ARTICLE

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Using the Activity Model of Inquiry To Enhance General Chemistry

Students’ Understanding of Nature of Science
Sara C. Marchlewicz*,† and Donald J. Wink‡
Departments of †Learning Sciences and ‡Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, United States

ABSTRACT: Nature of science refers to the processes of scientific activity and the social and cultural premises involved in the
creation of scientific knowledge. Having an informed view of nature of science is important in the development of scientifically
literate citizens. However, students often come to the classroom with misconceptions about nature of science. The activity model of
inquiry is a theoretically grounded and empirically derived model of scientific inquiry and could be used as a thinking frame to help
students develop more informed views of nature of science. This paper reports work on how to implement this model in the general
chemistry classroom, and on how undergraduate students’ views of scientific inquiry shift. Implementation includes having students
reflect on how current topics in science and their own lab work compare to the activity model of inquiry. Students are asked to
respond to essay prompts and a pre- and postquestionnaire designed to assess naïve and informed views of nature of science.
Findings show student responses to essay prompts and questionnaires and how they shifted in their views of nature of science.
KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Public Understanding/Outreach, Communication/Writing, Inquiry-Based/
Discovery Learning, Misconceptions/Discrepant Events, Applications of Chemistry, Learning Theories

I f chemistry taught in the classroom is to add to the public’s

understanding of science, school science must “develop stu-
dents’ understanding of the scientific enterprise itself, the aims
and purposes of scientific work, and the nature of the knowledge
it produces”.1 Many students come into the classroom with a
particular image of science and how scientists conduct scientific
work. The processes of sciences and the creation of scientific
knowledge compose nature of science (NOS). Understanding
NOS is important, for it has been noted, “an appropriate under-
standing of NOS will allow students to make more informed
decisions on science-based issues in their daily lives”.2 Specifically
in chemistry, students must understand how chemists develop and
apply theories, laws, and other ideas. For example, they should
understand that solubility rules are not just a collection of facts that
someone wrote down but rather are empirical and question driven.
However, what many students know about NOS comes from the
media, everyday experiences, traditional presentations of “the”
scientific method, and technology.3 These experiences provide a
misleading foundation for becoming scientifically literate.
A scientifically literate public would be able to understand
what types of evidence validate claims within science and how
these claims can be developed into an understanding of nature.4
How to accomplish this, especially when students have miscon-
ceptions, is therefore an important challenge for instruction. In
chemistry instruction, this link between claims and understand-
ing is already apparent, for example, in the work of Greenbowe
and others of the implementation regarding the science writing
heuristic.5
7 There are three components of scientific literacy:
the basic content, the processes that constitute scientific acti-
vity, and the social and cultural premises that create scientific
knowledge.8 Content refers to the vocabulary of science and the
basic concepts that make up scientific knowledge. This is the
primary feature taught in the traditional learning settings. The
processes of scientific activity and the social and cultural premises
(contexts) that create scientific knowledge compose NOS.
Today, including aspects of NOS is a central component
within many science education research reform efforts.9
11
Leading researchers and educators in the NOS field are Norman
Lederman and his co-workers, who refer to NOS as “the
epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the
values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific
knowledge”.12 Lederman further states:13
[S]cientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change),
empirically based (based on and/or derived from observa-
tions of the natural world), subjective (theory-laden),
necessarily involves human inference, imagination, and
creativity, and is socially and culturally embedded.
NOS also includes that there is no universal recipe-like
method for doing science, that theories and laws are separate
types of scientific knowledge, and that there is a difference
between inferences and observations.13 This paper will particu-
larly focus on the idea of the myth of a universal scientific method
as it develops when an explicit NOS strategy, based on Har-
wood’s activity model of inquiry, is used in a college chemistry
classroom.
