EMPHASIZING THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE USING DEMONSTRATIONS IN CONCEPTUAL
CHEMISTRY
By
Courtney A. Lutz

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Biological Science – Interdepartmental – Master of Science
2015

i

ABSTRACT
EMPHASIZING THE PROCESS OF SCIENCE USING DEMONSTRATIONS IN CONCEPTUAL
CHEMISTRY
By
Courtney A. Lutz
The purpose of this project was to teach students a method for employing the process of
science in a conceptual chemistry classroom when observing a demonstration of a discrepant
event. Students observed six demonstrations throughout a trimester study of chemistry and
responded to each demonstration by asking as many questions as they could think of, choosing
one testable question to answer by making as many hypotheses as possible, and choosing one
hypothesis to make predictions about observed results of this hypothesis when tested.
Students were evaluated on their curiosity, confidence, knowledge of the process of science,
and knowledge of the nature of science before and after the six demonstrations. Many
students showed improvement in using or mastery of the process of science within the context
of conceptual chemistry after six intensive experiences with it. Results of the study also
showed students gained confidence in their scientific abilities after completing one trimester of
conceptual chemistry. Curiosity and knowledge of the nature of science did not show
statistically significant improvement according to the assessment tool. This may have been due
to the scope of the demonstration and response activities, which focused on the process of
science methodology instead of knowledge of the nature of science or the constraints of the
assessment tool.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to dedicate this work to Libby Lutz, my daughter, who was there through
every part of the master’s process with me. She was in the womb for the ecology summer and
thought of fondly throughout the first two summers of her life as I spent time away from her to
complete the rest of the course work. I also want to thank my husband Nate for his support
through this degree program. He has freely given his time and energy to care for our child
while I was away working on this degree and it could not have been accomplished without his
sacrifice.
I would like to thank my mother for her professional feedback regarding the
introduction of the thesis as well as the inspiration she is to me. Although I wasn’t alive to
witness her dedication, as well as my father’s, to their master’s degrees, I was old enough to
remember all the hours she spent working on her doctoral dissertation. Her passion for higher
learning and ambition for graduate degree achievement has set for me a self-expectation to
work toward this degree even if not a requirement of my profession, but instead because of the
joy that learning brings and the feeling of accomplishment of working toward a goal and
achieving it.
I would also like to thank my instructors in the master’s program: Merle Heidemann
and Charles Elzinga. Both of whom were highly inspirational and made the program one of
incredible value to me personally as well as professionally. I want to thank Merle for reading all
my Frontiers papers and my thesis and offering thoughtful and constructive feedback on each
work. And for her use of the problem-based learning model which increased my understanding
of genetics, epigenetics, immune system function, and many other cellular processes. I want to
iii

thank Chuck for sharing with us his passion for ecology and philosophy of ecology education.
The summer we spent at Kellogg Biological Station was so memorable and enjoyable; it will stay
with me always.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST TABLES

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

vii

INTRODUCTION
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Student Understanding of the Process of Science and the
Nature of Science
The Use of Demonstrations in Science Classrooms
Application of the Process of Science using Demonstrations
DEMOGRAPHICS

1
1

IMPLEMENTATION
ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITES

18
21

RESULTS

30

DISCUSSION

39

CONCLUSION

46

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – FORMS
APPENDIX 2 – TEACHER NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS
APPENDIX 3 – STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS AND ACTIVITIES
APPENDIX 4 – ASSESSMENT TOOLS

48
49
53
58
60

REFERENCES

66

v

1
6
13
16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. A rubric containing the scoring guide used to evaluate pretest and posttest
assessments

vi

63

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Posttest averages were higher than pretest averages for every hour. These
differences were not statistically significant according to paired t-test results for all
but the 1st hour class. (n1st = 17, n2nd = 17, n3rd = 16, n4th = 16)

31

Figure 2. Pretest and posttest averages compared among students within five letter
grade categories with paired t-tests showed groups A-D had statistically significant
differences. The F group did not show statistically significant differences between
pretest and posttest and had a negative direction of change. (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 21,
nD = 11, nF = 5)

32

Figure 3. Each group (except for the F letter grade category) showed improvement,
small but not statistically significant according to a paired t-test, in their curiosity
scores. (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 21, nD = 11, nF = 5)

34

Figure 4. Confidence scores improved for all letter grade categories expect for those
35
students who earned an F in the course. Scores for A, B, and C categories showed
statistically significant differences according to a paired t-test. (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 21,
nD = 11, nF = 5)
Figure 5. Process of science (POS) scores showed a greater degree of statistically
significant difference for B and C letter grade categories than for A using a paired
t-test. F letter grade category showed lower scores on the posttest. (nA = 8, nB = 21,
nC = 19, nD = 8, nF = 5)

37

Figure 6. Nature of science (NOS) scores showed very little change from pretest to
posttest. None of the changes were statistically significant according to a paired ttest (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 21, nD = 11, nF = 5)

38

vii

INTRODUCTION
This study explored the use of demonstrations as a mode to teach the process of science
in a conceptual chemistry classroom. Therefore, two bodies of research informed the direction
of this study: research on the use of demonstrations in the science classroom and research on
the teaching of the process of science. This study also sought to determine whether teaching
the process of science through demonstrations would increase a student’s understanding of the
nature of science, his/her curiosity regarding observed discrepancies, as well as confidence in
his or her scientific abilities.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Student Understanding of the Process of Science and the Nature of Science
According to a 2012 study by Vazquez-Alonso, García-Carmona, Manassero-Mas &
Bennàssar-Roig (2012), students do not have a clear understanding of the distinction among
scientific laws, theories, or hypotheses. By teaching the differences between these categories,
students may be able to appreciate how tentative conclusions from a hypothesis can over time,
with myriad amounts of accumulated evidence, be considered less provisional and instead
more certain. The same study asserted that, teachers themselves do not fully accept the
tentative nature of conclusions reached by the scientific community and therefore cannot
adequately teach this to their students. Matson (2012) provided a resource to his students and
colleagues on his website to teach the distinction between theory and law. A scientific theory is
used to explain how nature works and a scientific law is used to state what nature does under
certain conditions. He explained that there is no hierarchy for theories and laws (i.e. theories

1

do not become laws over time). Teaching this difference was important for students to
conceptualize the nature of scientific knowledge.
Teachers want students to act as scientists and question many ideas, but they also do not
want to open Pandora’s box and have students question widely-accepted principles in science
which would hinder their understanding of the topic at hand (Kang & Wallace 2005). However,
students need to see this uncertainty as a valuable part of the scientific process (Kirch & Siry
2012) and to be reflective on how scientists think as well, questioning their environment,
looking at observations critically, and challenging assumptions.
Students must come to understand the tentative nature of scientific knowledge and the
processes and experimentation that resulted in that knowledge (Duschl 1988). If too much
emphasis is placed on correct answers and high grades, students will miss out on the major
purpose of science, which is to find things out (AAAS 1989). The scientific process is highly
recursive, requiring a constant return to asking questions, generating predictions, testing
hypotheses, discussing with peers and colleagues, and refining conclusions (e.g. Salter & Atkins
2014, Fives, Huebner, Birnbaum & Nicolich 2014). Students must also be given opportunities to
collaborate with peers to discuss uncertainties, curiosities, questions, hypotheses, and
predictions in order for them to see the importance of the same collaboration occurring within
the scientific community (AAAS 1989). This will advance their scientific reasoning and
communication skills.
The methods used in this study of analyzing observations derived from demonstrations are
designed to increase scientific reasoning and an understanding of the process of science as well
as the nature of science. In order for students to gain understanding of the nature of science,

2

its character must be explicitly taught. The difference between observation and inference,
theory and law, the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, and role of creativity in science
will not be acquired by students through participation in common lab activities as is assumed by
many if not most practicing teachers (Abd-El-Khalik, Bell & Lederman 1997).
When students come to appreciate the nature of science, their scientific literacy will
increase as well (Fives et al 2014). Even if students are not bound for a science-centered
profession, scientific literacy, as it applies to reasoning and hypothesis testing, is important for
all members of society (Deming, McDonnell & Malone 2012). According to Fives, et al. (2014)
“a scientifically literate person, at the very least, must be able to determine whether and how
science can be used to address questions in daily life.” Feinstein (2011) describes the science
literacy of the ideal citizen as one of the “competent outsider,” a person who considers him or
herself outside of science but can reach into science when it becomes relevant to his or her
interest or needs. He argues that people will take on the role of competent outsider only after
realizing the relevance of science to their daily lives or deepest concerns and interests. A goal
of education is to help students reach this conclusion through practice with relevant, interestgenerating topics in science class. A scientifically literate person is critical of scientific claims
and will think to ask, “Are these details verifiable?” when presented with a claim made in the
news or by people with whom they associate. Students need more than just scientific
knowledge to be scientifically literate, they must have had the desire and capability to engage
in scientific activities and apply scientific knowledge to their daily lives (Fives et al. 2014).
This is in contrast to what Feinstein (2011) characterizes as the “marginal insider,” a
scientifically illiterate person, someone with a limited understanding of science such that he or

3

she viewed knowledge possessed as irrelevant to any situation outside of a science lab or
classroom. Marginal insiders were less interested in science and less likely to seek out scientific
information to solve a problem than a competent outsider.
According to Talanquer (2013), the way to build knowledge and thinking skills is to
engage students in the process of “asking relevant questions and exploring different ways of
pursuing them.” Lawson (1993) in the Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning
Project proposes, “[i]f materials are well chosen, questions are posed, and students are
prompted to think through data and problems, much can be done to encourage the acquisition
of more adaptive mental structure.” (p.140)
Students must be encouraged and taught to accept the nature of scientific knowledge, to
build an understanding of the tentative nature of ideas and the necessity of collaborating with
peers when working to resolve uncertainty by gathering data through hypothesis testing as
scientists do. Even students who consider themselves science-outsiders benefit from classroom
opportunities such as this, which improved scientific literacy (Feinstein 2011) and increased
student confidence in their scientific abilities and potential (Milne & Otieno 2007).
To promote scientific literacy teachers must help all students see the value in participating
in science, its relevance to their world, and the positive experience it can bring. Students must
also feel confident in their reasoning and in their understanding of the nature and process of
science in order to apply it consistently, making connections to science beyond the classroom
(Fives et al 2014). In addition, to build a student’s subject confidence, which influences one’s
likelihood of pursuing a scientific career (Krogh & Moeller 2013), teachers must be mindful of
how they respond to student questions and ideas when teaching about the process of science.

