See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301329756 “A ton of faith in science!” nature and role of assumptions in, and ideas about, science and epistemology generated... Article in Journal of Research in Science Teaching · April 2016 DOI: 10.1002/tea.21324 CITATIONS READS 0 159 2 authors: John Y Myers Fouad Abd-El-Khalick University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 2 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 6,525 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Qatari students’ Interests in, and Attitudes toward Science (QIAS) View project Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks View project All content following this page was uploaded by Fouad Abd-El-Khalick on 31 May 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING Research Article “ATon of Faith in Science!” Nature and Role of Assumptions in, and Ideas About, Science and Epistemology Generated Upon Watching a Sci-Fi Film John Y. Myers and Fouad Abd-El-Khalick Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Received 6 October 2015; Accepted 14 March 2016 Abstract: This study (i) explicates the sorts of ideas about science and the nature of knowing that were generated among participant graduate students who viewed the sci-fi film, Contact, and (ii) examines the interactions between these ideas and ontic stances with which participants approached viewing the film. Eleven doctoral students of various disciplinary backgrounds viewed Contact, wrote a film review in response to a prompt, and were interviewed to clarify and further explore ideas mentioned in their review. Participants’ most prevalent ideas generated upon viewing Contact were that scientific assumptions, and trust in scientific knowledge and authority, are “faith-based”; theory-choice in science can be faith-based; science requires empirical evidence; and females in science are severely misrepresented. Further, more participants experienced such ideas as realistic rather than unrealistic representations of science, and some identified with particular scenes from the film. These results do not empirically support pedagogical techniques recommended by prior literature suggesting that science teachers who expose students to sci-fi film in the classroom should focus specifically on what teachers deem scientifically inaccurate or misinformation. This approach is rather limited and fails to consider ideas generated by students upon viewing films, which teachers might not expect (e.g., relating science with faith). Rather, we recommend an open-ended, reflective pedagogical approach to using sci-fi film where teachers, first, openly engage students with writing about and discussing thoughts they generate upon watching a given film, and then move to address student ideas. Our findings also indicate a critical need to expand the current consensus model for NOS in K-12 science education—in particular, including and explicating the nature and role of assumptions in science as an additional core dimension of currently accepted NOS models. Toward this end, we delineate the nature and role of scientific assumptions by reference to the epistemological theory of coherentism. # 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 9999:XX–XX, 2016 Keywords: nature of science; epistemology; philosophy of science; science fiction film; assumptions The study of film, or motion picture (M€unsterberg, 1916), and its effects on science learning is nearly as old as film itself. Yet it is a sparsely examined area. After the introduction of synchronized sound and “talkies” to film in 1927 (Eyman, 1997), Clark (1932) was among the very first to study the role of sound film as a teaching aid in science classrooms compared to silent film. Instead of launching this domain of research, however, Clark’s study seemed to have marked the outset of a capacious gap, and it was not until Collins (1987) investigated how television Correspondence to: J. Y. Myers; E-mail:
[email protected] DOI 10.1002/tea.21324 Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). # 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK documentaries shaped public perception of science that academic interest was rekindled and more noteworthy literature emerged. Still, this renewed interest primarily centered on science portrayal in television programs and, later, other media (e.g., YouTube), which emerged from film, but significant study has yet to focus on the impact of film as a unique medium on science teaching and learning (e.g., Dani, Wan, & Henning, 2010; Dhingra, 2003; Jones & Cuthrell, 2011; Klosterman, Sadler, & Brown, 2012; Schafer, 2011; Solomon, 1992). Aikenhead (1988) may have inadvertently promoted the abovementioned focus by blurring the line between television and film. Particularly, he underscored the influence of television and film as a combined source, instead of individual sources, on 12th-grade student views on scientific, technological, and societal issues. Aikenhead estimated that television and film accounted for 46% of sources informing student beliefs about science, as opposed to a meager 10% influence credited to science classrooms (see also Reis & Galvao, 2004). Later, science education researchers took note of the quite evident capability of film, as separate from television, to have a larger impact itself on student learning than science teachers (e.g., Barnett et al., 2006). In particular, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators (NSF, 2000, 2002) underscored the importance of examining science fiction (sci-fi) film, among other media, because of its tendency to distort the line between fact and fiction, promote pseudo- and non-science, and ultimately harm public understanding of science. Subsequently, more educational research started to investigate sci-fi film but mostly as an instructional tool in the science classroom (e.g., Barnett & Kafka, 2007; Brake & Thornton, 2003). Some of this work was related to a central component of scientific literacy, namely, student understanding of nature of science (NOS), and associated conceptions of the epistemology of science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, 1990; National Research Council, NRC, 1996; Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, NGSS Lead States, 2013). Koehler, Bloom, and Binns (2013), for example, located NOS themes in Contact (Zemeckis & Starkey, 1997) and Twister (Bryce, Crichton, Kennedy, & De Bont, 1996) to give science teachers the means to present cinematic NOS “instances” to students. However, Koehler et al. did not consider how teachers and students, as film viewers, might interpret those instances or other film- related ideas. This interpretation might as well inform or misinform viewers’ comprehension of the targeted NOS ideas and other ideas, which could be generated by teachers and students both during the course of viewing the film or afterward reflecting on the viewing experience. Indeed, very few studies have examined the effects of film, let alone sci-fi film, on the viewer. Thus, science educators continue to use sci-fi film for instruction—and students continue to watch sci-fi film inside and, more often, outside classrooms—without an empirical base, let alone a robust understanding, about ways in which sci-fi film viewing impacts learners and learning. Such is the focus of the present study. Review of the Literature Despite their scarcity, findings from the few studies that investigated the effects of film on learning are informative. Barnett et al. (2006) particularly demonstrated how a single viewing of a sci-fi film could negatively impact conceptions of scientific phenomena. For example, a single viewing of The Core (Bailey, Foster, Layne, & Amiel, 2003) prompted 8th graders to genuinely believe, despite prior Earth science instruction, that the Earth has a liquid instead of solid inner core, and that the fundamental function of the Earth’s magnetic field is to block microwave radiation. Barnett et al. attributed such misunderstandings to filmic plausibility, entrusted onscreen scientific authority, and cinema being more memorable than hands-on classroom experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching only illuminates outcomes of. (2009) participants involuntarily undermined scientifically and historically accurate information and propagated false beliefs. students might generate ideas about scientific inquiry or epistemology. 1972. ideas solely pertaining to specific biological content. We were specifically interested in ideas generated by participants upon watching the film. Their findings are nonetheless noteworthy and might be fruitful for science education. as propagation of (mis)information into memory appeared to be beyond viewer control. for example. but are not limited to. There is still little understanding of the intermediary processes. 1997). essentially became reality for these viewers. & Spielberg. cinematic viewership. reason.. was not focused on analyzing what the director and/or screenwriter of Contact may have intended to convey. We took the nature of knowing to refer to epistemological characteristics related to the justificatory sources of knowledge. The former ideas would merit attention in any science course. among other modes of encoding. if anything. Undergraduate students read various historically accurate texts and later watched a series of clips from films like The Last Samurai (Zwick. there is a need for open-ended investigations into what learners think about upon watching sci-fi film to help fill gaps in this line of research. 2009). Contact (Zemeckis & Starkey. Groups who only received general warnings or no warning at all. about science or epistemology. Lyle. 1992) with which participants approached viewing the film. which include. and Roediger (2009) tested the effects of short film clips on student memories in the context of learning history. and examine the interactions between these ideas and ontic stances (cf. SCIENCE. nor how “experts” would characterize the film’s depiction of epistemological issues related to science and various ways of knowing. for better or for worse. Purpose and Theoretical Framework This study aimed to explicate the sorts of ideas about science and the nature of knowing that were generated among participant graduate students who viewed the sci-fi film. it should be noted. Such theory. Sobchack. Paivo. and some groups received no warnings at all.e. even to the point of one memory-type dominating another of the same event (Bower. (2006) and Butler’s et al. These principles establish that the separate encoding of visual and verbal information into memory. AND SCI-FI FILM 3 Butler. Zaromb. regardless of content area. Thus. some student groups were given “specific warnings” of precise instances of misinformation. despite being explicitly told beforehand that such texts were historically accurate. however. Wilson.. 1992). EPISTEMOLOGY. sense-perception. instead of. or in addition to. Cue-recall tests administered 1 week after viewings showed that film clips increased correct recall for information consistent with texts compared to a control group that merely repeated text readings without viewing film (see also Callender & McDaniel. can interfere with each other. 2003) and Amistad (Allen. Prior to viewings. recalled only misinformation from films over historically accurate information from texts. that lead to such outcomes and could inspire fruitful pedagogical interventions. These studies did not address the extent to which learners generate content-independent ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . the aforementioned studies specifically targeted content-dependent ideas (i. and that exposure to misinformation about previously encoded information can lead to misremembering such information (Rantzen & Markham. however. other groups were given “general warnings” that the films were fictionalized. The authors argued that film. Additionally. The study. Specific warnings aided in substantially reducing false recall of misinformation. 1997). While watching a sci-fi film involving biology. for example. like idea generation. ideas specifically pertaining to earth science and American history). which depicted the same historical events from texts but with variable historical accuracy. or how such ideas interact with each other upon viewing film. Current psychological understanding of encoding variability and retroactive interference may adequately explain how Barnett’s et al. 1986). conceptions of scientific content. including political factors and power structures (social and cultural embeddedness of science) (Abd-El-Khalick. highly substantiated. we argue that prompting viewers to think about and explicate how they experienced notable parts of a film helped us better understand the ideas that they generated in response to the film. individual interview that explored the ideas explicated in participants’ film Journal of Research in Science Teaching . which accounts for how viewers empathetically feel what onscreen characters feel. 1916). 2001. and/or mirror (film as something with which to identify or empathize) (Sobchack. Zagzebski. thus revealing and capturing objective reality. (iii) scientific knowledge is reliable and durable. window (film as realistic). Even though. hallucination. or imitating mental thought. and authority (Huemer. If viewed as a “mirror. and internally consistent systems of explanation (nature of scientific theories). however.” which participants wrote after viewing Contact in response to a prompt that addressed a number of specified dimensions. but never absolute or certain (tentative NOS). Ideas about science include. Abd-El-Khalick. 2002). For example. 2009). According to Sobchack. the most pertinent NOS aspects regarding participant ideas about science (given our findings) include the following beliefs: (i) scientific claims rely upon empirical evidence (empirical NOS). The following questions guided our study: (i) What ideas. we were also very cautious not to so readily confine our interpretation of participants’ ideas about science to any one targeted framework or domain in order to allow leeway for any personal. 1968) in that their bodies are not reflected in the film screen. presumably.4 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK intuition. Burgin & Sadler. 