’ THINKING FRAMES FOR SUPPORTING NATURE OF
SCIENCE INSTRUCTION
Much research has shown that an explicit approach is more
effective than implicit approaches in changing students’ and
teachers’ views toward a more informed view of NOS.14
17
Implicit approaches assume that NOS aspects will be learned as a
by-product of doing science activities, whereas explicit ap-
proaches include structured opportunities or prompts to help
learners reflect on their science-based activities.18 One way to
Published: May 23, 2011

Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and

Division of Chemical Education, Inc. 1041 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n | J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 1. Example of a traditional thinking frame that teachers use
to teach the process of science. Image adapted and reproduced courtesy
of Science Buddies, http://www.sciencebuddies.org/ (accessed Apr
2011).
make NOS explicit is to use a thinking frame. Thinking frames are
“intended to guide the process of thought; supporting, organiz-
ing, and catalyzing that process”.19 Placing the features of
scientific inquiry at the center of a thinking frame may help
students to better understand the process of science.
Commonly, teachers use the traditional scientific method as a
thinking frame to teach the process of science, such as the one
shown in Figure 1, which was adapted from a Web site for
students involved in science fair projects.20 According to
Rudolph,21 the traditional scientific method stems from an early
20th-century attempt by the Central Association of Science and
Mathematics Teachers to determine what should constitute
science education. Rudolph21 further discusses how this group of
teachers used works from Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum22
first published in 1620, John Dewey’s How We Think,23 published
in 1910, and other sources to develop the traditional scientific
method. Although this group of teachers saw Dewey’s work as a
simplistic means of teaching scientific practices, this was a
misinterpretation that actually led Dewey to rewrite sections of
his book, as well as commenting about the phases as not fixed
steps but rather “traits of reflective thinking” (quoted in ref 21).
Even with this attempt to set matters straight, the traditional
scientific method stuck and is taught in many science class-
rooms today.
However, dissatisfaction with the traditional scientific method
model abounds. It includes an overall linear view of the scientific
process that occurs step-by-step in a sequential order. It excludes
any theoretical, cultural, or social aspect to the creation of
scientific knowledge. In addition, traditional presentations of
scientific method omit any hint of the human imagination,
creativity, or subjectivity that is found in the actual inquiry.
Because of this procedural setup, it has been an easy instructional
1042
ARTICLE
Figure 2. William Harwood’s activity model of inquiry, a new thinking
frame to teach the process of science. Image adapted and reprinted with
permission from ref 25. Copyright 2004 National Science Teachers
Association.
tool for teachers to use. However, this is not an accurate model of
how science is actually done both because of the nonlinear aspect
of many scientific inquiries and the fact that all knowledge should
be thought of as a means for meeting human needs. Omitting the
latter aspect, it has been argued, is both false and less likely to
engage learners.24
William Harwood’s activity model of inquiry25 (see Figure 2)
is a recent, data-based model that may have potential as a
thinking frame for teaching nature of science aspects. It was
developed from interviews with 52 faculty members across nine
disciplines at a research university.26 Some responses from faculty
members about scientific inquiry were that it is the bridge that
connects the known to the unknown, it is fueled by questions,
which drive the investigation, and it is an approach used in
problem solving. The faculty members also described an inves-
tigator as someone who is connected to other disciplines,
observant, willing to be wrong, both a collaborator and a
communicator, and creative. While Lederman discusses the
nature of scientific knowledge, Harwood’s model25 can be used
for the discussion of nature of scientific activity.
Within Harwood’s activity model of inquiry,25 10 activities
relate in a web-like structure. No unique pathway exists; indivi-
duals chose what to do next based on what they need. Activities
can be repeated as necessary. Questions are in the middle,
suggesting them as the central feature of inquiry. The other nine
activities include: defining the problem, forming the question,
investigating the known, articulating the expectation, carrying
out the study, examining the results, reflecting on the findings,
communicating with others, and observing. Even the activities
that could be interpreted as conclusions bounce back to ques-
tions and other activities.
The activity model of inquiry25 has significant potential as a
precise framework for discussing and teaching the aspects of
NOS. The communicating with others activity is a way to teach
the social component of NOS. Both defining the problem and
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
formulating the question activities can be used to teach the
cultural component. Observing, and carrying out the study, can
be used to illustrate how science is empirically based as well as a
way to show that scientists can carry out a study in more ways
than just through experiments. Examining the results, and
reflecting on the findings, are places to teach the differences
between observations and inferences. The aspect of subjectivity
can be taught using almost every single activity. Creativity is
inherent in the model because a person needs to choose his or her
own path. The tentative NOS can be taught by showing that
there is no end to the model.
