Braiding history, inquiry, and model-based learning: A collection of open-source historical case studies for teaching both geology content and the nature of science

ABSTRACT

Many of the current issues facing humans are geologic in nature. Whether the issue is mitigating the impact of geologic hazards, reducing air and water pollution, managing the energy of mineral resources, or minimizing the impact of anthropogenic global climate change, we require a geosciences-literate population. This is crucial to developing policies to best address these issues and to voting to implement such policies. In this article, we introduce a novel strategy for teaching geoscience content, as well as the nature of science, to a diverse audience: the historical case study. Essentially, the historical case studies “braid” the separate strands of history, inquiry, and model-based learning into a narrative, thus allowing students to experience science in the making. This is in contrast to ready-made science as traditionally taught. We discuss the generations of the cases, summarize their content, and describe their implementation in multiple contexts of different courses. We also provide insights from the undergraduate researchers who developed the cases, the instructors who implemented them, and some preliminary data on student knowledge development concerning both geoscience content and nature of science. The cases are available online and open to the public. We welcome any feedback you wish to share.

KEYWORDS:

• Case study
• history and philosophy of geology
• model-based learning

Introduction

The past several years have seen calls for action for enhancing education in the Earth sciences, in the United States and around the world (Barstow & Geary, 2002; IUGS Strategic Planning Committee, 2012). This has come about through the realization that many of the issues that currently impact human survival are geological in nature, such as human-induced global climate change, availability of fresh water, fossil fuels, and other mineral resource availability (Hoffman & Barstow, 2007). In addition, researchers have documented that globally, geoscience education is not strong or consistent (King, 2008, 2013; Lewis, 2008; Lewis & Baker, 2010). In fact, recent literature in geoscience education shows that many students entering an undergraduate course in introductory geology already have ideas about how the Earth works, which differ from the way science explains it (Francek, 2013; Kirkby, 2014). Research also shows that by the end of the course many students maintain many of these alternative ideas, which points to the ineffectiveness of traditional, lecture-style instruction ideas (Clark, Libarkin, Kortz, & Jordan, 2011; Libarkin & Anderson, 2005). There have been numerous calls to increase instruction in the geosciences, as well as enhancing its effectiveness (Barstow & Geary, 2002; Hoffman & Barstow, 2007). In response to these calls for action, as well as general calls to enhance science education globally, education standards documents have incorporated more geoscience into their structure, (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2012; Eurydice Network, 2011; InterAmerican Network of the Academies of Sciences, www.ianas.org; National Research Council, 2012).

Some have also expressed the importance of teaching students about the process of science, in addition to the content (National Research Council, 2012; Wysession et al., 2012). This emphasis has grown from Conant's (1947) call to teach the “tactics and strategy of science” to the more recent emphasis on teaching the nature of science (NoS), found in documents by Rutherford and Ahlgren (1990), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993), the National Research Council (NRC; 1996), and the National Science Teachers Association (2003). Today, similar emphasis continues from the NRC (2012) and NGSS Lead States (2013), which actually place special emphasis on “scientific practices.”

Although highly emphasized in standards documents, getting teachers to actually address NoS in their instruction has been a challenge. Reasons for this are many. First, textbook presentation of NoS is not coherent with current views of NoS (DiGiuseppe, 2014). Second, many teachers understand the process of science differently than most philosophers and historians of science (Henke & Höttecke, 2013; Lederman, 2007). The third reason is that it can take considerable effort for the instructor to incorporate reliable NoS instruction in class (Aydin, 2015; Krajewski & Schwartz, 2014), while the teaching environment seldom supports such efforts (Höttecke & Silva, 2011).

This article suggests a new strategy for achieving these goals of effective geoscience and NoS education: braiding history, inquiry, and student model building into historical case studies. Our group has woven these strands to develop a collection of historical case studies and implemented them as part of regular instruction. This article summarizes the process of creating the cases and implementing most of them into a range of classes, and presents feedback from the case builders and instructors concerning the process of designing and implementation.

The next section describes each strand and how we wove them together. After that, we will give a brief synopsis of each of the cases. We will then present data concerning case builders' and instructors' experiences with the case studies as they were implemented. Then we will give some preliminary student data concerning student experiences and learning with the cases. Finally, we will discuss some implications for teaching with cases, and provide access information for interested readers to download, use, and comment on the cases for themselves.

The strands: History, inquiry, and model-based learning

History

The idea of incorporating history with instruction first came about when Conant (1947) noted that, in addition to science content, students (including nonscience majors) should learn the “tactics and strategy” of the scientific process. This idea picked up some interest, but did not last long (Matthews, 2015). However, due to a recent, increased emphasis on scientific literacy by scientific organizations and science educators, the focus has turned in particular to how students understand NoS; thus, using history to teach science has gained momentum. The renewed interest in drawing on the history of science came about in the last couple of decades. Matthews (2015) stated that teaching the history and philosophy of science is important because it promotes better comprehension, is intrinsically interesting, is necessary for learning NoS, counteracts scientism and dogmatism, humanizes the process of science, and connects with disciplines within science as well as outside of science. Furthermore, in some instances, individual learning of scientific concepts roughly parallels the historical trajectory of that same concept (Gruberm & Bödeker, 2005). Others have bolstered these arguments for science education in general (Allchin, 1997, 2013), and for geoscience education in particular (Dolphin, 2009; Dolphin & Dodick, 2014; Marques & Thompson, 1997; Montgomery, 2009).

