The pursuit of understanding: A study of exemplary high school students' conceptions of knowledge validation in science and history

The study presented examined 16 award-winning high school students' beliefs about the criteria by which scientific theories and historical narratives are deemed trustworthy. It sought to (a) describe such beliefs as students reasoned within each discipline; (b) examine the degree to which such beliefs were organized as coherent systems of thought; and (c) explore the relationship between students' beliefs and their prior disciplinary research experience. Students were multiple-year award-winners at the Massachusetts Science Fair and the National History Day---two pre-collegiate State-level competitions. Two consecutive semi-structured interviews invited students to assess and enhance the trustworthiness of competing accounts of genetic inheritance and the Holocaust in science and history respectively.;A combined qualitative and quantitative data analysis yielded the following results: (a) Students valued three standards of acceptability that were common across disciplines: e.g. empirical strength, explanatory power and formal and presentational strength. However, when reasoning within each discipline they tended to define each standard in disciplinary-specific ways. Students also valued standards of acceptability that were not shared across disciplines: i.e., external validity in science and human understanding in history. (b) In science, three distinct epistemological orientations were identified---i.e., "faith in method," "trusting the scientific community" and "working against error." In history students held two distinct epistemologies---i.e., "reproducing the past" and "organizing the past". Students' epistemological orientations tended to operate as collections of mutually supporting ideas about what renders a theory or a narrative acceptable. (c) Contrary to the standard position to date in the literature on epistemological beliefs, results revealed that students' research training in a particular discipline (e.g., science or history) was strongly related to the ways in which they interpreted problems, methods, and satisfactory solutions in each domain. Students trained in science favored a sophisticated "working against error" epistemology of science and a naive "reproducing the past" epistemology of history. Students trained in history revealed a sophisticated "organizing the past" epistemology in that discipline and a naive "faith in methods" in one in science. Students trained in both domains revealed sophisticated epistemologies in both disciplines.