4

Responses to student questions, predictions, and hypotheses should be carefully tailored to
encourage critical thinking and making observations, to promote dialogue, and to build
students’ confidence in their own scientific reasoning (Katchevich, Hofstein & MamlockNaaman 2011, Milne & Otieno 2007). A teacher with an authoritarian presence often creates
an environment that intimidates students from asking questions, stifling dialogue, student
problem solving, and creativity (Kang & Wallace 2005). According to Fives et al. (2014), “[i]t is
not enough for students to be able to know about science or how to engage in science, but that
they must actually do so and feel confident about that capability.”
Conducting multiple demonstrations illustrating the same concept can be a way of building
student confidence. It takes time for some students to feel comfortable participating in
discussion and generation of questions, hypotheses, and predictions. However, this must be
balanced with the risk of repetition and boredom in order to create an environment that is
approachable, but does not seem repetitive. Withdrawn students or those lacking confidence
may come to feel safe asking questions, proposing hypotheses, or suggesting questions for
further study with subsequent demonstrations and positive classroom energy and feedback
(Milne & Otieno 2007).
Emphasis and importance should be placed on building student subject confidence in
science classes through positive student-teacher interactions. Students are more likely to
pursue additional science education when they identify more closely with their science teachers
(if students like their teacher or see themselves as similar) or if their science teacher challenges
negative perceptions of the “categorical prototype” of what type of people are scientists
(Kessels & Taconis 2012). “Students belonging to marginalized groups do not find science

5

engaging because it often seems irrelevant to their lives and remains inaccessible because its
very structures embody ways of being that are associated with being White, middle class, and
male” (Milne & Otieno 2007). Students would be more inclined to engaged in the process and
pursue scientific literacy for themselves if they were able to see science as approachable, that
at its core, science is primarily about asking questions and seeking answers to these scientific
questions through hypothesis testing.
Although the curriculum of conceptual chemistry at Grand Ledge High School is tailored for
those students who are not bound for science degree programs at the college-level, students
should be encouraged to approach their chosen path, science related or not, with curiosity and
critical thinking. In past school years, the researcher has observed students who placed
themselves in conceptual chemistry due to their low level of confidence in their science skills,
yet left the class with an affinity for chemistry and the desire to learn more. The postassessment to evaluate this project contains response items designed to reveal if this subjective
observation can be supported by evidence and if learning the process of science increased
student subject confidence.
The Use of Demonstrations in Science Classrooms
Demonstrations are used at all levels, primary, secondary, and post-secondary, and in
nearly every subject area of science to engage students and illustrate scientific principles. A
body of research supports the use of demonstrations in the classroom to accomplish the
aforementioned pedagogical goals (e.g. Beasley 1982, Liem 1992, Milne & Otieno 2007). Other
studies warn that demonstrations are not as effective at increasing student understanding of
science content or scientific principles as teachers may believe (Roth, McRobbie, Lucas &

6

Bautonne 1997, Kang & Wallace 2005). This study (the subject of this thesis) endeavored to
contribute to this body of research to show that demonstrations can be used to incite curiosity,
engagement, and a sense of wonder, and to build excitement about chemistry at the secondary
level as well as serve as a vehicle through which to teach the process of science and increase
scientific literacy.
A study conducted by Beasley (1982) confirmed the usefulness of demonstrations in
generating attention, motivation, enjoyment, and task involvement for science students at the
secondary level. Liem (1992) described demonstrations as the use of discrepant events to
arouse curiosity and interest in topics. Appealing to natural curiosity and engaging students is
especially important for the pupil demographic in conceptual chemistry courses, where
students may consider themselves “science outsiders,” not bound for a science-centered or
science-related professions.
Demonstrations and lab activities are often designed and implemented to challenge
students’ prior knowledge or misconceptions (Kang & Wallace 2005). For a demonstration to
be effective, it must contain an element of the unexpected, even if it is not spectacular.
Observing the unexpected creates a dissonance that students are driven to resolve. Therefore,
they will be motivated to pursue an explanation of the science behind their observations (Liem
1992). However, teachers must be warned against the misuse of demonstrations. A
demonstration must also be accompanied by context. Chemistry has the tendency to lend itself
to a misperception of being supernatural, simply because the science is not understood and
with mechanisms at the unseen atomic/molecular level. Mysterious and confusing or flashy
and circus-like demonstrations do not accomplish the same end goal of understanding resulting

7

from curiosity and wonder as demonstrations conducted with a purpose using guided inquiry
cognition (Hadzigeorgiou 2012, Milne & Otieno 2007).
Curiosity and wonder are common ground on which all students can begin the process of
learning. A study by Hadzigeorgiou (2012) found that wonder allows those who may see
themselves as “science outsiders” to engage in the processing of scientific concepts and to
continue to retain ideas and concepts longer. In Hadzigeorgiou’s study, students in a traditional
class, where the teacher made no targeted effort to foster wonder, retained less information
and were less likely to elaborate on the information or to think about it over a period of time.
In the class where student wonder was incorporated into teaching, more students became
engaged and involved. The use of wonder eliminated a gap found in the control group between
the participation of high-academically achieving males and under-achieving males and females
of all academic ranges. Wonder helped students focus on the new idea of study and allowed
them to pay better attention to it, allowing the researcher to conclude that wonder is a
“prerequisite for significant learning” (Hadzigeorgiou 2012). Although Hadzigeorgiou
distinguished between wonder and curiosity in his paper, he recognizes the interchangeable
use of these terms. For the purpose of this study, wonder and curiosity were considered to be
equivalent entities.
Hadzigeorgiou (ibid) found that, “[a] student’s experience of a sense of wonder becomes a
source for questions”. Any teacher of elementary grades could confirm that young students
love to ask questions. However, students at the secondary level can be more hesitant to do so
(Roth et al. 1997). Could it be that students stop wondering because they believe they already
understand? Do secondary students feel embarrassed about asking questions, as though they

8

are less intelligent for asking them? Or do they truly stop feeling curious, no longer wondering
about the world around them? Regardless of the reason, teachers must make question
generation by students a goal in science class as it is one of the most important learning tools a
student can access, according to Postman in Hadzigeorgiou (2012). When asked a question
about a demonstration, it is critical for a teacher to assess and probe why the student may have
the question he or she asked. This will reveal misconceptions and errors in logic that a teacher
can then address and seek to correct (Roth et al. 1997).
In addition to questioning, engagement is also a requirement for learning. According to a
study by Milne and Otieno (2007) there are three different kinds of engagement: behavioral,
emotional and cognitive. Behavioral engagement relates to participation in classroom activities
and actions and involves persistence, concentration, asking questions, and contributing to class
discussions. Emotional engagement influences a student’s willingness to participate due to the
combined reaction to peers, teacher, content, and school. A positive teacher response to a
student’s participation will increase the likelihood that that student will open him or herself up
to participate again. Cognitive engagement indicates a willingness on the part of the student to
exert the effort required to understand difficult concepts. All of these subsets of engagement
must be considered for a learning task to be successful and, since chemistry is seen as a difficult
subject, it is all the more critical to engage students on all three levels to increase their
successful understanding of the material. Milne and Otieno (ibid) found that student
engagement in all three areas required positive emotional energy to be generated by the
activity, in this case, a demonstration. Teachers can look for evidence of engagement exhibited
through student body language, including tracking the demonstration with posture and eye

9

contact, participation in resulting discussion and dialogue, or suggesting hypotheses,
predictions, or questions for further study. The more evidence of engagement exhibited by the
student, the more successful the learning task will be.
Not only should demonstrations be used to engage and inspire curiosity, they must also
target learning of scientific principles. In order to understand the science of the demonstration
and not simply be awed by a discrepant event, students must have prior knowledge or be
provided context to allow them to put their observations in context and generate the kinds of
hypotheses and predictions useful in scientific thinking. Milne and Otieno (ibid) explained that,
“successful demonstrations depend very much on the extant knowledge of the observer. Very
often students do not have the prior experience, or a demonstration is so far removed from
their prior experiences, that students do not ‘see’ what the demonstration is supposed to
show.” Roth et al.’s (1997) findings also confirm this conclusion.
One way to activate student prior knowledge during a demonstration is to use everyday
items or equipment. This serves the dual purposes of promoting understanding of the
demonstration and increasing behavioral engagement. Seeing familiar items behaving in
unexpected ways increase the urgency to resolve the discrepancy and lead to greater cognitive
engagement (Milne & Otieno 2007).
Roth et al. (1997) criticized the use of demonstrations in a single case-study classroom,
but did so mainly due to the nature of the presentation method and lack of context surrounding
the demonstration, such that students missed the principles intended for illustration. The
recommendations of their study to make demonstrations more effective were to provide
students with enough background information to actually focus on the relevant aspects of the

10

demonstration; to acknowledge relevant prior knowledge that can create misconceptions when
observing the demonstration; and to allow students time to discuss their observations so they
can make the desired connections between their observations and the ideas of the lesson. By
adding structure to demonstrations, students could learn from rather than just be entertained
by them.
Since a demonstration is a class-wide shared experience, observing demonstrations
levels a gap in prior knowledge for some students, allowing them access to participation they
may have otherwise denied themselves. Laboratory activities are assumed to be shared
experiences as well. However, the observations students make during individual or small group
experiments may lead to different interpretations of observations for students in different
groups. On the other hand, demonstration experience allows students to process together
their shared observations, resulting in a more cohesive understanding of them. Students and
teachers can both refer back to the demonstration throughout the unit or in future units and
the shared prior knowledge of that experience will contribute to understanding of scientific
concepts in the current lesson (Milne & Otieno 2007).
Students often leave science classrooms with misconceptions about the nature of
science because most of lab activities they perform were designed to confirm some scientific
principle they were learning rather than cause them to explore questions within the subject
matter. Even when they perform laboratory activities, students are not truly acting and
thinking like scientists (Kang & Wallace 2005, Kessels & Taconis 2012). Coupling
demonstrations with the process of science, as in the study of this thesis, was intended to help
students think as scientists do. Teachers must think about the goal of the activity, in this case,

11

demonstrations, when planning. Sometimes the goal of the laboratory experience is to confirm
what has been taught in order to reinforce understanding of a concept; other times the goal is
to work in an open-ended environment to engage students in the process of science through
reasoning and hypothesis testing. The intention of this study is to provide a framework to
accompany demonstrations to accomplish the latter goal.
When lab activities were designed to confirm a scientific concept, instead of seeking an
answer to a scientific question, these experiments did not elicit dialogue (Katchevich et al.
2011) and did not allow students to do the work of actual scientists. Instead students were
asked to replicate expected results to acquire a correct answer (Vazquez-Alonso et al. 2012).
This communicates a misperception that scientists think and operate in a similar manner and
does not reflect the truly tentative nature of science. One might argue that demonstrations are
confirmatory, even more so than lab activities because the student is further removed from
performing the activity. However, demonstrations can provide an opportunity for students to
participate in the process of science, giving it value. If students can be engaged in the practice
of using scientific inquiry, or intelligent curiosity (Kirch & Siry 2012), to ask questions, suggest
hypotheses, and make predictions, they will have a better understanding of the nature of
science and feel more connected to the information they discover.
Students have a limited understanding of the nature of science because the majority of
science content is presented as absolute truth by textbooks as well as teachers (AAAS 1989).
This authoritarian view of the nature of science causes students to see conclusions as facts in
their final form (Duschl 1988). According to Talanquer (2013), “the central problem with school
chemistry is that we keep insisting on teaching ‘what we know and can explain with that

