Can Experiences of Authentic Scientific Inquiry Result in Transformational Learning?

Abstract

This work examines the experience of secondary school students involved in authentic science inquiry (ASI) at the Canadian Light Source. We suggest this experience is a transformational learning experience for participants. Using evidence from surveys and interviews from a total of 119 high school students, 23 teachers, and 18 scientists participating in the Students on the Beamline project during 2007–2010, we employ a transformational learning theory framework (Cranton, 2002; Mezirow, 1997a, b; Imel, 1998) in an interpretive approach to determine the extent this experience is transformative. Discussions of ASI and transformational learning are provided. Our investigation suggests that transformational learning can occur through such learning activity highlighted, for example, by changes in student perceptions of scientists, perceptions of themselves as capable of sophisticated science investigation, and considerations of science as a future life endeavour.

Keywords

transformative learning transformative pedagogy transformative education

Introduction

Aikenhead (2006) details the various historical criticisms of science education in its general failure to engage learners in meaningful learning. He notes specifically the need to remedy “dishonest and mythical images” concerning science and scientists learners and to address the “lack of relevance” of science to students who do not see themselves reflected in the enterprise of science or in science learning to any large extent. Science educators such as Bell, Urhahne, Schanze, and Ploetzner (2010) and Luehmann and Markowitz (2007) are examples of those who advocate for the inclusion of inquiry-oriented activities in school science as a remedy for such failure. Currently, the desire for inquiry-oriented learning in Canada and the United States is seen in calls for curricular change made by various organizations and individuals (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004; Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, 1997; National Research Council, 1996).

Hsu, van Eijck, and Roth (2010) suggest that such inquiry be authentic “because it provides a natural problem-solving context with sufficient complexity to make it interesting and meaningful” (p. 1244). Bencze and Hodson (1999) warn that authenticity “is an elusive and problematic notion with diverse meanings and implications for curricula” (Braund & Reiss, 2006, p. 1375). However, van Eijck and Roth (2009) suggest that “the adjective ‘‘authentic’’ is taken as denoting experiences that have some family resemblance with what scientists do” (p. 614) where “authentic science experiences are those in which participants are provided the opportunity to participate through actions that entail changes in these practices and therewith produce and reproduce this practice rather than only observe them” (p. 634). Hart (2002) suggests the “reasons for science curriculum change include…a desire to make science and mathematics more authentic, that is, more genuine and pertinent to students and more like ‘real’ science, as practised by scientists” (p. 1240).

The call for authenticity is seen through the use of various terminologies, for example “authentic science-learning experiences” (Adams, Gupta, & DeFelic, 2012), “authentic science curriculum” (Braund & Reiss, 2006), “authentic science experiences” and “authentic science” (van Eijck & Roth, 2009). and “authentic inquiry” (Sarkar and Frazier, 2008).

Implicit in these calls for inquiry and authenticity or authentic science inquiry (ASI; American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 2000) is the belief there will be positive changes in learner’s perspectives and involvement with science. However, as Hsu et al’s. (2010) note whether this change occurs remains unclear, and they suggest “there is an ongoing debate in the literature about the assumption that authentic science activities can enhance students’ understandings of scientific practice” (Hsu, van Eijck, & Roth, 2010, p. 1243).

As educators working with students in an informal learning program at a national research facility, the Students on the Beamline (SotB) program, we witnessed what we believed to be significant positive changes in student’s perspectives and behaviour in regard to science. We desired to approach the examination of SotB as an ASI experience using an interpretive framework that addresses the helpfulness and meaningfulness of student experience in a more holistic manner. We do so because as Dirkx (2006) notes learning is “about inviting ‘the whole person’…we mean the person in fullness of being: as an affective, intuitive, thinking, physical, spiritual self” (p. 46). It was the response of this “whole person” in SotB that intrigued us and so we thought our interpretive frame for understanding the experience of students should allow for attending to this “whole person” as a learner engaged in science.

Given this, we decided to employ transformative learning (TL) theory (Imel, 1998; Mezirow, 2000, 1997b; Kreber, 2006) to seek further insight. Although there is variance in how TL is understood, there is enough agreement that allows us to state that it involves substantial alterations in a person’s concepts, values, feelings, and conditioned responses (Mezirow, 2000, 1997). By standing on this particular theoretical and interpretive ground, we hoped to gain insight into the meaningfulness of student experience.