Inquiry

The use of the word inquiry has a broad range of meanings, especially in the science education literature. Unless specifically defined, understanding the concept of student inquiry can be wide ranging. In this article, we refer mainly to Bybee's (2006) interpretation of inquiry in the science classroom, in which the learner does the following: engage in scientifically oriented questions, prioritize evidence in the creation of an explanation, connect explanations to other scientific knowledge, and finally communicate or argue their explanation to others. In relation to the case studies, students can answer questions (either historic or current, of their making or ones created for them) through the use of actual data. Students may derive this data through an activity, or it may come from a published source. The point here is that the students have a certain amount of freedom to direct where the inquiry goes, yet are also constrained by the historical context (Allchin, 2014). Their claims, in the end, must be evidence-based. Although some of the activities are driven by the students' questions, most often the trajectory of the inquiry is structured by both the history portrayed in the case and essential questions—the kinds of questions that are not answerable in short propositions, but encourage discussion and further questioning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006).

Model-based learning

The final component of the case study is its emphasis on model-based learning. Modeling, working with one idea as an analogy to a target object or phenomenon, is the way scientists create new knowledge concerning a topic of study (Indurkhya, 1992; Nersessian, 2008; Thagard, 2012). Research has demonstrated that many of the modeling strategies used by experts (for instance, imagistic simulation, analogical reasoning, and runnable models) are similar to those used by novices (Clement, 2008). Certainly, incorporating work with models and promoting model-based thinking in students helps them develop understandings of concepts that are coherent with consensus views. Giving students concrete experiences from which they can draw is important in facilitating the model-building process (Amin, 2009; Beger & Jäkel, 2015; Close & Scherr, 2015; Niebert & Gropengiesser, 2015). These concrete experiences could be of the target phenomenon (what is actually being studied) or an analogous experience (for instance, using a model of the phenomenon; Niebert, Marsch, & Treagust, 2012).

Boulter and Buckley (2000) described various modes of models for use in science teaching. They suggested introducing students to multiple modes of representation (concrete, visual, verbal, gestural, and mathematical), starting with more concrete representations and moving to more abstract. Because each model maintains particular affordances and limitations concerning the target concept, displaying multiple modes and being explicit about such aspects will help students develop more robust conceptual understandings.

Learning proceeds along an iterative path (Figure 1). Starting with a mental model based on past experiences, learners use new information—through visualizations (Gilbert, 2008), thought experiments (Nersessian, 2008), and analogical thinking (Harre, 2004; Jee et al., 2010)—to enhance their model. Processes such as accommodation—in which the external world influences the structure of the mental model of the observer—and/or projection—how the mental model of the observer affects perception of the external world—help to mediate perception and develop understanding for the learner of the objects and transformations in the real world (Indurkhya, 1992). With these strategies, students will add to their models (model accretion), subtract from their models (model reduction; Rae-Ramirez, Clement, & Núñez-Oviedo, 2008), and compare and contrast different models (model competition; Núñez–Oviedo & Clement, 2008). They will work with this model in an iterative process that has them build it, test it against data, and then modify it in light those data (Clement, 2008; Halloun, 2007). The goal is to have students broaden and deepen (Thagard, 2012) the explanatory coherence of their mental models.

Figure 1. Diagram showing the iterative nature of useful learning. Initial study of an external world phenomenon with its objects and transformations. Information transverses the perceptual layers (our senses and initial cognitive processing) and into the cognitive layers as a mental model with. Accommodation is when our mental model adapts to the external world. Projection is when our mental model impacts how we perceive the external world. The addition of new information causes a change from Model 1 to Model 2, and so on. Ideally, with each iteration of model development comes increasing explanatory power and reliability of the model (after Indurkhya, 1992).

Braiding the strands: The historical case study

Case-based learning has been the mainstay of education in disciplines like business, medicine, and law for decades. However, recently the use of case studies has gained greater appeal in science education (Herreid, 2007). According to those who have used them, case studies can enhance student learning of content (Karuksis, 2003), critical thinking skills (Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu, 2003; Herreid, 2004; Hodges, 2005; Yadav & Beckerman, 2009), and student engagement (Camill, 2006; Dinan, 2005). This is because case studies effectively make the content relevant to students (Dinan, 2005; Dunnivant, Moore, Alfano, Buckley, & Newman, 2000), as well as presenting information within the context of a story—an effective strategy for teaching science (Fawcett & Fawcett, 2011; Stinner, McMillan, Metz, Jana, & Klassen, 2003; Wilson, 2002), because our brains seem to actually be wired for storytelling (Zarkadakis, 2015).

Cases can be designed as contemporary or as historical. Contemporary cases might have more relevance for students because actions are currently taking place, possibly affecting their lives right now. However, Allchin (2014) and Rudwick (1985) pointed out that using historical examples is beneficial because the science has already been worked out. Students, after struggling to discern direction in solving the problem, can experience closure by seeing how the science was eventually settled. They can also observe what social, political, and economic factors played a role in the science as we now know it.

We structured the cases to include a historical prelude and historical interludes, which surround inquiry activities, to build context and give purpose to the inquiry. We used questions to shape activities:

•	How did the investigation develop?
•	Why is the investigation important?
•	What are possible avenues for solving the problem and why?