1974). It must be stressed. “Ontic stances” on film employ three perspectives from film theory of how spectators come to experience a film’s reality—that is. both specific and broad. The first was a “critical film review. “NOS” (Lederman & Zeidler. spectators do not typically know or readily reflect upon how they experience film. yet they identify themselves in the film (as if it were a mirror) perhaps when personally experiencing similar situations as portrayed onscreen (Benvenuto & Kennedy. 2012. about science and the nature of knowing are generated among participant graduate students upon watching the sci-fi film. The “mirror” ontic stance has been further developed by Marks (2000) into what is commonly known in film studies as haptic theory. and values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge—that is.” spectators might view film as realistic (figuratively a hole in the wall to the outside world). 1986). predictive. (ii) scientists’ observations are always motivated by and acquire meaning in light of certain theoretical perspectives (theory-laden NOS). and (v) science affects and is affected by various cultural elements and spheres. 2016.” film might be interpreted as unrealistic (a work of art). 1987). (iv) scientific theories are well-established. Bell. especially during participant interviews. to come to full actualization. Lederman. views of scientific practices. that while we were mindful of these NOS aspects. whether tenable or not. nuanced views from participants about science. If approached as a “window. metaphorically as a picture frame (film as unrealistic). and/or dreams (M€unsterberg. Two main data sources were used to answer the guiding research questions. viewers might experience one film scene from a “window” stance but partially or fully transition to a “picture frame” stance when other scenes do not convince them that what they saw was “real. Such ontic stances are not mutually exclusive. but also are not limited to. thus transforming or restructuring objective reality. The second was a semi-structured. Contact? (ii) How do these ideas interact with ontic stances about film that characterize participants’ approach(es) to viewing Contact? Method The study was qualitative in nature. 1992). For the purposes of this manuscript. if spectators metaphorically view film as a “picture frame.” Comparable stances have been shown to directly affect how film is interpreted (Baudry & Williams. faith.” spectators might see film from a Lacan-ian perspective (Lacan. & Schwartz. time. to underscore a fantastical nature of the genre. Amis. Frayling & Pieri. EPISTEMOLOGY.. which warns and prophesizes about the future. on a visceral level. 2006. scientists. which may never occur in the world we know. often conflicting and rigid. many. 1987. it should merely be instantly recognizable when read or viewed. 2003. Lyon. Shamberg. For example. Fraknoi. the diversity of academic definitions of this genre was as problematic as it was helpful. 2001). Sher. which entices the characters. As could be expected. However. which centers on teaching about science and technology. 1981. Avatar (Cameron & Landu. thus returning to Amis’ and Hodgens’ definitions. 2012). Arroway’s “faith” (as a few film characters see it) that there must be extraterrestrial intelligence elsewhere in the Universe is rewarded. by the religious cultural following of the Star Wars saga (Lyden. “scholarly” interpretations (Stanfield. (ii) portray science and scientists in action. Contact revolves around lead character Ellie Arroway (played by Jodie Foster). & Spielberg. for example. Gattaca (DeVito. and (iv) be released roughly in the last two decades (to strike a balance between being relatively recent and having enjoyed wide viewership). and (iii) the speculative fiction. We precariously demarcated sci-fi from other fictional genres due to multiple. social science. and philosophy. Because of this plethora of definitions. Such a definition is supported. who defined sci-fi as a branch of fantasy that eases “willing suspension of disbelief” (Coleridge. like Moskowitz (1990). Critics and writers have even brought religious overtones to the genre. & Niccol. 1993). 1817) to such an extent that it can promote unwavering belief in completely fabricated scientific credibility involving inventive conjectures in physics. in the interest of this study. and/or viewer to ponder about the nature of humanity and its place in the universe and/or reality. Sobchack. AND SCI-FI FILM 5 reviews and prompted participants to discuss ideas about science and ways of knowing as these related to their viewing experience. (iii) rank among the top 100 highest-grossing American sci-fi films of all time (an indication of mass viewership and the film’s possible impact). The film had to: (i) fulfill a comprehensive definition of the genre. and epistemological issues that endured throughout the film narrative. These films included Jurassic Park (Kennedy. reader. space. The Story. an American astronomer near the turn of the millennium who was encouraged by her late father to search for extraterrestrial intelligence. 2011). as her team discovers Journal of Research in Science Teaching . 2004). our definition takes root in what Merril (1971) described as the overall essence of a consolidated sci-fi genre. 2001. Amis (1981) believed sci-fi to be a class of narrative that presents extraordinary scenarios hypothetically based on scientific and/or technological innovations (or pseudoscientific origins). A humanistic dimension was added by Sturgeon (1995) to define the genre as a narrative with a human problem and solution. The Day After Tomorrow (Emmerich & Gordon. SCIENCE. Upon securing funds and satellite time at the Very Large Array from an eccentric billionaire. Selection of the Sci-Fi Film A number of criteria were used to select a sci-fi film for viewing in this study. Vieth. (ii) the preaching story. A handful of films emerged on applying our criteria to the Internet Movie Database and scholarly sci-fi analyses (cf. simply chose to concede that sci-fi is just too difficult to define abstractly and that. Hodgens (1959) introduced the component of futurism to take sci-fi as an extrapolation and fictionalization of scientific possibilities that naturally must take place in the future. and Contact. Molen. 2009). like Clarens (1967). Telotte. All sci-fi films that were considered for this study aptly fulfilled these three components of Merril’s definition.1 Eventually. Contact was chosen because it provided the most substantial focus on science. 1997). She identified three basic stories constituting the nature of sci-fi: (i) the teaching story. but a narrative that would not have occurred without its science content. to take her testimony on faith. dropped into what she experiences as a wormhole to Vega. Arroway unfortunately finds herself amidst a power struggle with David Drumlin (played by Tom Skerritt). since the present study initiates exploration of the vastly broad range in which ideas can be generated while viewing sci-fi film. despite her audio-visual equipment merely recording static. and Arroway is selected to go to Vega. Indeed. who did not wish scientists to prevail. Further. Thus. A doppelganger of Arroway’s father then appears to her. among other things. epistemology. Meanwhile. film theory. science in society. not to mention all recording devices external to the transport pod. specifically to consider the plausibility of two claims: (i) Arroway was whisked off to a star system 26 light years away in a matter of hours. merely observe Arroway’s pod dropping straight down into a safety net in a matter of seconds. discusses the next steps for humanity’s place in interstellar travel.6 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK an alien signal in the form of prime numbers from the direction of star system Vega. doctoral students were sought over undergraduate or secondary students to capitalize upon their advanced communication. not providing proper awareness about the sheer variety of potential ideas that viewers might generate. The National Security Advisor asks Arroway to apply Ockham’s razor (a precept Arroway uses throughout the movie) to her own testimony. government maintaining the secret that. thus forcing all. might not offer any more than a few ideas about science and knowing upon viewing such film. As her team unearths the signal’s message. psychology of learning. and some would have completed various science courses of study at the undergraduate and/or graduate levels. while Arroway’s recording device aboard the pod only generated static. or (ii) Arroway’s experience was a hallucination and the alien signal an elaborate hoax orchestrated by Arroway’s eccentric funder. the film ends with the U. Another transport is built. critical thinking. which defies Arroway’s science. and then sends Arroway away in her pod on another wormhole back to Earth. doctoral students have successfully completed K-12 science education. we recruited doctoral students with a Journal of Research in Science Teaching . blows up the newly built transport killing Drumlin. (2006). but she also perceived the entire trip to take approximately 18 hours. religion and theology. Arroway indeed deems the second claim more plausible but is compelled to deny it in light of her seemingly “real” experience of going to Vega. including herself. and lands on a fantastical beachfront vista that appears uncannily like a picture she drew as a child with her father shortly before he died. a purposeful sample of doctoral students would provide diversity in terms of both scientific literacy and scientific expertise. once built. much like in Barnett et al. for example. Drumlin is indeed so politically savvy that eventually he. optimizing the potential richness of data. and reflective skills. Unbeknownst to Arroway. it recorded approximately 18 hours of it. explains that he is actually an alien probing her memories. is selected to be the first human ever to travel to Vega in the alien interstellar transport. however. and not venturing into some kind of wormhole to Vega like Arroway’s testimony later describes. science education. Arroway is secured inside the transport’s pod. and sound/image studies. The film Contact also lends itself to examining a number of themes including. who repeatedly uses his dictatorial status as Science Advisor to the President to succeed at stealing credit for Arroway’s work and discovery. thus. Arroway insists to a congressional committee that she not only went to Vega. to have a reunion with her dead dad. which communicates blueprints to build an interstellar transport to Vega. Equipped with audio-visual recording equipment. a fundamentalist radicalized Christian. not Arroway.S. Regrettably for Drumlin. Participants Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants with an eye for generating richness and optimizing variation in the data to address the guiding research questions. people on Earth. science and scientists. A sample of secondary students. thus. literary theory. Accordingly. Specifically. philosophy of science (Patrick). did participants “view” certain memorable events as realistic. and (iv) explain what the film communicated about what science is and how we come to know about the world. Their respective major disciplines and pseudonyms are astronomy (Aden). and identify the most memorable (and possibly most impactful) components of the narrative. participants were asked how they viewed the film during scenes that prompted such ideas. They were informed that the interview provided an opportunity for reflection. Data Analysis Data were analyzed by generating and comparing organizational. they wrote a four or less double-spaced page “critical review” of the film within 24 hours of viewing it. substantive. (iii) describe what general messages Contact communicated. 1992)? Participants’ lines of thinking often were followed beyond the prepared questions in the case of most interviewees.. and aimed to gauge reactions to viewing Contact from disciplinary perspectives that were as varied as possible. Participants were provided their unmarked film reviews at the outset of the interview and given time to refresh their memories on what they had written. The first two items intended to prime participant memories of the film narrative and cinematography. The latter variation was intentionally sought. while the others were at various earlier stages of their doctoral programs. language and literacy education (Lara). SCIENCE. Next. Next. as with their explicit and firm thoughts. epistemology (Evelyn). and viewed. philosophy of science. science education. while others had less directly relevant expertise (e. communication and media studies (Carl). educational psychology (Pam). and that we were as much interested in their tacit and formative ideas. 1996). A written prompt facilitated the process. and theoretical categories of coding (Maxwell. participants were asked a set of probing questions that pertained to the statements and ideas articulated in their film reviews (e. Also. dance). or as if they identified with the particular context(s) of the film (cf. philosophy of education with emphasis in dance (Diane). AND SCI-FI FILM 7 wide variety of disciplinary expertise to enable exploring the interactions between ideas about science and ways of knowing generated by participants and their disciplinary backgrounds. (ii) express likes and dislikes about the film. Organizational codes preceded data collection and Journal of Research in Science Teaching . It should be noted that some participants had disciplinary expertise that were directly relevant to themes addressed in Contact and this study (e. and/or themes for follow-up during individual interviews. before leading them to engage with thinking about the latter two items. Sobchack. The primary author interviewed each participant individually within 2 weeks of viewing the film to clarify and follow up on the identified statements and ideas. Interviews typically lasted about an hour. music (Mark). The researchers analyzed the critical film reviews and identified participant statements. Five of the participants (three female) had advanced to the PhD candidacy level. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. ideas.’ what did you mean by faith?”). “When you wrote. Procedures Participants were provided with. It asked participants to: (i) briefly summarize the film storyline.g. teacher education...g. English with emphasis in film (Faye). language and literacy. participants were 11 doctoral students (six female) attending a large research university in the Midwestern United States. ‘Contact portrayed to me that even scientists need to take some things on faith. 2013). as if such events were mere fabrications of reality (like art). film). science education (Sean)..g. the film Contact at their homes to emulate the main medium (home entertainment systems) in which Contact would be viewed today. and teacher education (Tammy). We also noted that any seeming inconsistencies between written film reviews and utterances during the interview were as important as agreements (Wasser & Bresler. For example. EPISTEMOLOGY. all eleven participants’ data were coded and ready for a second round of analysis.8 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK included base categories. the authors and graduate student jointly examined all coded film reviews and interviews. The primary author and a graduate student formally coded the film reviews and interviews. coupled with definitions and clarifications of the various organizational. along with broad messages about Contact. film as “window” (realistic). substantive. and in some cases all. The authors then noticed common substantive and theoretical codes present in most. Theoretical codes included links between background knowledge that the authors possess and ideas about science and knowing. We also found one gender-specific idea that was common to all six female participants but not evident in the case of all their male counterparts. For example. film as “picture frame” (unrealistic). that participants articulated. Codes that were extraneous or unclear were deleted. etc. accuracy. intensive interviewing. Instead. Sections of text that were overlooked or un- coded during the first round of analysis were coded (only two such instances occurred).) and ontic stances of viewing film—that is. Substantive codes included broad messages about the film and ideas about science and knowing that participants articulated. which enabled the generation of rich data that were detailed and varied enough to provide a revealing “picture” of participant thoughts (Becker. if a participant articulated that Contact portrayed assumptions made in science as faith- based. and film as “mirror” (something with which to identify or empathize). Further. 1970). All substantive codes were justified by quotes from film reviews and interviews. 1992) falsifiability as a criterion to demarcate science from other modes of inquiry. Once completed. simplicity. and the primary author also brings knowledge of epistemology and film theory. Each code was scrutinized for clarity. a small number of shared ideas consistently emerged in the case of 10 or more of the 11 participants. The second round of analysis was not complete until each code was rejected or accepted by all analysts. and precision. 2001). researcher bias was decreased by engaging in two rounds of coding analysis with three analysts who scrupulously scrutinized all codes. say. These codes served as symbolic “bins” in which emergent substantive and theoretical codes were later placed (McMillan & Schumacher. One participant’s data were randomly chosen and jointly coded by both analysts. This is not to say that minor differences did not Journal of Research in Science Teaching . Participant quotes substantiating these codes were compared and examined on a spreadsheet. and that these ideas would be explicable on participants’ disciplinary backgrounds. During the second round of analysis. and history and philosophy of science. then this idea was given the theoretical code “Popper” due to its link to Karl Popper’s (1959. Both coders have a solid background in NOS. and that susceptibility to “falsifiability” differentiated such assumptions in science from. science education. specifically student backgrounds (philosophy of science. and theoretical coding structures. participants’ film reviews and interviews. Table 1 provides an overview of the coding scheme used to analyze the data. and code them as concisely as possible. Such codes (articulated in the findings section) were compiled and counted. assumptions made in religion. The second author has a background in NOS. Pertinent passages from these quotes are displayed below. Findings Ideas About Science and the Nature of Knowing Generated by Participants We originally anticipated that the diversity of expertise among participants would provide an array of ideas about science and ways of knowing that would be generated after viewing Contact. the data for the remaining 10 participants were randomly split and analyzed separately by the two coders. Once it was clear how to locate and highlight prominent ideas in both the film review and interview transcripts. Validity threats were minimized with long. the philosophy of science and epistemology students emphasized themes in Contact that were largely epistemological in nature. Nevertheless. AND SCI-FI FILM 9 Table 1 Coding scheme used to analyze data Major Organizational Substantive Major Theoretical Codes Codes Definition Codes Teacher education Faith-based Assumptions provide the base foundation AAAS (1990). which were evident in the overwhelming majority of participants’ film reviews and interviews.” “emotional. He was the only participant to articulate. science: “strange. For example. Sobchack (1992) Mirror Identify or Generated idea about film identified or Sobchack (1992) empathize empathized with. Also predictably. how he enjoyed the opening sequence of the film. which were quite dependent on disciplinary background.” Mulvey (1975)..” and/or “inferior to Steinke (1999. the astronomy student predictably focused on some astronomy-related themes in Contact.” “antagonistic. which aesthetically depicts just how small the Earth is in comparison to an assumed infinite Universe—indeed a tribute to Carl Sagan’s (1994) popular Pale Blue Dot. Trust in Scientific knowledge is often uncritically “Durable but scientific accepted as “fact” just like religious tentative” AAAS knowledge authority is blindly accepted.” 2005) Picture frame Unrealistic Generated idea about film unrealistic. (1990) faith-based “Theory” choice Choosing the simplest of two “theories” Ockham’s Razor. science. they both indicated that the film strongly pushed the message that all modes of inquiry (e. science Females in The female scientist is portrayed as Kaplan (2013). NGSS doctoral student scientific of all scientific knowledge and are (2013) (example) assumptions justified not by empirical evidence but rather on faith (“belief without evidence”). Journal of Research in Science Teaching . for instance. in science based on simplicity alone is faith-based “Value judgment” faith-based because the value of simplicity is not Kuhn (1977) characteristically empirical. These were related to the role of faith (with three sub-ideas) and empirical evidence in science. “merely sentimentally appealing to those who once got their feelings hurt by valid scientific findings” (Patrick. occur depending on a participant’s disciplinary background. an assertion that is unapologetically defended by Boghossian’s (2006) equally witty Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. such examples of varied ideas. the following sections explicate the shared themes. They determined this message to be “preposterous” and.g. Thus. portrayal men. Sobchack (1992) Window Realistic Generated idea about film realistic. unfavorable “marginalized. as well as the representation of females in science. interview). For example. religion. EPISTEMOLOGY. SCIENCE. All female participants uniquely articulated an additional third theme. postmodernism) are equally valid. as the philosophy of science student wittily said. were not as surprising as uncovering two broad themes that were widely shared among all participants. Empirical Science relies upon empirical evidence Kuhn (1962) evidence and is distinguished from other ways of component of “knowing” via this reliance. Nine participants generated the idea of faith-based scientific assumptions upon viewing Contact. Mark (music) summarized the majority of participant ideas about scientific assumptions with the following remarks during his interview: Science has to use faith to work. . or our senses. 1992) as a distinguishing criterion of scientific assumptions: Patrick: I don’t hesitate to call scientific assumptions. or any of that stuff” (Patrick. faith is “belief without evidence. Evidence. . Mark’s statement that “the world will continue on the way that it is” does bear resemblance to the NGSS Lead States’ claim (2013). assumption that there must be extraterrestrial life in the Universe—an assumption on which she based her entire life and career. that are justified. which is addressed in greater detail below. that scientific assumptions. but if the laws of physics suddenly changed. However. . Scientific Assumptions as Faith-Based. namely. I think it’s these assumptions that Journal of Research in Science Teaching .” which was purportedly not exclusive to religion. When asked what was meant by “faith. So. to religious faith. philosophy of science. trust in scientific knowledge and authority. It’s kind of hard to doubt that God exists . our science would be totally different. that kind of faith is different from faith in physical laws being uniform throughout the Universe. 2001. 44). 2009). as compared to intuition or authority-based justification (Huemer. There’s no evidence either way. . But. most participants did not attempt a nuanced approach to “faith in scientific assumptions” as compared. even Bertrand Russell (1912. You have your theories and laws. most definitely. . not by “empirical evidence. This notion was largely brought about by Contact’s lead character’s (Ellie Arroway. but falsifiable. This theme included three sub-ideas. Indeed. . . 2008) warned against the follies of lending too much credence to the future utility of scientific principles. science is all based on faith that the world will continue on the way that it is. which provide the base foundation for scientific knowledge. Interviewer: How? How is it different? Patrick: Because we can have reason to doubt the latter example [that physical laws are uniform throughout the Universe]. The exception was Patrick (philosophy of science) who articulated more nuanced ideas by identifying a sort of Popperian falsifiability (Popper. for instance. but rather solely justified on faith. the astronomer) staunch. There’s a ton of faith in science [participant emphases] .10 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK Faith as a Component of Science Ten of eleven participants thought that Contact portrayed science as being principally based on. So if you say that God exists . Zagzebski. assumptions that are the basis of all scientific claims . “Scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that natural laws operate today as they did in the past and they will continue to do so in the future” (Appendix H). 1959. but also faith. and apparently faith-based. faith- based. and theory choice in science are largely faith-based. “unless the inductive principle is assumed” (p. the NGSS Lead States would have firmly rooted such scientific assumptions in what participants labeled as “faith. like Arroway’s assumption. which serves as a basis for reason- based justification. interview).” all participants arrived at definitions that were similar to Tammy’s (teacher education). it would be difficult to argue that Russell and. It’s just a different sort of faith.” Further. almost always you will have these really basic. That is. This idea entails that there are assumptions. . not only empirical evidence. had been described mostly as sensory. but science also requires faith. to Popper. Patrick’s discussion of “physical laws being uniform throughout the Universe” bears striking resemblance to the NGSS Lead States’ (2013) claim. and it’s funny to me that no one ever considers that to be a problem. It requires scientists to believe in facts . Popper. or “belief without evidence. That this “falsifiable” scientific assumption. unlike a claim made in postmodernism. How can we deny that science includes faith in its own claims when we see it debunking itself time and time again. Thus. 1996) induction as the characteristic “method” of science. had difficulty reconciling falsifiability with how scientific theories can and do develop and thrive despite seeming inconsistencies with nature. you basically can’t have anything in reality that’s not influenced by the people who found them. for example. despite Patrick’s and other participants’ ideas. Vega. Like Mark’s statement. only to have realized the hubris of her accusations during the film finale. does not drive quantum theorists to falsify their theory. Science changes. SCIENCE. it can be rejected. Many participants noted that. Eight of the eleven participants analogously related faith in religious doctrine to the notion of faith in scientific knowledge and authority. as Patrick claimed. 30. “finally” questioning the once unquestionable scientific knowledge on which she had built her life and career after being forced to take her experience of so quickly travelling to a distant star. unscientific. as our NOS framework emphasizes.” we do not include Popper’s falsifiability as the main criterion of the scientific assumption but rather include. But. at the end of Contact. Trust in Scientific Knowledge and Authority as Faith-Based. . much like Popper (1959. Quantum theory’s inability (to date) to reconcile contradictions with general relativity. an empirical aspect. violated known laws of physics.” is open to attempts at falsification (not that it ever would be falsified). a vast single system in which the basic rules are everywhere the same” (p. . say. AND SCI-FI FILM 11 either make science work or not. “Science assumes basic laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe” (Appendix H). 