In what follows, we describe the program learners were involved in and its relation to ASI. We discuss our methodology and the TL framework we employed for analysis. Later, we offer examples of student experience and discuss TL in light of this experience. Finally, we offer some tentative conclusions concerning ASI as a transformational learning experience and possibilities for further study.

SotB and ASI

An opportunity to study student experience presented itself with our involvement in the SotB science outreach program at the Canadian Light Source (CLS). Such work might be identified as project-based learning (Bell, 2010; Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008) and possessing the necessary rigor Wagner (2008) suggests is needed for excellence in teaching and learning for the 21st century. Although we accept such consideration, given the explicit science focus of the SotB program, we chose to consider this experience as authentic science inquiry. So what does this involve?

This national research facility employs synchrotron produced, extremely brilliant infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray light. This light is used to probe the microstructure and chemical properties of matter that allow analysis of a host of physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes. The SotB program has small groups of secondary students (aged 14–18) engaged in scientific inquiry. Together with CLS scientists, students determine a topic to investigate that has the potential for novel scientific investigation. This begins with a discussion of possible topics of interest to students, literature searches by students, and the determination of a specific and novel question. Students are trained in synchrotron processes while pursuing their question and hypotheses. Over a semester, they prepare for several days with CLS scientists conducting experiments, analyzing data, reaching conclusions, and generating more questions concerning their work. In the final stages, students prepare a short article, a poster, and share their findings through presentations to the CLS user community and to their home communities.

Although Rahm, Miller, Hartly, and Moore (2003) note that there are many definitions of and perspectives on ASI, there are commonalities. The student experience of SotB appeared to exhibit many of the features generally associated with ASI. For example, students worked “at the elbow of scientists,” “doing what scientists do,” and “thinking how scientists think” (Barab & Hay, 2001; Hsu et al., 2010) not as simulation, or modelling, or role-playing but in actual practice. Students were involved in complex tasks using the actual equipment and processes scientists employed. They were not doing demonstration and confirmation inquiry activities but actual science inquiry with unknown outcomes that are part of an authentic science inquiry experience (Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Braund & Reiss, 2006; Duschl, 2008; Markowitz, 2004; McDonald & Songer, 2008; O’Neill & Polman, 2004; Sarkar & Frazier, 2008; Schwartz & Lederman, 2008; Windschitl, 2004).

Students were engaged in formulating and testing hypotheses, developing an experimental design, gathering evidence through observation and measurement, engaging in logical and creative thinking in analyzing data, and developing explanations for what was observed (AAAS, 1989; Schwart, Westerland, García, & Taylor, 2010). Because of this, learners were engaged in what Chinn and Malhotra (2002) describe as “epistemologically authentic science reasoning” (p. 213) or an “epistemologically authentic science inquiry” (p. 214).

Although the program involved input from others such as teachers, scientists, and supervisors, students were responsible for directing the research. They were the authority on decisions concerning the questions generated or chosen and the direction of the research. We believe that a strong sense of ownership and responsibility in directing the research decisions was perhaps a further indication of the authenticity of the experience.

Given that students were involved in a “real” science inquiry, we wanted to know whether this experience was transformative and how so. Before providing a brief example of the experience of SotB, we discuss in brief what is involved in transformational learning theory.

Transformational Learning

Even within the context of discrete disciplines, transformational learning is focused on what has happened for the learner as a whole person who is making sense of being in the world. Mezirow (1997) defined TL theory can be described as a process where there is change in a “frame of reference…associations, concepts, values, feelings, conditioned responses—frames of reference that define their life world” that is more inclusive, discriminating, self-reflective, and integrative of human experience (Mezirow, 1997a, p. 5, emphasis in original). Imel (1998) noted that transformational learning occurs when a person becomes critically aware of how and why his or her assumptions have come to constrain the way he or she perceive, think about, and feel about our world. As Cranton (2002) summarized:

