Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

A Study of New Models for Scientific Inquiry Activity through Understanding the Nature of Science (NOS): - A Proposal for a Synthetic View of the NOS -

  • Published : 2007.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, it is assumed that understanding the nature of science (NOS) would enhance students' performance of scientific inquiry in more authentic ways. The ultimate goal of this study is to suggest new models for developing scientific inquiry activities through understanding the NOS by linking the NOS with scientific inquiry. First, the various definitions and statements of the NOS are summarized, then the features of the developmental nature of scientific knowledge and the nature of scientific thinking based on the philosophy of science are reviewed, and finally a synthetic list of the elements of the NOS is proposed, consisting of three categories: the nature of scientific knowledge, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the nature of scientific thinking. This suggested synthetic list of the NOS is used to suggest a model of scientific inquiry through the understanding of the NOS. This list was designed to provide basic standards regarding the NOS as well as practical guidance for designing activities to improve students' understanding of the NOS.

Keywords

References

  1. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39-55 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994). Project 2061: Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press
  3. Abd-EI-Khalick, F. and Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
  4. Akerson, V.L., Morrison, J.A., and McDuffie, A.R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099
  5. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., and Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching pupils 'ideas-about-science': Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10136
  6. Bell, P., and Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
  7. Bell, P., and Linn, M.C. (2002). Beliefs about science: how does science instruction contribute? In B.K. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich (Eds.) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (pp. 321-346). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
  8. Bell., R., and Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
  9. Bianchini, J., and Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<177::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Y
  10. Brickhouse, N.W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science ands their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62 https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719004100307
  11. Chalmers, A.F. (1986). What is this thing called science? Milton Keynes: Open University Press
  12. Chinn, C. A., and Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating in inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175 - 218 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
  13. Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in light of contemporary notions of the nature of science and of how children learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 429-445 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270504
  14. Driver, D., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham Open University Press
  15. Donnelly, J. (2001). Contested terrain or unified project? 'The nature of science' in the National Curriculum for England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 181-195 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690120412
  16. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C. and Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to improve science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1021-1036
  17. Hanson, N. R. (1961). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
  18. Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press
  19. Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 93-108). London: Routledge
  20. Jin, Jeong-Mee. (2005). Analysis and Survey of the Teacher's Recognition of the Inquiry unit in High school Science textbook. (Master thesis, Korea National University of Education, 2005)
  21. Klahr, D., and Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
  22. Kolsto, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  23. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. 2nd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press
  24. Lakatos, I. (1994). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall and G. Currie, (eds), The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers Vol.J (pp. 8-101), New York: Cambridge University Press
  25. Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2). from http://unr. edu/homepage/j cannon/ejse/lederman .html
  26. Lederman, N.G., and Abd-EI-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in history of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. (pp. 83-126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  27. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<916::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A
  28. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, G.L., and Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  29. Martin, M. (1972) Concepts of Education: a Philosophical Analysis (London: Scott, Foresman and Company)
  30. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge
  31. Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 167 -174
  32. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  33. McComas, W. F., and Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
  34. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press
  35. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. from http://darwin.nap.edulhtml/inquiry_addendum/ch2.html
  36. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Document retrieved: 3/18/03. from http:// www.nsta.org/159&psid=22
  37. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., and Duschl, R. (2003). What 'Ideas-about-Science' should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  38. Park, Jongwon, Kim, Ikgyun, Kim, Myungwhan, and Lee, Moo. (2001). Analysis of the students' processes of confirmation and falsification of the hypotheses in electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education. 23(12), 1219-1236 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049097
  39. Park, Jongwon, and Han, Sooja. (2002). Deductive reasoning to promote the change of concept about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education. 24(6), 593-610 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074026
  40. Park, Jongwon (2003a). An analysis of the processes of conceptual change through the successive refinement and articulation of student's conceptual framework - focused on the theoretical discussions - Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(2), 357-377
  41. Park, Jongwon (2003b). An analysis of the processes of conceptual change through the successive refmement and articulation of student's conceptual framework - focused on university students' responses - Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(3), 276-285
  42. Park, Jongwon. (2006). Modelling Analysis of Students' Processes of Generating Scientific Explanatory Hypotheses. International Journal of Science Education. 28(5), 469-489 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404540
  43. Peirce, C. S. (1955) Abduction and induction. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 150-156). New York: Dover Publication
  44. Ping-Kee Tao. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126748
  45. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchnson
  46. Province of British of Columbia [PBC] (1996). Physics 11 and 12. Province of British of Columbia, Ministry of Education, Canada
  47. Roehig G.H. and Luft, J.A (2005). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24
  48. Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89, 803-821 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20071
  49. Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the 'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419 https://doi.org/10.1080/002202700182628
  50. Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
  51. Sandoval, W.A., and Reiser, B.J. (2004). Explanation- Driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
  52. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R.A., Schulz, S., and John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Science, 4(2), 131-166 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
  53. Tsai, C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7), 970-974 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p970
  54. Toth, E.E., Suthers, D.D., and Lesgold, A. (2002). 'Mapping to know': The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264-286 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004
  55. Vhurumuku, E., Holtman, L., Mikalsen, O., and Kolsto, S.D. (2006). An investigation of Zimbabwe high school chemistry students' laboratory work-based images of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 127-149 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20098
  56. Windschitl, M., and Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological belief. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145-160 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<145::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S