1992) attempted to demarcate science from other modes of inquiry. unempirical definitions that it is rendered unfalsifiable (and unverifiable) and. like religion. The basic assertion that summarizes this idea is that many people uncritically accept scientific knowledge as fact just as much as many people blindly accept religious authority. .” as the postmodernist claim is so far steeped in its own subjective. like “the Earth revolves around the Sun. or AAAS’ (1990) assertion. religion or pseudoscience. is its reliance upon falsifiability as the characteristic “method” of producing and substantiating (or not) scientific knowledge. Specifically. throughout the film. Popper argued that what chiefly distinguishes science from. Participants elaborated upon this issue of unevaluated belief in scientific knowledge much like Carl (communications and media): Religion requires faith to believe in this fanciful story. An empirically based claim made in science. thus repudiating Francis Bacon’s (1620. it is untenable to base such assumptions on faith. as we expand upon such criteria on the nature and role of scientific assumptions in the discussion section below and how. how were these facts made? Who created them? Facts are not objective . indeed. as its name implies. [And] come 20. And the nice thing about the scientific assumption is that. Arroway had been “hypocritically” accusing those who have religious faith as being credulous. if true. . could be “rejected” speaks to a criterion that might demarcate assumptions used in science from assumptions used in other spheres. like “all progress is an illusion. on faith—an experience that. again. Participants chiefly generated this idea in reaction to Ellie Arroway. EPISTEMOLOGY. “Science also assumes that the universe is. There clearly is a significant conceptual jump in tying the “durable but tentative” nature of scientific knowledge (AAAS. 40 years from now it will be completely debunked. . 1990) with the notion that claims to scientific knowledge are Journal of Research in Science Teaching . 2). So it all requires faith . . But again. when it comes down to it. Diane (philosophy of education with an emphasis in dance education) noted that science’s “chief code. There is faith that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. I don’t think it’s possible. he found himself having to conclude this exposition—based on Larry Laudan’s (1981) notion of pessimistic meta-induction—during his interview noting. . It’s encoded in how decisions are made in science. this was the case even for participants who noted that scientific knowledge draws on significant empirical bases and much reasoning. okay. Diane was puzzled about how Ockham’s razor was ever derived and incorporated into science: What Ellie was doing was definitely not simple. didn’t really work out for her in the end. . you’d have to be able to say. . For instance. the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. We’ve even had to change our assumptions about the world .” Ockham’s razor. it’s the simplest explanation that tends to be true. Patrick clearly understood the inevitable tentative nature of scientific claims because of the impossibility of attaining certain or absolute knowledge. Interviewer: What do you mean by this. Like we have proof. the philosophical problem that Arroway explains to Joss [Matthew McConaughey] early in the film. at least in the realm of science. the emphasis on faith in scientific knowledge as cautionary due to its tentative and theory-laden nature was echoed by many participants. And I guess that’s also why we can come back to faith. that faith ultimately supports the believability of science? Faye: Ockham’s razor says that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. We still rest a lot of our scientific beliefs and claims on a bit of faith. “We still rest a lot of our scientific beliefs and claims on a bit of faith”: Larry Laudan makes us look back at the history of science to see that we’ve always been wrong. which was summarized by Ellie Arroway: “All things being equal. Still. Yet. (Note: participants often used “theory” interchangeably with hypothesis. Yet.” Faye (English with an emphasis in film) captured this theme regarding faith as the basis of scientists’ facility to choose among competing or alternative explanations: Faye: Faith ultimately supports the believability of science. Ockham’s razor. And how many experiments were necessary for scientists to come up with that principle? For that principle to hold any value. in addition to other less systematic factors. so the principle. as long as science is practiced by humans. explanation. including Patrick (philosophy of science). . there is this context of faith. So why should we think that science today gives us anything resembling a true theory of the world? We’ve always had to change theories radically. we’ve done this many experiments and our findings show that. So it’s that—the math or the probability that makes it better than faith. “Theory” Choice in Science as Faith-Based. providing the well-trodden road that makes one option seem more simple than the other in Ockham’s razor. and/or opinion). The idea was mainly motivated by Contact’s synopsis of William Ockham’s razor. because when Arroway comes back Journal of Research in Science Teaching . Since the characters in the movie are driven to accept the simplest conclusion. I don’t know if they did those experiments or if it’s even based on math. worked against scientist Ellie Arroway at the finale of Contact. it’ll always change.12 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK partially or solely justified on faith. to ever absolutely know something . Nine participants noted how Contact shows that choosing a “theory” in science can be faith-based. So. But we use them because we believe they work. . a fourth must be added. 1978) in which scientists worked. . . For participants. we just have faith that our beliefs are true. supposedly dis-unifying explanations as unfavorable even when. 1978). despite at least three renowned chemists producing oxygen prior to its “discovery” and acceptance. To be sure. 1954) or value judgment (Kuhn. . Further. Otherwise I have no idea . Indeed. Also interesting was that. which describes the problem of including too many concepts into one variable. they were more valid than their intuitively “simpler” counter-explanations (Gernert. and cannot easily apply. Diane was not alone. And it was curious to me that Carl Sagan [author of the novel. Contact motivated this idea through the portrayal of Ellie Arroway’s Journal of Research in Science Teaching . while philosophical discussions do invoke attributes. which leads to faith—a central theme of Contact. 1962. application of Bayes’ rule to validate Ockham’s razor breaks down when applied to anything larger than the philosopher’s or theologian’s notion of a “theory. 1963. Thus. SCIENCE. even William Ockham’s contemporary and fellow in the Franciscan order. Walter of Chatton. 1992. as defined by Ockham himself (not to be confused with the subsequent concept of parsimony). rejected support of too staunchly adhering to simplicity: “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things. much philosophical literature has been dedicated to the very complex question of theory-choice in science. such as the role of scientists’ “good sense” (Duhem. as history later learned. . especially in science . the debatably beneficial value of simplicity. 134).” which undoubtedly includes scientific theories.” like philosophy and religion. “paradigm” (Kuhn. philosophers. 1977) in theory- choice. The only evidence in favor of Ockham’s razor comes in the form of Bayes’ rule. . Bunge. to scientific practice despite its apparent “scientific” portrayal in Contact and popular conceptions of how science works. or “research programme” (Lakatos. brought to bear on the question. For example. When asked about the justification underlying Ockham’s razor. Contact’s representation of Ockham’s razor as an actual or prominent operating principle in science made it a “reality” or commonplace of scientific practice. Nonetheless. well good justification. Ockham’s razor. often cast more complex. even Evelyn (epistemology) did not seem to understand how such a principle was derived: People really do accept the principle. the existence of oxygen was erroneously rejected and misclassified as an already well-known gas of the time (Gernert. cannot come from faith. “faith” is very seldom. 2000). and so on” (p. anybody—we often use principles like this and have little idea about what justifies them. Contact. Due to Karl Menger’s (1960) “law against miserliness. and film advisor] would bring that out as something that both works for her and against her. But justification. as applied within whatever theory. However. which can mathematically predict that the simpler of two competing “theories” (theory is used here in its lay connotation) of equal empirical success tends to be the more successful. Perhaps it’s been evident over time. It’s really old. many scientists and philosophers alike. AND SCI-FI FILM 13 to Earth from Vega. 2009).” however. so that’s justification for some people [Evelyn laughs]. Scientists. Westrum. We have faith that these principles work or. 1996). more generally. it [Ockham’s Razor] works against her . if ever. Empirical Evidence (“Proof”) as a Component of Science All eleven participants articulated thoughts about empirical evidence being a dominant component of science that distinguishes it from other ways of “knowing. for most participants. there is little evidence from history of science to suggest proper and/ or successful use of Ockham’s razor (Bauer. EPISTEMOLOGY. effectively has not been applied. Tammy (teacher education) replied. Unbeknownst to Arroway. that “For Ellie. There were not other people who had seen what she saw. her belief would have been justified (at least partially) by empirical evidence. but she had no proof. there would need to be more reproducibility. which means someone else would need to go [to Vega]. I think that’s certainly enough to not label her as a crazy person. Yet. That is empirical evidence. as succinctly expressed by Pam (educational psychology). There needs to be an element of reproducibility. But Ellie is left with a different kind of belief— intuition. So. . that is. as well as to other scientific claims. through the availability of evidence for public inspection and acceptance.” Tammy later applied this idea of “proving” to Contact’s finale. empirical evidence. faith—however you want to think about it. to say that it was empirical just by her faith was not enough. . Interviewer: If Arroway was given the 18 hours of static shown only to viewers at the end of the film. empirical evidence. there existed an 18-hour recording of static that partially corroborated her purported voyage to Vega. And in that way. when asked about what she meant by “proving” a claim. until she could not provide such evidence for her alleged interstellar trip. the trip to Vega happened instantaneously . Journal of Research in Science Teaching . which would have provided her with scientific. Just observing data or word-of-mouth is not enough in this case . thus promoting the idea among participants. had the 18-hour footage of static been revealed to Arroway.14 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK unwavering commitment to empirical evidence for most of the film’s duration—that is. but to an outside observer this could just be an anomaly because. Sean (science education) built on this idea: Sean: The fact that the recording of Ellie’s alleged trip had 18 hours of static means it qualifies as observable. to them. There was no documentation. but the US government secretly withheld the recording from her. no. So I guess what I mean by prove is confirmation from others. her whole adventure. lack of evidence for a belief amounts to justification by faith. Other participants shared Sean’s idea of reproducibility as a component of empirical evidence through social confirmation. To give this story credibility. Interviewer: What would make it “enough” then? Sean: The 18 hours would be strong. . she does not know that the 18-hour record exists. she had no empirical evidence. because she doesn’t have access to that evidence. she had no way to prove her experience. “Arroway had a lot of faith in extraterrestrials. when asked if Arroway’s alleged 18-hour adventure to Vega was “empirical”: Tammy: The way I think about empirical evidence. because it’s documentation that can be shared by multiple people for confirmation. . For instance.” According to participants. Interviewer: And would these 18 hours of static be enough to prove her trip to Vega? Tammy: I think that’s enough to support it [Tammy’s emphasis]. would that be considered as empirical evidence? Tammy: Yes. so she has to take her experience on faith [Pam’s emphasis] that she went to Vega. She has nothing else other than her own feeling and her own memory that this occurred. Many participants also equated ideas of “enough” evidence and social confirmation with the idea of “proving” scientific claims. yet no male. this happened to Ellie Arroway. I saw Ellie Arroway being sort of pushed out of her world.” “antagonistic. plus having someone else in that machine to share her experience. of course. When you have all of this preponderance of evidence over here that says yes. further elaborated upon this idea of females in science as marginalized and patronized: Journal of Research in Science Teaching . plus the 18 hours of static. the sciences are not for women . female participants sorely identified with Contact’s notion that women in science are treated unfairly. and seven participants additionally shared the idea that social inspection and confirmation must be an element of empirical evidence for it to be considered as a valid source of knowing. . the idea that empirical evidence requires recordable observation was ubiquitously shared by all participants. AND SCI-FI FILM 15 Interviewer: Is there ever enough evidence to prove anything? Tammy: If she had her own experience. And that is in the domain of proving.” “emotional. Interviewer: Begun to prove? Tammy: OK.. any other option begins to be sort of ridiculous . 