At its core, transformative learning theory is elegantly simple. Through some event, which could be as traumatic as losing a job or as ordinary as an unexpected question, an individual becomes aware of holding a limiting or distorted view. If the individual critically examines this view, opens herself to alternatives, and consequently changes the way she sees things, she has transformed some part of how she makes meaning out of the world.… It may take a significant or dramatic event to lead us to question assumptions and beliefs. Other times, though, it is an incremental process in which we gradually change bits of how we see things, not even realizing realising a transformation has taken place until afterward. (pp. 64–65)

Imel (1998) also pointed out that such critical awareness happens in learning frequently and routinely but experiences where those changes in perspective lead to transformation are less frequent. Mezirow (1997) considered that slight changes in assumptions associated with a point of view or try on another’s point of view. If critical reflection of the experience reveals the originally held point of view to be inaccurate, that point of view is relatively easily changed. Repeated changes to similar points of view may lead to transformation. Critical reflection on one’s assumptions, attitude, beliefs, habits of mind, and meaning schemes is necessary for a transformational learning experience to take place (Carson & Fisher, 2006; Imel, 1998; Mezirow, 1997). Given this, we wondered whether more profound and TL had occurred with students in SotB.

While not comprehensive, we believe this overview offers sufficient insight into the nature of TL experience. Before moving to an example of SotB, we would like to note that transformational learning experiences can be identified by the participants themselves as they reflect on their learning and perspectives but also through documentation of changes, through conversation, and in behaviour as noted by others (Kreber, 2006).

SotB: A Brief Look

To better understand the linkages between ASI and SotB, we provide a brief example of the experience for one group of students. Their involvement began with their teacher’s desire to offer an authentic science experience to interested students in the teacher’s high school. Having attended a training workshop, the teacher established a synchrotron club and invited students to participate. Four students 16 and 17 years of age responded.

Students were interested in investigating a local rumour of chemical storage and contamination of land near the city zoo. A discussion with scientists and their teacher ensued. Students considered how they might collect samples, what legal and ethical challenges might exist for the research, how samples might be tested, what could synchrotron techniques contribute to such an investigation, what possible repercussions might emerge from their research, and how they might handle those potential situations.

Recognizing that to be able to draw conclusions from potential investigations into the contaminants question they needed to know what to look for, students decided to investigate effects of acid on soil. Using synchrotron-generated soft x-ray spectroscopy to investigate the properties of soil was a new area of investigation scientifically, thus with the potential for genuine scientific contribution. A soil scientist using the CLS joined the team who supplied previously collected soil and worked with the students designing the experiment protocols.

Students treated their soil with simulated acid rain (an acid solution more concentrated than typical acid rain to simulate potential long-term effects). Spectroscopy measures electrons escaping the sample as a result of absorbing energy-specific x-rays. Identifying the energy of the x-rays in and the electrons out helped students identify not only elements present in the sample but also information regarding the context wherein that element is bound within the sample, thus identifying changes in speciation of elements. In comparing an untreated control sample with treated soil and the residue of the acid solution, students were able to determine whether there were chemical changes to the soil as a result of their acid treatment.

In the words of these students, “We observed significant chemical changes in the soil due to simulated nitric acid rain. The detailed scan of aluminium shows clearly that the acid treated soil retains the fourfold coordinated aluminium but is missing some of the sixfold coordinated aluminium. The missing sixfold coordinated aluminium reappears in the scan of the acid residue, suggesting that acid rain can remove and transport aluminium from soil” (Suryavanshi et al., 2008, p. 160). These students presented their findings to CLS staff and then a poster to the CLS user community. Their work was included in a documentary on 21st-century Learning Initiatives (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009). The following year, their club included twice as many students and with the help of a soil science expert, they collected further samples and devised a method of testing each soil horizon separately. This more refined experiment confirmed the findings of the previous year and hinted that the chemical changes were different and horizon dependent. These students were interviewed on national radio and were invited to present their findings at a meeting for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the provincial environment protection branch.

Students remained eager to find ways to communicate their findings with public audiences and to generate interest in environmental research. They sought a grant from an arts council to work with a local artist to produce a sculpture representing their work. A 6-foot tall version decorates CLS reception and a 13-foot version resides outside the school. Each year at this school, a new club is formed with returning students functioning as group leaders. Students determine how they will expand the research project by selecting where they collect their soil samples and what analysis techniques will be used. Several of the “graduates” of the program are currently employed at CLS delivering outreach programs.