According to Allchin (2014), the “set up” (our historical prelude or interludes), followed by the inquiry, allows students to experience science in the making (Latour, 1987). They can approach the problem as scientists do, without the benefit of knowing what the correct answer will be.

Although inquiry does have the characteristic of being open ended, the historical contextualization gives a certain structure to help direct students from one activity to the next. As Allchin (2014) stated, “The role of history is to motivate student inquiry, frame problems, illustrate scientists at work, and (for instructors) provide an investigative trajectory that ultimately reaches a known (modern) solution and stable closure to an episode of inquiry” (p. 2). In addition, the cases are built around the historical development of a concept as opposed to designing a case around a specific character central to that development. In this way, the case shows how many of the problems of science were solved in a social environment, usually from many different directions: in other words, that many people make contributions as part of a social endeavor (Rudwick, 1985). With an episodic (Allchin, 2014) or interrupted style (Herreid, 2007), historical interludes bracket inquiry activities, discussions, and model-building opportunities. It is this braided structure we feel makes the cases effective at teaching both geological content and NoS understandings. As an example, Figure 2 presents an illustration of the “braiding” of components of the case study devoted to early understandings of the origin of continents and ocean basins. The following section will describe the braiding process, starting with delineating learning goals and ending up with a completed, written case.

Figure 2. An example of the structure of the historical cases that shows the relationship among essential questions, historical interludes, inquiry activities, and model-building opportunities.

Starting with the goals in mind

Allchin (2013) outlined a structure for building historic case studies. He suggested starting with a concept to be taught, followed by collecting a good volume of high-quality historic resources concerning the given concept. This would include The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (Gillispe, 1970), and the search engine for the history of science, technology, and medicine (HistSciTechMEd), FirstSearch. Having become familiar with the circumstances surrounding the development of the concept, the instructor should identify important features of NoS that would be crucial to the narrative. These features could include how social, political, or economic conditions influenced the direction of the process of science. It could also include the way in which the concept developed though time and the role of power, fame, gender, economics, politics, or existing technology. The development of scientific knowledge is a complex process (Giere, 1988; Nersessian, 2008; Thagard, 2012) and includes many influences outside of the intellectual endeavor itself (Matthews, 2012). It can be difficult to do justice to all the features of NoS (Allchin, 2011) that played a part. It is thus better to highlight a few that seemed to play the biggest roles, while not overlooking lesser ones as nonexistent.

The next step is to use the features of NoS to begin building the context of the concept's development. Aspects to cover here include these:

•	What was the problem?
•	What was it about that particular time or place and people that made it a problem?
•	Were there previous attempts to deal with the problem? To what end? Why?
•	How was the problem eventually solved?
•	What was the role of technology in the resolution of the problem?
•	What features of NoS played an integral role in the process?

After addressing these questions, the instructor describes how that solution to the problem was initially received, which should encompass the context surrounding this reception. As well, it is necessary to emphasize again the features of NoS that were the original goal for the case. Then, the narrative can be filled out with more contextualizing description. Finally, the instructor must develop a way to assess students on their understanding of the concepts that were in the learning goals (Allchin, 2013; personal communication).

Once the narrative has some structure and activities, discussions and “think questions” get incorporated to enhance student engagement and afford opportunities to further develop their models of the content and NoS. Finally, we have learned that piloting the cases in multiple classes—with the authors of the cases observing the classroom activities and dynamics—helps to determine what, if any, modifications should be made to enhance the case efficacy.

Building case studies: A real team effort

Through a grant from the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary, and a stipend from the Tamaratt Teaching Professorship in Geoscience at the same institution, the first author hired four undergraduate students (from the anthropology, geosciences, and biology departments) to work as research assistants (RAs) over a two-year period. RAs each received a stipend of $5000 per year for their research and development of one case study each per year, including collecting images and creating teacher's notes, weekly update meetings, and observations during the case implementation. The second author, holding an appointment with the Chemistry Department and teaching within the Natural Sciences Program, offered her “Scientific Explorations” class (SCIE 331; a general science course for education majors) as a testing ground for piloting many of the cases the RAs produced. The first author used his high-enrollment (n = ∼300) “Introduction to Geology” course for nonscience majors to implement all eight cases produced.

Each RA created his or her own individual case study but met weekly to share progress and difficulties concerning case development and piloting, and the RAs often worked collaboratively together while doing their respective research, so that everyone had some participation in the creation of all the cases. As a side note, this project was an excellent opportunity for involving undergraduates in independent research (Guertin, 2014). They were not on the forefront of geoscience content knowledge creation, but they did learn content relative to their respective cases, as well as the historical context of the content and some pedagogical strategies.

The cases

The following section gives a brief description, the narrative, and the content and NoS learning goals of each of the seven cases. We did not develop the cases with any hierarchy of concepts to address in mind. We did not set out to develop cases for teaching the most difficult concepts in geology. The first author suggested a list of interesting topics. The list consisted of some great controversies in the history of geology—for instance, the Great Devonian Controversy, extinction of the dinosaurs, age of the Earth, geo- and paleomagnetism, and even history of our understanding of conodonts. However, the first author decided to let the undergraduate RAs follow their own passions in the hopes of fostering greater engagement with the freedom. Three of the four RAs had at least two courses in geology at the beginning of the project and had personal interests with particular topics. In some cases, the original topic became too broad and the case developer needed to step back and decide which way the case should unfold. What follows is a fairly detailed description of two of the cases, to give the reader an idea of their structure and format. Table 1 outlines all seven cases with a brief summary and the learning goals for both geology content and NoS.

