Using an explicit NOS flow map in ınstruction of nature of science based on the science of philosophy

Jun-Young  Oh; Norman G.  Lederman

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Jun-Young Oh Hanyang University, Republic of Korea,
Norman G. Lederman Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Cognitive strategy, Copernican Revolution, history of science, Kuhn’s philosophy, nature of science

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a flow map for history of science instruction on nature of science (NOS) using a cognitive strategy. This is done to enhance overall scientific literacy through specificity and reflectiveness, and to examine pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of the NOS using NOS flow maps concerning Galileo’s discovery of sunspots. There exists a general consensus in the science education literature regarding the goal of enhancing learners’ views of the NOS. An extensive body of research in the field has highlighted the effectiveness of explicit NOS instructional approaches in improving learners’ views on the NOS. Because it is valuable to introduce elementary students to some of the ideas developed by Kuhn, pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of the NOS was explored using an explicit NOS flow map developed as an instructional tool. The lessons combined cognitive conflict strategies in episodes concerning the history of science (Galileo’s discovery of sunspots) with accompanying responses consisting of illustrations and questions. The lessons were designed to spend 50 minutes on study of the history of science, including conflict strategy, and 30 minutes on an explicit NOS flow map including all elements of the NOS. Students demonstrated understanding of tentativeness of scientific knowledge, and the lack of a universal scientific method. Therefore, instruction based on an NOS flow map is a promising method to enhance science teaching and learning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–610.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 37, 1057–1095.

Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J., & McDuffie, A. R. (2005). 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. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bartholomew, H., and Osborne, J. (2004). Teaching students “ideas about science” Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.

Bakırcı, H., Çalık,M. and Çepni, S (2017). THE EFFECT OF THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE CONSTRUCTION MODEL-ORIENTED EDUCATION ON SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON THE NATURE OF SCIENCE, Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 43-55.

Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J. M., and Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of Contextual and Explicit Instruction on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414–436.

Bencze, L., & Alsop, S. (2014). Activism! Toward a more radical science and technology education. In Activist science and technology education (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Brown, H. I. (1977). Perception, theory and commitment: The new philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cawthron, F. R. & Rowell, J. A. (1978). Epistemology and science education, Studies in Science Education, 7, 279–304.

Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd edition). Miton Keynes: Open University Press. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd.edition). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Lnc.

Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463–494.

Cohen, I. B. (1985). The Birth of a New Physics: Revised and Updated. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Colagrande E.A., Martorano, S.A.A., & Arroio, A. (2016). Assessment on How Pre-Service Science Teachers View the Nature of Science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(4), 293-307

Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95, 961–999.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.

Fara, P. (2009). Science: a Four thousand year history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fraknoi, A., Morrison, D. & Wolff, S. (1997). Voyages through the universe. New York: Saunders College Publishing.

Galilei, G. (1967). Dialogue concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Translated by Stillman Drake. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and its impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51–94). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hoskin, M. (1997). The Cambridge illustrated history of astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hull, D. L. (1998). Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution (1st edition), Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd Edition), Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of NOS questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Loving, C. C. & Cobern, W. W. (2000). Invoking Thomas Kuhn: What Citation Analysis Reveals about Science Education. Science & Education, 9, 187–206.

Martin, D. J. (2012). Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach (6th Edition). Canada: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7, 511 – 532.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.

Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384–403.

National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington. DC: National Academic Press. Niaz, M. & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks. New York: Springer.

Oh, J.-Y. (2017). Suggesting a NOS Map for Nature of Science for Science Education Instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1461-1483.

Oh, J.-Y., Lee, H, & Lee, S. (2017). Using the Lakatosian Conflict Map for Conceptual Change of Pre-service Elementary Teachers about the Seasons. Research in science & technological education, 35(1), 17-41

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R.W., and Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

Posner, G., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–277.

Rea-Ramirez, M. A., Clement, J., and Nŭňez-Oviedo (2008). An instructional Model Derived from Model Construction and Criticism Theory. In J. J. Clement, and M. A. Rea-Ramirez (Eds.), Model-based learning and instruction in science. Springer

Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Teaching, learning and research. Germany: Springer. Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A Series of Misrepresentations: A Response to Allchin’s Whole Approach to Assessing Nature of Science Understandings to science context. Science Education, 96(4), 685 – 692.

Sismondo, S. (2004). Pharmaceutical maneuvers(Review), Social Studies of Science, 34(2), 149-159.

Sharrock, W. & Read, R. (2002). KUHN: Philosopher of scientific revolution. Malden. MA: Polity Press c/o Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the Nature of Science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409–421.

Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). STS education: international perspectives on reform. Ways of knowing science series. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tao, P. K. (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, 24(4), 357–368.

Torres, J., Moutinho, S., & Vasconcelos, C. (2015). Nature of science, scientific and geoscience models: Examining students’ and teachers' views. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(4), 3-21.

Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), 387 – 404.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravetsky, S. (2005). Exploring the Effects of Cognitive Conflict and Direct Teaching for Students of Different Academic Levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 829-855.

Vigoureux, J. M. (2003). Les pommes de Newton. Paris: Albin Michel S. A., (Trans. Hee-Jung Lee, (2005), Newton’s Apple, NuRim book (Seoul).

Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (pp. 97–116). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.