This example suggests that the SotB experience has transformational aspects. To better understand this, we investigated the experience of these and other students in SotB using transformational learning theory as a frame of interpretation.

Methodology

This study was qualitative in approach where “qualitative researchers study events in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, p. 31). We relied on aspects of participant–observer work (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) developing personal experience with the program and participants, and the development of a comprehensive set of field notes documenting the experience. There are aspects of case study in our approach for each student group or “case” (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995) that provided opportunities for analysis and insight in regard to participants’ perceptions and behaviour.

Our work relies in part upon grounded theory processes (Strauss, 1987), where a rich understanding of participants’ experience and perspectives is developed and themes emerge that yield insight into and understanding of people’s behaviour (Mabry, 2007; Denzin, 1978, 1989; Gubrium & Holstein, 1997). To further probe the SotB experience, we applied a TL framework as one interpretive opportunity to establish and gauge the meaningfulness and significance of this authentic science inquiry.

In such analysis, issues of validity as well as reliability and generalizability, based on more positivistic perspectives, recede, and concerns for trustworthiness (Kvale, 1996; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and the richness of interpretation (Richardson, 1994) come to the fore.

To achieve trustworthiness and richness, we collected evidence of peoples’ experience from a total of 119 high school students, 23 teachers, and 18 scientists during their participation in SotB from 2007 to 2010. We collected data from several text-based sources such as program reports, published articles on SotB, and media reports. We relied upon personal correspondence of the program coordinator with students and teachers during the course of their participation as well as routine feedback evaluation surveys in addition to field notes of the coordinator collected during the progress of each SotB groups’ experience. To gain a deeper understanding of the experience, we contacted past participants requesting interviews with them, selecting them at random. We undertook 10 semistructured face-to-face interviews with students, teachers, and scientists, which were later transcribed and analyzed. Transcripts were returned to interviewees for editing and correction and were returned to us.

Our analysis involved searching the data for meaningful quotations, phrases, and incidences indicative of change. This included examining data from different sources, such as interviews, surveys, and documents as well as from different participants, namely, students, teachers, scientists, or the field notes containing coordinator reflections and across time: participants in the program in different years. Categories were created and subdivided based on this content. For example, changes in perception of science versus perception of scientific research versus perception of scientist became evident. Electronic spreadsheets were created to track and cross-reference the content, for example, the theme or category of a quote, where the quote came from, whose perspective changed, who reported the change, and in which group this change was noted. We considered a theme or category significant and retained it when change was reported from more than one source, from more than one person reporting, and was connected to more than one group. This involved a continuous comparison of incoming data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1994) and a checking and refining of themes. This evidence was considered against the framework of transformational learning described earlier in this article. We looked for changes in perspective and behaviour and for more significant epochal transformations (Mezirow, 1997).

Information in this work is identified in the following manner, teacher (T) and student (ST). Interviews were abbreviated with an (I), a number indicating which interview and a page number from the transcript. Feedback surveys were abbreviated to (FS) with a number indicating which group had completed surveys and a page number indicating the individual survey. Field notes were abbreviated (AN) with the number indicating which group the notes are associated with similar to the feedback survey.

Evidence of Transformational Learning

Transformations in participants’ perspectives on the nature of science and scientists might be expected as a result of student involvement in an activity such as SotB. As Bell, Blair, Crawford, and Lederman (2003) note of such experiences, “students are expected to make gains in their understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. This learning is sometimes seen as a natural outcome of students’ participation in scientific inquiry” (p. 488). Students and scientists working together often experience these changes in perspectives (Chambers, 1983; Freedman, 1997) yet other changes may be occurring. Although we did not use survey or interview tools specifically for determining participant perspectives on the nature of science, we were not surprised that in our data we found evidence of transformation in students’ thinking concerning the nature of science. Student comments indicated their perspectives on scientists prior to participating in SotB closely resembled the stereotype described by Türkmen (2008), as people who “wear a white coat and work alone in a laboratory. [A] scientist was elderly or middle aged and wears glasses” (p. 56). Our data revealed alterations in students’ perceptions in this regard. For example:

You think of them as scientists and you expect to see the white lab coat on and see them researching in some sort of lab in the middle of nowhere, but that wasn’t the case at all. They were friendly and they actually had social skills.… I think that was kind of what we noticed the most was scientists are, the ones we were working with, weren’t the stereotypical scientists. (ST-I-1, p. 8)

Students reported their perspective changed and they developed a more informed less stereotypical view on who does science. They described scientists as “curious,” “hard working,”, “cool,” “busy,” “regular people,” “dedicated,” “patient,” “resourceful,” “sleep deprived,” “casual,” “relaxed,” “easy to talk to,” “knowledgeable,” “charismatic,” “down to earth,” “open,” “flexible,” “flawed,” “have a good work ethic,” “diligent,” “brilliant,” “real,” “surprisingly with tattoos,” “humorous,” “welcoming,” and “normal.”

Similarly, data revealed a shift in participants’ perspective in relation to the nature of scientific research. Several student comments demonstrated an understanding that ASI was quite different than their school-based inquiry experiences as these students explain:

It’s eye-opening to see the scientific process. I didn’t know what I was getting into until we were doing it. It’s creative and flexible—not as structured. (ST-AN-6, p. 1)

I thought that research was so easy before. I thought scientists just had a question and did their experiment and found the answer; but there are so many more variables to it than that. You go in looking for one thing and don’t find that, but find many more great things. (ST-FS-2, p. 5)

This experience definitely changed my view of research. It made me realize just how many experiments with uninteresting results are done before one is done that teaches us something new and unexpected, and how preliminary studies often need to be followed up with more in depth studies in order to discover something meaningful. (ST-FS-1, p. 2)

I didn’t know that science was so hit and miss with the results of experiments, but I liked the ‘unknown’ factor of the process.… I also discovered how the scientific process proves something over the course of many experiments which build upon one another, checking for mistakes and using previous knowledge. (ST-FS-2, p. 2)

According to our data, students realized their perspectives of the nature of scientific research changed to include an understanding of science as a more creative and flexible process, with multiple variables that made research more difficult and complex so that it required considerably more time and dedication. In addition, instead of obtaining immediate answers through their efforts, they realized that scientific knowledge is built slowly, over time, with many experiments, some of which produce uninteresting or negative results.

Changes described earlier demonstrate shifts in perspectives that might have been anticipated; however, there is evidence of deeper transformations of habits of mind and of behaviour (Mezirow, 1997a). There appeared moments of the transformative learning that Cranton (2002) described. Presented first are examples of data that demonstrated some learners experienced transformative processes that resulted in changes in their behaviour, in particular student self-perception. As a result of participating in SotB, some of the students came to see themselves as scientists and involved in research as one student stated, “the job of a research scientist is not out of reach” (ST-FS-15, p. 7). One teacher observed that one student, “was much more willing to tackle problems in physics that would scare [her] before” (T-I-7, p. 36). Students often saw themselves as part of a research community after participation in SotB:

(Interviewer) Do you see yourself differently?

(Student) Yes, more scientific, more involved in the community for sure, than someone who was just say studying. I actually did the research. I put everything together. (ST-I-9, p. 19)

If one assumes that these shifts in perspective had a significant effect on self-perception, this would reveal itself in other ways. Several teachers described transformations they observed in their students, for example:

My kids came to see me at the end of last year. It was the most beautiful experience in their life. It was a life changing experience. It had a profound impact. It gave them self confidence that they can succeed. (T-PC-10, p. 1)

The change didn’t seem to be very big. It was subtle but very important in that their respect for what the scientific community does and how they operate has increased. So they respect the scientific process more so than they would have before they went.… They were doing a lot more planning, and taking a leadership role within their lab group, and going through the scientific process of doing a lab, reporting results and concluding the results. (T-I-6, p. 6)

Students exhibited transformation in their behaviour that teachers attributed to their participation in SotB. It could be argued that the perspective shift in self-perception of these students was significant enough for their teacher to observe behavior, indicating higher confidence when involved in science and that this persisted for the students and is thus evidence to support transformational learning.

