). Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has been recognized as a sub-culture within the larger culture of science itself, and its intersection with classic Western science can be used to promote American Indian learning instead of hindering it (Snively & Corsiglia, 2000). The Cherokee Nation’s Long Man Project is an example of Western modern science being taught concurrently with traditional Native science to enhance students’ interest and understanding.
Snively and Corsiglia (2000) forwarded a notion of indigenous science, which refers to “both the science knowledge of long-resident, usually oral culture peoples, as well as the science knowledge of all peoples who as participants in culture are affected by the worldview and relativist interests of their home communities” (p. 6). The term “Native science” is more of an American term, while “indigenous science” is its global and mostly synonymous counterpart. This concept is useful when thinking about American Indian learning. Although there is a growing body of literature surrounding TEK, a review of the research by Snively and Corsiglia suggested that Western modern science has been taught at the expense of indigenous science. The researchers also observed that the “universalist gatekeeper” of Western modern science “can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive” (p. 6). Therefore, teaching of American Indian students that does not acknowledge their particular learning styles, culture, and language may be a detriment to their science education. Cajete (2000) defines Native science in a way that is reasonable to most American Indians, "Native science is a metaphor for a wide range of tribal processes of perceiving, thinking, acting, and 'coming to know' that have evolved through human experience with the natural world. Native science is born of a lived and storied participation with the natural landscape. To gain a sense of Native science one must participate with the natural world. To understand the foundations of Native science one must become open to the roles of sensation, perception, imagination, emotion, symbols, and spirit as well as that of concept, logic, and rational empiricism."
A complement to this point of view is that indigenous science knowledge, instead of being consumed by the standard account of Western modern science, is better off as a different kind of knowledge that can be valued for its own merits and can play a vital role in the science education of American Indian students (Cobern & Loving, 2001). One possible goal would be to work towards instituting and developing inquiry-based instructional programs, especially in science, in the educational departments of schools within American Indian tribal boundaries. Research has shown that inquiry-based professional development may enhance teachers’ understanding of Piagetian models of intelligence and increase their use of appropriate constructivist approaches in the classroom (Marek, Cowan, & Cavallo, 1994; Marek, Eubanks, & Gallaher, 1990).
Gerber, Marek, and Cavallo (2001) believed that encouraging more informal learning opportunities, including visits to museums and other field trips, chess, speech, and science fairs, is important for all students’ achievement. Likewise, emphasizing American Indian culture and language both at home and in school should be priorities for the teacher of such children (Matthew & Smith, 1994). Students need to actively construct their own knowledge with the teacher’s guidance, engage in varied activities both in and out of school, and maintain their Native identity (Gilliland, 1995). That is, they need to realize that they can “be Cherokee,” for instance, and yet also be successful in school and professionally in the larger world outside their usually rural home environments (Nelson-Barber & Estrin, 1995). Establishing an idea of how American Indian students currently feel about STEM classes and professions could be beneficial in knowing how to most effectively teach and encourage participation and success in these areas. There is a small but growing body of literature that supports the notion that incorporating and maintaining Native culture and language greatly enhances students’ overall academic performance and likelihood to seek and complete post-secondary work (Cajete, 2000; Deloria, Jr., 2000; & Gilliland, 1995).
American Indians and Higher Education
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2002), there is a significant gap in the academic achievement levels of American Indian students. As of 1997, American Indian attrition rates in institutions of higher education range between 75% and 93% (Brown and Kurpius, 1997). According to Larimore and McClellan (2005), in secondary education, 40% of American Indian students drop out before attaining their high school diploma. Minorities overall suffer from lower rates of academic achievement than Caucasians, and American Indians have particularly high rates of student attrition.
Larimore and McClellan (2005) suggested using multiple theoretical lenses or perspectives in evaluating American Indian students and their learning experiences in order to enhance a small, but growing body of knowledge about effective teaching strategies for American Indians. Issues of financial means to higher education also present barriers to American Indian students, who are often at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder (Brown & Kurpius, 1997). Research has suggested that increases in the availability and accessibility of higher education opportunities for American Indians is critical for improving American Indian academic achievement and retention rates.
Pavel (1992) identified American Indians as among the groups least likely to enroll in a public 4-year institution, and the least likely to graduate from those institutions. In addition, Larimore and McClellan noted that the post-secondary retention rate may be as low as 15%. These researchers highlighted the need for research to focus on pre-higher education levels of American Indian academic achievement. It was found that levels of academic achievement were typically lower for American Indian students than their peers, and researchers have postulated that conflicts in learning and teaching styles may be partly responsible for this disparity of academic achievement (Brown & Kurpius, 1997). Clearly, these studies suggest a significant problem of American Indian education that needs to be addressed immediately.