2004). Females in Science All six female. you know? It’s not because she was odd. Ellie Arroway) as “strange. contradicted the idea expressed by many of them that all scientific knowledge is open to change. plus video. it’s because people considered her an odd woman. I feel like that would have begun to prove the thing. I mean. yes. But when I was watching the movie. we’d be silly to think otherwise. We’ve established so well that they’ve been proven with all of this evidence that. Nevertheless. It sort of leads to. . but also because it exposes how participant background (gender in this case) can play a role in how ideas are experienced from a film. participants brought up that Contact portrayed women in science (namely.” which range from referring to evidence in support of a claim to conferring a status of certainty or near certainty to scientific claims (e. I thought that I had read somewhere that there isn’t anything that conclusively proves that cigarettes cause lung cancer. like Lara (language and literacy education). of course there are still going to be deniers. there are so many correlative studies that link cigarettes and lung cancer that you’d be silly to deny it. As revealed later in the findings. but I do feel like that’s in the domain of proving. Tammy (teacher education) summarized this idea of the negative portrayal of females in science as follows: I think it’s really unfair that there’s this societal perception that men are rational. .” “marginalized. . SCIENCE.g. Abd-El-Khalick. But. Other studies have documented the multiple meanings that college students ascribe to the terms “proof” and “proven. or more specifically about unfortunate social-cultural issues that are deep-seated in the scientific enterprise. I think that’s a real thing. I think that the idea that a girl can do science but look rational and look for evidence and not let that sort of stereotypically emotional girly thing get in the way. EPISTEMOLOGY. Other female participants. Participants’ notion that proven scientific claims never change.” and/or “inferior to men. the sciences are for men. Interviewer: And can proven claims ever change? Tammy: No. But. yes. women are irrational. we know that cigarettes cause lung cancer.” We included this idea in the study not only because it is an idea about science. again. . who often erroneously believe that they must fit in to “masculine” scientific settings. . the remaining five participants (i. Even in the film’s final moments. . For instance. That is. 2015). Scientific Assumptions as Faith-based Four of the nine participants (i. participants experienced these shared themes as unrealistic (“picture frame”). .. and the conflicts between women scientists’ professional and personal lives” (p. who highlighted “the pervasiveness of media depictions of women scientists that reinforces a masculine image of science . gender discrimination that exists within the scientific community.. I think there were really patronizing gender structures . Sobchack. & Scott. Contact tells its viewers a familiar story about gender: even reasonable women are plagued by pesky emotions.e. Participant Ontic Stances While Viewing Contact The following sections explicate how the shared themes articulated by participants interacted with various ontic stances about film that characterize their approaches to viewing Contact. she was being patronized by. . or be less “girly” and more “scientific. the film tells us. . and astronomy students). science education. as such.16 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK Ellie was being marginalized . . 113). they attributed her assumption to really being based on mathematics and probability (see the Drake Equation in Drake. . unrealistic. They furthermore found the idea of faith-based scientific assumptions in general to be realistic. most notably by Steinke (1999). . when seeking funding for her pet project. held the gravest contempt for the way females were portrayed in Contact: While Contact clearly engages with the opposition of faith and reason. Tammy (teacher education) effectively summarized these participants’ views: Journal of Research in Science Teaching . unique female agencies in science (Carlone. . everyone. its other agenda is enforcing traditional gender roles through Arroway’s and Joss’s romance. the English. . Indeed. found Contact’s alleged portrayal of faith. like. these depictions can be particularly harmful to adolescent students. . However. 2013). But I think the institution of science and politics were pointedly patronizing toward marginalized voices. Faye’s and other female participants’ comments are well documented in sci-fi film literature on the damaging portrayal of female scientists in film. and language and literacy education students) thought that this portrayal was realistic. philosophy of education. [so] while the film’s main message is that humankind is formed through a fragile union between reason and faith. music. . and/or even phenomena with which to identify or empathize (“mirror”) (cf. by far.. 1992). Faye (English with emphasis in film). Instead. teacher education.” thus not fulfilling their own. who articulated that Contact portrayed Ellie Arroway making a “faith-based” scientific assumption about the existence of extraterres- trial life. philosophy of science. when Arroway returns to work . her profession has been “feminized” from hard science to teaching young children . Indeed. while a dedicated scientist. she is predisposed to emotional outbursts. it does so by way of a series of messages about traditional gender roles. realistic (“window”). Arroway. Johnson.e. is also a woman. particularly females. and the man is ultimately right (and has something to teach his female counterpart about the world) (Film review). epistemology. . in this regard. Arroway begins yelling to a panel of suited. much of Joss’s function in the film is to feminize and temper Arroway . male observers about the importance of her project . 1990) to some kind of a “faith-based scientific” assumption is quite a leap. and quite inductive. .” even when. like us. they are created through interpretation—created through the experiences [Carl’s emphasis] of the people who find them. 1996). EPISTEMOLOGY. it’s in line with being able to make a claim that the world is understandable. Nonetheless. Patrick (philosophy of science). The conceptual jump from relating the scientific. since we are currently in an academic building where academe is the official language. we cannot really know what is “fact”: On the basis of what I’ve studied so far. . just trust in past literature so we can move forward with our own. Interviewer: So this was not an unrealistic portrayal to you in the film? Tammy: Oh no. I would say it was realistic.’ but it seems like that tension should not be a reason why we should not admit that these assumptions are actually faith-based.” Trust in Scientific Knowledge and Authority as Faith-based Eight participants took Contact’s purported portrayal of faith in scientific knowledge and authority as partially. Carl (communications and media) was the only participant to identify with such portrayal. SCIENCE. using the NOS framework from the present study. then. She doesn’t know! But she keeps saying there must be something out there. Carl might Journal of Research in Science Teaching . indeed. . you can prove. still felt that. it only disproves. especially in academia. So you can at least trust that. . in general. And I mean this is the same thing as Arroway thinking there’s life out there. it seems to me that it is very difficult. 1990. NRC. He discussed how. Like I said. . But it does use math. And. assumption that the world is understandable (AAAS. It’s not like these things are just fully formed. “The world is understandable”—well. It certainly feels like there’s some kind of social tension created when you say ‘faith-based. faith-based. as presented in many science education reform documents (e. . For example.” In addition to believing Contact’s portrayal of scientific knowledge and authority to be realistic. Indeed.g. we’ll continue to . But. to argue that any piece of knowledge that we have has not been distorted by interpretations of the people who thought out that knowledge . I believe. which.. too. Carl’s connection and identification with Arroway’s “scientific practices” connotes his own reliance on academic knowledge and authority as supposedly “fact. it isn’t understandable given our current knowledge. it would seem that understanding NOS and the nature of inductive reasoning does not disqualify one from believing that assumptions made in science are. despite thinking that Arroway’s assumption about the existence of alien life was probability-based. We say partially because Aden (astronomy) believed that not all knowledge used within scientific practice lies on such supposedly shaky foundations: “It is given that science does not prove. I suppose there is a great amount of faith given to thinking that we’ll be able to understand the world . AAAS. the scientific assumption itself “seems like it is faith-based. realistic. But this is something science really relies on. that’s exactly what Arroway does. researchers often uncritically base their studies on prior literature that they assume to be “fact. if not impossible. in his view. until the end [of the film] at least.” which might have appeared differently to him had Carl received explicit framing of the tentative and theory-laden NOS. if not fully. AND SCI-FI FILM 17 Tammy: For scientists to be able to make an assumption like. of course. like Pythagorean theorem. which he said “differs from other modes of inquiry [like philosophy] that might differently use the term theory. but also that other scientists around the world could and needed to verify the same signal from Vega. would two competing theories require Ockham’s razor in science. explanatory and predictive of biological phenomena. It’s very important to do. and then the simpler of the two is chosen. Like it realistically showed not only how the world rotates when the scientists [in the U. . if ever. thought that very rarely. It is this faith that supports the believability of claims made in science. Maybe use Ockham’s razor. these four participants thought that the depiction in Contact of Ockham’s razor in principle was realistic. I also liked Journal of Research in Science Teaching . .” The remaining four participants did not find the depiction completely unrealistic. but it is nonetheless highly substantiated. upon expounding. like Aden (astronomy). . . obviously. and/or opinion interchangeably. “There is faith that the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. and especially in science.S. . So I think the way Contact depicted Ockham’s razor was realistic. say. Pam (educational psychology) expanded upon the apparent realism regarding social confirmation as a requirement for evidence to be empirical: Contact did a really good job portraying science’s reliance on empirical evidence. [but] I generally think that it’s hardly ever the case where you have two theories that equally well explain the data.] were losing the signal from Vega. never used. those participants. then sure. Because that’s a condition of Ockham’s razor . Again. certain theories are more believable. well. and thus exceedingly reliable and durable. but I don’t think it’d be used the way they made it look. did not even think that Ockham’s razor was used in philosophy: People try to do this all the time in philosophy. But I just think this is so rare in philosophy. I could see it as being realistic.” Faye (English with emphasis in film) was asked if such a portrayal were realistic: “Yes. but the use of it by the scientists and National Security Council in the film was not. For example. it should be noted. while scientific knowledge is never absolute or certain (as he would agree). in light of new evidence or theoretical background. it is nevertheless reliable and durable. Darwinian evolution by natural selection may be reinterpreted time and time again by authority figures in the future of biological science. Aden (astronomy) seemed to identify with Ellie Arroway’s dependence on empirical evidence as the most valuable form of justification for claims: Handing off the data collection to another telescope as Vega set was a nice bit of realism . and something we do in the field . “Theory” Choice in Science as Faith-based Five of nine participants found Contact’s depiction of faith-based “theory” choice in science as realistic.” Others. . because it’s.18 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK understand that. Empirical Evidence (“Proof”) as a Component of Science All eleven participants determined Contact’s portrayal of empirical evidence as a chief component of science to be realistic. used theory. explanation. For example. It is encoded in how decisions are made in science. Some. hypothesis. For example. And I guess if you could actually find two theories that actually explained all relevant data equally well. like Evelyn (epistemology). but also not fully realistic. I mean. Thus. Steinke (2005) particularly highlighted how creators of popular films. SCIENCE. Females in Science All six female participants identified and empathized with lead character Ellie Arroway upon viewing Contact. but rather claiming that. there were more participants in number. But I understand that math is not all that awesome to watch on screen! . but Arroway should have just written a program that would measure the data with greater sensitivity and allow her to search more efficiently. given the literature. were Journal of Research in Science Teaching . patriarchal society and filmic worlds. like Contact. Overall. And listening for signals in real time looks cool. which. but no male participants even brought up the idea of gender in science. . but also expected by the creators of popular films. is not surprising. who experienced shared themes found in Contact as realistic (“window”)—some of whom even identified with scenes from the film (“mirror”)—than participants who found such portrayals unrealistic (“picture frame”). are not accusing the present study’s male participants of engaging in and perpetuating these stereotypes. Lara (language and literacy education) aptly summarized female participants’ views: I totally empathized with Ellie on multiple occasions. romance. though. AND SCI-FI FILM 19 Contact’s portrayal of the use of primes [prime numbers] when receiving the signal from Vega. These ideas. I definitely felt their pain in decoding the signal. However. it is not only easy to exercise bias concerning what is noticed on film (and what is not). they might have then acknowledged and deemed its portrayal regrettably realistic. We conjecture that. It is not that male participants found such a portrayal as unrealistic. and he gave that to them through his persona. That Drumlin guy [Tom Skerritt] was able to play the system using his power. 