Table 1. Brief synopsis of each of the eight historical case studies, including content and NoS understandings addressed in each.

Title author	Synopsis	Content understandings	NoS understandings
History of U.S. seismicity	Starting with the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, students study aspects of seismology through the 20th century to see the role it played in the development of the theory of plate tectonics.	• Elastic rebound theory	• Society's influence on scientific inquiry
Glenn Dolphin		• Defining plate boundaries	• Consensus building
		• Various models of Earth dynamics	• Cognitive resources and scientific advancement
The biggest upheaval in geology that no one ever talks aboutJessica Burylo	Students are introduced to 19th-century geological society and weigh the strength of superposition and faunal succession as ways to order stratigraphic sequences when trying to determine the history of the Earth. As it is with most controversies, the eventual consensus view borrows aspects from both sides of the argument.	• Steno's four principles of relative age dating• The use of fossils in stratigraphy Geologic time scale	• The role of wealth in scientific inquiry and argumentation• The role of theory when making observations
The demythologization of Alfred WegenerSimon Wiebe	Students compare two different thermal contraction explanations for the existence of continents and oceans. They then familiarize themselves with Wegener's horizontal displacement. The narrative recounts the aspects of data accumulating through the earlier years of the continental drift controversy and the building of the arguments on either side.	• Isostacy• Continental drift	• The nature of scientific controversy• The role of theory when making observations• How power often determines the consensus view
History of seafloor explorationSimon Wiebe	This is a nice continuation of the previous case on Alfred Wegener. It documents the mid-19th-century attempts to start collecting seafloor data through soundings and then sonar and finally gravity anomaly. The case describes some of the irrefutable data (although it was refuted), such as paleomagnetic evidence that eventually led to the acceptance of plate tectonics as a consensus view of Earth dynamics.	• Seafloor anatomy• Geo- and paleomagnetism	• The role of advancing technology in scientific knowledge development• Consensus building
Death by the numbers: The radium dial–painter tragedyEmily Hurst	Students are introduced to Amelia Maggia (Mollie), the 24-year-old daughter of Italian immigrants who took a job at the United States Radium Company. She soon fell ill with some as yet nondiagnosable serious health issues. The narrative tracks the process of learning that it was the radium in the paint she was using that caused her illness and the illnesses of many of the other young women also working for the company. The case also develops a side story of the discovery of radium by the Curies.	• Discovery of radioactivity• Health applications of radiation• Opportunity to teach about the chemistry of radioactivity	• How science affects society• The role of serendipity in scientific discovery• Intersection between science and economics/business
Dinosaur extinctionEmily Hurst	Follows the path of Walter Alvarez and his group from Berkley as they discovered and tried to make sense of the iridium anomaly at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary.	• Mass extinction• Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction• Mass volcanism	• Role of theory when making observations• Serendipity in scientific discovery• Building scientific consensus
The pathway to discovery: The controversy and science behind the Chicxulub CraterWyatt Petryshen	A nice follow-up for the previous case is this one illustrating the work needed to eventually find the crater believed to have been created by the meteorite that caused the K–Pg mass extinction. This narrative includes data collected from actual participants involved in the controversy.	• The science of impacts• Impact of the meteorite on the Earth	• Role of evidence with building a causal explanation• Role of serendipity in scientific discovery• Developing scientific consensus

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake: Early-20th-century U.S. seismology (by Glenn Dolphin)

Students begin by discussing the human impacts of earthquakes after viewing videos (Dalessandro & Burton, 2006) and reading personal accounts by Jack London (1906) and William James (1911) of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. They try to determine how to approach investigating this disaster with the goal of minimizing the impact of future disasters. Afterward, they read portions of the Lawson Report (Reid, 1910) and learn about elastic rebound theory. Inquiry and model building comes into to play for them as they manipulate, develop an investigatory question, and collect data using the earthquake machine (Hubenthal, Braile, & Taber, 2008). This is a concrete model relying on wood blocks, sandpaper, and rubber bands to demonstrate the buildup and eventual release of elastic strain.

Next, students discuss the possible patterns of earthquake occurrence, based on a map of global seismicity produced by Robert Mallet (1857). They start to develop an explanatory model of this pattern of seismicity. In an effort to get them to think about multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1965), they discuss, compare, and contrast summaries—including some actual historical writings—of some historical models of earth dynamics. These models include Aristotle's porous Earth (Şengör, 2003), contracting Earth (Dana, 1847; Suess, 1904), land bridges and isthmian links (Schuchert, 1932; Willis, 1932), expanding Earth (Carey, 1976; Herndon, 2005; Jordan, 1971), and horizontal displacement (Wegener & Skerl, 1924). Students weigh the strengths and limitations of each of the models as they further develop their personal models of the nature of earthquakes.

Students read excerpts describing the history of seafloor explorations (Höhler, 2003; Lawrence, 2002), and in small groups review maps of seafloor data similar to Sawyer's (2002), in an inquiry exercise echoing the earlier activity with Mallet's map. They try to discern patterns in the data (volcanic and seismic activity, geochronological, bathymetric, sediment thickness, and heat flow) and develop some explanatory model in that context. They then read excerpts from Hess (1962) and Vine and Matthews (Vine, 1966; Vine & Matthews, 1963) to gain an understanding of how they incorporated this seafloor data into the burgeoning theory of plate tectonics.