As Imel (1998) predicted, evidence of significant and fundamental transformation was more infrequent, but it did exist. One student, who went on to university studies, referred to the lasting effects of the SotB experience, suggesting that the way that he thought about things set him apart from his current university colleagues. He believed other university students without an ASI experience during high school were perhaps different in their thought processes. He thought such students were not able to understand research as well:

But I know my thinking has changed because of it.… I could say that when I was learning about research in class and everything, it changed the way I think about, like, how they went through the process of designing and the process of getting, like preparing and doing up everything like that. Yeah, I can understand it a lot better, I think, than most students. (ST-I-9, p. 17)

This student closely identified with the science research community. When offered the opportunity to summarize what was most significant in this experience he offered, “the entire experience just changed how I think” (ST-I-9, p. 19). Such statements are indicative that TL might have occurred.

A second story suggests how a participant’s perspective on their life and career path was altered through SotB. A month prior to high school graduation, John’s (pseudonym) career plan was to gain a trade and build a construction business. After SotB, John changed his plans and entered an aeronautical engineering school. His words, shared through an interview, provide insight into his transformation (St-I-1): Interviewer:

Do you think programs like that are important?

Student:

Yes I do cuz [sic] it was a little bit of a motivator for me…there’s a lot beyond a high school education. That was fairly big for me, just realizing that there’s a lot more out there…that is there to experience. (p. 5)

Interviewer:

Would it be fair to say that you’re experience has had an effect on the decisions you made in terms of your career path and what courses to take and things like that?

Student:

Yeah, I think it did. It was kind of a ‘for sure thing’ after that. Like this, “I’m going to look for a university” cuz [sic] before that I had kind of considered just going straight into construction and that was kind of the, “all right, I don’t want to do construction any more. I want to look for a higher education.”

Student:

I guess that would be one of the biggest decisions I’ve made is to go to university and that [SotB] was kind of a motivator. (p. 9)

Student:

It [SotB] kind of opened things up. It helps you see things through a bit different perspective. (p. 10)

As the excerpts from this interview showed, the SotB experience altered how a student like John viewed the world and what he might undertake. This is indicative that SotB was a transforming experience for this participant both because his thinking had changed and because he took action based on new realizations.

A final story also suggests that SotB was a transformative experience. Parents, her teacher, and Jane (pseudonym) all recognized Jane was struggling to succeed in her high school physics. Despite this, Jane chose to participate in SotB. This was a motivational experience for her, as her enthusiasm for science grew. Subsequently she has been successful in taking two more high school science courses as well as course work in university physics. This story is revealed through observations from her teacher. The interview started with Jane’s story and it recurred throughout the interview (T-I-7):

The girl that struggled with Physics in grade 11…the following fall…her parents came to that Open House with the distinct reason of finding me and telling me, “What did you do to this girl?” I kinda [sic] wondered what they were asking and I said, “What do you mean?” and they said, “She won’t stop talking about this trip to the synchrotron.” This very same girl went on to not only take the forensics course, she took grade 12 Physics. Now she’s just completed first year Physics in university. This girl has gone from being afraid and getting 51 % in Physics 20, to taking on and seeing the sky is the limit in science and it was totally due to the fact that she went to the synchrotron and got to do real science in real time.… So she’s coming out of her shell. She’s pursuing science as her passion. She was a very, very shy girl. Grade 12 was a great year for her she found her direction and she chased it and chased it. (p. 2)

Teacher:

All of them, after this visit, had a very clear and visible bent to pursue science after high school.

Interviewer:

And how did you know that?

Teacher:

Jane was obvious. Her parents came to me and told me there was an actual transformation in this kid. (p. 35)

Teacher:

Well just to watch Jane go. That was my microcosm of the whole experience in seeing that girl do a 180 [degree turn] on science and now she’s pursuing it at post secondary level and nobody would have guessed that in her grade 10 year. (p. 51)

There are examples less dramatic than Jane’s; however, it was clear from this interview and others and from the documentation in program feedback that Jane’s experience of ASI through SotB had been a transformational one for her and for other students.

Summary

The evidence we examined suggests to us that the SotB experience as ASI catalyzed critical reflection on science and science learning among the student participants. Students questioned their assumptions about who does science and what constitutes science investigation and research. Stereotypes of scientists the students held, and misinformed perspectives they voiced concerning how science proceeds and who does science, seemed to largely dissolve through their participation in SotB. By the nature of student comment, it was apparent students did become aware of “holding a limiting or distorted view” (Cranton, 2002, p. 64) concerning science and scientists. More importantly for some there was an alteration in their relationship to science, what it meant for their lives, and further education.