2013). . EPISTEMOLOGY. . due mainly to male directors and screenwriters (Kaplan. furthermore. We. Like he knew what the majority wanted. On top of that she was in an uphill battle with the privileged males. the role of women in science. almost all participants generated shared and strikingly similar ideas about science and the nature of knowing. Men were in a privileged position. Aden did not find the entirety of Contact’s portrayals of scientists fiddling with evidence as realistic. at least given female participants “feeling” the realism of it. are exceptionally savvy at playing upon tacit. and positions of power (and subordination). intuitive cultural and social assumptions and stereotypes about. had the male participants been asked about Contact’s portrayal of females in science. Ellie just couldn’t do that. 1975). despite finding the overarching portrayal of empirical evidence as a chief component of science to be as such: I would have expected the scientists to be doing more math [Aden laughs]. The mechanics were a bit off when collecting their data . has propagated in cinema since its inception (Mulvey. in this case. I don’t think the astronomers needed to move every single dish at the VLA [Very Large Array] in one direction. as demonstrated above. when asked whether she identified with any character from Contact. and in answering how participant ideas interacted with ontic stances about film. Discussion and Recommendations Irrespective of their disciplinary expertise. . Such stereotyping. as a male experiencing Mulvey’s and Kaplan’s male-dominated. of course. especially those depicting a sort of patriarchal order of society. Indeed. Furthermore. And I feel that everyday. In essence..g. The crucial point. Given the diverse backgrounds and disciplinary expertise of our participants. at best. 2002). it would appear that even if viewers of sci-fi film possess a relatively rare and sophisticated level of education (much like the present study’s participants). not unlike religion in its reliance on faith to justify its driving assumptions.. Barnett et al. for them. These findings raise three questions with significant implications for science education: Why would sci-fi films have such a lasting and overriding impact on viewers’ conceptions of science. our participants did not make the “empirical” as distinguishing a characteristic of science as Kuhn (1996/1962) had explicitly acknowledged when he noted: “Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief. at worst. 2009. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . This could be the case even among viewers who are scientifically literate. 1993/1970). or dealing with the impacts of. and if they generate ideas upon viewing such film like science being not unlike religion in its reliance on faith (which the present participants did). else there would be no science [our emphasis]” (p. and if they further cannot “shield” themselves from viewing such ideas as realistic (instead of what they are: unrealistic). and that these ideas would.20 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK often imprecise. Nonetheless. film theory to eventually build a more robust theory about learning from film that could further illuminate future findings in sci-fi film (and other screen media) studies related to science education. 2002). Participants. however. and guide its practitioners’ choice between competing theories. noted that Contact acknowledged a role for empirical evidence in science. is that sci-fi films likely will generate consistent images about science and its “real” workings among students and the general public (see also Barnett et al. they were not able to reconcile their seemingly fluid. and the mostly realistic ontic stance from which they approached the content and messages that they derived from the film. Contact strongly and realistically suggested to the majority of these viewers that science was.. and that these ideas could as well be rather na€ıve. essentially. we endeavor to conjecture that a wide swath of the adult viewership of Contact would reproduce the shared ideas that our participants generated. thus. as were many of our participants. then it is not a stretch to surmise that the public at large also might not “shield” themselves from seeing such ideas and viewing them as realistic. and na€ıve. The significant point here. it should be noted. or discuss ways in which Contact portrayed such an interaction. we attempt to consolidate various psychological theories used in prior literature and. even among those who are deemed scientifically literate or sophisticated viewers? What pedagogical implications would such an impact have for using. especially in light of prior literature and empirical findings (e. negatively impacting public understanding of science as suggested by NSF (2000. ascribe status and authority to its claims. and no one less than Thomas Kuhn has been similarly accused of reducing science to no more than theological doctrine (cf. Butler et al. did conclude his assertion by emphasizing that observation and experience “cannot alone determine a particular body of such belief” (p. 2006). 4).. Specifically. Indeed. is not the critique that we or other researchers could produce of the ideas about science and knowing that participants derived upon viewing Contact. Suggesting such parallelism is not new.. Unlike Kuhn. and rightly so. statements about the ways in which such “evidence” and “faith” interacted toward making claims to scientific knowledge. NSF. Kuhn. we endeavor to initiate a process of theory-building from the present study that might continue into future works. 4) to problematize the relationship between empirical evidence and justified belief while maintaining a crucial role for the former in science. then. sci-fi film in science education? What are the curricular implications of such an impact? Why the Lasting and Overriding Impact of Sci-Fi Film To address this first question. represent real scientific practice. 2006. even contradictory. Watkins. Our participants were quite thoughtful and reflective in their thinking about the film. from the present study. Yet. encoding variability. Rantzen & Markham. and dealing with the impacts. especially a reality that might instill na€ıve understandings of science. 2009) and explaining such outcomes using the aforementioned psychological theories—that is. like motion picture. Barnett et al. let alone K-12 students. in which the film is a window that opens to a new reality—namely. AND SCI-FI FILM 21 Drawing from the literature. 1998. SCIENCE. a voyeuristic. Marx. Butler et al. perceive a fantastical. whether true or false. recommended that teachers warn students of Journal of Research in Science Teaching . 1992. Thus. NSF. which leads to the second question that arose in this discussion: What pedagogical implications are appropriate for the use.. fictional filmic reality as realistic and/or something with which to identify. which very implicitly samples from “warmer. the present study’s findings might make it appear that any attempt at pedagogical intervention would prove of little help. if valid. and the Conceptual Change Model (i. Reis & Galvao. Such theory eventually led to Sobchack’s (1992) phenomenology of film experience. & Boyle. an idea. and Moreno and Mayer’s (2007) cognitive affective theory of learning with media.. 2009. Pintrich.. The pedagogical techniques and recommendations for teachers. might not have been the most revealing or robust. Butler et al. EPISTEMOLOGY. Dole & Sinatra. Vosniadou.e. A consolidation of such theories might take the form of the following thesis. retroactive interference. 1992) and went beyond Mayer’s (2009) cognitive theory of multimedia.g. 2004). Barnett et al. however.’s claim had been moderately corroborated by film theorist Gunning’s (1989) cinema of attractions theory. principally. additionally credited sci-fi film as being more memorable and perhaps pleasurable than classroom instruction. 2006. then the present findings would pose a serious problem for promoting public understanding of science.. Butler et al. which might aptly be called the ontic thesis of learning with motion picture. pleasurable experience. it could help science teachers determine how to probe students while discussing a sci-fi film. would indeed require indirect testing in future studies via experimental conditions. which were derived from such explanations. indeed. Additionally. 1988. to explain how multimodal memories derived from film could dominate and interfere with memories derived from classroom learning. Bower. particularly by focusing on learning outcomes resulting from cinematic viewership (Barnett et al. a leading culprit in undermining hours of science classroom instruction (Aikenhead. 2006. If doctoral students. Butler et al. Such a thesis and consolidation of theories. (2006) used the “cold” Conceptual Change Model (Vosniadou. 2000. 1972. to curtail the interference of a dominant memory derived from misinformation in film with a weaker memory derived from classroom experience. 1993).” perhaps “hot” conceptual change models (e. is more likely to be meaningful and recalled if derived from a subjectively realistic and/or empathy-producing multimodal source. 1991) to explain how students adopted more intuitive. which Moreno and Mayer’s theories fail to adequately address. what types of memories are more likely to interfere and undermine others within a worldview upon watching film—specifically. Barnett et al. which we advance here: An idea that is experienced as realistic and/or empathetically felt is more efficiently recalled and integrated into a worldview than an idea to which one has no ontic or empathetic attachment. Prior researchers have indeed worked toward addressing this problem. memories that are produced by and/or generate ideas that are experienced as realistic or empathetically felt. For example. which helped derive the ontic stances about film used in the present study. easy-to-understand models of scientific content from sci-fi film as opposed to more difficult-to-understand scientific models from classroom experiences. (2009) used retroactive interference (Rantzen & Markham. This thesis. 2002. Barnett et al. 1991). if this thesis is eventually substantiated. of sci-fi film in science education? Pedagogical Implications In light of prior literature that recognized film as a more impactful influence than classroom experiences on memory and sense-making and. would do well to explain and predict... upon purposefully exposing film to students.. And. and teachers would not be able to access and address such nuance. recommendations may help science teachers mitigate the negative influences of some misinformation portrayed in a given film. which. that learners’ prior ideas do interact with any planned instructional sequence and content in ways that cannot be fully anticipated prior to engagement with learning. For example. in the present study. let alone na€ıve nuances. These pedagogical interventions have some merit in the sense of targeting specific ideas. Barnett’s et al. We do not claim that our six female participants’ ideas generalize to what all other female students would see. namely. in light of the unexpected findings of the present study. if students even know what to look for. this claim would be problematic.’s work. one that undermines passively assimilated misinformation) so that it beneficially interferes with misinformation. In addition.. That is. and tentativeness in science—many of which NOS researchers would deem na€ıve (e. Nuance in student ideas is key. unexpectedly relating science with faith).” “antagonistic.” and “inferior to men. they are rather limited because they fail to consider that—as was the case in this study—students generate their own ideas.g. first. NSF. proving. are often exposed to these films regardless of classroom avoidance (Aikenhead. similarly. We are in full agreement with Barnett et al. to allow students to openly write and talk about thoughts that were generated upon watching a given film. 2002. but the teacher would have little or no idea what else students would see and learn in such a plethora of moving pictures and sounds. six female yet no male participants thought that Contact portrayed women in science as “strange. In light of the present findings. For example. when expounding upon empirical evidence being a chief component of science. even though we reported on major ideas articulated by participants. but rather claim that Koehler’s et al. these recommendations seem to factor out the most noteworthy factor underlying conceptual change theories.22 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK these specific instances of misinformation in film that conflict with classroom content. 2000. in theory. 2004). Thus. recommended that science teachers encourage students to specifically target and reflect on scientific accuracy and plausibility portrayed in sci-fi film—that is. instead of targeting pre-planned ideas on which students presumably would have focused.” which is corroborated in literature by Steinke (1999). (2006) and Butler’s et al. Such a technique. it is a claim that was derived on the assumption that subjectively targeting ideas from Contact. after all. reflective approach to sci-fi film as a pedagogical tool (similar to the present study’s film review and interview discussion).” “emotional.g. the reader may have noticed subtler ideas sprinkled within such articulations. (2013) specifically indicated that Contact portrayed females in science in a more positive light than other sci-fi films. an open-ended. 