Finally, students vary the data parameters of the Incorporated Research Institutes in Seismology (IRIS) earthquake browser (http://www.iris.edu/ieb/index.html) to explore and collect data to answer their own questions about the location, magnitude, and abundance of earthquake activity—based on their newly developed ideas of Earth dynamics. The case ends with a reflection on content as students describe in both text and drawings (Gobert, 2005; Johnson & Reynolds, 2005) what an earthquake is, how they happen, and what they can tell us about how the Earth works.

They address NoS in multiple ways: within the context of the nature of data in developing scientific models; by how multiple competing models can exist for explaining the same data, and what that means; and through how past experiences can influence (bias) data interpretation. For instance, Reid's early work (cf. Lawson & Byerly, 1951) studying glacier movement and dynamics may well have influenced his ideas for measuring the slow-moving and rigid lithosphere, and the buildup of elastic strain within. Wegener's observations of icebergs drifting became his model of drifting continents (Greene, 2015). Suess (1904) and Dana (1847) developed their ideas of a contracting Earth based on their observations in compressional mountain belts.

The biggest upheaval in geology that no one ever talks about (by Jessica Burylo)

This case concerns the Great Devonian Controversy (Rudwick, 1985) addressing the development of biostratigraphy, the notion of Earth history, and issues concerning NoS. The case represents an approximately 10-year period of controversy, starting just before the mid-1830s.

The instructor first introduces students to 1830s England, with specific details concerning the nature of studying geoscience at that time and place in history, along with brief particulars of the proceedings of the geologic community. They read short biographical sketches of the six main scientific men of this case (Henry de la Beche, Roderick Murchison, George Greenough, Adam Sedgwick, Charles Lyell, and William Smith). The biographies include how each man came about his wealth, certain facets of his personal life, and information indicating how he might value correlating through biostratigraphy. Students then engage in small group discussion as to how the life history of each scientist could bias his science.

Next, students hear about the law of superposition and the law of faunal succession. They review the role of each law at that time in history. The former was well accepted within the scientific community, whereas the latter was newer and highly controversial because it gave historical significance to fossils, which were still enigmatic at the time (Rudwick, 2014). To reinforce their knowledge on the matter, students engage in an activity to synthesize a single stratigraphic cross-section from data representing varying localities of England. Students easily combine these sections based on indicated rock type to form a continuous stratigraphic section. In a follow-up activity, they receive a rock sequence from another locality. This cross-section contains rock type data that would indicate the bottom of their synthesized section if using the law of superposition. However, it also contains fossil data that would place it near the top of the section when applying the law of faunal succession. Students are unsure how to add in the final cross-section, thereby experiencing the controversy and mimicking the experience of scientists of the day.

Students then receive a narrative concerning how the geologic community handled this conundrum. This includes a recount of the arguments made at the Geologic Society of London during the mid- to late-1830s; they also hear about how, through an unfortunate coincidence of events (subscribing to faunal succession and losing his family wealth and social status), Henry de la Beche was marginalized within the Geologic Society. Students discuss the role wealth can play in allowing an individual to gain authority to sway others' opinions. Discussion points emphasize how access to wealth affects one's credibility, as well as why people often make up their minds on a topic based on ideologies, rather than on empirical evidence. This is an opportunity to draw parallels to modern-day situations.

The narrative of the story concludes with de la Beche unable to participate heavily in this debate, whereas Roderick Murchison pursued the answer, given that he had both time and the means. By drawing samples from all over mainland Europe for the better part of the decade, Murchison discovered that this anomaly in the stratigraphic record (originally described in Devon, England) actually represented a time in history not yet identified—the Devonian time period. Students discuss how such a historical quarrel could now be unknown to a modern geologist and what this might mean for the future of some modern-day scientific controversies.

Piloting the various cases in different classes

We worked on case development throughout the fall semester of 2014, and then began plans for piloting them in the winter of 2015. Our aim was to pilot the cases in several distinct types of classes; we wanted to ensure they were flexible enough for use in large lecture formats, small classes of 20 or so students, and anywhere in between. In all, we piloted all cases at least twice, in both small- (20 students) and large- (300+ students) venue environments. Course subject matter ranged from the history of medicine, introductory geology for majors and for nonscience majors, and general science. These courses each saw the implementation of one or two cases. We piloted four of the cases in a physical science course in the Natural Science Program, a course mainly for education majors, which was taught by one of the authors. The following section gives more specific information about the actual environment in which the cases were implemented. It will contextualize some of the preliminary findings about student experiences with the cases, especially in terms of content understanding and NoS understanding.

Collaboration among case builders and instructors

We held multiple meetings between case builders and the instructors who would be implementing them. These meetings allowed for discussions and negotiation about how case implementation would take place. In general, when presented with new curricular material, an instructor either picks up the curricular material as written, modifies parts of the material, or omits parts completely (Brown, 2009). The instructor does this as a way of matching his or her instructional goals and background with what is included in the curricular materials. We were not interested so much in having the cases presented verbatim; rather, we approached implementation as the outcome of collaborations with instructors who brought to the process various backgrounds, teaching goals, class sizes, and a willingness to hand over a certain amount of freedom to their students. This process also gave us, the case builders, insight into which priorities we should focus on to create cases that are flexible, yet maintain historical and pedagogical fidelity.

