Article
Can Experiences of
Authentic Scientific
Inquiry Result in
Transformational
Learning?
Journal of Transformative Education
2013, Vol. 11(4) 229-245
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541344614538522
jtd.sagepub.com
Tracy Walker1 and Tim Molnar2
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
1
2
Canadian Light Source Inc, Saskatoon, Canada
College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Tim Molnar, College of Education, 28 Campus Dr, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
S7N 0X1.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
230
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
231
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 & DarlingHammond, 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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
232
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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, Garcı́a, & 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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
233
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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
234
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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.
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
235
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 textbased 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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
236
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
237
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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
238
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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-I9, p. 19)
If one assumes that these shifts in perspective had a significant effect on selfperception, 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,
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
239
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):
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
240
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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.
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
241
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 lifetransforming 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
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
242
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
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.
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, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A., . . . Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives.
Science Education, 88, 397–419.
Adams, J. D., Gupta, P., & DeFelic, A. (2012). Schools and informal science settings:
Collaborate, co-exist, or assimilate? Cult Stud of Sci Educ, 7, 409–416.
Aikenhead, G. (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, K. (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, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (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, S. (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.
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010) Collaborative inquiry learning:
Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 349–377.
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
243
Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more
authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 521–539.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28,
1373–1388.
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
Carson, L., & Fisher, K. (2006). Raising the bar on criticality: Students’ critical reflection in
an internship program. Journal of Management Education, 30, 700–723.
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test.
Science Education, 67, 255–265.
Chinn, C., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.
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
Cranton, P. A. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 2002, 63–72.
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.
Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practise of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Landscape of qualitative research:
Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 11, 684p). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dirkx, J. M. (2006). Engaging emotions in adult learning: A jungian perspective on emotion
and transformative learning. In E. W. Taylor (Ed.), Teaching for change. New directions
for adult and continuing education, no. 109 (pp. 15–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic,
and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
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.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Hart, P. (2002). Environment in the science curriculum: The politics of change in the PanCanadian science curriculum development process. Journal of Science Education, 24,
1239–1254.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher (2nd ed). London, England:
Routledge.
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
244
Journal of Transformative Education 11(4)
Hsu, P., van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. (2010). Students’ Representations of scientific practice
during a science internship: Reflections from an activity-theoretic perspective.
International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1243–1266.
Imel, S. (1998). Transformative learning in adulthood. ERIC Digest No. 200. Retreived from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id¼ED423426
Kreber, C. (2006). Developing the scholarship of teaching through transformative learning.
Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16, 88–109.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical
foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009, 5–20.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274–283.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Luehmann, A. L., & Markowitz, D. (2007). Science teachers’ perceived benefits of an out-ofschool enrichment programme: Identity needs and university affordances. International
Journal of Science Education, 29, 1133–1161.
Mabry, L. (2007). Case study in social research. In L. Bickman, J. Brannen, & P. Alasuutari
(Eds.), Handbook of social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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.
McDonald, S., & Songer, N. B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Science Education, 92, 973–993.
Mezirow, J. (1997a). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.
Mezirow, J. (1997b). Transformational theory out of context. Adult Education Quarterly, 48,
60–62.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
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.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 83–98.
Rahm, J., Miller, H. C., Hartley, L., & 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.
Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Walker and Molnar
245
Sarkar, S., & Frazier, R. (2008). Place-based investigations and authentic inquiry. Science
Teacher, 75, 29–33.
Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30,
727–771.
Schwartz, R., Westerlund, J., Garcı́a, D., & Taylor, T. (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.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School
Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Suryavanshi, P., Suryavanshi, S., Minielly, C., Waseem, M., Hanson, A., Gregoire, J.,
Gillespie, A., . . . Blyth, R. I. R. (2008). Exploration of acid-treated boreal forest soil—
Students on the Beamline Project. In M. Dalzell (Ed.), Canadian light source inc:
Activity report 2008 (pp. 15–16). Saskatoon, Canada: Canadian Light Source, Inc.
Türkmen, H. (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.
van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. (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.
Wagner, T. (2008). Rigor redefined. Educational Leadership, 66, 20–24.
Windschitl, M. (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.
Author Biographies
Tracy Walker is the educational outreach coordinator at the Canadian Light Source
synchrotron in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. She creates learning opportunities for
students and teachers by involving them in original research using synchrotron techniques
and investigates such experiences as an authentic setting for STEM learning in public and
postsecondary education and as professional development for teachers.
Tim Molnar is a professor in the department of curriculum studies at the University of
Saskatchewan, Canada. His work involves teaching, research, and service relating to meaningful approaches to science teaching and learning and teacher education as well as examining
the interplay of these with Indigenous ways of knowing nature and antiracist education.
Downloaded from jtd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016