American Indians and STEM Education
Babco (2003) stated that American Indian students must have a strong science education before entering higher education, as STEM knowledge is a pillar of America’s intellectual and economic dominance. As stated before, American Indians are earning degrees in Science and Engineering (S&E) at startling low rates; for the year 2000, only 2,782 (0.7% of S&E degrees) of American Indians earned S&E bachelor’s degrees, 340 (0.4%) earned S&E master’s degrees, and 88 (0.3%) earned doctoral degrees. In addition, the American Indians that are attaining degrees in S&E majors tend to graduate in the social sciences and psychology, as opposed to the hard sciences encompassed under the STEM umbrella. In addition, Babco noted that American Indian STEM degree attainment has not kept pace with the growth of the American Indian population in the past 30 years.
In a qualitative study of American Indian college student perceptions of higher education, Hoover and Jacobs (1992) observed that American Indian students reported on the significance of counseling and guidance in the high school in order to prepare them for the transition to higher education. On the other hand, students noted that academic resources and instruction was adequate in college (Hoover & Jacobs). This suggests that problems of low rates of attainment of STEM degrees by American Indian students may have more to do with preparation before entering college that with the resources available to American Indian students once they are enrolled in college.
However, Wright (1990) suggested that guidance and counseling for American Indian students in college is just as important as it is for American Indian students in high school. Wright reported that American Indian students desired counseling in college to help them develop their confidence and steer them into specializations and career fields. Last, May and Chubin noted that in America, the job sectors that are growing fastest are based in science, engineering, and technology, and in order for American Indian students to keep pace in the economy, they will need to attain more STEM degrees. May and Chubin highlighted the need for financial assistance, academic intervention programs, and pre-college preparation to increase undergraduate STEM education among American Indians. Researchers in the field of STEM education who have addressed an American Indian population have routinely found that additional strategies are necessary to improve STEM education both in high school and in college.
Summary
A review of the literature has suggested that American Indian students are suffering from low levels of academic achievement and graduation from high school and institutions of higher education. Furthermore, it was noted that within American Indian education, STEM majors are disproportionately low as compared to other minorities and Caucasians. Inquiry-based education has been forwarded as a theoretical perspective that seeks to align the teaching styles of instructors with the learning styles of students.
In particular, it was suggested that inquiry-based science education may serve American Indian students better than science education based exclusively in a Western modern perspective. Because American Indians often come from life circumstances that are significantly different from those of most students in mainstream education, particular interventions, such as inquiry-based activities, may be required to ensure that American Indian students are learning science education at a rate that is comparable to their peers.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions that middle and high school American Indian students possess with regard to scientists and the nature of science. In order to gauge the effectiveness of any type of STEM initiative over time, one would need a baseline of data that would indicate where students in the affected schools stood prior to implementation of more inquiry and informal learning. To measure the attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions of middle and high school American Indian students components of three survey instruments will be used (a) the Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS), (b) the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST-C), and (c) the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS). An anticipated group of approximately 100 American Indian middle and high school students will complete the surveys. It is expected that more of the older students will have experienced some of the STEM initiatives currently underway, and data will be compared by grade or age of students. To compare the attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions of the students Pearson’s correlation analysis and an independent samples t-test will be used. There will also be an attempt to characterize overall the students’ attitudes about science and scientists, and compare responses by gender. The remainder of this chapter presents the research design that will be used, the population, sampling plan, sample size, instrumentation, data collection and then finally the methods of data analysis.
Research Design
This study will attempt to answer the central research question using a quantitative comparative approach. The research design will be a quantitative comparative design because it will provide the researcher with the ability to compare a group of participants with one another in order to determine if there will be difference in their responses on the VOSTS, VNOS, and DAST-C instruments (Cozby, 2001). The comparison that will be made in this study will be between the seventh grade survey results through the twelfth grade survey results to see if any significant patterns emerge between the datasets. There also is an attempt at characterizing as a whole the American Indian students’ attitudes toward science and scientists, and examining gender responses as well.