12

knowledge’.” Teachers who use demonstrations without considering the deeper
interpretations that can be made from observations are communicating the impression to
students that science is a body of facts, rather than a process of problem solving where more
than one interpretation of an observation could be correct (Kang & Wallace 2005).
Demonstrations, when structured with appropriate amounts of background information can
be a mechanism to engage students, inspire curiosity and wonder, build confidence, and teach
the process of scientific thinking and reasoning. Any lab activity or demonstration
implemented in a science class should be done so with the intention of helping students think
like and behave as scientists do: asking questions, suggesting hypotheses, and making
predictions. By doing so, students will have a better understanding of the nature of science,
increased science literacy, and will feel more connected to the information they discover.
Application of the Process of Science using Demonstrations
This study sought to determine the effectiveness of demonstrations when coupled with
Fred Dyer’s (2014) methodology to teach scientific thinking to increase students’ subject
confidence, scientific curiosity, and knowledge of the process and nature of science for
students in a conceptual chemistry classroom. Dyer used videos as demonstrations of animal
behavior to arouse curiosity and elicit questions and hypotheses. Applying the same method of
scientific reasoning in a chemistry classroom, demonstrations of discrepant events should
accomplish the same goal. According to Milne and Otieno (2007) “Science demonstrations
have the potential to provide a beginning point for experiencing science, talking about
experiences, proposing questions, suggesting patterns, and testing those questions and
patterns.” In order to teach students about the process of science the use of demonstrations

13

must be “infused with science practice and strategies that interrogate students’ experiences of
the world.” With this structured approach to student involvement with demonstrations,
“students [will] begin to learn their way around science” (ibid).
To reinforce the relevance of scientific reasoning from one context to another and
promote student transfer of skills from science class to broader applications, demonstrations
were conducted to begin each of six successive units. In keeping with the philosophy of
Patchen & Smithenry (2013), a new demonstration for each unit provided a new context to
apply the same process of science procedure, providing repeated exposure and processing time
for the practice of scientific thinking to become assimilated (Lawson 1993). Teachers must
begin by promoting near transfer of skills by designing new and old contexts with enough
similarity to allow students to automatically make connections and apply previously taught
methods to new learning. However, in order to promote far transfer, which is the ultimate goal
for scientific thinking and literacy, teachers must also frame the learning in terms of social
relevance and how the process of science can be applied to the greater context of community
participation (Patchen & Smithenry 2013).
Traditionally teachers have used demonstrations to "convince their students of truth,"
(Kang & Wallace 2005) but instead, the demonstrations in this study, coupled with the process
of scientific methodology, were intended to inspire curiosity and questioning that lead to higher
scientific reasoning. Milne and Otieno (2007) found “As a result of engagement [through
science demonstrations], students participated in a greater range of activities such as writing,
asking questions, devising new experiments, and problem solving.”

14

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) included standards to focus curriculum and
instruction on the process of science in addition to the knowledge of science. Standards which
apply specifically to this study are: formulate, refine, and evaluate empirically testable
questions; evaluate questions that challenge the premise of an argument or the interpretation
of a data set; apply scientific principles and evidence to provide an explanation of phenomena,
taking into account possible unanticipated effects; construct and revise an explanation based
on valid and reliable evidence; recognize that empirical evidence is required to differentiate
between cause and correlation and make claims about specific causes and effects; and
communicate technical information or ideas (NGSS Lead States 2013, Appendix 2A). In public
school education where teachers are required to justify instruction by correlation with
standards, the NGSS provides a platform to substantiate the importance of time allotment for
teaching scientific reasoning as well as science content.

15

DEMOGRAPHICS
This research was conducted at Grand Ledge High School in Grand Ledge, Michigan.
Grand Ledge High School (GLHS) has an annual enrollment of 1,712. Grand Ledge Public
Schools reported a graduation rate of 89% in 2012 and a drop out rate of 10.5%. The district
wide pupil to teacher ratio is 24:1, which is similar to the ratio found in conceptual chemistry
classrooms. Grand Ledge Public Schools services a student population that is 83.7% white, 5.4%
Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 5.4% African American. 26% of students are considered economically
disadvantaged and in 2012, 100% of eligible students participated in the free and reduced lunch
program. In the Grand Ledge Public School System 12.6% of students are identified as students
with disabilities, either learning disabilities, emotional, cognitive, or other imparements (MI
School Data 2015).
Grand Ledge Public Schools serves both the city of Grand Ledge residents as well as the
outlying areas of Oneida and Delta Townships. The city of Grand Ledge has a population of
7,780 people; Delta Township and Oneida Township has a population of 29,682 people and
3,703 people respectively. Households in Grand Ledge, Delta Township, and Oneida Township
have a median household income of $50,852, $54,389, and $67,500 respectively. Of the adults
who live in Grand Ledge, 30% have completed high school or dropped out of high school, 43%
completed some college, and 27% completed a Bachelor’s degree or higher graduate degree.
In Delta Township, 27.9% of adults have completed high school or dropped out, 38.6%
completed some college, and 33.6% completed a bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree.
Oneida township had the same percentage of adults complete or drop out of high school as
those which completed some college, 27.8% and 44.4% of adults completed a bachelor’s

16

degree or beyond (Delta charter township, Eaton County, Michigan 2015, Grand Ledge,
Michigan 2015, Oneida charter township, Eaton County, Michigan 2015).
Students in the conceptual chemistry course of this study were sophomores, juniors, or
seniors who successfully completed biology (with few exceptions). There were two levels of
chemistry classes offered to students at Grand Ledge High School: conceptual chemistry and a
college preparatory chemistry curriculum, simply called chemistry. Students were allowed to
choose to register for either of the two courses and both count toward the science graduation
requirement of either chemistry or physics as required by the state of Michigan. Students
based their choice of course based on anticipated career path and level of completed
mathematics, in combination with an interest in the topic.
In order to participate in the study, students had to complete a consent/assent form
(Appendix 1A) with their signature and the signature of their parents/guardians granting their
permission for their student’s data to be used in the data set. Signed consent forms were
deposited in a sealed receptacle and were opened by the researcher after the final grades of
Trimester 1 had been officially filed.

17

IMPLEMENTATION
This project studied the participation of students in the process of science in the context
of viewing a demonstration at the start of each unit in a conceptual chemistry class. Students
were presented with a demonstration, a discrepant event, designed to challenge their senses,
insight curiosity, and invoke questions about the unit topic (Appendix 2C). After observing the
demonstration, students were asked to spend three minutes generating as many questions as
possible. Students were instructed not to make judgments about any questions and to press
through a lull in questions until more occurred to them (Appendix 2B). As a class, the students
collectively listed their questions, sorting them by idea and type, identifying the testable
questions, and choosing one in which to test in class. The answers to the testable question,
hypotheses, were collaboratively shared and one was chosen about which to make predictions.
The predictions were of what the class would observe if the observation gave evidence to
support the hypothesis or to refute it. Hypotheses were then tested to answer the scientific,
testable question.
Assessment of student growth throughout the project came from a pretest/posttest
comparison (Appendix 4A) as well as comparison of response to questions for each
demonstration (Appendix 3A). Students were administered a pretest after a two and a half day
series of activities designed to build classroom culture. Students were notified that the pretest
was part of the research project. The post-test was implemented on the final exam day, the
last day of trimester, after the content exam was administered. Students were aware that posttest was for research and not a grade in the class.

18

Pretest and posttest assessments were graded with a rubric (Appendix 4B). Scores were
tabulated as totals as well as according to topic of question. The first three questions were
designed to test a student’s knowledge of the nature of science by requiring them to define a
hypothesis, explain the process by which a hypothesis could be considered a scientific theory or
law, and answer a multiple choice question which asked them to differentiate between science
as a body of knowledge and facts and a diverse way of problem solving or scientists’ tentative
explanations for observations validated through rigorous inquiry processes. Students could
score a maximum of seven points on these three questions, two points for the first two
questions each and up to three on the third question. Questions five, eight, and ten on the
assessment tool determined a student’s curiosity score by comparing how many questions they
generated on the pretest to how many questions they generated on the posttest in response to
a graphic, an article, and a graph comparison. Generating three or more questions for each
item earned the student three points, two, one, and zero questions were worth two, one and
zero points respectively. The assessment portion with the greatest correlation to the activities
performed in the study assessed the students’ ability to apply the process of science
methodology to a prompt closely resembling the Unit 5 demonstration. Students were asked
to record as many questions as they could in response to the description of an observation of a
discrepant event, choose the most testable question, and record two hypotheses. Then they
were asked to choose one hypothesis and make predictions of what evidence they might
observe which would support or refute it. Students could earn up to three points each for the
hypothesis and question generating items and up to two points for each of the prediction
items, one to support and one to refute the hypothesis, for a total of 10 points on the process

19

of science section. Lastly, the assessment tool asked students to self-report on their confidence
in their science abilities by asking them to rate five statements on a scale from one to five,
where one was strongly disagree, two disagree, three neutral, four agree, and five strongly
agree. The statements to evaluate confidence were: 1) I am good at science, 2) I am good at
chemistry, 3) I would voluntarily take another high school science class, 4) I would voluntarily
take a college-level science class, and 5) I am likely to go into a science-related profession.
Ratings for these five statements were totaled and given a point value of two, one, or zero in
the rubric scoring. A total rating of on these five items of 25-17 was worth two points, 16-9 was
worth one point, and 8-5 was worth zero points. Also scores reported for the first two items
totaled separately from the last three, where a score of 10-7 was worth two points, 6-4 was
worth one point, and 3-2 was worth zero points. The last three items totaled separately had a
point value range of 15-10 worth two points, 9-5 worth one point, and 4-3 worth zero points.
The rubric points were then totaled for each student with a maximum score of six and a
minimum score of zero for a confidence score.
Total score on pretest and posttest were evaluated with a paired t-test as well as scores
for the areas of curiosity, confidence, knowledge of the process of science, and the nature of
science each with a separate paired t-test.