Although all aspects of NOS are important, students will have
trouble recognizing the cultural, empirical, creative, subjective,
theory-laden and tentative nature of science if they hold a
traditional linear model view of the scientific method. This
particular intervention aims at examining how the activity model
of inquiry impacts students’ initial concepts of scientific method.
’ USING THE ACTIVITY MODEL OF INQUIRY IN
INSTRUCTION ABOUT NOS
The flexibility and data-based nature of Harwood’s activity
model of inquiry25 suggests it is a good thinking frame to use to
develop students’ understanding of the actual NOS as described
in the work of Lederman.13 In particular, the lack of a linear
structure, the focus on inquiry processes, and the inclusion of
societal and cultural factors mean that scientific methods are
presented by the activity model of inquiry as variable, open-
ended activities. Thus, inclusion of the activity model of inquiry
within a college general chemistry program was undertaken and
has been done multiple times. This particular paper focuses on
one implementation that also included adaptation of laboratory
work to provide students with their own experience of inquiry in
science as part of their learning.
Classroom Context
This project took place within a first-semester general chem-
istry course at an urban community college in the summer
session where the first author was the instructor. The course
had 18 students enrolled, and was structured around lecture,
group activities, laboratory experiments, and quizzes and exams.
Many of the labs were verification labs, yet two labs were created
to include an inquiry component. In addition, writing-to-learn
strategies were used. Writing has been shown to be an effective
means in promoting conceptual change6,27,28 and metacogni-
tion.29 Writing is a useful tool for the writer to clarify his or her
knowledge, organize the ideas to be written, and reflect on the
learning experience.30 Assignments relevant to NOS were a
standardized questionnaire given at the beginning and end of
the semester and four course-related writing assignments given
throughout the semester.
On the second day of instruction, students were introduced to
a definition of scientific models and asked to draw their own
model of what the process of science looked like. The students
were then asked to describe their models to the group. After a
class discussion about the similarities and differences among the
students’ models, the activity model of inquiry was introduced.
The instructor described how the model was developed and
described each of the components. The instructor then gave an
example of how development of a pharmaceutical follows the
activity model of inquiry.
At the beginning and end of the semester, all students were
given the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire Form-C
1043
ARTICLE
(VNOS-C) developed by Lederman et al.12 The purpose of this
questionnaire is to assess students’ understanding of scientific
practice and aspects of NOS rather than content knowledge. On
the first day of class, students were told that there are no correct
answers to the questions and as long as they attempt to answer
the questions, they would receive full credit on the problems.
Additionally, if they did not know how to answer a question, to
receive full credit, they needed to explain why they did not know.
They were told not to leave it blank or just say, “I don’t know”.
The instructor provided students with feedback that included
prompts to further their thinking.
To assess the changes, if any, in students’ views of NOS, this
questionnaire was given again on the last day of the semester. In
an attempt to prevent studying for the questionnaire, students
were never told they would take this assessment again. Once
again, students were told that there were no incorrect answers
and that they would receive full credit by simply answering the
questions. This time, however, students were told that they could
not simply say that they did not know the answer; they needed to
actually attempt to answer the question.
The first writing assignment was given on the second day of
class and was due one week later. The assignment had students
respond to the prompt: “Describe how scientific knowledge is
created. Do all scientists follow the same approach?” The intent
of this writing assignment was to further assess students’ view of a
single, universal scientific method. The other intent was to
determine how students understood the creation of scientific
knowledge and how the different aspects of NOS contributed to
the creation of a particular piece of scientific knowledge.
The second and third writing assignments required the
students to interact with the activity model of inquiry and real-
life scenarios. The second writing assignment asked students to
look for components of the model in an actual example of science
by analyzing a news or journal article (in chemistry, biology, or
physics). For the article that students chose individually, they
were to find at least 10 examples of how the science in the article
fits with the components of the model. Students were not to use
any component more than twice, so they should have used at
least five different components. In addition, they were to explain
how the specific example of their article fits the component
within the model and show how that example then linked to the
next component that they cited. Lastly, they needed to compare
and contrast their news article findings using the activity model of
inquiry with the scientific method discussed in their textbook.31
This writing assignment was used to introduce students to
science outside the classroom and to provide a more authentic
setting that fits the activity model of inquiry.