We implemented the cases in a history of medicine course (about 20 students), an introduction to geology for nonscience majors (about 400 students), and introductory geology course for geology majors (about 350 students), and a cross-disciplinary science course taken mainly by undergraduate prospective science teachers (about 30 students). We were able to introduce one case each of the history of medicine, two in the geology for majors course, a few per year in the introductory geology service course, and four within the same term in the cross-disciplinary course (SCIE 331). We were mostly interested in how the instructors took up the cases and how students experienced them. Plus, we wanted to be as unobtrusive in these classes as possible. Therefore, we did not worry about measuring student content gains in the history and two geology courses. However, because we had greater access to SCIE 331, as one of the authors who helped supervise the case development was the instructor and implemented four cases during a single term, we did try to capture the students' development of science and NoS content. Because the student data we recorded is SCIE 331 only, a more thorough description of that particular course follows.

Description and structure of SCIE 331: Scientific explorations

For context, the University of Calgary is in the top five research institutions in Canada (top 200 globally). It has about 31,000 students (25,000 of them undergraduates). The general science course “Scientific Explorations” (SCIE 331) was one venue in which the first four case studies were piloted. This was a relatively small class (about 30 students, 23 of them female) and thus provided many opportunities for class-wide discussion and interaction. The vast majority of students were education majors. SCIE 331 is a second-year course, and the range of science education was quite varied from student to student. For most, their most recent formal geology instruction would have been a small section, focusing on plate tectonics, of the entire Grade 7 science curriculum. The main goal of this course is for students to build a foundation in scientific principles, key scientific findings, and NoS that would help them interpret and disseminate scientific information. In-class work (30% of the course grade) consisted of activity worksheets and reflective questions. These were evaluated for completion and provided a way for students to receive ongoing formative feedback on their ideas about science from their instructor. Out-of-class work (70% of the course grade) consisted of two assignments and a term project that students completed individually.

Structure of lessons

Each case study spanned two or three class periods and followed the same general cycle of activities. Cases began with an exploratory or reflective question for which students wrote open-ended short answers. This got students thinking about an aspect of the historical context or scientific content and to give the instructor a gauge of student initial conceptions. Students then were immersed in the historical content of the case, through lecture slides, video clips, or readings. This content laid the groundwork for students to engage in an activity relevant to the case in small groups. Activities were normally completed with a class discussion in which students were encouraged to identify the evidence scientists used, how this was analyzed, and how such an approach parallels other types of scientific investigations (historical or modern).

Data collection and analysis

Because the initial focus of the work in the class was to pilot the cases and then modify them based on student experiences, our data—mainly written responses to open-ended questions and reflective prompts—are exploratory and descriptive. They give us a direction for future work. The focus of this article is on the total process: the cases themselves and the methodology used to produce, implement, and modify them. Student data were part of this process, whose outcomes informed how we modified the cases.

Because our interest here is on the development of the historical case studies, our data concerning this process comes from different contexts. The following sections will thus describe the case development process from the point of view of the RAs, the instructors implementing the cases, and the project leader. We will also present some preliminary data from students experiencing the cases in class. These data, used to evaluate the efficacy of the cases and to inform our case modifications, took many forms. To come to understand students' developing understanding of NoS, we asked them to answer some questions in which they described a recent science news story they had seen and why they would consider it scientific. Then we asked them to describe an experience when they thought they were acting like a scientist and why they thought that. Students answered the questionnaire in the beginning of the course and then again at the end.

To collect data on students' conceptual development throughout the course, the instructor asked questions before, during, and after activities that would encourage students to reflect on the content and the nature of the scientific investigation. Such questions were often asked in worksheet format to allow individuals time to reflect and compose their thoughts, supporting them with examples. Their responses to such questions also helped inform the next class activity or discussion, as the instructor could target any persistent misconceptions about the scientific concepts or NoS that arose.

Findings

Our findings mainly revolve around the experiences recounted by those involved in the development and implementation of the cases. We will also present some preliminary data from students who experienced the cases.

Undergraduate student research assistants

The undergraduate RAs displayed and described great enthusiasm about their work researching and developing the cases. In general, they enjoyed the “independence and self-directed line of inquiry” and “having the freedom to choose” what they wanted to research. This parallels the findings of Petrella and Jung (2008), who found that undergraduates conducting independent research enjoyed working independently. The RAs also noted the relevance of their work to both the students and the wider world. Each noted how the case was not just a standard paper to be turned in to the instructor and never seen again, but the cases would be used by instructors and, indeed, by many students. This caused them to assume much more responsibility for the case quality and to put in the extra effort to make it “good enough” for public use. They also enjoyed seeing their cases implemented by other instructors. They recounted pleasant surprise, for instance, when the instructor interpreted the case in a way not expected by the author, but saw it working nonetheless. They also enjoyed observing how “the students were quick to draw comparisons to current day issues, which share common themes.”

These brief comments by the RAs in reference to their experiences in developing the cases demonstrate the importance of conducting undergraduate research, echoing conclusions of Pereira and Neves (2014), who stated, “Students [doing independent research] have demonstrated their commitment and responsibility for their own learning” (p. 249). As well, by having the RAs present and ultimately publish their cases, we have closed the “gap” in the research cycle and helped the RAs enhance their writing and communications skills (Walkington, 2014). The project has shown the relevance of the science to their lives, and also how to take charge of their learning and use it to further their goals.