The students will be given selected components of each of the three instruments to complete. Hopefully in the future, after the implementation of more STEM and inquiry-based science programs, a similar group of students will be given each of the three instruments again and statistical analyses will be employed to determine if any significant patterns emerge between the datasets. Currently, to compare the middle school and high school scores with one another and males with females, an independent samples t-test will be used. This is because the purpose of the independent samples t-test is to determine whether there is a significant difference in measurements taken from two or more independent groups of students (Moore & McCabe, 2006). The results of all three instruments will also be analyzed and discussed in this study to attempt to gain some context of the current attitudes, misconceptions, and perceptions of American Indian students toward scientists and the nature of science.
Population
The target population for this study will be middle and high school American Indian students. More precisely, the target population will be American Indian students who are enrolled in science courses in the participating middle and high schools. Overall, it is expected that a sample of 100 students will complete the surveys. A non-probability sampling plan will be used for this study. This will be based on a purposeful sampling plan (Urdan, 2005). This is because the purpose of this study will be to sample only American Indian students, such that their attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions can be measured.
For studies a power analysis and sample size estimator is conducted in order to make sure that the sample size that is collected for the study is able to make valid inferences towards the target population. Therefore, based on this information there are three items that contribute to calculating the required sample size for the study.
1. The first item that is important is the power of the study. The power refers to the probability of correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis (Keuhl, 2000).
2. The second item that is used to calculate the sample size of the study is the desired effect size the researcher is looking to obtain. The effect size is defined as being the strength of the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables (Cohen, 1988).
3. The third and final item is the level of significance. This is used to determine the level at which the null hypothesis is to be rejected. The level of significance is defined by alpha (α) and is usually set equal to 5%.
Assuming that an effect size of d = .60 will be used with a level of significance of 5%, and a power of 80% the minimum sample size that would be required for this study would be equal to 90. This calculation is also based on using an independent sample t-test. The sample size and power calculation for this study was produced in G*Power.
Instrumentation
For this proposed study there will possibly be three instruments used to collect data. These include: (a) the Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS) (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992), (b) the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST-C) (Chambers, 1983), and (c) the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS) (Lederman et al., 2002) in a quantitative paradigm. By assigning numerical or categorical values to the responses provided on the VOSTS, VNOS, and DAST-C instruments, it will be possible to assess the relationships and differences using quantitative methods (i.e., by comparing the different numerical responses with one another using several statistical techniques). The validity and reliability of these instruments have been established in the cited literature. Correlation and comparison among the selected instruments should facilitate the accuracy of conclusions drawn from them. The DAST-C (Appendix A) is easy to administer and will include a brief written response; it also may correlate to the other measures used. The DAST-C will be carried out in two parts. In the first stage each student will be given a piece of paper with the following instructions: “Draw a picture of a scientist at work”. Below the space for drawing, students will be asked to explain what the scientist is doing. They will also be asked how, when, and where they learn science. The VOSTS survey (Appendix B) is a tool that can help describe how students view the social nature of science and how science is conducted. For purposes of this study, the same fourteen items were chosen as by Dogan and Abd-El-Khalik in their 2008 study. The NOS aspects targeted by these 14 items include: the theory-driven nature of scientific observations; tentative nature of scientific knowledge; relationship between scientific constructs (models and classification schemes) and reality; the epistemological status of different types of scientific knowledge (hypotheses, theories, and laws) and their coherence across various scientific disciplines; nature of, and relationship between, scientific theories and laws; myth of a universal and/or stepwise ‘‘Scientific Method’’; the nonlinearity of scientific investigations; and the role of probabilistic reasoning in the development of scientific knowledge. These aspects of NOS, it should be noted, have been emphasized in national science education reform documents and are considered accessible by pre-college students according to Dogan and Abd-El-Khalik. Each VOSTS response was categorized as representing a ‘‘naive’’ position (N), an ‘‘informed’’ position (I), or a position that ‘‘has merit’’ (M). Overall, as per the National Institute for Science Education (n.d.), the more than one hundred questions on the original VOSTS instrument asks students about:
1. What science and technology are.
2. How society influences science and technology.
3. How science and technology influences society.
4. How science as taught in school influences society.