20

ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITIES
The first unit of the course was a study of acids and bases. The demonstration for this
unit was called the “Magic Pitcher” (Appendix 2C) and used a solution containing the indicator
phenolphthalein and a series of acids or bases hidden in the bottom of cups to change the color
of the liquid as it was poured into the cups. Students were led to believe that the fuchsiacolored substance was raspberry kool-aid and that the clear substance was drinking water.
Before being asked to participate in the process of science, students were instructed that the
all-encompassing scientific question was “What’s up with that?” as stated by Dr. Fred Dyer, but
that the job of scientists was to expound upon that question in order to shed light upon what
seems mysterious to an observer. Students were encouraged to be as curious as possible and
were told that one of the most important traits of a scientist was a burning curiosity to
understand the world around them. Students were encouraged to celebrate any time they
asked the same question as one of their peers, acknowledging that humans are all curious
about similar things and also to celebrate the length of the list of questions the class generated,
since that indicated that humans are curious about many, many things (Dyer 2014, Appendix
2B). Students actively participated in question generation and testing hypotheses. The testable
question each class chose to explore was “What could be in the cup that caused the color to
change?” Hypotheses varied greatly and included testable substances: lemon juice, vinegar,
bleach, ammonia, salt, hydrogen peroxide, and acids and bases in general, as well as other
untestable substances: clear paste, special plastic, a certain kind of chemical, a dissolved solid.
Students chose one of the chemicals on which to base predictions. Three of the four classes
chose the hypothesis that lemon juice was the chemical that turned the liquid fuchsia. A

21

prediction of observations that supported this hypothesis was that clear liquid turned fuchsia in
the presence of lemon juice in a cup. Predictions of observations that would offer evidence to
refute this hypothesis were if nothing happened, clear liquid stayed clear, or a different color
was produced. The instructor gathered as many of the suggested substances as possible, added
them to the bottom of cups, and poured liquid from the pitcher over each while students
observed and assessed.
The Unit 1 demonstration was one of the most successful of the activities for a number
of reasons. One reason was that there was enough time budgeted for it. The issue of time
became a limiting constraint as the trimester progressed. The conceptual chemistry curriculum
was written to deliver the content through 71-minute lessons over 53 or fewer school days.
There was very little room for adjustment of this timeline to accommodate the amount of time
that the process of science required. Curiosity, creative thinking, and problems solving are
processes that require time to be fully experienced. The demonstrations and process of science
analysis could potentially have been given 50 minutes, but required at least 30 minutes. In past
years, the demonstration activity was allotted 10 minutes maximum and sometimes none at all.
Another reason the Unit 1 demonstration was successful at generating curiosity and questions
was the high level of prior knowledge the students possessed and applied to their questioning.
Students generated an average of 12 questions per class, 11 of those were considered testable.
The chosen testable question to investigate, “what could be in the cups to produce the
observed result?” was easy to answer by suggesting familiar substances from their everyday
lives. This was a trend that prevailed throughout the study – the more prior knowledge
students possessed, the greater the depth of questions they were able to generate.

22

The second unit of study was the properties of matter, including distinguishing between
physical and chemical changes. Students were asked to learn five pieces of evidence which can
be observed to indicate a chemical reaction has taken place: production of light, generation of
gas, change in heat energy, color change, and precipitate formation. The demonstration at the
beginning of this unit was called the Iodine Clock-Reaction, a dramatic chemical change with a
delayed color change and precipitate formation. The delay of the reaction was the part of the
demonstration that students wondered about the most, causing them to ask, “what would
happen if you used different amounts of each reactant liquid?” Hypotheses included: the
speed of reaction would increase or decrease, the color change would be more or less, no
change in result, different color, explosions. In fact, explosions (a combustion reaction
producing heat, light, and sound) were suggested as a possible hypothesis for almost every
demonstration. This hypothesis was never criticized, only acknowledged that some hypotheses
are more likely than others based on the scientist’s knowledge of the chemical nature of the
substances involved. To test the hypothesis the instructor had prepared a series of solutions
with varying amounts of potassium iodate (KIO3) and combined it with a constant solution of
potato starch and sodium metabisulfite. Students took time measurements to compare the
concentrations of KIO3 and its effect on the rate of the reaction. Students timed the rate of
color change and precipitate formation and found that as the amount of KIO3 increased, the
time for the reaction to occur decreased.
In the Unit 2 demonstration, students used their experience with the process of science
from the first unit to make hypotheses and predictions more quickly than the first unit.
However, their lower level of prior knowledge related to this demonstration caused them to ask

23

fewer testable questions, two fewer on average per class than the Unit 1 demonstration.
Despite their growing familiarity with the process of science they were only able to ask an
average of 0.5 more questions than the first unit, suggesting the negative impact of a lack of
prior knowledge on the ability to articulate curiosity and pose testable questions.
The third unit of study in conceptual chemistry was gas laws. Objectives for this unit
required students to identify how volume, temperature, and pressure influence each other
within gases. Students were taught Boyle’s Law, Charles’ Law, and the Combined Gas Law.
Since conceptual chemistry focuses on reducing the mathematics in chemistry students were
not required to memorize formulas or to demonstrate an ability to reformulate formulas to
solve for each variable. Students were, however, required to explain how the behavior of gases
under certain conditions of pressure and temperature caused the results of many different
demonstrations and experiments. The demonstration at the beginning of the unit, before
instruction was given, was a can crushing demonstration where a can was heated with a small
amount of water in the bottom and, once steam escaped, was inverted into a shallow bowl of
water and became crushed by the air pressure outside the can. Each class chose a slightly
different testable question to investigate. Three of the four classes chose to ask if the size of
the can would influence how fast the air pressure could crush the can. In one of those three
classes, students also wondered if the brand of the pop can would have a difference on the rate
of crushing. These questions were tested when students brought in different cans from their
home or lunches and crushed them using the same method as the initial demonstration to find
that the speed was the same regardless of the size of can or the brand of pop. One class asked
if the can would crush in the same way if water had not been placed in the bottom of the can

24

while heated, but some other liquid. Some pop was left in one can and water was placed in the
other. It was found that the same speed of reaction occurred but that the can with the pop in it
was considerably less pleasant to heat due to the burning of sugars within the pop liquid.
For the Unit 3 demonstration, students generated an average of 17.25 questions per
class. Of the six unit demonstrations, students were able to generate an average of five more
questions for Unit 3 than the demonstrations than those with the lowest number of questions
generated and three questions more than the demonstration with the next closest question
total. High prior knowledge allowed students to respond quickly when asked to make
hypotheses and predict the observed results that would support or refute a chosen hypothesis.
This demonstration was negatively influenced by time constraints. The classes were not able to
finish the process of science analysis on the same day as the initial demonstration, therefore it
was completed later in the unit as time was found. Some classes had to wait until the very end
of the unit to complete their hypothesis testing.
The fourth unit in conceptual chemistry was a unit exploring models of atomic structure
and focused specifically on the structure of the nucleus, including radioactive nuclei and
different kinds of decay. The intangible nature of subatomic particles made a demonstration
more challenging. A cloud chamber was used to generate alpha and beta particles from the
radioactive decay of thorium and radium within a lantern mantel. This was the least successful
demonstration because it was hard for students to see and in some classes, very few particles
were emitted at all. These issues were caused primarily because the radioactive source had
been allowed to soak in the isopropyl alcohol used for cloud generation. This caused the
particles not to freely move about in the chamber as they do when the particle-emitting sample

25

was dry. This demonstration was influenced more than any other by a lack of time. Two
classes were asked to view a video of the demonstration at home rather than see it in person.
For all classes, time constrains caused the discussion of the process of science to be eliminated
and students were asked to complete the questioning, hypothesis, and prediction portions of
the process on their own without class-wide collaboration or teacher facilitation. Therefore,
analysis of participation in this activity gave the most insight into student’s ability to navigate
the process of science independently. Students who saw the cloud chamber in person tended
to ask about the dry ice used to generate the cloud and if ice made from water would have the
same effect. Participation in the process of science hypothesis and prediction portions flowed
well from these kinds of questions and therefore, students who chose this question to “test”
completed the process well. Those who had to view the demonstration via a video did not
generate a testable question as easily and were more likely to generate a question regarding
the apparatus itself: “is it cold or hot in the chamber?” or “will the glass shatter?” Students
who did ask these questions did their best to complete the hypothesis and prediction
components in the same way as modeled in the previous demonstrations done as a class.
The fifth unit of study in conceptual chemistry was a unit on the production of light by
electrons, the electromagnetic spectrum, and electron configurations at ground state. To
illustrate electrons producing light, a glow stick was used. To produce a discrepant event, after
mixing the chemicals from a glow stick, the liquid was divided evenly and placed in two test
tubes, which were submerged in either an ice bath or a hot water bath. This demonstration
elicited many questions regarding the relationship between students’ prior knowledge and the
results they observed. Half of all questions generated were testable and students took a

26

greater role in choosing which should be tested and the predictions of what would happen than
in previous demonstrations, testing their ability to work through the process of science without
teacher intervention. Two of the four classes chose to ask what would happen if the test tube
in the hot water bath were placed in the ice water bath and vise versa. They found that the
intensity of light production decreased in the hot-to-cold test tube and increased in the cold-tohot test tube. One class asked if light intensity would be greater if a test tube were placed in a
bath of boiling water compared to the hot water bath. They found that only a slight increase
could be observed, but that there was a greater amount of light produced by the glow stick
chemicals in the boiling water bath. Finally, one group asked what would happen if glow sticks
of different colors were mixed together. Although this question did not directly relate to the
hot and cold portion of the discrepant event, the question was testable and so they were able
to make hypotheses and predictions regarding the result of mixing. They found that when
orange and blue glow stick chemicals were mixed, both orange and blue were present, no new
color was produced and the colors did not blend together. Students found this demonstration
to be highly enjoyable due to the level of control they had over the testable question chosen
and were therefore quite interested in the results of the testing.
The sixth unit of study in conceptual chemistry was a study of the different periodic
trends found on the periodic table. Reactivity, atomic size, ionization energy, and type of
substance were the trends students were asked to learn. Alkali metal activity and reactivity
with water was chosen as the trend to illustrate through demonstration. Although some of the
lighter alkali metals were safe to react in front of students, the heavier ones become more
dangerous so videos were used to show the reactivities of lithium, sodium, and cesium with