We did not seek to determine whether such transformation was a more “incremental” or “dramatic” process (Cranton, 2002); however, we did witness a transformation in students’ associations with the science endeavour, how they conceived of their involvement in the process of science inquiry, and how they valued the science enterprise for its sophistication and unknowability.

The words and stories of participants, supported by the observation of others, indicated there were substantial alterations to the habits of mind and behaviour of some participants. In other words, some participants experienced not simply changes in their perspectives on science and scientists, whether large or small, but life-transforming moments that impacted how they thought about their lives and future. For some students, these were moments that eventually shaped the direction their lives would take. This suggests transformational learning occurred.

We think that the SotB experience demonstrates a high degree of authenticity regardless of which set of criteria for ASI is applied. Writers such as van Eijck and Roth (2009) suggest that “the plurality of outcomes of authentic science experiences define both what may be called ‘authentic’ in such experiences and what ultimately should be celebrated in science education” (p. 636). We suggest there was a plurality of positive outcomes for participants collectively that occurred across cognitive, emotional, and behavioural domains and that as a whole these were transformative for students.

Chinn and Malhotra (2002) note that ASI involves more than “simple experiments,” “simple observations,” and “simple illustrations.” They suggest ASI is sophisticated and systematic and likely requires a strong sense of ownership and responsibility for the success. Although students volunteered for SotB, which suggests an initial predisposition for commitment and being responsible, we noticed students developed a strong sense of ownership and responsibility for their science question and investigation. Some researchers (Kuh, 2009; Libbey, 2004; Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003) suggest the ownership students feel for their work demonstrates a sense of responsibility that encompasses behavioural, emotional, and cognitive domains of meaningful engagement. We suggest that this sense of ownership and responsibility might be considered an important feature for considering whether an experience is authentic, for these sensibilities seemed as integral an aspect of the experience as students’ formulated their unique questions and the production of unique and novel information. One aspect of this ownership and responsibility that appears to make the SotB experience somewhat unique is the degree to which students were in control of the decisions regarding the research questions to be asked and how the resulting data were to be approached.

We also noted in the data that students possessed a sense of inclusion and belonging with the science community. These sensibilities Mezirow suggests are indicative of TL. We wonder if the presence of such sensibilities as ownership, responsibility, belonging, and inclusion suggests that a more nuanced understanding of ASI may be possible.

We offer that the investigation of such sensibilities in relation to experiences of ASI as well as the use of TL theory for understanding such experience might provide further insight into how to better engage students in meaningful science learning.

Although not every teacher can call upon a research institute such as the CLS and its scientists to aid their students in science learning, what our work suggests is that ASI experiences such as SotB are potentially transformative experience for students, promoting positive perspectives of science and students relationship to science, and so are desirable. What we found suggests such experience is also transformative in developing a sense of ownership and control among students for their own learning that is both meaningful and helpful for them but society in general.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This article has not been presented orally; however, results of the study were presented as part of the first author’s master’s thesis defense presentation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abd-El-Khalick

BouJaoude

Duschl

Lederman

N. G.

Mamlok-Naaman

Hofstein

Tuan

(2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419.

Adams

J. D.

Gupta

DeFelic

(2012). Schools and informal science settings: Collaborate, co-exist, or assimilate? Cult Stud of Sci Educ, 7, 409–416.

Aikenhead

(2006). Science education for everyday life. London, Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Barab

S. A.

Hay

(2001). Doing science at the elbows of scientists: Issues related to the scientist apprentice camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 70–102.

Barron

Darling-Hammond

(2008). Powerful learning: Studies show deep understanding derives from collaborative methods. Edutopia.(October 2008). Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/inquiry-project-learning-research

Bell

R. L.

Blair

L. M.

Crawford

B. A.

Lederman

N. G.

(2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

Bell

(2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83, 39–43.

10.

Bell

Urhahne

Schanze

Ploetzner

(2010) Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 349–377.

11.

Bencze

Hodson

(1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521–539.

12.

Braund

Reiss

(2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373–1388.

13.