5. What characterizes scientists.
6. How scientific knowledge comes about.
7. The nature of scientific knowledge
The VNOS (Appendix C) is a conceptual diagnostic test and has three versions, all of which are open-ended. The most frequently used versions are the VNOS–B (7 items) and the VNOS–C (10 items). VNOS-B was chosen for this study, and the results are to be coded and quantified. Each instrument aims to elucidate students' views about several aspects of "nature of science" (NOS). These NOS aspects, according to the National Institute for Science Education (n.d.), include the:
1. Empirical NOS: Science is based, at least partially, on observations of the natural world.
2. Tentative NOS: Scientific knowledge is subject to change and never absolute or certain.
3. Inferential NOS: The crucial distinction between scientific claims (e.g., inferences) and evidence on which such claims are based (e.g., observations).
4. Creative NOS: The generation of scientific knowledge involves human imagination and creativity.
5. Theory-laden NOS: Scientific knowledge and investigation are influenced by scientists’ theoretical and disciplinary commitments, beliefs, prior knowledge, training, experiences, and expectations.
6. Social and cultural NOS: Science as a human enterprise is practiced within, affects, and is affected by, a lager social and cultural milieu.
7. Myth of the “Scientific Method”: The lack of a universal step-wise method that guarantees the generation of valid knowledge.
8. Nature of, and distinction between scientific theories and laws (e.g., lack of a hierarchical relationship between theories and laws).
The development and/or utilization of one or more instruments that consider cultural factors in these types of evaluations, as well as knowledge of scientific content, was also considered. Another possibility was working in conjunction with the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History’s education department and staging interventions in the after-school programs of selected districts involving informal learning opportunities. These interventions may consist of commercial curricula and could be evaluated with a pre- and post-test methodology in order to gauge their effectiveness in terms of student interest in science, scientific reasoning ability, and misconceptions and/or perceptions of science and scientists. This method may be particularly effective if actual scientists are participants and mentors in the programs.
Data Collection
Data will be collected in less than a week during winter and spring 2009, with analysis to follow. Once the study period is complete, the raw data from the three instruments will be imported into a computer spreadsheet for future analyses. Each participant in the study will receive a unique identification number. This identification number will be used to identify which responses correspond to the participants in the study, while maintaining confidentiality. The data will be saved on a separate flash drive and stored in a locked filing cabinet. Similarly, hard copies will also be locked in the filing cabinet. By doing this the confidentiality of each participant will be maintained so that no personal information will be accessible. The data is then kept on file for a period of 3 years where it will then be destroyed and deleted from the hard drive. There are absolutely no risks, discomfort, or inconvenience of any type for the study’s participants, and benefits include helping to understand and improve science education for American Indian students.
Data Analysis
Assessing the desired criteria would involve a population of approximately 100 middle and high school American Indian students drawn from throughout the country and centered at Sequoyah Schools in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. This sample size is based on the potential use of an independent samples t-test to analyze the grade/age and gender comparisons and to adequately characterize the students’ attitudes toward science. Sequoyah Middle and High Schools are near Tahlequah, Oklahoma, administered by the Cherokee Nation, and have agreed to participate and provide students for this study. The main goal is to attempt a characterization of a sample of American Indian students’ attitudes towards science and scientists. This may form a background and framework against which further and longer-term qualitative and quantitative studies may be carried out.
The independent samples t-test is used to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two independent groups with respect to an average value for some dependent variable. By using the independent samples t-test the researcher will be able to determine whether students of different ages/grade levels and genders scored significantly higher than other students with respect to the average value of the VOSTS, DAST-C and the VNOS. If there is a significant positive test statistic then this would indicate that one group of students scored significantly higher than the other group of students, while if there was a significant negative statistic then this would indicate that one group of students scored significantly lower than the other group of students. This will be done for all three instruments, so that the researcher will be able to characterize the tested populations and determine whether the implementation of the inquiry-based programs and STEM initiatives resulted in a change in the American Indian students’ attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions towards science and science education. Pearson’s correlation will allow the identification of any relationships between variables as well.
Summary
Chapter 3 discussed the research methods that will be employed in the proposed study, which was that of a comparative research design. Also included in Chapter 3 was information on the data collection process as well as proposed statistical analyses, which include an independent samples t-test. Also presented in this chapter were the research design, and the population and sample size. The following chapter then presents the results for this study.

