DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of Views on Science Questionnaire on the Basis of Experienced Scientific Knowledge, Atomic Model

  • An, Yu-La (Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Shin, Ho-Sim (Korea National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Hyun-Joo (Korea National University of Education)
  • Received : 2011.09.24
  • Accepted : 2012.05.10
  • Published : 2012.06.30

Abstract

The objective of this study is developing an instrument for investigating views of the respondents on nature of science(NOS) by using experienced scientific knowledge, atomic model. It consists of total six questions and 36 detail items, and each question is reflected the aspects of different NOS which are 'recognition on the model', 'tentativeness of scientific knowledge', 'subjectivity in science', 'use of inference and imagination', 'myths of the scientific method', and 'comparison between science and art'. Particularly, 'comparison between science and art' is addressed almost for the first time in this questionnaire. In the class environment almost not to teach nature of science linking with concrete scientific knowledge, to inquire how the students recognize nature of science, relating to experienced scientific knowledge through this questionnaire will give the data of scientific knowledge based recognition on the nature of science and an important implication for nature of science teaching with concrete scientific knowledge. Developing processes have gone through four steps. In first step, we chose aspects of NOS and developed questions and details. In second step, we tested the draft into fifteen science teachers and, reflecting their opinions, corrected the form and contents of questionnaires. In third step, we tested the questionnaire included writing section for expressing thoughts of the respondents into 55 students in science high school and checked index of coincidence between Likert and open-ended responses which shows 88.2% degree of consensus. Furthermore, to identify the feature of using concrete scientific knowledge we applied this and views on science and education questionnaires together into six university students. We performed final test to 68 university students and measured Cronbach's, and ultimately completed final questionnaire in last step.

Keywords

nature of science;development of a questionnaire;atomic model;science and art

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Korea National University of Education

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The NOS and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., &BouJaoude, S. (1997).An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 34, 673-699. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199709)34:7<673::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-J
  3. Aikenhead. G. S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 607-629. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250802
  4. Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., & Ryan, A. G. (1987).High-school graduates'beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710203
  5. Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on science-technology-society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760503
  6. Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., &Desautels, J. (1989). Monitoring student views on science-technology-society issues: The development of multiple-choice items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, SanFrancisco,CA.
  7. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El- Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers'conceptions of NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. An, Yu-La & Kim, H.-J. (2011). Recognition of the Nature of Science by Preservice Teachers on the Basis of the Atomic Model. J. Korea Assoc. Sci. Edu. 31, 539-556.
  11. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress.
  12. Billeh, V. Y., &Hasan, O. E. (1975).Factors influencing teachers' gain in understanding the NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660120303
  13. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of science Education, 11(Special issue), 514-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069890110504
  14. Cha, J. H., Kim, Y. H., & Noh, T. H. (2004).Middle and High School Students'Views on the Scientific Model. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 48(6), 638-644. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2004.48.6.638
  15. Chandrasekhar, S. (1979). Beauty and the Quest for Beauty in Science. Physics Today, (July), 25-30.
  16. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on NOS and attitudes toward teaching science (VOSE). ScienceEducation, 90, 803-819.
  17. Clarke, B., & Henderson, L. (2002). From Energy to Information: Representation in Science and Technology, Art, and Literature. PaloAlto,calif.StanfordUniversityPress.
  18. Cooley, W., &Klopfer, L. (1963).The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660010116
  19. Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180502
  20. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Elgin, C. Z. (2002). Creation as reconfiguration: art in the advancement of science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 16(1), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590120118792
  22. Engler, G. (1990). Aesthetics in Science and in Art. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 30, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/30.1.24
  23. Feyerabend, P. K. (1994). "Art as a Product of Nature as a Work of Art". World Futures, 40, 87-100.
  24. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and Practice Secondary School Teacher' s Knowledge and Beliefs about the Philosophy of Science. Science Education, 75, 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750111
  25. Hong. S. O. (2005). Science and Art : Some Preliminary Studies in their Convergence and Interfaces. Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 5(1), 1-30.
  26. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of ' the atom'. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 993-1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416875
  27. Kang, S. J., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. H. (2005).Examing Students' views on the NOS results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20053
  28. Kim, M. H. (1995). Comparison of science and art - with creative process. Scientific Thought, 13, 7-23.
  29. Koulaidis, V., &Ogborn, J. (1989). Scientific knowledge: Basic issues in the philosophy of science. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  30. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the NOS: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  31. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002).Views of NOS questionnaire toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners'conceptions of NOS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  32. Lederman, N. G., Farber, P. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (1998). The Myth of the scientific method and slippery debates in the classroom: A response to McCreary. The Oregon Science Teacher, 39(4), 24-27.
  33. Lederman, N. G., & O' Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207
  34. Liang,L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers' views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument.Asia- Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1) Article, P.1.
  35. Lim, J. H., Kang, S. M., Kong, Y. T., Choi, B. S., & Nam, J. H. (2004).The Development of an Instrument to Assess High School Students' Views on Science-Technology-Society. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(6), 1143-1157.
  36. Lynch, M., &Woolar, S. (1990).Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
  37. McAllister, J. W. (1996). Beauty and Revolution in Science. Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press.
  38. McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998).The NOS in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The NOS in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies(pp. 41-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  39. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the NOS: Data from a case curriculum development, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290407
  40. Mellado, V. (1997).Preservice teachers' classroom practice and their conceptions of the NOS. Science and Education, 6, 331-354. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008674102380
  41. Miller, A. I. (1995). Aesthetic, Representation and Creativity in Art and Science. Leonardo, 28, 185-192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1576073
  42. National Research Council.(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
  43. National Science Teacher Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The NOS. Document retrieved 3/18/03 http://www.nsta.org/.
  44. Paik, S. H. (2006). The Problem of Explanation on Avogadro' s Hypothesis and Law Presented in Science Textbooks. Journal of the Korean Society for the Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 159-184.
  45. Rodriguez, M. A., &Niaz, M. (2004). A Reconstruction of Structure of the Atom and Its Implications for General Physics Textbooks: A History and Philosophy of Science Perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000045468.49500.3b
  46. Rubba, P. A., Schoneweg Bradford, C., &Harkness, W. J. (1996).A new scoring procedure for the Views on Science-Technology-Society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180401
  47. Shapin, S. (1996).The scientific revolution. Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagopress.
  48. Soh, W. J., Kim, B. K., & Woo, J. O. (1998). Development of an Instrument to Assess Secondary School Students' Conceptions of the NOS.Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 18(2), 127-136.
  49. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scot, L. (1994).Pupils' images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 361-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069940160309
  50. Solomon, J., Scott, L., &Duveen, J. (1996).Large-scale exploration of pupils' understanding of the NOS. Science Education, 80(5), 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199609)80:5<493::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-6
  51. Stent, G. S. (1982). "Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery".In Scientific Genius and Creativity: Readings from Scientific American, 95-104. New York: Freeman.
  52. Stent, G. S. (2001). "Meaning in Art and Science" in K. Pfenninger and V. Shubik Eds.The origins of Creativity, 31-42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  53. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., &Mamiala, T. L. (2002).Students'understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485
  54. Van Frassen, B. C. (1994). "Interpretation of Science; Science as Interpretation" in J. Hilgevoord eds. Physics and Our View of the World, 169-187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Welch, W. W., & Pella, M. O. (1967-1968). The development of an instrument for inventorying knowledge of the processes of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(1), 64.
  56. Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the NOS and its purpose in society. Science Education, 38, 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730380209