27

water. The instructor chose to show videos for all three reactions because, although sodium
was available in the school’s chemical stock, lithium had not been ordered in time and alkali
metals heavier than sodium would not have been safe to demonstrate with under school
conditions. Students watched videos produced by the Periodic Table of Videos group from the
UK. Students generated the second highest number questions on average, 14.25 questions per
class, for this demonstration series. This was due to the fact that there were three reaction
videos to observe and students took time to generate questions between each reaction. Using
videos instead of a live demonstration did not seem to inhibit the students’ ability to navigate
through the process of science. However, viewing the reactions on video, not in person, may
have influenced how impressed they were by the reactions. Predictions and hypotheses were
generated but not tested due to safety. This illustrated that the process of science could be
applied even outside of the classroom, using scientific thinking to study any problem or
question. Two of the four classes asked about the temperature of the water, hypothesizing
that warmer water would generate a more violent reaction from each of the metals. The other
two classes asked if chemicals other than water would produce a similar reaction when alkali
metals were placed in the same reaction container
In general, the greatest factor influencing the implementation of this project was time.
Adding the process of science analysis to demonstrations, the time required to complete the
demonstration and analysis was three to four times the previous amount, or placed an activity
where none previously had been. The trimester timeline is not a very forgiving one and the end
of the trimester deadline influenced the amount of time that could be spent on these activities.
In a 55-minute period, semester timeline, compared to a 71-minutes trimester schedule, many

28

of these process of science activities could have taken approximately an entire period to allow
for ample question generation and allow students more time to think through predictions and
hypothesis generation.
When completing the demonstration and process of science analysis, most students were
very active in the process and generated many thoughtful and scientific questions. Still one of
the more frequently asked questions was, “how did you do that?” or “why this or that?” rather
than questions that could be tested and answered. By the sixth unit, students were more able
to identify testable questions as those which do not begin with why and to rephrase why
questions into testable questions.
The pretest and posttest assessment (Appendix 4A) process was also influenced by the time
constraints. Both the pretest and posttest relied on intrinsic motivation as the only incentive
for student performance. The posttest was given following the content exam on the last day of
the trimester. Posttest scores of some, if not many, students may have been influenced by
fatigue from testing or a desire to complete the posttest quickly in order to study for exams in
other courses. This observation led the researcher to ask, if a correlation between final grade
in the course and difference between pretest and posttest scores existed.

29

RESULTS
Data collected from four different class periods contained two sets of 17 student scores
and two sets of 16 student scores totaling 66 sets of data for analysis. The first hour of the day
had a pretest class average of 21.5 points out of a possible 41 points and a posttest average of
28.4 points out of the same. The second hour of the day had a pretest average of 21.1 points
and a posttest average of 24.1 points. The third class period had a pretest average of 19.4
points and a posttest average of 21.1 points. The fourth class period had a pretest average of
19.0 points and 21.1 points on the posttest. Although each hour showed improvement as a
whole, only the first hour group showed a statistically significant amount improvement,
according to a paired t-test, from pretest to posttest (p value = 0.008) causing the author to
reject the null hypothesis for this class that pretest and posttest scores were statistically the
same. The other three hours had p values of 0.289, 0.494, and 0.475 respectively, leading the
author to accept the null hypothesis that the pretest and posttest scores were the same.
Pretest and posttest averages by hour are shown in Figure 1.

30

Comparison of pretest and posttest scores by class
period
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ave Pre Ave Post Ave Pre Ave Post Ave Pre Ave Post Ave Pre Ave Post
1st Hour

2nd Hour

3rd Hour

4th Hour

Figure 1. Posttest averages were higher than pretest averages for every hour. These
differences were not statistically significant according to paired t-test results for all but the 1st
hour class. (n1st = 17, n2nd = 17, n3rd = 16, n4th = 16)
Since class averages did not show statistically significant difference, subgroups earning
each of five letter grades as their final grade in the course (A, B, C, D, and F) within all four
classes were analyzed to determine if, for example, a group of students earning As in the course
for all classes showed a statistically significant amount of improvement on the posttest. In all
five letter-grade categories, a greater degree of statistical difference was observed between
pretest and posttest averages than when the same scores were sorted according to hour of
attendance. Pretest and posttest averages by grade earned in the course are shown in Figure 2.

31

Comparison of pretest and posttest score averages
for students with varying letter grades as final
course grade
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
A

B

C
Ave Pre

D

F

Ave Post

Figure 2. Pretest and posttest averages compared among students within five letter grade
categories with paired t-tests showed groups A-D had statistically significant differences. The F
group did not show statistically significant differences between pretest and posttest and had a
negative direction of change. (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 21, nD = 11, nF = 5)
Students in the A letter grade category (n=8), those who earned a grade between 90%
and 100% in the course, had an average of 27.6 points on the pretest and 31.9 points on the
posttest with a statistically significant p value of 0.043. Students in the B letter grade category
(n=21), those who earned a grade between 80% and 89% in the course, had an average of 22.2
points on the pretest and 26.3 points on the posttest with a p value of 0.078 which, although
not statistically significant, shows a slight tendency toward significance. Students in the C letter
grade category (n=21), those who earned a grade between 70% and 79% in the course, had an
average of 19.9 points on the pretest and 35.4 points on the posttest with a statistically
significant p value of 0.009. Students in the D letter grade category (n=11), those who earned a
grade between 60% and 69% in the course, had an average of 14.5 points on the pretest and
18.6 points on the posttest with a p value of 0.072 which although not statistically significant,
shows a slight tendency toward significance. Students in the F letter grade category (n=5) did

32

not show improvement from pretest to posttest. Scores for students in this category were
lower on average on the posttest than on the pretest. The pretest average was 14.4 points and
the posttest average was 9.70 points with a p value of 0.233. Students in the C letter grade
category showed the greatest degree of improvement from pretest to posttest score.
The assessment contained questions designed to assess a student’s curiosity to
determine if practicing the process of science and being encouraged to ask questions would
cause them to become more curious or inquisitive when looking at data, figures, or an article
about scientific findings. Curiosity was measured by the number of questions a student asked
when prompted to do so. On the assessment, asking three or more questions earned three
points, two questions two points, one question one point, and zero questions zero points.
There were eight possible points for curiosity. Results of curiosity scores compared for each
letter grade group can be found in Figure 3. Although four of the five letter grade categories
showed slight improvement in their curiosity averages from pretest to posttest, the fifth group
did not show improvement in this area, nor any of the other areas. None of those
improvements were statistically significant according to a paired t-test.

33

Comparison of Curiosity pretest and posttest
scores for students with varying letter grades as
final course grade
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A

B

C

Curiosity Pre

D

F

Curiosity Post

Figure 3. Each group (except for the F letter grade category) showed improvement, small but
not statistically significant according to a paired t-test, in their curiosity scores. (nA = 8, nB = 21,
nC = 21, nD = 11, nF = 5)
Confidence was measured within the assessment with a series of self-reflection
questions in which students were asked to rate their confidence in their abilities in science and
chemistry and their likelihood of voluntarily taking additional science courses during high school
or post-secondarily (Figure 4). Students in the A letter grade category showed the greatest
degree of difference between pretest and posttest scores in this area, from an average of 3.5
points out of 6 points on the pretest, to an average of 5.5 points on the posttest, with a p value
of 0.005. Confidence averages improved as well for both the B and C letter grade categories
but by less than the A group. In the B letter grade category, the pretest average was 2.19
points and the posttest average was 3.33 points with a p value of 0.056. The C letter grade
category increased the pretest average of 3.3 points to 4.4 points on the posttest with a p value
of 0.055. In the D and F letter grade categories, averages were too similar to be statistically
distinguishable from one another. And as in the case of all tested areas for the F letter grade
category, the confidence scores decreased from pretest to posttest.

34

Comparison of Confidence pretest and posttest
scores for students with varying letter grades as
final course grade
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A

B

C

Confidence Pre

D

F

Confidence Post

Figure 4. Confidence scores improved for all letter grade categories expect for those students
who earned an F in the course. Scores for A, B, and C categories showed statistically significant
differences according to a paired t-test. (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 21, nD = 11, nF = 5)
Knowledge of the process of science was measured through the students ability to
generate questions, at least one being testable, proposing hypotheses as the answer to the
scientific question, and finally predicting the results that would support or refute a chosen
hypothesis. This area of the assessment was the most correlated to the activities performed
within the study itself. Students were given a prompt of a description of a demonstration
similar to the Unit 5 demonstration of glow stick chemicals in varying temperatures of water,
impacting the brightness of light emitted. Results of the process of science scores compared
for each letter grade group can be found in Figure 5. Students in the A letter grade category
scored so well on the pretest in this area that there was little room for growth to be shown.
Out of a possible 10 points, these students scored an average of 8.5 points on the pretest and
9.0 points on the posttest. With 75% of students scoring a 9 or a 10 on the pretest and 83% of
students scoring the same on the posttest, the degree of improvement could be nothing but

35

minimal. Students in the B and C letter grade categories show high degree of improvement
between the pretest and posttest scores in this area. B students earned an average of 5.8
points on the pretest and 8.3 points on the posttest with a p value of 0.006, showing a
statistically significant improvement. Students with a C in the course earned 4.64 points on the
pretest and 7.00 points on the posttest with a p value of 0.017. Two data points were excluded
from the statistical calculation of the C letter grade category as the pretest and posttest data
for these individuals were incomplete, meaning the individuals responded to the process of
science items on their pretest, but neglected to respond to the same items on the posttest. As
it was with the confidence scores, so also is it with the process of science scores for the D and F
letter grade categories. Students with a D in the course did raise their average from pretest to
posttest but not with any degree of statistical significance. Three student data points were
omitted from this statistical calculation due to an incomplete data set. Students in the F letter
grade category had a lower average on the posttest than on the pretest. This was mainly due
to that fact that three out of five students chose not to respond to this section of items on the
pretest and four out of five students did the same on the posttest. However, if these data
points were excluded due to incomplete data sets, no average could have been taken.

36

Comparison of Process of Science pretest and
posttest scores for students with varying letter
grades as final course grade
10
8
6
4
2
0
A

B

C
POS Pre

D

F

POS Post

Figure 5. Process of science (POS) scores showed a greater degree of statistically significant
difference for B and C letter grade categories than for A using a paired t-test. F letter grade
category showed lower scores on the posttest. (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC = 19, nD = 8, nF = 5)
Results of the nature of science section showed no statistical improvement from pretest
to posttest for any of the letter grade categories. Scores for this category came from the
assessment of students’ definition of hypothesis, their explanation of the difference between a
hypothesis and a theory, and their response to a multiple choice question regarding whether
science is a process, a collection of facts, fixed or changeable, or a combination there of.
Students tended to respond in extremely similar ways on the pretest and the posttest, lending
evidence to the conclusion that teaching the process of science does not significantly alter a
student’s understanding of the nature of science. Results of the knowledge of the nature of
science scores compared for each letter grade group can be found in Figure 6.

