American Indian Students “Nature of Science”: Does Traditional Storytelling Have Potential To Deliver Western Science Content?

As our global societies have grown so has the development of the “nature of science” (NOS). NOS refers to how science works, the epistemological foundations of science, ontological underpinnings of science, the culture of science, and how society both influences and react to scientific activities (Clough 2006). The NOS has grown into an area of interest in the science education community primarily because an accurate understanding of NOS is crucial for science and science literacy (Fitria, 2018; Zollman, 2012; Pearson et al, 2010; AAAS 1989; Matthews 1994; McComas and Olson 1998; NRC 1996). In general, society’s understanding of NOS is thought of as one of the most important components of scientific literacy because this knowledge is what citizens use when assessing public issues involving science and technology (Shamos 1995). These understandings can also play an important role in enticing students to pursue science as an educational endeavor (Clough 2011). Matthews (1994) and McComas et al. (1998) have argued that knowledge of scientists and how science works will enhance students’ understanding of science as a human endeavor thus increasing interest in science and science classes; improving student learning of science content; and promoting better social decision-making.

Post-secondary educational pursuits in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields has waned. In “They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different”, Sheila Tobias (1990) reported that many bright post-secondary students opt out of science, in part, because of mistaken notions about the NOS. This may be in part due to the counterintuitive nature of many science theories and concept (Wolpert 1992; Cromer 1993; Matthews 1994). This counterintuitive quality along with students’ misunderstanding of the NOS may account for a portion of many students’ poor attitude toward and understanding of science (Clough 2011). This is not unexpected given how textbooks, science laboratory activities, and many audiovisual materials disregard or minimize human influences in research, sanitize the processes that eventually result in knowledge, and portray science as a rhetoric of conclusions (Jacoby and Spargo 1989; Leite 2002; Munby 1976; Duschl 1990; Rudge 2000; Dimopoulos & Karamanidou 2013). Seymour and Hewitt (1997), in an extensive study of why undergraduates leave the sciences, wrote that ‘‘One serious cause of loss of interest was disappointment with the perceived narrowness of their [STEM] majors as an educational experience…”. After interviewing a number of these students, Tobias (1990) reported that they became disenchanted with science classes and chose different majors, in part, because science courses ignored the historical, philosophical, and sociological foundations of science. These considerations can be even more prominent among historically under-represented students whose society and culture can be different from mainstream American culture.

These differences, in additions to the general misunderstanding of the NOS in American society, may be one cause for the apparent disparity among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students entering into and completing science related degree programs. Beginning at the secondary education level, AI/AN students experience a multitude of issues limiting success and interest in science. Poverty rates in rural areas are one of the major determinants of the quality of education received in secondary education, where nearly 57.4% of the AI/NA populations reside (Babco 2003). In the Pacific Northwest, AI/AN students are graduating at an average rate less than 50%, compared to their non-native counterparts who are graduating at an average rate of 71.4% in secondary education (Faircloth and Tippeconnic, 2010). In post-secondary education, AI/AN student participation has improved yet few students are choosing STEM fields as a degree choice. In the United States between 2004 and 2008, less than 14% of AI/AN students enrolled and completed a degree in a STEM field while up to 34% of White and Asian American students enrolled and completed a degree in a STEM field (Hurtado et at. 2010). The explanations of this underrepresentation in post-secondary education STEM program can be attributed to many aspects of the current educations system.

Oftentimes, AI/AN students have negative first encounters with Western science and the NOS either within their own communities or within the public school system (Simpson 2002). The historic and contemporary relationship between NOS and AI/AN peoples has been laden with racism, power imbalance, and oppression (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2000). More often post-secondary educational programs are constructed to prepare students to become members in the economic and academic life of the dominant society (RCAP Volume 3, 1996). This leaves AI/AN students in position that are often contradictory. Having been told that education is the key to future success, they are often enthusiastic and dedicated to degree programs that will better the social, environmental, and political conditions in their communities and for the future members of their tribes (Simpson 2002). Yet the vast majority of these degree offerings in post-secondary educational systems are geared towards the learning needs of non-AI/AN students, leaving AI/AN students with few practical tools that they can use to tackle challenges they face in their communities and few expertise to ensure cultural sustainability (Simpson 2002). Moreover, the perspectives of indigenous science learners in developed nations offer an important but frequently overlooked dimension to debates about the NOS, the science curriculum, and calls from educators to make school science more culturally responsive or ‘relevant’ to students from indigenous or minority groups (Kidman et al. 2011).

One response among the call to make post-secondary education more culturally responsive is the creation and use of historical short stories that exemplify the development and acceptance of fundamental science ideas, important NOS ideas (Metz et al. 2007), and that post-secondary science faculty can infuse when and where they deem suitable (Clough 2011). Metz et al. (2007) argued that well constructed narratives, by their very nature, humanize a subject by raising ‘‘personal, ethical, sociological, philosophical and political concerns which tend to increase interest and motivation in students’’. A story is one type of narrative and refers to ‘‘a sequence of events which involves characters’’ (Jahn 2005), presents events chronologically, and contains a plot that intentionally relates events in the story (Prince 1973; Egan 1978). Since stories are a vital form of communication through which people, communities and society at large relay messages, entertainment, experiences and knowledge to others (Bowles 1995) they bring meaning into our lives, convey values and emotions, aid in reaffirming and validating our lives and experiences, and have the ability to connect us with our inner selves, with others and with society (Atkinson 2002). According to Kurtz and Ketcham (1994), “Of all the devices available to us, stories are the surest way of touching the human spirit”. In stories, narratives and storytelling, there is a coming together, a removal of boundaries so to speak, and a total concentration and absorption of the spoken word (Goral & Gnadinger 2006).

Are post-secondary educational institutions suited to provide storytelling as a mode of content delivery? Are faculty in these institutions prepared to deliver content using this strategy?