Instructors

Having approached multiple instructors to implement the case studies, the first author used four different ones, based mainly on scheduling opportunities—the right content at the right time. The perception of those implementing the cases then, whether in small classes or large, and whether within a single class period or over several periods, was that the cases “provided rich groundwork for engaging students … in open discussions about science and the nature of science” during the implementation. These instructor-made observations echo claims of Dunnivant et al. (2000) and Camill (2006), who both commented on the flexibility of the case(s) they implemented commenting on the convenience of tailoring the case to meet time and content structures.

They found that students enjoyed the format and were able to draw information and experience from other domains of knowledge to help them work through some of the problems posed during each case. From their in-class discussions, the instructors noted that the cases “demonstrated the complexity of the issues for students who had previously thought that science was a black or white, right or wrong, yes or no endeavor.” They also found the presentation of the case to be a positive teaching (and learning) experience, giving them a new way to present course material (Hodges, 2005).

Preliminary student data

We have some preliminary data on students' understandings of some of the concepts addressed by the cases, gathered after the students had experienced the cases. As mentioned, we took these data from students in the course taught by one of the authors. We sought to be as unobtrusive as possible for the other instructors; we were mainly interested in the how the structure of the case seemed to work within the context of the classroom. We derived these data from written answers to in-class summary “thought questions” students developed at the end of each case study. It is especially important to us that the cases contribute to the students' geology content understandings, due to the emphasis on content over so-called softer knowledge domains like NoS (Höttecke & Silva, 2011).

In general, when asked to distinguish between superposition and the faunal succession, most students highlighted how fossils could be used to correlate rocks across larger areas that would be difficult to do with just the rock types. This was because the same types of rocks could exist at different ages and different rock types could be the same age if they contained the same fossils. Students asserted that the age of the layer was equivalent to the age of the fossils incorporated within that layer.

Students commented on Wegener's argument for the existence of a single, large continent that broke up to form the geography we have today. They spoke of considerations needed to support or refute Wegener's claims. Their ideas demonstrated an understanding for the implications of horizontal displacement of the continents: GPS, satellites, and looking at places with dense earthquake activity, to name a few. They sought more detailed information about the geological, paleontological, and paleo-climatological evidence Wegener first used in his assertion. Many answered some of the criticisms of the original theory—gaps in the fit—by suggesting the role of erosion for such gaps.

In terms of earthquakes and plate tectonics, students described through words and diagrams how accumulated deformation in the Earth's crust could lead to an earthquake. They also synthesized tectonic plate boundaries, using multiple forms of geologic data mapped around the world. These initial observations were important to help us gauge the types of changes we might need to make in the case studies to improve their efficacy. We hope to be able to do more rigorous assessment of students' domain-specific conceptual development resulting from case-based learning.

We also made some observations within the realm of NoS understandings for the students in the physical science course, in which students experienced all four of the case studies. In general, students maintained that science (mainly having to do with “nature,” the “environment,” or “health”) was the result of observations, conducting experiments, and collecting data. They often asserted that a characteristic of science was “better understanding” through processes that would “prove” or signify the “truth.” They often said that to come upon this ranking required carefully controlled and replicable experimentation. Also, about one-third of the students identified themselves as having “acted like a scientist” during a formal science class prior to taking the scientific explorations course; interestingly, that number doubled after the course, with the vast majority of students indicating that this course was the place where they identified themselves as acting like a scientist.

At the beginning of the course, many students identified themselves as acting like a scientist during activities such as baking or cooking. They cited activities such as trial and error, mixing ingredients (like mixing chemicals), following directions, and adhering to the scientific method as support for this characterization. Some also identified as scientists if they were working in a lab, or using “scientific tools” or wearing the clothes of a scientist (lab coat, goggles, etc.). Many mentioned that if the activity had some utility or bettered our lives or health, it was scientific. Expressions of these ideas, prevalent at the start of the course, were greatly diminished or nonexistent by the end.

By the end of the course, ideas about what constitutes science included the requirement that a great deal of background research was necessary to develop scientific understandings. Student comments also placed more emphasis on “measuring” aspects of the natural world as a way to gain better understandings of it. For the most part, they saw good science as being “reliable” and allowing for “multiple perspectives”; it was the result of “asking questions.”

Some caveats when using historical case studies

As with the implementation of any instructional strategy, there are limitations that come with the affordances. It is the same for cases. Because of the departure from the traditional instructional model for science, we found that some students interpreted the instruction as not science, not rigorous, and a bit disorganized. They may have enjoyed the instruction, but just did not think they learned any science. Giving students fair warning about what they can expect and why would be a good idea.

For case implementers it is important to note that the approach to instruction is quite different. Although the case structures the trajectory for learning, the instructor must allow the students freedom to struggle with ideas and the open-endedness of the think questions and activities. The cases will not usually focus on all of the vocabulary that is the usual fare of a science course but, rather, concentrate on more foundational concepts. As argued by Allchin (2013), although each case study may highlight a few facets of NoS, using one or two cases will probably not have much impact on students' general understanding of NoS. That would take a much more concerted, explicit, and reflective (Abd–El–Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe & Abd–El–Khalick, 2002) approach.