37

Comparison of Nature of Science pretest and
posttest scores for students with varying letter
grades as final course grade
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A

B

C
NOS Pre

D

F

NOS Post

Figure 6. Nature of science (NOS) scores showed very little change from pretest to posttest.
None of the changes were statistically significant according to a paired t-test (nA = 8, nB = 21, nC
= 21, nD = 11, nF = 5)

38

DISCUSSION
Comparing class averages of pretest and posttest performance showed no statistical
significance for three out of four classes using a paired t-test. One reason is the great degree of
range for the high and low performance of students in each class. Although many individuals
did show improvements from pretest to posttest, others showed very little improvement, and
still others performed more poorly on the posttest than on the pretest. This meant the range
of scores and the averages were not greatly different between the two assessments. One
factor that contributed to a lower than expected performance on the posttest was that the
posttest was given after the final exam on the last day of the trimester. Students probably
became increasingly fatigued by the battery of testing over a two-day exam period, putting less
of their effort into a post-assessment that had no bearing on their overall grade in the course.
It may be for this reason that first hour had a statistically significant result, but the subsequent
hours did not.
When grouped according to letter grade, student scores showed statistical significance
or a trend toward significance between pretest and posttest performance as shown in Figure 2.
The greatest degree of significance was for the A and C letter grade category (p value below
0.05), but B and D letter grade categories were only slightly above the p value of 0.05 and still
below the p value 0.08. Comparison according to letter grade controlled for the great degree of
range of performance within each class period grouping. Students who performed higher in the
course also performed higher on their pretest and posttest on average than other groups, and
students who performed lower in the course also performed lower on the pretest and posttests
than the higher performing student categories. Improvement from pretest to posttest for each

39

letter grade category (except F) supports the conclusion that using demonstrations coupled
with the process of science were an effective way to incite curiosity and wonder and to increase
student confidence in their scientific abilities as was found by many other researchers including
Beasley (1982), Liem (1992), Reagan (2012), Roth et al. (1997).
This study confirms the necessity for students to possess some degree of prior
knowledge in order to interact more effectively with a demonstration as reported by Milne and
Otieno (2007) and Roth et al. (1997). Demonstrations that involved chemicals more familiar to
students (glow sticks, acids and bases) or familiar items behaving unexpectedly (pop can heated
and inverted in water, metals being placed in water and then reacting violently) invoked a
larger amount of generated questions than those whose chemical components were more
mysterious (the reaction of potassium iodate and a starch solution to produce a dark
precipitate, a radioactive source emitting alpha and beta particles in a cloud chamber). If
students had difficulty understanding or “seeing” what the demonstration was trying to show
they were less able to engage in the process of science to generate questions to which they
could find an answer to increase their understanding of their observations.
A lack of statistical significance of the improvement in the area of curiosity may be
attributed to a number of factors. One, curiosity was not an overt emphasis in the activities
performed in class. Curiosity was encouraged, but students were not instructed on how to take
a question such as “how did that happen?” and pose it in different ways as to result in
questions for which they could possibly seek an answer. Therefore, this broad question was
seen to be all encompassing by many students and they were unwilling or unable to expound
further. To help students improve their ability to generate questions, instruction should be

40

given on how to take a general question and expound upon it, drawing a greater number of
questions out of it. This same trend was confirmed by Hadzigeorgiou (2012) whose work with
wonder and question generation found that direct instruction fully incorporating wonder was
necessary to increase student engagement and involvement in the process of science.
Although instruction was given to encourage curiosity and wonder throughout this study
(Appendix 2B), direct teacher instruction is often not enough to make lasting impact on
behavior. Students must come to see how curiosity is useful through their experience
(Hadzigeorgiou 2012), not just from the words of an instructor.
Another reason for the lack of statistically significant improvement in curiosity score on
the assessment (Appendix 4A), was that students were expected to ask questions regarding a
number of topics with a maximum number of points awarded for three or more questions.
When a student was able to ask more than three questions on the pretest, the rubric was
unable to register growth if a greater number of questions were posed on the posttest. The
first curiosity-assessing item was a picture of a fish out of water on a dock. Many students were
able to pose three or more relevant questions about this picture on the pretest and therefore
could not show improvement in the posttest according to the rubric, which scored a response
of three or more questions with the same point value. The second test of curiosity came from
an article about the effect of daily, low-dose aspirin on pancreatic cancer patients. The item in
the assessment asked students to list two questions for further study, expecting them to find
the two questions posed by the article’s author within the text. In fact, few students picked up
on the article’s author’s questions for further study, and instead posed their own. However,
because of their limited background knowledge of the effect of aspirin on the body, the

41

questions they were able to ask were very limited, the most interesting one being “if low dose
aspirin is good, what about a higher dose?” which was posed by quite a few students. The third
and final curiosity assessment came from a figure comparing the earnings of men and women
since the 1960s correlated to level of education. Within these charts there was a lot to
interpret and question. Many students did recognize and ask meaningful questions related to
the data set, yet still a large portion of students misread the axis and title of the graph and
asked questions that were irrelevant to the data presented. Because the rubric stated “number
of relevant questions,” questions asked that did not come from the figure’s data were not
scored. The problem with this scoring was that curiosity and relevant question generation are
not one in the same. Students who asked questions, although not relevant to the data set,
were still curious about something, yet according to the rubric, had a score of zero regarding
curiosity in this area.
Student ratings of confidence in their scientific abilities did show statistical significance
for the three higher achieving groups. The greatest degree of significance for differences
between pretest and posttest scores came from the A letter grade category. Higher confidence
scores suggest students may begin to see themselves as able to access the reasoning and
problem-solving methodology from science class when a relevant situation presents itself
outside of class. This would make these students “competent outsiders” according to Feinstein
(2011). Whereas those whose confidence score decreased, as it is with the lowest performing
groups in this study, would see themselves as “marginal insiders,” unable to find a situation
outside of science class where scientific reasoning might seem relevant and useful because they
were not confident in their ability to use this reasoning within the classroom (ibid). Although it

42

is interesting to consider a student’s confidence level before and after a course, it is the
author’s position that the six process of science activities had less to do with inspiring
confidence in a student than performance on course material assessments and overall
enjoyment of the subject. According to subjective questioning at the end of the trimester,
students expressed more confidence in the units and topics most that they found easiest and
performed the best on. Students who take conceptual chemistry rarely, if ever, express feeling
enjoyment over struggling to understand something, even if they eventually do understand, or
at least perform well on the assessment of the unit. Therefore, although confidence and
performance in the class seem to be correlated, a causal relationship between confidence in
science and the process of science activities cannot be confirmed. This study agrees with Milne
and Otieno (2007) that a major challenge in science education is to engage “marginalized
groups” of students in the process of science and help them to find it relevant to their lives.
Teaching the process of science alongside a demonstration and administering a postassessment with no tangible incentive, as in this study, was not enough to encourage the
lowest performing, most marginalized students to show an improvement from pretest to
posttest scores. Higher scores on the pretest for these lower performing students, especially in
the area of confidence, may have resulted from a positive connection with their instructor as
suggested by Kessels and Taconis (2012), due to the activities performed in the first two days of
the trimester to build classroom culture. However, at the end of the trimester, struggling
students found it harder to connect with the instructor and see themselves as similar to him or
her, and therefore decrease in their confidence to be a scientist (ibid). Positive emotional
energy is required for engagement in learning tasks, according to Milne and Otieno (2007),

43

which, for the lower performing student, becomes a downward spiral: as they begin to struggle
they feel less positive emotional energy toward chemistry, therefore they engage less in the
activities, and struggle more on the assessments.
The pretest performance of A letter grade students in the process of science section
shows that students with high aptitude were easily able to pick up the process of science with
no formal instruction from the teacher of this course. This may be attributed to high retention
of process of science instruction from previous science courses, or simply an ability to question,
hypothesize, and predict when asked to respond to any topic, within science or without. With
such high pretest scores, improvement in this area was not attainable within the confines of the
rubric. Students in the B and C letter grade category showed great improvement with the
process of science after instruction and practice, lending evidence to the conclusion that
teaching the process of science through demonstrations in a conceptual chemistry classroom
will lead students to grow in their ability to ask testable questions, make hypotheses, and
predict the results of an experiment to test a hypothesis. As was also found by Lawson (1993),
increasing a student’s prior knowledge and exposure to the process of science between pretest
to posttest assessments was associated with increased a student’s performance in question,
hypothesis, and prediction generation. After performing the process of science six times, once
per unit, B and C students were able to more correctly navigate the process of science on the
posttest. The performance of the students in the D and F letter grade categories lends more
evidence to a conclusion that proper motivation and incentive must be provided for lower
performing students to rise to a challenge than to a conclusion about the usefulness of teaching
the process of science in a conceptual chemistry classroom.

44

The results of the nature of science assessment portion indicate that students of all
performance levels have extremely entrenched prior knowledge or none regarding the nature
of science. Explicit instruction and targeted activities must be implemented in order to have
significant impact on a student’s conclusions in this area, regardless of the student’s level of
ability or performance (Vazquez-Alonso 2012). Simply teaching students how to do science
through the process of science method does not seem to significantly change their
understanding of the nature of science as a study or body of knowledge, according to these
results.

45

CONCLUSION
Teaching students the process of science methodology as outlined by Fred Dyer (2014) is
productive at the high school level in increasing a student’s ability to ask questions, generate
hypotheses, and make predictions of the result of an experiment to test a hypothesis. This
study found that students with high academic performance will pick up the process of science
more quickly, but work must be done to engage the lower performing student in the process of
science. However, teaching the process of science as done in this study may not promote
student curiosity, confidence, or knowledge of the nature of science, but can be correlated to
an increase in confidence and a slight influence on curiosity and nature of science knowledge
on average. Adding the process of science framework to demonstrations increased student
participation in and the number of questions they are compelled to ask about demonstrations.
Engaging students in thinking like a scientists required a significant allotment of time in the
curriculum to teach the process of science methodology and ample opportunities to apply it
over multiple relevant and meaningful experiences tied into the curriculum. Yet, when
students were given appropriate context and a discrepant event to ponder, this study found the
majority of students were able to generate testable questions and predict the outcome of tests
to evaluate answers to their questions.
Due to the time constraints of the trimester schedule, the researcher did not continue to
implement the process of science methodology along with the demonstration for each unit in
the following trimester. The demonstration remained in place as an activity to begin each unit.
However, the student interaction with the demonstration was reduced to simply listing
observations, questions, and predictions in a more simplistic way with no in-class opportunities

46

for testing or analyzing. If the researcher were to re-implement the process of science
methodology, it would require a rewriting of each unit outline to accommodate the amount of
time necessary to complete this activity. Rewriting the curriculum to include the process of
science methodology continued to be a recommendation of the researcher because, according
to the data of this study, it has shown positive impact on students’ ability to analyze a
discrepant event using the reasoning of scientists.
Improvement of B and C students on the process of science section of the assessment tool
was one of the most important findings of this study. Teaching the process of science
methodology to average performing students had a large degree of impact on their ability to
interact with observations of a discrepant event using the reasoning and language of scientists
Therefore, due to the influence of performing the activities of this study, these groups of
students have a greater likelihood of using this reasoning to seek answers to questions
scientifically in situations outside of the science classroom (Feinstein 2011).