The third writing assignment was similar to the second writing
assignment, although this time students were asked to analyze
their own chemistry laboratory work. Initially, the news article
activity was assigned before the students’ lab activity so students
would see how scientists engage in science first before transfer-
ring this knowledge to their own lab experience. The lab used for
this writing assignment was a solubility rules lab and was chosen
because it had an inquiry component. For the writing assignment,
students were to write a lab report. Within it, they needed to
include a brief introduction about what the solubility rules are, a
procedure paragraph, collected data and analysis, results, and
conclusion. They then needed to analyze their own lab work and
identify where they executed particular components of the
activity model of inquiry. As before, they needed to compare
and contrast their findings using the model with the scientific
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education ARTICLE

method discussed in their textbook.31 The purpose of this

assignment was to get students to see how their own activity
relates to the model.
The fourth writing assignment was assigned the last week of
class and due before they took the questionnaire. Students were
asked to answer: “How has your understanding of science been
confirmed or changed over the semester? In particular, how does
the activity model of inquiry fit or not fit your understanding?”
They were to use their previous writing assignments to help
support their opinion and understanding. The intent of this assign-
ment was to get students to think about what they had learned over
the semester and how their understanding has changed, if it did at
all. In addition, they were to reflect on the chemistry content
learned throughout the semester and what they enjoyed, what they
struggled with, and what they would like to learn more about.
Two inquiry labs used in the course also added instruction of
NOS via the activity model of inquiry. The first lab was modified
from a demo32 and was used to teach the solubility rules. In this
lab, students were to run separate experiments with generically
labeled chemicals and note the results of each experiment,
namely, whether a precipitate was formed. The students’ goal
was to be able to classify the generically labeled anions as either
generally soluble or generally insoluble, while categorizing the
generically labeled cations as always soluble or as a cation that
follows the rule of the anion using the students’ observations
from the different reactions.32 However, it is not possible to
properly classify the cations and anions with the information
provided, so students must design and test additional reactions
Figure 3. Student 1’s drawing of the process of science completed at the
using the supplied solutions. The second lab was also modified beginning of the semester showing a linear progression of steps. Drawing
from a demo,33 and was used to teach stoichiometry and limiting reproduced with permission.
reactants. Students use different ratios of aluminum foil and a
solution of copper(II) chloride to determine which relationship scientific method. Subsequent work will be done to characterize
consumes all of both starting materials. Students then use their student outcomes more systematically.
results to find the limiting reactant and theoretical yield. Both of
these labs and the additional labs within the course used the Students 1 and 2: Typical Change in Understanding of Myth
science writing heuristic6 as a format for writing lab reports. of a Scientific Method
The first two cases show typical student responses. When
’ EXAMPLES OF STUDENT RESPONSES asked to draw a model of the scientific process, all students in the
class drew something that included a linear process (see Figure 3)
The questionnaire responses and writing assignments were or a cyclic process (which had a specific order) (see Figure 4).
analyzed using the Lederman et al.12 framework for coding. Students’ drawings showed varied starting positions, choosing
Student responses were coded as naïve or informed with regard among question, hypothesis, or observation to begin their process.
to students’ views concerning the myth of a universal scientific However, the same overall sequence was observed in all drawings.