Canadian Council on Learning (Producer). (2009). Episode 1: The Centennial challenge. Evolving Education: Learning in the 21st Century. [Television Series]. Saskatoon, Canada: SCN.ca. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/AboutCCL/21stCentury/Resources/Video.html

14.

Carson

Fisher

(2006). Raising the bar on criticality: Students’ critical reflection in an internship program. Journal of Management Education, 30, 700–723.

15.

Chambers

D. W.

(1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67, 255–265.

16.

Chinn

Malhotra

(2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

17.

Council of Ministers of Education Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K-12: Pan-Canadian Protocol for Collaboration on School Curriculum. Retrieved June 2007 from www.cmec.ca. http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/Pages/english/CMEC%20Eng.html

18.

Cranton

P. A.

(2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002, 63–72.

19.

Denzin

(1978). The research act. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.

20.

Denzin

(1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

21.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2003). Introduction: The discipline and practise of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 11, 684p). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A jungian perspective on emotion and transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

(Ed.), Teaching for change. New directions for adult and continuing education, no. 109 (pp. 15–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Duschl

(2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

24.

Freedman

M. P.

(1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343–357.

25.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.

26.

Gubrium

Holstein

(1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

27.

Hart

(2002). Environment in the science curriculum: The politics of change in the Pan-Canadian science curriculum development process. Journal of Science Education, 24, 1239–1254.

28.

Hitchcock

Hughes

(1995). Research and the teacher (2nd ed). London, England: Routledge.

29.

Hsu

van Eijck

Roth

(2010). Students’ Representations of scientific practice during a science internship: Reflections from an activity-theoretic perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1243–1266.

30.

Imel

(1998). Transformative learning in adulthood. ERIC Digest No. 200. Retreived from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423426

31.

Kreber

(2006). Developing the scholarship of teaching through transformative learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16, 88–109.

32.

Kuh

G. D.

(2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009, 5–20.

33.

Kvale

(1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Libbey

H. P.

(2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274–283.

35.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

36.

Luehmann

A. L.

Markowitz

(2007). Science teachers’ perceived benefits of an out-of-school enrichment programme: Identity needs and university affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1133–1161.

37.

Mabry

(2007). Case study in social research. In Bickman

Brannen

Alasuutari

(Eds.), Handbook of social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

38.

Markowitz

D. G.

(2004). Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school summer science program on students’ interest and perceived abilities in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 395–407.

39.

McDonald

Songer

N. B.

(2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Science Education, 92, 973–993.

40.

Mezirow

(1997a). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

41.

Mezirow

(1997b). Transformational theory out of context. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 60–62.

42.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

43.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

44.

O’Neill

D. K.

Polman

J. L.

(2004). Why educate “little scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234–266.

45.

Patrick

Ryan

A. M.

Kaplan

(2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.

46.

Rahm

Miller

H. C.

Hartley

Moore

J. C.

(2003). The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: Examples from two student/teacher-scientist partnership programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 737–756.

47.

Richardson

(1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Sarkar

Frazier

(2008). Place-based investigations and authentic inquiry. Science Teacher, 75, 29–33.

49.

Schwartz

Lederman

(2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 727–771.

50.

Schwartz

Westerlund

García

Taylor

(2010). The impact of full immersion scientific research experiences on teachers views of the nature of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14, 1–40.

51.

Shernoff

D. J.

Csikszentmihalyi

Schneider

Shernoff

E. S.

(2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176.

52.

Strauss

(1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Strauss

Corbin

(1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Suryavanshi

Minielly

Waseem

Hanson

Gregoire

Gillespie

Blyth

R. I. R.

(2008). Exploration of acid-treated boreal forest soil—Students on the Beamline Project. In Dalzell

(Ed.), Canadian light source inc: Activity report 2008 (pp. 15–16). Saskatoon, Canada: Canadian Light Source, Inc.

55.

Türkmen

(2008). Turkish primary students’ perceptions about scientist and what factors affecting the image of the scientists. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4, 55–61.

56.

van Eijck

Roth

(2009). Authentic science experiences as a vehicle to change students’ orientations toward science and scientific career choices: Learning from the path followed by Brad. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 611–638.

57.

Wagner

(2008). Rigor redefined. Educational Leadership, 66, 20–24.

58.

Windschitl

(2004). Folk theories of “Inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481–512.