47

APPENDICES

48

APPENDIX 1

FORMS

49

APPENDIX 1
PARENTAL CONSENT AND STUDENT ASSENT FORM
Dear Students and Parents/Guardians:
Along with teaching Conceptual Chemistry, I am currently pursuing a master’s degree at
Michigan State University. This trimester I will be conducting a research project as part of my
degree program and I would like to take this opportunity to invite your child to participate.
There are no unique activities related to this research and participation in this study will not
increase or decrease the amount of work that students do. Researchers are required to provide
a consent form like this to inform you about the study, to explain that participation is voluntary
and to explain risks and benefits of participation.
What is the purpose of this research? I have been working on effective ways to incorporate
the process of science into the chemistry curriculum and I plan to study the results of this
teaching strategy on student comprehension. The results of this research will contribute to my
understanding of best teaching practices.
What will students do? Students will participate in the usual curriculum for Conceptual
Chemistry, but with added emphasis on the process of science. Students will complete the
usual assignments, assessments and pre/post tests, as they would do normally. I will simply
make copies of students’ work for research purposes. I am asking for permission to use copies
of student work for my research.
What are the potential benefits? I anticipate that my research will improve the quality of
instruction that your child receives. I will report the results in my master’s thesis so that other
teachers and students can benefit from my findings.
What are the potential risks? There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in
this research. I will not open consent forms (where you say “yes” or “no”) until after I have
assigned final grades for the trimester. That way, I will not know who agrees to participate in
the research until after grades are issued. In the meantime, I will save all written work. Later, I
will analyze the written work only for students who have agreed to participate in the study and
whose parents/guardians have consented.
How will privacy and confidentiality be protected? Students’ names will not be reported in my
master’s thesis or in any other dissemination of the results of this research. Instead, the data
will consist of class averages and samples of student work that will not include names. The only
people who will have access to the data are me, my thesis committee at MSU, and the
Institutional Review Board at MSU. The data will be stored on password-protected computers
during the study and on password protected computers at MSU for at least three years after
the study (in compliance with the law).

50

What are your rights to participate, say no, or withdraw? Participation in this research is
completely voluntary. You have the right to say “no.” You may change your mind at any time
and withdraw. If either the student or parent/guardian request to withdraw, the student’s
information will not be used in this study. There are no penalties for saying “no” or choosing to
withdraw.
Who can you contact with questions and concerns? If you have questions or concerns about
this study, please do not hesitate to contact:
Ms. Courtney Lutz
Grand Ledge High School
820 N. Spring Street
Grand Ledge, MI 48837
lutzc@glcomets.net
(517) 925-5874

Dr. Merle Heidemann
118 North Kedzie Lab
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
heidma2@msu.edu
(517) 432-2152 ext. 107

If you have questions or concerns regarding your child’s role as a research participant, would
like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study,
you may contact, anonymously if desired, MSU Human Research Protection Program at:
irb@msu.edu
How should I submit this consent form? Please complete the attached form. Both the student
and parent/guardian must sign the form. Please return with your student a form indicating
interest either way. Please return this form to the drop-box in my classroom, room 404.
Sincerely,
Courtney Lutz

Parents/guardians should complete this following consent information:

I voluntarily agree to have ____________________________________ participate in this study.
(Student Name)
Please check ONE of the two lines below:
Data:
__________ I give Courtney Lutz permission to use data generated from my child’s work in this
class for her research project. All data shall remain confidential.

51

__________ I do not wish to have my child’s work used in this thesis project. I acknowledge
that my child’s work will be graded in the same manner regardless of participation in this
research.
Please check ONE of the two lines below:
Photography, audiotaping, or videotaping:
__________ I give Courtney Lutz permission to use photos or videotapes of child in the class
room doing work related to this thesis project. I understand that my child will not be identified.
__________ I do not wish to have my child’s images used at any time during this thesis project.

__________________________________________
(Parent Signature)

__________________________
(Date)

__________________________________________
(Student Signature)

__________________________
(Date)

Please return this form to the drop-box in my classroom, room 404 by September 12th.

52

APPENDIX 2

TEACHER NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS

53

APPENDIX 2A
NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS AND STUDENT LEARNING GOALS
Asking Questions and Defining Problems
• Formulate, refine, and evaluate empirically testable questions and design problems
using models and simulations.
• Evaluate questions that challenge the premise(s) of an argument, the interpretation of a
data set, or the suitability of a design. (HS-PS4-2)
Hypothesizing
• Apply scientific principles and evidence to provide an explanation of phenomena and
solve design problems, taking into account possible unanticipated effects. (HS-PS1-5)
• Construct and revise an explanation based on valid and reliable evidence obtained from
a variety of sources (including students’ own investigations, models, theories,
simulations, peer review) and the assumption that theories and laws that describe the
natural world operate today as they did in the past and will continue to do so in the
future. (HS-PS1-2)
Thinking Critically
• Empirical evidence is required to differentiate between cause and correlation and make
claims about specific causes and effects. (HS-PS4-1)
• Cause and effect relationships can be suggested and predicted for complex natural and
human designed systems by examining what is known about smaller scale mechanisms
within the system. (HS-PS4-4)
Presenting Information
• Communicate technical information or ideas (e.g. about phenomena and/or the process
of development and the design and performance of a proposed process or system) in
multiple formats (including orally, graphically, textually, and mathematically). (HS-PS4-5)

Learning Goals for Project (taken from NGSS)
Students will…
• Formulate, refine, and evaluate empirically testable questions. (HS-PS4-2)
• Apply scientific principles and evidence to provide an explanation of phenomena
(hypothesis). (HS-PS1-5)
• Construct and revise an explanation based on valid and reliable evidence. (HS-PS1-2)
• Differentiate between cause and correlation and make claims about specific causes and
effects. (HS-PS4-1)
• Take into account possible unanticipated effects. (HS-PS1-5)
• Communicate technical information or ideas in multiple formats. (HS-PS4-5)

54

APPENDIX 2B
OUTLINE OF TEACHER ACTIONS
1. Instruct on method and scope of activity
2. Perform demonstration and ask students to observe
3. Allow 1 minute for students to record questions individually
a. Elaborate on the core question – What’s up with that?
b. Make no assumptions
i. if you immediately have an assumption, ask it in the form of a question
ii. it may or may not be a correct assumption
iii. we can then see if it’s a testable question to investigate.
c. Ask ANY question, even ones that may not be testable
i. the purpose of the activity is to stimulate curiosity
ii. we will deal with “evaluating” questions later
4. Record questions from individuals in front of class and discuss
a. acknowledge that humans tend to wonder the same things – ask how many
students had a particular question on their paper
b. acknowledge that humans tend to wonder about a lot of things
c. encourage curiosity and validity of questions, helping students build confidence
5. Group questions by type – some questions may appear different, but are actually asking
the same thing
6. Choose one question to refine
a. be clear about question
b. descriptive or causation – both are ok
7. Allow students to record 3 possible answers to this question – explain that these
answers are actually hypotheses
8. Record hypotheses from individuals in front of class and discuss
a. keep asking “What else?”
b. discuss the importance of looking for other explanations beyond the ones
presented to you
9. Pick 1 hypothesis and ask students to predict what the evidence might looks like to
support or contradict a hypothesis
a. make a graph when appropriate
b. doing work of interpretation can help sharpen a hypothesis
c. using information about other possible hypotheses to discuss what variables to
control for
10. Encourage students to revisit their original questions and add additional questions to
the list now that they have more information - emphasize that in science the process is
constantly repeating.
11. Collect and grade demo papers using modified rubric from pre/posttest assessments.
a. each question worth 1 pt
b. testable questions worth 2 pts
c. hypothesis that addresses question 1 pt each
d. predicted outcomes to support and to refute 1 pt each
55

e. further questions 1 pt each
12. After returning papers, maybe just before the post-test, have students retrieve all old
demo documents and compare their progress toward scientific thinking.
a. Do they ask more questions?
b. Are their questions deeper or more testable?

56

APPENDIX 2C
DEMONSTRATION OUTLINE
Unit 1 – Acids and Bases
Demonstration: Magic Pitcher
This demonstration is designed to illustrate the effect of acids and bases on an indicator
through the observation of color changes due to interactions of unknown substances.
Repeated with known substances to offer more context.

Unit 2 – Properties of Matter
Demonstration: Iodine Clock reaction
This demonstration is designed to illustrate a chemical reaction, but one in which the
mechanism is not obvious. Repeated with varying concentrations of potassium iodate
to generate different reaction times. When graphed, this data can be used to predict
the rate of a reaction given a known volume of potassium iodate.

Unit 3 – Gas Laws
Demonstration: Crushing a Pop Can
This demonstration is designed to illustrate the power and presence of gases all around
us. By evacuating the can of air and then inverting and sealing it the atmospheric
pressure is strong enough to collapse the aluminum of the can. Students may be
familiar with the demonstration from previous years of science, but many will have
forgotten the science behind it.

Unit 4 – The Nucleus
Demonstration: Cloud Chamber
This demonstration is designed to allow students to see the alpha particles and beta
particles emitted from a Thorium source (lantern mantle) to illustrate the presence of
these particles in nature. Repeated with two different substances – an Americium
source (from a smoke detector) and a non-radioactive rock.

Unit 5 – Energy and Electrons
Demonstration: Glow Stick in hot and ice water bath
This demonstration is designed to illustrate that light can be generated by chemical
energy in a glow stick. As well as the impact of heat energy on light intensity. This
demonstration will present the greatest degree of prior knowledge out of the rest of the
demos. The researcher wonders if this will allow students to generate more questions
or if familiarity will stifle curiosity.

Unit 6 – Periodic Trends
Demonstration: Periodicity of Alkali Metals
This demonstration is designed to illustrate the trend in reactivity of Group 1 metals as
you go down the group. Lithium and sodium are used for comparison. Videos can be
supplemented to show reactivity of more reactive elements.

57

APPENDIX 3

STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS AND ACTIVITIES

58

APPENDIX 3
GENERAL DEMONSTRATION RESPONSE FORM
DIRECTIONS: Observe the demonstration and respond to the following prompts
1. Record as many questions as you can think of in 60 seconds.

2. A testable question: __________________________________________________________
3. Record at least 3 possible answers to the testable question in #2.

4. A testable hypothesis: ________________________________________________________
5. If the hypothesis in #4 is supported by evidence, what data might we observe?