REFERENCES
Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: a cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-287.

Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: 'Views on Science-Technology-Society' (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-492.

Babco, E. L. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM higher education. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.cpst.org/STEM.pdf

Brown, L. L., & Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing academic persistence of American Indian College Students. Journal of College Student Development, 389(1), 3-12.

Cajete, G. A. (1999). Igniting the sparkle: an indigenous science education model (1st ed.). Asheville NC: Kivaki Press Inc.

Cajete, G. A. (2000). Native science: natural laws of interdependence (1st ed.). Asheville NC: Kivaki Press Inc.

Center for Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC. National Academy Press.

Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: the draw-a-scientist test
Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.

Cobern, W. J., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining "science" in a multicultural world: implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50-67.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cozby, P.C. (2001). Methods in behavioral research. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Deloria, Jr., V. (1999). Spirit and Reason: The Vine Deloria, Jr., Reader, Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.

Demmert, W. G. (2001). Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Dogan, D., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112.

Ebenezer J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 Students' perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2).

Educational Policies Commission (1961). The Central Purpose of American Education. Washington, DC. National Education Association Press.

Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L., & Marek, E. A. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549.

Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (2001). Development of an informal learning opportunities assay. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 569-583.

Gilliland, H. (1995). Teaching the Native American. Third Edition. (3rd ed.). Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Halloun, I., & David, H. (1998). Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles. Science & Education, 7(6), 553-577.

Hoover, J. J., & Jacobs, C. C. (1992). A Survey of American Indian College Students: Perceptions toward Their Study Skills/College Life. Journal of American Indian Education, 32(1), 21-29.

Keuhl, R.O. (2000). Design of experiments: Statistical principles of research design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 109.

Larimore, J. A., & McClellan, G. S. (2005). Native American student retention in U.S. postsecondary education. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 17-32.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

Lee, V. S., Greene, D. B., Odom, J., Schechter, E., & Slatta, R. W. (2004). Teaching and learning through inquiry (V. S. Lee, Ed.). Sterling, VA: Syllus Publishing.

Lemont, E. (2001). Developing effective processes of American Indian constitutional and government reform: Lessons from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Hualapai Nation, Navajo Nation, and Northern Cheyenne Tribe. American Indian Law Review, (26).

Marek, E. A., Cowan, C. C., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1994). Students' misconceptions about diffusion: how can they be eliminated? The American Biology Teacher, 56(2), 74-77.

Marek, E. A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. H. (1990). Teachers' understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821-834.

Marek, E. A., Haack, C., & McWhirter, L. (1994). Long-term use of learning cycles following in-service institutes. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 5(2), 48-55.

Marek, E. A., & Laubach, T. (2007). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: A success story from science education. In M. Gordon & T. V. O'Brien (Eds.), Bridging Theory and Practice in Teacher Education. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: translating research into action. Alexandra, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development. p. 37-39.

Matthew, C. E., & Smith, W. S. (1994) Native American related materials in elementary science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 363-380.

May, G. S., & Chubin, D. E. (2003). A Retrospective on Undergraduate Engineering Success for Underrepresented Minority Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 27-40.

Moore D.S., & McCabe, G.P. (2006). Introduction to the practice of statistics. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The condition of education: 2002. Retrieved Nov 9, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002025.pdf

National Institute for Science Education. (n.d.).Field Tested Learning Assessment Guide. Accessed September 27, 2008, from http://www.flaguide.org/index.php

Nelson-Barber, S., & Estrin, E. T. (1995). Bringing Native American perspectives to mathematics and science teaching. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 174-184.