method. Three themes emerged from analyzing student work All students followed the hypothesis with experiment and then
over the course of the semester: typical change, significant some form of data and conclusion. In a few instances students
change, and no change. Under the typical change theme, even labeled their drawings as the “scientific method”. Starting
students’ responses were mostly coded as informed views at with a naïve view of the myth of a scientific method (as in Figures 3
the end of the semester but with limitations. For example, and 6), many students believed that there is only one approach to
students exhibiting a typical change may understand the non- science. In the VNOS-C postquestionnaire, one student talked
linear nature of science but do not also explain why there is not a about experiments being a “test that is done to figure out the
specific pathway. Students classified within the significant change answer”. However, he did not talk about how that answer was
theme demonstrated initial naïve views that develop into an found. But in the fourth writing assignment, he talked about the
informed view of the myth of a universal scientific method. freedom associated with the activity model of inquiry. He stated,
Students under the no change theme do not show any change
from their initial views. Within this population, there were not With the activity model of inquiry, the thoughts about the
any students who began with informed views of the myth of a topic should be a little more free [sic] to ponder all options.
universal scientific method. Only students who held naïve views Since there is no destined path, the scientists or student is
of this aspect of NOS at the beginning and end of the semester able to go from one activity to another without worrying
were classified under this theme. Example responses are pre- about breaking a certain cycle.
sented as brief cases illustrating examples of what types of effects He understands that there are different approaches taken to
have been observed in response to the impact of the activity answer a question and he even talks about students using this as
model of inquiry on students’ beliefs regarding the myth of a well as scientists.
1044 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 4. Student 2’s drawing of the process of science completed at the
beginning of the semester. This student drew a cyclical process but
numbered the steps in a particular order. This student titled his drawing
“Scientific Method”. Drawing reproduced with permission.
Another student noted how she understood scientific knowl-
edge in her fourth writing assignment:
I always followed the standard scientific method I had
learned in high school, and thought that this was how
scientific knowledge was created. I learned that scientific
knowledge takes more than just one run through the
scientific model or one group of scientists.
This student also showed promising shifts in other parts of her
views of the activity model of inquiry. She further went on to
discuss how she used the communicating with others component
of the model in the classroom: “We communicated with each
other to compare data. Also, we researched as another form of
communication.” These two students’ responses are what were
typically observed within the final assignments. Many students
began to incorporate activity model of inquiry components,
particularly the communicating with others component. Some
students also developed more informed views regarding the
different approaches taken to solve a scientific problem and that
there is freedom within this process.
Student 3: Significant Change in Understanding of Myth of
a Scientific Method
This case shows significant and, from our viewpoint, exemp-
lary change from the beginning of the semester to the end in
respect to the myth of a scientific method. In response to the
VNOS-C questionnaire item that asks the student to define an
experiment, her response at the beginning of the semester was
“an experiment has a purpose and can be tested with materials. It
is based off scientific methods and has about 3 trials before the
final results and conclusion.” This is very similar to her drawing of
a model of the scientific process (see Figure 5). Within her
model, she drew a visual notebook aid that has the steps of the
scientific method written in a grid. In both of these responses, she
was writing out the steps within the traditional scientific method.
She even included the traditional three trials that are included
with many cookbook lab procedures.
After introduction of the activity model of inquiry, she still
held on to her belief of a scientific method. In her first writing
assignment, she stated “they [scientists] follow the same ap-
proach by using steps like the scientific method.” However, after
1045
ARTICLE
Figure 5. Student 30 s drawing of the process of science completed at the
beginning of the semester. This student began to draw a notebook of
different steps within the process of science but then wrote a paragraph
describing the linear progression of these steps. Drawing reproduced
with permission. The student’s text reads: “Visual and [sic] notebook for
the scientist to keep track of trials and results in an organized way.
(Stating his problem/purpose, finding a hypothesis, materials, proce-
dure, results and conclusion). The scientist usually begins with a
problem or purpose then leads to a hypothesis. Then state the materials
and write out the procedures. After 3 trials of experimenting, write the
results then state the conclusion.”
analyzing the news article, she started to see the differences in the
usefulness between the scientific method and the activity model.
“The activity model gives more lead [sic] way to approach the
study. The [scientific] method, although can relate [sic], is more
simplistic and to the point for a simple study.” However, in this
assignment, she was looking for the similarities more than the
differences in the two models. She still mentioned that the results
of the study would soon become a law or theory after being tested
many times. This thinking is still parallel to the scientific method.
After the completion of writing assignment 3 (to analyze her
own experiment), she really started to grasp the usefulness of the
activity model of inquiry.