6. If the hypothesis in #4 is refuted by evidence, what data might we observe?

7. What other questions does this lead you to ask? (List any questions from #1 that still apply
as well.)

59

APPENDIX 4

ASSESSMENT TOOLS

60

APPENDIX 4A
PRETEST/POSTTEST
DIRECTIONS: Complete the following assessment to the best of your ability. Answer all
questions as fully as possible.
1. Define the term hypothesis.
2. What would it take for a hypothesis to be considered a scientific theory or law?
3. _______ On the line, record the letter of your choice regarding the BEST possible answer to
the question, What is science? (if you cannot decide between two choices, you may write
both – however, do not choose more than two)
a. Science is a body of factual knowledge and truth
b. Science is a diverse way of problem solving
c. Science is scientists’ tentative explanations for observations validated through rigorous
inquiry processes.
4. Write all the observations you can make from the picture
to the right. Do NOT record any inferences.

5. Generate as many questions as you can think of based on
the picture to the right.

6. What is the hypothesis of this study in the article to the right?

7. What evidence do they provide to support their conclusions?

8. What questions could you ask for clarification or for further study?

9. List THREE or more observations as you can about the data set above from a Science
Magazine article titled “Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the
‘other 99 percent’.”

10. Record TWO or more questions that you have about these data.
11. Read the following observation and record as many questions as you can think of, at least
THREE, regarding this observation: The chemical Luminol emits blue light energy when

61

reacted with hydrogen peroxide and water. The intensity of light is increased when a test
tube containing this reaction is placed in hot water.
12. Choose one of your most testable questions from #11 and write TWO hypotheses based
upon the question.
_______ 1.
question #
2.
13. Choose a testable hypothesis from #12 and predict what evidence you might observe that
would cause you to conclude your hypothesis is false.
_________
hypothesis #
14. Using the same hypothesis as in #13, predict what evidence you might observe that would
cause you to conclude your hypothesis is supported by your data.
On a scale of 1 to 5 please rate the following items, where 1= strongly disagree, 2= slightly
disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = strongly agree. Circle the
number of your choices below.
a) I am good at science.

1

2

3

4

5

b) I am good at chemistry.

1

2

3

4

5

c) I would voluntarily take another high school
science class.

1

2

3

4

5

d) I would voluntarily take a college-level
science class.

1

2

3

4

5

e) I am likely to go into a science-related profession.

1

2

3

4

5

15. Please use your scores from the 5 items above to calculate the following:
a. Total of a) and b) __________

Total of c), d), and e) __________

Total of all responses a)-e) __________
(For a complete copy of the pretest/posttest, please contact the author at
courtneylutz@gmail.com)

62

APPENDIX 4B
PRETEST/POTTEST SCORING RUBRIC

Table 1. A rubric containing the scoring guide used to evaluate pretest and posttest assessments
Question
Number

Rubric Scoring
3 points

1 point
0 points
“An educated guess,” “an
if-then statement,” or
An incorrect definition or
another previouslyno response
learned definition

“An answer to a scientific
question”

1

2
3

B or B & C

4

More than 3 relevant*
observations recorded

5

3 or more relevant
questions posed

6

2 points

Time and an accumulation
of evidence, testing by
multiple researchers all
reaching similar conclusions
C
3 relevant observations
recorded some inferences
are recorded
3 or more questions posed,
2 or less questions are
relevant
Low dose aspirin will
reduce the risk of
pancreatic cancer.

63

Partially correct
responses

No response, off topic or
incorrect respnoses

A&X
1 or 2 relevant
observations recorded,
some inferences are
recorded

A
0 relevant observations
recorded or all recorded
responses are inferences

1 or 2 questions posed,
at least 1 is relevant

0 relevant questions
posed

Any mention of heart
disease, other partially
correct answers

No response

Student
Score

Table 1. Cont’d

7

8

9
10

More than 3 relevant
observations recorded
3 or more relevant
questions posed

11

3 or more questions
posed and at least one
question is testable

12

2 hypotheses are
provided
and
Hypotheses are
different answers to
the same question
Both are testable

Regular aspirin use lowered
the risk of pancreatic
cancer by 48%
1-3 yrs = 43%, 7-20 yrs =
56%
Is aspirin preventing
formation of new tumors?
Is aspirin helping immune
systems fight new tumors?
3 relevant observations
recorded
2 relevant questions posed
3 or more relevant
questions posed
none are testable questions
or
1 or 2 relevant questions
are posed and at least one
question is testable
1 or 2 hypotheses are
provided
and
1 hypothesis is testable and
answers the question, the
other is not testable or
does not answer the same
question

64

Partially correct
responses

No response

1 question but not two
A question not posed in
the article.

No questions

1 or 2 relevant
observations recorded
1 relevant question
posed

0 relevant observations
recorded
0 relevant questions
posed

1 or 2 relevant questions
posed

0 relevant questions
posed

Only 1 hypothesis is
provided
and
Hypothesis does not
answer the question or is
not testable

No response

Table 1. Cont’d
Predicted data or
observations are
reasonable to expect and
would cause the scientists
to reject the hypothesis
Predicted data or
observations are
reasonable to expect and
would support the
hypothesis

Predicted data or
observations are
reasonable to expect but
would support
hypothesis, not refute it
Predicted data or
observations are
reasonable to expect but
would not support
hypothesis

15A

10 – 8

6–4

2

15B

15 – 12

9–6

3

15C

25 – 20

15 – 10

5

13

14

*Relevant in this rubric simply means related to the figure or topic

Predicted data or
observations are not
reasonable to expect

Predicted data or
observations are not
reasonable to expect

Total Score
Confidence Score
Curiosity Score

Knowledge of Scientific Processes and Nature of Science Score

65

REFERENCES

66

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N., (1998). The nature of science and instructional
practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans.
Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Bakalar, N. (2014, July 1) Deterring Pancreatic Cancer. New York Times: Science Times, pp. D6.
Beasley, W. (1982). Teacher Demonstrations: The Effect on Student Task Involvement. Journal
of Chemical Education, 59(9), 789-80.
Bilash II, Borislaw, Gross, G., & Koob, J. (1998). A Demo A Day Volume 2: Another Year of
Chemical Demonstrations. Batavia, IL: Flinn Scientific, Inc.
Chem Fax! (2009). Iodine Clock Reaction: Rate Laws. Batavia, IL. Flinn Scientific, Inc.
Chem Fax! (2009). Cloud Chambers: Nuclear Chemistry. Batavia, IL. Flinn Scientific, Inc.
Combustion of Ethanol. (2014). Retrieved June 25, 2014 from
http://chemmovies.unl.edu/chemistry/dochem/DoChem050.html
Delta charter township, Eaton County, Michigan. (2015) Retrieved February 19, 2015 from
http://www.city-data.com/township/Delta-charter-Eaton-MI.html
Deming, J., O’Donnell, J., & Malone, C. (2012). Scientific Literacy: Resurrecting the Phoenix
with Thinking Skills. Science Educator, 21(2), 10-17.
de Vos, Wobbe, Using Large Glass Cylinders To Demonstrate Chemical Reactions, J. Chem. Educ.
1999, 76, 528. (April 1999)
Duschl, R. (1988). Abandoning the Scientistic Legacy of Science Education. Science Education,
72(1), 51-62
Dyer, Fred. “Learning How to Do Science.” Michigan State University. East Lansing. 10 May
2014. Lecture.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging Science Literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a Measure of Scientific
Literacy for Middle School Students. Science Education, 98(4), 549-580.

67

Grand Ledge, Michigan. (2015) Retrieved February 19, 2015 from
http://www.city-data.com/city/Grand-Ledge-Michigan.html
Guare, Linette. (Retrieved 2014). The Magic Pitcher. Retrieved 16 June 2014, from
www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/demos/MagicPitcher.html
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (October 2012). Fostering a Sense of Wonder in the Science Classroom.
Research in Science Education, 42(5), 985-1005.
Kang, N. & Wallace, C. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking
epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140-165.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (February 2013). Argumentation in the
Chemistry Laboratory: Inquiry and Confirmatory Experiments. Research in Science
Education, 43(1), 317-45.
Kessels, U. & Taconis, R. (2012). Alien or Alike? How the Perceived Similarity Between the
Typical Science Teacher and a Student’s Self-Image Correlates with Choosing Science at
School. Research in Science Ecuation, 42(6), 1049-71.
Kirch, S. & Siry, C. (2012). “Maybe the Algae was from the Filter”: Maybe and Similar Modifiers
and Mediational Tools and Indicators of Uncertainty and Possibility in Children’s Science
Talk. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 261-80.
Krogh, L. B. & Moeller, H. M. (2013). “Actually, I May be Clever Enough to do it”. Using Identity
as a Lens to Investigate Students’ Trajectories Towards Science and University. Research
in Science Education, 43(2), 711-31.
Lawson, A. (1993). Research on the Acquisition of Science Foundations: Epistemological
Foundations of Cognition in Gabel, D. (Ed.). (1993). Handbook of Research on Science
Teaching and Learning Project. (pp. 132-144). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company, Division of Macmillan, Inc.
Liem, Tik L., (1992). Invitations to Science Inquiry. Chino Valley, CA: Scientific Inquiry
Enterprises.
Matson, R. (2012). Scientific Laws and Theories. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from
MI School Data. (2015) Retrieved February 19, 2015 from
https://www.mischooldata.org/Legislative/LegislativeDashboard.aspx
Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and
emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523-553.

68

Mob, C. (2009). Bunny Can Combustion. Retrieved 8 July 2014 from
www.profbunsen.com/au/ButaneOxygenCombustion.pdf
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Oneida charter township, Eaton County, Michigan. (2015) Retrieved February 19, 2015 from
http://www.city-data.com/township/Oneida-charter-Eaton-MI.html
Patchen, T., & Smithenry, D. W. (2013). Framing Science in a New Context: What Students Take
Away From a Student-Directed Inquiry Curriculum. Science Education, 97(6), 801-829.
Roth, W-M, McRobbie, C., Lucas, K, & Boutonne, S. (1997). Why May Students Fail to Learn
from Demonstrations? A Social Practice Perspective on Learning in Physics. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 509-33.
Salter, I. & Atkins, L. (2014). What Students Say Versus What They Do Regarding Scientific
Inquiry. Science Education, 98 (1), 1-35.
Sodium in Water. (2014). Retrieved June 20, 2014 from
http://chemmovies.unl.edu/chemistry/dochem/DoChem046.html
Talanquer, V. (2013). School Chemistry: The Need for Trangression. Science and Education,
22(7), 1757-73.
Vazquez-Alonso, A., García-Carmona, A., Manassero-Mas, M., & Bennàssar-Roig, A. (2012).
Science Teachers’ Thinking About the Nature of Science: A New Methodological
Approach to Its Assessment. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 781-808.
Weller, R. (2010). Crystals Can Grow: Growing Alum Crystals. Retrieved 8 July 2014 from
skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/crystalgrow/grow-alum.htm

69