O'Brien, J. E. (2006). Recapturing the history standards: historical inquiry in the middle grades. Middle School Journal, 37(4), 11-15.

Pavel, D. M. (1992). American Indians and Alaskan Natives in higher education: Research on Participation and Graduation. ERIC Digest, (ED 348 197).

Seiler, G. (2001) Reversing the standard direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (28)9. 1000-1024.

Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2000). Discovering indigenous science: implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 6-34.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1995). Maryetta School: the center of a rural community and a case study of leadership and school improvement. Issues about Change, 5(1), 5-27.

Steinberg, L. (2007). Why I became a scientist. Education Leadership, 64(4), 13.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-189.

Urdan, T.C. (2005). Statistics in plain English. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Willis, S., & Mann, L. (2000). Curriculum update-Differentiating instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.

Wright, B. (1990). American Indian Studies Programs: Surviving the '80's, Thriving in the '90's. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(l), 17-24.

Appendix A
DAST-C
Number________________Grade/Age_______________Gender___________________
Draw a scientist at work in the space below.

Explain what the scientist is doing.









List examples of where, when, and how you learn science.
Appendix B
Selected VOSTS Items
Number________________Grade/Age_______________Gender___________________

Please circle one choice per question.

90111—Scientific observations made by competent scientists will usually be different if the
scientists believe different theories.

Your position, basically:
(M) A. Yes, because scientists will experiment in different ways and will notice different things.
(I) B. Yes, because scientists will think differently and this will alter their observations.
(N) C. Scientific observations will not differ very much even though scientists believe different
theories. If the scientists are indeed competent their observations will be similar.
(N) D. No, because observations are as exact as possible. This is how science has been able to
advance.
(N) E. No, observations are exactly what we see and nothing more; they are the facts.





90211—Many scientific models used in research laboratories (such as the model of heat, the
neuron, DNA, or the atom) are copies of reality.

Your position, basically:
Scientific models ARE copies of reality:
(N) A. because scientists say they are true, so they must be true.
(N) B. because much scientific evidence has proven them true.
(N) C. because they are true to life. Their purpose is to show us reality or teach us something about it.
(N) D. Scientific models come close to being copies of reality, because they are based on scientific observations and research.

Scientific models are NOT copies of reality:
(I) E. because they are simply helpful for learning and explaining, within their limitations.
(I) F. because they change with time and with the state of our knowledge, like theories do.
(N) G. because these models must be ideas or educated guesses, since you can’t actually see the real thing.





90311—When scientists classify something (e.g., a plant according to its species, an element
according to the periodic table, energy according to its source, or a star according to its size), scientists are classifying nature according to the way nature really is; any other way would simply be wrong.

Your position, basically:
(N) A. Classifications match the way nature really is, because scientists have proven them over many years of work.
(N) B. Classifications match the way nature really is, because scientists use observable
characteristics when they classify.
(I) C. Scientists classify nature in the most simple and logical way, but their way is not necessarily the only way.
(I) D. There are many ways to classify nature, but agreeing on one universal system allows scientists
to avoid confusion in their work.
(I) E. There could be other correct ways to classify nature, because science is liable to change and new discoveries may lead to different classifications.
(I) F. Nobody knows the way nature really is. Scientists classify nature according to their perceptions or theories. Science is never exact, and nature is so diverse. Thus, scientists could correctly use more than one classification scheme.





90411—Even when scientific investigations are done correctly, the knowledge that scientists
discover from those investigations may change in the future.

Your position, basically:
Scientific knowledge changes:
(I) A. because new scientists disprove the theories or discoveries of old scientists. Scientists do this by using new techniques or improved instruments, by finding new factors overlooked before, or by detecting errors in the original ‘‘correct’’ investigation.
(I) B. because the old knowledge is reinterpreted in light of new discoveries. Scientific facts can
change.
(N) C. Scientific knowledge APPEARS to change because the interpretation or the application of
the old facts can change. Correctly done experiments yield unchangeable facts.
(N) D. Scientific knowledge APPEARS to change because new knowledge is added on to old
knowledge; the old knowledge doesn’t change.