1988. We especially chose this example because a study by Koehler et al. Tammy (teacher education) spoke about the ideas of proof. Next. (2006). Journal of Research in Science Teaching . However. despite what students might independently think. recommendation of Contact as an educational film for science teachers to use in classrooms to improve upon the image of females in science is a bit precarious—especially if science teachers should think. we recommend what we call an open-ended. teachers might want. based on Koehler et al. teachers could address such ideas during class time. 2004). In other words.” “marginalized. Reis & Galvao. which might be irrelevant to a given sci-fi film in a science teacher’s mind but actually relevant in students’ minds (e. Barnett et al. In some significant sense. and Butler’s et al. that they ought to explicitly tell their students that Contact empowers young women to go into science. if they solely use Barnett et al. who recommended that science teachers expose students to sci-fi film rather than shelter them from it. serves adequately as a pedagogical approach to sci-fi film. and with corroboration by Steinke. Abd-El-Khalick. Yet. would derive a third. reflective approach might make teachers more aware of various unanticipated ideas that students might otherwise have tacitly generated while viewing. would prove fairly ineffective. more dominant memory (namely. (2009) targeted pedagogical techniques. Students. however. NRC. which entails that any evidence available at a given time might be insufficient to determine what beliefs to hold toward any theory. 1963. which cannot be based on any knowledge or evidence of the true intentions of most scientists or actual integrity of their findings. Curricular Implications: Expanding the Current Consensus Model for NOS in K-12 The present findings have a significant curricular implication. Quite possibly the best way to address such a student’s idea. and explicate. Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman. namely. the nature and role of assumptions in science. to ask the student how (s)he experienced this idea—as if it were realistic. 2012. AND SCI-FI FILM 23 For example. are either unfounded due to inconsistency in epistemological backing (Muller.” as the present study’s participants defined it. 1978). which entails a sort of reliance that all practicing scientists’ epistemic endeavors are geared toward truth. if a student explicates an idea that was generated upon viewing a sci-fi film about trust in scientific knowledge and authority being faith-based. If knowledge or evidence is not required for such a trust. or perhaps felt. which is related to the seemingly lasting and overriding impact of sci-fi film on viewers’ conceptions of science.g. Even Maxwell (1999. Duhem and Quine’s underdetermination of theory by evidence (e. Such a reliance. 2000. then the teacher might want.. Westrum. 2013). who has championed the idea for decades that choice between two competing scientific theories of equal empirical success is achievable and not based on faith. is for a science teacher to reflect upon. demonstrates. or “belief without evidence. at least to some. SCIENCE. widely accepted NOS consensus models and frameworks for K-12 science education (e. it might be interpreted that this trust is based on faith. Bayes’ Rule. 2009). is required for the successful operation of the scientific enterprise. are adequately addressed and. NGSS Lead States. 2008) or unpracticed due to the theory-laden and -driven nature of scientific knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick. that the act of choosing one theory among two competing theories of equal empirical success seems quite akin to a faith-based decision. ameliorated by current NOS models and frameworks. 2006). for example. are realistic. the apparent lack of evidence in history suggesting that any two competing theories in science were ever actually of equal empirical success (Bauer. scrutiny.” The student might connote trust in line with. 1999).. and the values of simplicity and unity. thus negating the requirement altogether for an alleged “faith-based” value (simplicity) integral to science. 1992. All shared ideas expressed by our participants upon viewing Contact.g. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . with students. 2013). Bunge. 1996. A student might agree with the above reasoning but still assert that other ideas derived from sci-fi film. After all. 1990. like “theory” choice in science being based on faith. However. This implication chiefly speaks to a critical need to expand the current. for those na€ıve or imprecise ideas. which can surely be taught by any science teacher knowledgeable about NOS. unrealistic. Klee. has not once had his principles of scientific theory-choice supported by the philosophy of science or epistemology community (Miller. Maxwell confidently asserted that such a choice should never be a problem if scientists would just adhere to Ockham’s razor. such a claim of faith-based “epistemic trust” derives from a misunderstanding of induction and the social negotiation. and often independent corroboration of scientific findings within the wider scientific community (see consilience in Wilson. especially in light of the ontic thesis of learning with motion picture. These principles and values. 1992). 2005. EPISTEMOLOGY. Wilholt’s (2013) epistemic trust. as students might commit their beliefs to such “real” and/or “felt” experiences. except ideas related to scientific assumptions being faith- based. the need to attend to. then. Ideas that are experienced as realistic or empathetically felt might be red flagged and discussed to a larger extent in class. This teacher might then probe what the student meant by “trust” and “faith. AAAS. a basic scientific assumption like “the world is understandable” (AAAS. Welch. as its name implies. These examples are by no means exhaustive. It might prove fruitful to provide examples of basic scientific assumptions in any NOS framework to demonstrate the effectiveness of this modified Ennis (1982) definition. In this case. 1999). 2). unlike assumptions made in religion about. The AAAS (1990) framework for NOS explicated a number of assumptions underlying the scientific worldview. for all intents and purposes. we know. 1990. for explanations as to how statements like “the world is understandable. we argue that science requires assumptions to be a coherent system of knowing (see also coherentism. a vast single system in which the basic rules are everywhere the same. no past or current frameworks for NOS in science education incorporate a systematic exposition. and/or interpreted from within elaborate theoretical frameworks” (p. or some form of it. the centrality of assumptions to NOS frameworks has long been emphasized by science education researchers (e. we can then construct the assumption that the world is. or “belief without evidence. 1999). Stemming from this inductive. inferential claim (that the world is likely understandable). Attempts to expand current NOS frameworks to address “scientific assumptions” could depart from Ennis’ (1982) definition. is tentatively taken for granted. Discussions between science teachers and students about such assumptions in science. an empirically based claim quite obviously does not satisfy the conditions of an unempirical mental state. that at least a portion of the world is understandable. Regarding the role of assumptions in science. through induction. particularly of induction. again. These included that science “presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful. & Delin.” as well as that “scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth. through induction. namely. then. Furthermore. came to be. Abd-El-Khalick noted that “observations are almost always . 1966). 331). because we assume it is. and surely no explication. on which all of science stands (Maxwell. increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works” (AAAS. can seemingly be entirely based on faith to students. observation and theory. Lederman (1992) defined NOS as “the values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific knowledge” (p. 2014). to the best of our knowledge. would do well to lead into the nature of inferences in science. for example. Chittleborough. indeed.24 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK To be sure. a scientific assumption can be directly or indirectly tested and. it is an empirically based claim that is tentatively taken for granted until demonstrated otherwise—just like most claims to scientific knowledge. Billeh & Hasan. . like our participant Tammy. However. Maxwell. understandable. and that “theories often are based on assumptions or axioms and posit the existence of non-observable entities” (p. not because we know it is but. 2013) to specifically include such a treatment of assumptions and their role in science. empirically. rejected because it is indeed empirically based (Delin. 358). would ameliorate any intuition that a student might have about an assumption being based on faith. 1975.” in actuality. like faith. albeit he did not articulate those assumptions. mediated by the assumptions underlying the functioning of ‘scientific’ instruments. p. which we slightly modify to characterize an assumption as a propositional and empirically based claim that. the existence of a deity. systematic study” and “assumes that the universe is. More recently. 1990). is likely understandable. .g. 1994. The present findings press the urgent need for expanding current frameworks for NOS (especially the NGSS Lead States. Other NOS researchers have highlighted one subset or another of the assumptions that lie at the foundation of science and scientific inquiry (see Abd-El-Khalick. For example. If a portion of the world is understandable. it follows that the world itself. Abd-El-Khalick (2012) mentioned—but like Lederman did not explicate— other sorts of assumptions that underlie two crucial components of science.. 357).” After all. of the nature and role of these crucial assumptions. This definition. which holds that the structure of a justified Journal of Research in Science Teaching . Consider again the assumption: The world is understandable. then science would lose its power to explain and predict natural processes. And we argue that other assumptions made in science fulfill the same role—for example. a rival physicist who did not like this physicist prayed to such a whimsical world to violate what is characterized as the law of conservation of energy. which could do well to connect with other related scientific assumptions and NOS aspects.. and that such a treatment will likely feature some form of progressively more elaborate ideas. release the bob. If the world were not understandable (e. For example. Thus. 1978) in which scientists operate. AND SCI-FI FILM 25 belief system is an interlocking web of beliefs that all mutually support each other. often involuntarily. or the Universe consists of a unified quantum field. like the tentative and theory-laden NOS (Abd-El-Khalick. 1962. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . Lastly. or “bob. we must reiterate that students should learn from any NOS framework that all assumptions made in science. EPISTEMOLOGY. to enter a different paradigm in science. It does not escape our attention that care must be taken to ensure that any treatment of assumptions in an expanded NOS framework needs to be carefully transformed and tailored to be accessible to K-12 students. a physicist can boldly. “paradigm” (Kuhn. 1906.. we can continue to hold the assumption in science that the world is understandable. to suggest that we live in such a whimsical world. with more literature in the present study’s line of research. which need to be matched with students’ developmental levels and intertwined with equally accessible science content ideas. Zagzebski. cf. SCIENCE. “willing suspension of disbelief” becomes riskier in terms of its potential impact on public understanding of science. Luckily. empirical or otherwise.g. spherically symmetrical forces. or. Joachim. It is our hope that. 2009). 1996). All of these scientific assumptions are proposed to maintain the integrity of a coherent system of knowing within whatever theory. and aspect ratios continually grow wider to reflect the range of human vision. 2012).” that can freely swing on some kind of line attached to a pivot). perhaps intuitive. there is no evidence. after being released. as well as scientific processes and practices. In a whimsical world. hold the bob to her nose so that the line is taut. without moving. and confidently watch it swing away and back toward her nose without flinching. she would genuinely be unsurprised when nature does not permit the bob to strike her in the nose because she knows that the bob cannot gain kinetic energy (via conservation of energy) on its return without an additional force acting upon it. science teachers and students alike will develop proper interventions to grow a deeper. Conclusion The realism of popular sci-fi film has evolved greatly since its inception in 1902 with A Trip to the Moon. With this increase in sci-fi film realism. are tentative and open to rejection. because it continues to maintain the integrity of a coherent system of knowing. in its augmented scientific realities. suppose that we have a simple pendulum (a spherical weight. however. even those crucial to the very existence of science. with additional kinetic energy to hit her in the nose if. not cubically symmetrical forces. or “research programme” (Lakatos. 1999). black-and-white films eventually gained Technicolor. two-dimensional films eventually became three- dimensional. the Universe consists of point-atoms that interact at a distance by means of unyielding. if it were some kind of whimsical world). the bob held taut to this physicist’s nose might swing away and back. to be absurdly simplistic. more reflective awareness that permits enjoyment of sci-fi film (and other screen media) for its entertainment value without believing. In an understandable world. Silent films eventually gained synchronous sound. say. unempirical assumptions regarding faith being a chief component of science. thus fulfilling their role. not whimsical. Students might then learn how such assumptions lay the groundwork for scientific practices without making their own. the Universe consists of quantum strings (Maxwell. Indeed. Bauer. IL: Aldine. (1996). M. 621–650). 12. (Producers). (2003). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Englewood Cliffs. G. & Thornton.). Journal of Research in Science Teaching. R. Ideological effects of the basic cinematographic apparatus.). (2006). In A. Brake. The Netherlands: Kluwer. Chicago. Barnett. Science & Education. (Producers).. (Producers). D. F. Y. 353–374. Film Quarterly. Francis bacon (pp. (2006).. F. Using science fiction movie scenes to support critical analysis of science. Wilson. Abd-El-Khalick.. B. N. (First published 1620). Lederman (Eds. 39–47. The core [Motion picture]. 25. The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. H. J. Crichton. M. F. M. Benvenuto. K. K. Sociological work: Method and substance. S. 22. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (2012). J.. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . (1988). M. (Director). (Director). 28(2). (1997).. & N. (1963). Layne. 31–35. & J. 389–425). Abd-El-Khalick. M. E. The impact of science fiction film on student understanding of science. United States: Amblin Entertainment. (2004). IL: University of Illinois Press. Dordrecht. H. Anderson. 85–123). 1057–1095. Physics Education. Science for all Americans. Urbach.. Novum organum. S. C. Bower. & Amiel. London. 209–219. & Lederman. Abd-El-Khalick. Journal of College Science Teaching. (1981). (1990). In N. (1970). S. Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. H. (1974). References Abd-El-Khalick. Boghossian. (1996).. UK: Free Association Books. United States: Paramount Pictures. & E. Lederman. & Kennedy. Science fiction in the classroom. Billeh. Barnett. & De Bont.). Bailey.26 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK Note 1 Note that upon completion of data collection for the present study. G. L. O.. Martin (Eds.. Coding processes in human memory (pp. B. UK: Hutchinson. (2003). A. one additional sci-fi film was released that fulfilled our criteria: Interstellar. 2087–2107. D. J. NY: Oxford University Press. Foster. Wagner. G. A. (2013). NJ: Prentice-Hall. (2014). M. P. The evolving landscape related to assessment of nature of science. 34.. Baudry. (2007). Over and over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science.). H. and science teacher knowledge domains. Aikenhead. C. J.) (pp. 179–191. Mahwah. International Journal of Science Education. Bacon. Becker. V. F. (2000). K. (1986). 15. An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. 134). G... New York. Abd-El-Khalick. Stimulus sampling theory of encoding variability.. The works of Jacques Lacan: An introduction (Vol. Flick. & S. Bryce. & Spielberg. In L. 607–629. The golden age of science fiction. 36(4). NY: Oxford University Press. Gibson (Eds. R. S. 37. The myth of simplicity.. Bunge. Allen. (1972). IL: Open Court. & Kafka. Twister [Motion picture]. F. A. A. & Williams. Journal of Science Education and Technology. New York. 31–34. Amis. New York. Houle. & Hasan. learning. Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed. Teaching with and about nature of science. and teacher education (pp. F. & Kafka. Kennedy. Abell (Eds. Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching. Melton. I. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. London. H. (Director/Producer). NY: Wiley. Amistad [Motion picture].. 33–293). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. (1975). Gatling. Urbana. G.. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Chicago. Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. W. Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. In P. United States: Dreamworks Pictures. (1992). 38(1). Journal of Research in Science Teaching. and the interesting. 7. H. R. Reflections on the equation. New Horizons in Education. New York. (2013). (Producers). (1987). Gattaca [Motion picture]. A. S. 12. E. 52. Johnson. Wan. EPISTEMOLOGY. 75–85. & Sadler. YouTube: Educational potentials and pitfalls. Gunning. H. The day after tomorrow [Motion picture]. Avatar [Motion picture]. Thinking about television science: How students understand the nature of science from different program genres. Frayling. & Scott. 34. & Sinatra. D. & Henning. G. Zaromb. P. H. Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class. 17. L. The aim and structure of physical theory. & Landu. United States: Centropolis Entertainment. (2013). (1998). C. The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Astronomy Education Review. Delin. Oxford. Synthese.. New York. G. 60. E. NY: Simon and Schuster. Cognitive Systems. Dune Entertainment. Clark. Wiener. Computers in the Schools. DeVito. K. the bad. Huemer. (2009). Reconceptualizing changes in the cognitive construction of knowledge.. Contemporary Educational Psychology. F. (2004). (1982).. & Roediger.. 40. S. A.. Towards a closed description of observation processes. (2009). 53. Dani. Psychological Science. (Producer). R. 58(3). (1993).. (1932). S. & The Mark Gordon Company. A. Skepticism and the veil of perception. 112–119. 234–256. 85–98. (P. Cambridge. (2000). Journal of Research in Science Teaching . What is an assumption? Informal Logic. Jones. Dhingra. A. D. P. (2003). Drake. Molen. AND SCI-FI FILM 27 Burgin. The speed of sound: Hollywood and the talkie revolution 1926–1930. MD: Rowman & Littlefield. & Gordon. 689–713. K. 30–41. 51. G. H.. Gernert. S. United States: Lightstorm Entertainment. Trans). C. bad. & Spielberg.. Joachim. Callender. C. SCIENCE. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 20. Coleridge. (1989). T. (2009). T. United States: Amblin Entertainment. 109–128. R. Eyman. Art and Text. (Director/Producer). The nature of truth: An essay. & Delin. 31–59.. MA: Da Capo Press. (1967). (2001). 54. Social Studies of Science. Lyon. Sher. Biographia literaria. M. Clarens. Shamberg. Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Jurassic park [Motion picture]. & Cuthrell. Film Quarterly. (2003). Women and film. J. A. and dangerous? The scientist and the cinema. R. 59. M. 115–122. Educational Psychologist. International Journal of Astrobiology. 34. 474–488. M. Duhem. 13(2). Kennedy. K. H. (Producer/Director). Dole. NY: Routledge. tragical history of the science fiction film. (Original work published 1904–5). (2009). K. (1817). Mad. A. Butler. A brief. Sound motion pictures as an aid in classroom teaching. C. D. S. J. 165–180. An illustrated history of horror and science-fiction films. 28. D. & McDaniel. 133–138. (Producer). Ennis. 40. Princeton. Teaching astronomy with science fiction: A resource guide. C. M.. P... 1161–1168. Physics Today. Biosystems. 61–86. Using popular films to enhance classroom learning—The good. 2(1). D. Kaplan. A. (1906). J. Lyle. J. Lionsgate. (Director). Collins. An aesthetic of astonishment: Early film and the (in)credulous spectator.. Hodgens. (2006).. R. The School Review. Cameron. B. T. B. 16. Gernert. S. & Pieri. Lanham. A.. P. A case for media literacy in the context of socioscientific issues. & Niccol. United States: Jersey Films. Carlone. (Producers). F. Chittleborough. (1959). Learning nature of science concepts through a research apprenticeship program: A comparative study of three approaches. M. (2015). (1997). T.. 669–681. H. (2011). Identifying implicit assumptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. NJ: Princeton University Press.. Ockham’s razor and its improper use. M. (1954). 33. M. (1994). R. UK: Clarendon Press. D. G. C. C. A. Fraknoi. M. 31–45.. 173–176. (1997). (Director). & Ingenious Film Partners. (2016). Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Emmerich. (2010). 30–39. N.. (2008). T. (2002). (2013). A. 51. 39. Popper. Maxwell. Lakatos. anyway? Canonicity and authority in Star Wars fandom. 181–239. Lederman. 19. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. & Mayer.. (1968). 131–156. (First published 1962). National science education standards. Klosterman. Synthese. & Schwartz. 6–18. Kuhn. I. Screen. 40. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Journal of General Philosophy of Science. (2012). Koehler. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. N. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema.. 309–326. In defense of the Quine-Duhem thesis: A reply to Greenwood. S. McMillan. D. The skin of the film: Intercultural cinema. Philosophy of Science. M. 1–21. Muller’s critique of the argument from aim-oriented empiricism. New Left Review. 13. (1996). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. (1977). In defence of constructive empiricism: Maxwell’s master argument and aberrant theories. D.28 MYERS AND ABD-EL-KHALICK Klee. J. 51–74. Lakatos and aim-oriented empiricism.).. L. 29. Marks. Kuhn. M. C. UK: Ashgate Publishing. (2001). S. 12. (1992). 139–145. Research in Science Education. NC: Duke University Press. Maxwell. G. D. E. OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press. The origins of science fiction fandom: A reconstruction. R. Menger. N. (2012). Has science established that the universe is comprehensible? Cogito. & Schumacher. & Zeidler. N. A counterpart of Ockham’s razor in pure and applied mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . J. (1978). N. IL: The University of Chicago Press. 487–491. 48(1). J. Washington. 42. Chicago. Clareson (Ed. Durham.. M. Foundation: The Review of Science Fiction. Thousand Oaks. Mulvey. S. Lyden. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. G. (2000). What do you mean: Science? Fiction? In T. J. 48. N. Journal of General Philosophy of Science. J. (1975). Philosophia. 59. 53–95). Bell. 17(2). and the senses. J. G. R. 39. A. L. action! Developing a methodology to document mainstream films’ portrayal of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Lights. R. 103–114. UK: Cambridge University Press. & Brown. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.. (1987).). U. 80. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. 71–77. 16(3). C. (1916). T. New York. Research in education: A conceptual introduction. Moreno. R. (1971). Abd-El-Khalick. Out of error: Further essays on critical rationalism. 415–428. E. L. M€unsterberg. R. SF: The other side of realism (pp. (2009).). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed. Lacan. Electronic Journal of Science Education.. DC: National Academy Press. (2009). A. H. Chicago. 71. Educational Psychology Review.. T. R. Farnham. The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed. Merril. National Research Council. NY: D. Whose film is it. 5–25. (2007). (2013). H. IL: The University of Chicago Press.. S. (1960). 775–786. Lederman. S.. I. NY: Cambridge University Press. Maxwell. CA: Sage. Multimedia learning (2nd ed. K. The mirror stage. New York. Philosophy of Science. (1990). Mayer. L. (1996). L. G. Cambridge. Appleton & Co. NY: Longman. Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. C. 1). (2006). Laudan. F. Miller. 497–521. Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education. (1992). (1981). Lederman. Kuhn. embodiment. camera. Bowling Green. Muller. Sadler. Bloom. The methodology of scientific research programmes (Vol. Moskowitz. Maxwell. 19–49. (2005). A confutation of convergent realism. New York. L. & Binns. The photoplay: A psychological study.). 721–734. (1999). 331–359. 32. Women scientist role models on screen: A case study of contact. Tate Papers. Sagan. United States: Radar Pictures. E. UK: Cambridge University Press. (1993). Science and social intelligence about anomalies: The case of meteorites. 390–392. (1993). 24. Washington. & Markham. P. Russell. R. 119(1). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge. 27. Socio-scientific controversies and students’ conceptions about scientists. Vieth. (1999). Regular novelties: Lawrence Alloway’s film criticism. Wilson. 1621–1633. NJ: Princeton University Press. Against ‘normal science. R. (1995). & Boyle. Epistemic trust in science. V. B. (2004). (1994). Science Communication.. NY: The Ungar Publishing Company. Belmont. and science in fifties science fiction film. Schafer. texts. United States: Warner Bros. National Science Foundation. A. Sociology Compass. Lanham. (First published 1959 by Hutchinson Education. Next generation science standards: For states by states. UK: Oxford University Press. (Director/Producer). J. C. T. (2011). (1991). Welch science process inventory (form D). Science and engineering indicators—2002. The last samurai [Motion picture]. 16. (1997). (1992). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 23. P. L. DC: National Science Foundation. (2013). 233–253. A. B. Educational Researcher. Sources. 25–37). attitudes and values. S. Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. R. 64. Musgrave (Eds. Designing curricula for conceptual restructuring: Lessons from the study of knowledge acquisition in astronomy. Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication. New York. Popper. (2003). S. SCIENCE. New York. 1–9. 27–63. R. current trends and areas for future research.. Science fiction. W. 14. CA: Wadsworth. 431–444. Radford. W. O. J. (1986). (Director/Producer). (2002). 111–136.. (1996). V. NY: Random House. Zwick. Zemeckis. (2009). 399–412. Washington. 21. New York. London. 167–199. Screening science: Contexts. EPISTEMOLOGY. Stanfield. DC: National Science Foundation. 26(13). On epistemology. (2013). VA: Wilder Publications. International Journal of Science Education. C. The logic of scientific discovery (reprint edition). The address of the eye: A phenomenology of film experience. 5. Science fiction film. The Journal of General Psychology. & Bresler. Watkins. J. WI: Author. NY: Random House. AND SCI-FI FILM 29 National Science Foundation. R. Steinke. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Telotte. (First published 1912). Sobchack. 461–493. (First published 1970). The Encyclopedia Americana. Zagzebski. (Producer). 37–43.). (1966). E. (2001). (1992). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. P. Marx. J. International Journal of Science Education. Contact [Motion picture]. Washington. Princeton. W. Pale blue dot: Avision of the human future in space. (1987). Madison. The reversed eyewitness testimony design: More evidence for source monitoring. Westrum. Social Studies of Science. Paivo.. 63. & Galvao. Review of Educational Research. 8. UK: Cambridge University Press. M. characteristics and effects of mass media communication on science: A review of the literature. R. Rantzen. & Starkey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching View publication stats . Vosniadou. J. Sturgeon. Science and engineering indicators—2000. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Welch. The problems of philosophy. Wilholt. Lakatos. S. (1999). Oxford. (1992). E. Pintrich. D. (2000). P. C. Reis. & A. K. (2001). MD: Scarecrow Press. R. NY: Routledge. L.’ In I. 5–15. Wasser. (2005).. (2008). J. (1992). Screening space: The American science fiction film. (1978). Cambridge. Solomon. first appeared 1934). New York. 25(5). DC: National Academy Press. Steinke. 219–237. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2011). T. Sobchack. Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.