Development of Teaching Materials for the Nature of Science and Pilot Application to Scientifically Gifted Students

과학의 본성 지도자료 개발과 과학영재를 대상으로 한 시험적용

  • Published : 2008.04.30

Abstract

In this study, 46 teaching materials for understanding the nature of science (NOS) were developed based on the 42 statements describing the NOS. Each teaching material involves scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry skills as well as NOS statements. Teaching materials consist of students' learning worksheets and teachers' guides. Among the materials, 11 materials for understanding the nature of scientific thinking (NOST) were applied to 3 scientifically gifted students. As results, the degree of difficulty was appropriate and students showed interests in scientific thinking rather than new concepts or inquiry activities involved in the materials. It was expected that understating the NOST would be helpful for conducting scientific inquiry in more authentic way. And similarly to the Park's (2007) theoretical discussions about the relationship between the NOS and scientific creativity, students actually responded that undertrading the NOST could help their creativity. Therefore, it was expected that teaching the NOST would be plausible elements for teaching scientific creativity.

References

  1. 박종원 (2007a). 과학영재아를 위한 과학의 본성 지도. 제 5 회 전국대학교 과학영재교육원 학술발표회, 대진대학교, 2007. 10
  2. 박종원 (2007b). 과학적 본성 이해를 통한 과학적탐구활동. 제 51차 한국과학교육학회 동계 학술대회 및 정기총회, 한국 교원대학교, 2007.1
  3. 최승희 (2007). 10학년 과학교과서의 과학의 본성 내용 분석. 전남대학교 석사학위 논문
  4. Abd-El-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
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994). Project 2061: Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press
  6. 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
  7. 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
  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. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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/ jcannon/ejse/lederman.html
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Lederman, N.G., and Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of s cience in history of s cience in science education: Rationales and strategies. (pp. 83-126)
  17. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. from http:// darwin.nap.edu/html/inquiry_addendum/ch2.html
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Park, Jongwon. (under review). Discussions for linking the Nature of Science (NOS) with Scientific Inquiry. The Asian Pacific Education Review
  24. Park, Jongwon. (under review). Suggesting teaching models for scientific inquiry activity through the nature of science (NOS). Science & Education
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Park, Jongwon. (2007). 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-. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 27(2), 153-167
  29. 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
  30. Province of British of Columbia [PBC] (1996). Physics 11 and 12. Province of British of Columbia, Ministry of Education, Canada
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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