90511—Scientific ideas develop from hypotheses to theories, and finally, if they are good enough, to being scientific laws.

Your position, basically:
Hypotheses can lead to theories, which can lead to laws:
(N) A. because a hypothesis is tested by experiments, if it proves correct, it becomes a theory. After a theory has been proven true many times by different people and has been around for a long time, it becomes a law.
(N) B. because a hypothesis is tested by experiments, if there is supporting evidence, it’s a theory. After a theory has been tested many times and seems to be essentially correct, it’s good enough to become a law.
(N) C. because it is a logical way for scientific ideas to develop.
(N) D. Theories cannot become laws because they both are different types of ideas. Theories are
based on scientific ideas, which are less than 100% certain, and so theories cannot be proven true. Laws, however, are based on facts only and are 100% sure.
(I) E. Theories cannot become laws because they both are different types of ideas. Laws describe
things in general. Theories explain these laws. However, with supporting evidence, hypotheses may become theories (explanations) or laws (descriptions).





90521—When developing new theories or laws, scientists need to make certain assumptions about nature (e.g., matter is made up of atoms). These assumptions must be true in order for science to progress properly.

Your position, basically:
Assumptions MUST be true in order for science to progress:
(N) A. because correct assumptions are needed for correct theories and laws. Otherwise, scientists would waste a lot of time and effort using wrong theories and laws.
(N) B. otherwise society would have serious problems, such as inadequate technology and
dangerous chemicals.
(N) C. because scientists do research to prove their assumptions true before going on with their
work.
(N) D. It depends. Sometimes science needs true assumptions in order to progress. But sometimes history has shown that great discoveries have been made by disproving a theory and learning from its false assumptions.
(I) E. It doesn’t matter. Scientists have to make assumptions, true or not, to get started on a project. History has shown that great discoveries have been made by disproving a theory and learning from its false assumptions.
(N) F. Scientists do not make assumptions. They research an idea to find out if the idea is true. They do not assume it is true.





90541—Good scientific theories explain observations well. But good theories are also simple
rather than complex.

Your position, basically:
(N) A. Good theories are simple. The best language to use in science is simple, short, direct
language.
(N) B. It depends on how deeply you want to get into the explanation. A good theory can explain
something either in a simple way or in a complex way.
(I) C. It depends on the theory. Some good theories are simple, some are complex.
(N) D. Good theories can be complex, but they must be able to be translated into simple language if they are going to be used.
(M) E. Theories are usually complex. Some things cannot be simplified if a lot of details are
involved.
(M) F. Most good theories are complex. If the world was simpler, theories could be simpler.





90621—The best scientists are those who follow the steps of the scientific method.

Your position, basically:
(N) A. The scientific method ensures valid, clear, logical, and accurate results. Thus, most scientists will follow the steps of the scientific method.
(N) B. The scientific method should work well for most scientists; based on what we learned in
school.
(M) C. The scientific method is useful in many instances, but it does not ensure results. Thus, the
best scientists will also use originality and creativity.
(I) D. The best scientists are those who use any method that might get favorable results (including
the method of imagination and creativity).
(M) E. Many scientific discoveries were made by accident, and not by sticking to the scientific
method.





90651—Scientists should NOT make errors in their work because these errors slow the advance of science.

Your position basically:
(N) A. Errors slow the advance of science. Misleading information can lead to false conclusions. If scientists do not immediately correct the errors in their results, then science is not advancing.
(M) B. Errors slow the advance of science. New technology and equipment reduce errors by
improving accuracy and so science will advance faster.

Errors CANNOT be avoided:
(I) C. so scientists reduce errors by checking each others’ results until agreement is reached.
(M) D. some errors can slow the advance of science, but other errors can lead to a new discovery or breakthrough. If scientists learn from their errors and correct them, science will advance.
(N) E. Errors most often help the advance of science. Science advances by detecting and correcting the errors of the past.





90711—Even when making predictions based on accurate knowledge, scientists and engineers can tell us only what probably might happen. They cannot tell what will happen for certain.