This experiment is a great example using the activity model
of inquiry. There was no set order of procedure. It was in a
way that the procedure is [sic] based off of our conven-
ience.... The scientific method gives a specific order of
studying and testing during an experiment.... The scientific
method would have just stopped as is [sic] stating that not
enough information was found instead of searching for
more answers like the activity model.
She first noted that the activity model of inquiry had no set
order and is based on convenience. She contrasted this to the
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 6. Student 4’s drawing of the process of science completed at the
beginning of the semester. This student titled her drawing “Scientific
Method” and listed the steps of the traditional framework in a linear
order. Drawing reproduced with permission.
scientific method by noting its specific order. When discussing
her own experience in the lab, she talked about how she would
have had to stop her experiment when there was missing
information if she were following the scientific method. How-
ever, since she was following the activity model of inquiry, she
was able to bounce over to another component to find the
missing information needed to solve the problem. This type of
response is also found in her writing assignment 4 and the
VNOS-C postquestionnaire response. She has a more informed
view of the different approaches scientists take to solve problems.
In her response to the experiment question on the VNOS-C
questionnaire at the end of the course, she talked about experi-
ments being “open ended” and that there is “no set way to
conduct an experiment as long as it is based off a question”.
Student 4: No Change in Understanding of Myth of a Sci-
entific Method
This student held onto the belief of a universal scientific
method throughout the entire semester. She began the semester
by listing the steps of the scientific method in both her scientific
model drawing (see Figure 6) and her response to the experi-
ment question in the VNOS-C questionnaire. “An experiment is
a theory with a purpose, hypothesis, results, and a conclusion.”
When responding to the question about whether scientists follow
the same approach in the first writing assignment, she said,
[S]cientists used some steps of what now a day [sic] is
consider “scientific method”.... Scientists had to state the
problem or purpose...then, they have to state a hypothesis,
do the experiment, make observations, record data, analysis
[sic] the evidence, and draw a conclusion. The conclusion
should include whether the hypothesis was correct or not.
In her second writing assignment, she started to see the
differences between the two models of inquiry, yet she still
1046
ARTICLE
focused on how similar they are. She reverted back to the
scientific method thinking again in her third writing assignment.
Instead of looking at how she bounced around from activity to
activity in her work, she just listed the steps in order of how the
lab report was set up. In her fourth writing assignment, she still
listed the steps of the scientific method.
Scientists make observations and hypotheses which leads
them to carry out experiments...they usually started by
observing, forming questions, carrying out the study, col-
lecting data, analyzing the data, and drawing a conclusion.
She repeated this listing in the VNOS-C postquestionnaire and
also stated “scientific knowledge is related to scientific method
[sic].” This student kept her naïve understanding of the myth of a
scientific method throughout the entire course.
Observations from Student Cases
The fact that some students show major changes in their view
of the myth of a scientific method may stem from the students’
open-mindedness. In particular, Student 3 was very open to new
information and wanted to learn ways to be able to use these new
ideas. The more common responses entail less dramatic changes
in which slightly revised understanding of the scientific method
appear. This suggests that the activity model of inquiry can
support shifts, yet also reminds us that major changes in deeply
held beliefs are difficult to achieve in a short one-semester
experience, which is an expected, although discouraging, finding.
’ CONCLUSIONS
The activity model of inquiry can be a useful instructional
framework to use in the classroom to teach aspects of NOS,
particularly, the myth of a scientific method. The model implicitly
includes some of the aspects of NOS. From the model’s many
intersecting lines (Figure 2), it can be seen that there are countless
ways to approach an inquiry, and the assignments can be used as
guides for students to see how they approach their own scientific
problem solving. In addition, the model can also be taught as
scientific content and used to show how different sciences or
scientists approach scientific problem solving. The activities
within the activity model of inquiry can also be taught. Within
these activities, other aspects of NOS can be included, such as the
theory-laden nature of science within the observations activity.
These assignments provide opportunities for students to pair
content with one of the components of nature of science. Not only
were students able to learn course material (i.e., solubility rules),
they were also able to interact with material reported in the news
media. Both of these activities provide the opportunity for students
to develop more informed understandings of the different ap-
proaches scientists and the students themselves take when exploring
scientific problems. In addition, most students responded very
positively to the assignments and enjoyed completing them.