For case builders, there are two major pitfalls in case development. The first is described by Allchin (1997) as “rational reconstruction.” By knowing the eventual outcome of, say, a controversial issue, we have the tendency of looking at the steps leading to the development of scientific knowledge as inevitable rather than as a series of steps absolutely contingent on those coming before. With rational reconstruction, the investigations by scientists are merely confirmatory (much like current school lab experiences) as opposed to exploratory, sending an inaccurate message about how science works. The second pitfall is developing “myth-conceptions” of the protagonist in the case. According to Allchin (2003), when recounting the exploits of an important scientist, we often construct the history to support an idealized, even caricatured profile of the person, exaggerating the highlights and diminishing those aspects that work against the caricature, such as bias, unscientific ideas, and the key roles of others in the advancement.

One other word of caution comes from the psychology literature (see Rey, 2012) concerning the seductive detail effect. In some studies that use an interesting (seductive) detail to help a student remember something else, it was the detail that actually may have impeded the learning process. This speaks somewhat to the previous points of creating the historical cases. The object is not to find some interesting tidbit of information to make the story work but to accurately reconstruct a historical context that situates both the science and NoS.

Discussion and implications

Browsing any of the larger repositories of case studies for teaching science¹ shows that, of the approximately 600 case studies available for teaching science, only a handful (fewer than 20) are geoscience related. The dearth of geology-centric case studies is problematic in light of evidence that shows their effectiveness in facilitating conceptual development in students and the calls for more effective geoscience instruction.

We found this project to have had beneficial effects for all involved. The student RAs experienced independent and self-directed research. They worked collaboratively with one another as well as with instructors. They observed and interacted with students in classes in which their cases were implemented, and they made modifications to their cases based on those interactions. Their research became relevant to them because they had “seen it in action.” Furthermore, they have written conference proposals and presented to scholars of history, philosophy, science, and education. The cases have been published on the internet² , making them available worldwide.

For the instructors implementing the cases, we have developed tools for teaching. By working with us one on one, the instructors were more involved in the development of the cases. They did not simply implement the cases as a technician might, but instead tailored them to their circumstances. This made them reflect on their instructional goals and how to achieve them, given the case at hand. Our mindfulness while working with the instructors has allowed us to build in some flexibility to the cases, allowing for use in multiple and diverse venues and teaching contexts. All of the instructors commented on how it was positive for them to release some of their own control of the classroom activity and to allow student-directed aspects such as role plays, discussions, and inquiry. Each commented that students took advantage of such freedom to become more engaged than they might otherwise have been in a traditional lecture class. Moreover, many students acknowledged this change in a positive way. They also expressed their appreciation for the work of the RAs, whom they considered to be the experts, learning from and collaborating with them for multiple meetings prior to and after the case implementation. Taking up the role of expert in these situations was empowering for the undergraduate RAs.

In terms of developing students' understandings of NoS from the scientific explorations course, we see a trend toward a more nuanced understanding, but the data also show where we could place more emphasis. For example, we see students' responses likening science to “cooking” or “baking”—where they need to “follow directions” and “mix chemicals” during “highly controlled and replicable experiments”—to be characteristic of much of their scientific experiences to date (National Research Council, 2006). Being a scientist was as much about “looking like a scientist” (and using scientific tools in a scientific space) as actually performing the activities.

Our hope with the case studies was to broaden students' understanding of what it means to “do science” and “be a scientist,” so that this grows to include many more of the aspects that are involved in the scientific process: imagination, creativity, multiple perspectives, controversy, and argumentation. We also sought to show that there are actually many “methods” to doing science; that advancement in understanding in geology is not normally the result of replicable experiments with rigidly controlled variables, as they might have learned in previous physics or chemistry classes (Cleland, 2013; Frodeman, 1995; Turner, 2013); and that anyone can participate in the scientific venture. We had a few students at the beginning of the term state that they would not ever picture themselves as a scientist. It is noteworthy that none made this comment after the course was over.

We also wanted to emphasize the very real political, social, and economic influences that hold sway over the direction of scientific endeavors. It seems we made some inroads here. However, students did continue to claim that science reveals some sort of ultimate truth, something that can be “proven true or false” and is the result of highly controlled methodologies and experimentation. This form of objectivism, or realism—the sense of a discovered Truth (big “T”), as opposed to a constructed truth (little “t”)—will require further emphasis in the cases. We hope to achieve this through more explicit and reflective practice (Abd–El–Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe & Abd–El–Khalick, 2002).

Finally, there are currently seven historical case studies posted on the internet and open for use (https://geoscience.ucalgary.ca/tamaratt–chair/historical–case–studies). We hope that interested readers will feel free to download them and modify them as needed to suit their specific contexts. We similarly hope that if those who access these case studies need support in their implementation, they will reach out to us—we are happy to provide this support. We welcome and encourage any feedback that might result from their use in classrooms, as well as any ideas for new historical cases or contributions to that end. We think the growth of this collection is a good thing, and well worth sharing in an open access format.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor, the associate editor, and the two reviewers for their constructive criticism, which contributed to making this article clearer and more readable.

Additional information

Funding

The authors wish to acknowledge the indispensable financial support of the Taylor Institute Grant for Experiential Learning, at the University of Calgary; and the Tamaratt Teaching Professorship in Geoscience.

Notes

¹ See the Sociology, History, and Philosophy of Science Resource Center: http://www.shipseducation.net/; The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science: http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/; and The History and Philosophy in Science Teaching: http://hipstwiki.wikifoundry.com/page/hipst+developed+cases.

² See https://geoscience.ucalgary.ca/tamaratt-chair/historical-case-studies.