Your position basically:
Predictions are NEVER certain:
(I) A. because there is always room for error and unforeseen events that will affect a result. No one can predict the future for certain.
(I) B. because accurate knowledge changes as new discoveries are made, and therefore predictions will always change.
(N) C. because a prediction is not a statement of fact. It is an educated guess.
(M) D. because scientists never have all the facts. Some data are always missing.
(N) E. It depends. Predictions are certain, only as long as there is accurate knowledge and enough information.





91011—For this statement, assume that a gold miner ‘‘discovers’’ gold while an artist ‘‘invents’’ a sculpture. Some people think that scientists discover scientific LAWS. Others think that scientists invent them. What do you think?

Your position, basically:
Scientists discover scientific laws:
(N) A. because the laws are out there in nature and scientists just have to find them.
(N) B. because laws are based on experimental facts.
(N) C. but scientists invent the methods to find those laws.
(N) D. Some scientists may stumble onto a law by chance, thus discovering it. But other scientists may invent the law from facts they already know.
(I) E. Scientists invent laws, because scientists interpret the experimental facts that they discover.
Scientists do not invent what nature does, but they do invent the laws that describe what nature does.





91012—For this statement, assume that a gold miner ‘‘discovers gold’’ while an artist ‘‘invents’’ a sculpture. Some people think that scientists discover scientific HYPOTHESES. Others think that scientists invent them. What do you think?

Your position, basically:
Scientists discover a hypothesis:
(N) A. because the idea was there all the time to be uncovered.
(N) B. because it is based on experimental facts.
(N) C. but scientists invent the methods to find the hypothesis.
(N) D. Some scientists may stumble onto a hypothesis by chance, thus discovering it. But other
scientists may invent the hypothesis from facts they already know.

Scientists invent a hypothesis:
(I) F. because a hypothesis is an interpretation of experimental facts that scientists have discovered.
(M) F. because inventions (hypotheses) come from the mind—we create them.





91013—For this statement, assume that a gold miner ‘‘discovers’’ gold while an artist ‘‘invents’’ a sculpture. Some people think that scientists discover scientific THEORIES. Others think that scientists invent them. What do you think?

Your position, basically:
Scientists discover a theory:
(N) A. because the idea was there all the time to be uncovered.
(N) B. because it is based on experimental facts.
(N) C. but scientists invent the methods to find the theories.
(N) D. Some scientists may stumble onto a theory by chance, thus discovering it. But other scientists may invent the theory from facts they already know.

Scientists invent a theory:
(I) E. because a theory is an interpretation of experimental facts that scientists have discovered.
(M) F. because inventions (theories) come from the mind—we create them.





91111—Scientists in different fields look at the same thing from very different points of view (e.g.,Hþ causes chemists to think of acidity and physicists to think of protons). This makes it difficult for scientists in different fields to understand each others’ work.

Your position, basically:
It is difficult for scientists in different fields to understand each other:
(M) A. because scientific ideas depend on the scientist’s viewpoint or on what the scientist is used to.
(I) B. because scientists must make an effort to understand the language of other fields that overlap with their own field.
It is fairly easy for scientists in different fields to understand each other:
(N) C. because scientists are intelligent and so they can find ways to learn the different languages
and points of view of another field.
(N) D. because they have likely studied the various fields at one time.
(N) E. because scientific ideas overlap from field to field. Facts are facts no matter what the scientific field is.

Appendix C

Number________________Grade/Age_______________Gender___________________

Please write your responses in the space below.

VNOS - Form B
1. After scientists have developed a theory (e.g. atomic theory), does the theory ever change? If you believe that theories do change, explain why we bother to teach scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples.
2. What does an atom look like? How certain are scientists about the nature of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists use to determine what an atom looks like?
3. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Give an example to illustrate your answer.
4. How are science and art similar? How are they different?
5. Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to solve problems. Other than the planning and design of these experiments/investigations, do scientists use their creativity and imagination during and after data collection? Please explain you answer and provide examples if appropriate.
6. Is there a difference between scientific knowledge and opinion? Give an example to illustrate your answer.
7. Some astronomers believe that the universe is expanding while others believe that it is shrinking; still others believe that the universe is in a static state without any expansion or shrinkage. How are these different conclusions possible if all of these scientists are looking at the same experiments and data?