Although these student assignments were used in a general
chemistry course, they could also be implemented within another
science course or within a science education course. Using these
assignments in courses with more inquiry labs is another
opportunity for students to further understand the different
approaches taken when exploring scientific problems.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: smarch2@uic.edu.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047
Journal of Chemical Education ARTICLE

’ REFERENCES
(1) Driver, R.; Leach, J.; Millar, R.; Scott, P. Young People’s Images of
Science; Open University Press: Bristol, PA, 1996.
(2) Ibrahim, B.; Buffler, A.; Lubben, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009,
46, 248–264.
(3) Ryder, J.; Leach, J.; Driver, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36 (2),
201–219.
(4) Dewey, J. Science 1910, 31 (787), 121–127.
(5) Rudd, J. A., II; Greenbowe, T. J. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78 (12),
1680–1686.
(6) Greenbowe, T. J.; Hand, B. Introduction to the Science Writing
Heuristic. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching, Pienta, N. J., Cooper,
M. M., Greenbowe, T. J., Eds.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 2005; pp 140
154.
(7) Wink, D. J.; Hwang-Choe, J. H. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (3),
396–398.
(8) Wink, D. J. Found. Chem. 2006, 8 (2), 111–151.
(9) American Association for the Advancement of Science Bench-
marks for Science Literacy. Project 2061; Oxford University Press:
New York, 1993.
(10) National Research Council. National Science Education Stan-
dards; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
(11) The use of the phrase “NOS” instead of the phrase “the NOS” is
consistent with Norman Lederman’s reference to there not being a
single definition of NOS and that NOS, itself, is tentative.
(12) Lederman, N. G.; Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Bell, R. L.; Schwartz, R. S.
J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (6), 497–521.
(13) Lederman, N. G. Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 3 (2), 1–11.
(14) Khishfe, R.; Abd-El-Khalick, F. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2002, 39 (7),
551–578.
(15) Schwartz, R. S.; Lederman, N. G.; Crawford, B. A. Sci. Educ.
2004, 88 (4), 610–645.
(16) Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Akerson, V. L. Sci. Educ. 2004, 88 (5),
785–810.
(17) Khishfe, R. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2008, 45 (4), 470–496.
(18) Abd-El-Khalick, F.; Lederman, N. G. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000,
22 (7), 665–701.
(19) Perkins, D. N. Educ. Leadership 1986, 43 (8), 4–10.
(20) Science Buddies Web Page on Steps of the Scientific Method.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_
method.shtml (accessed Apr 2011).
(21) Rudolph, J. L. Hist. Educ. Q. 2005, 45 (3), 341–376.
(22) Bacon, F. Novum Organum; The Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1623.
(23) Dewey, J. How We Think; D.C. Heath and Co.: Boston, MA,
1910.
(24) Rudolph, J. L. Sci. Educ. 2005, 89 (5), 803–821.
(25) Harwood, W. S. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2004, 33 (7), 29–33.
(26) Harwood, W. S.; Reiff, R.; Phillipson, T. Scientists’ Concep-
tions of Scientific Inquiry: Voices from the Front. In Proceedings of the
Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of
Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC, January 10
13, 2002; ED 465632.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED465632.pdf (accessed Apr 2011).
(27) Fellows, N. J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1994, 31 (9), 985–1001.
(28) Mason, L.; Boscolo, P. Instructional Sci. 2000, 28 (3), 199–226.
(29) Ruggles Gere, A. Roots in the Sawdust: Writing To Learn across
the Disciplines; National Council of Teachers of English: Urbana, IL,
1985.
(30) Langer, J. A.; Applebee, A. N. How Writing Shapes Thinking: A
Study of Teaching and Learning; National Council of Teachers of English:
Urbana, IL, 1987.
(31) Tro, N. J. Introductory Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Pearson Education,
Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009.
(32) Stevens, K. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (3), 327–328.
(33) Wood, C.; Breyfogle, B. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (5), 741–748.

1047 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed100363n |J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1041–1047