Can Learning about History of Science and Nature of Science in a Student-Centred Classroom Change Science Students’ Conception of Science? — Oak Academic Publishing
Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Can Learning about History of Science and Nature of Science in a Student-Centred Classroom Change Science Students’ Conception of Science?
Nature of Science (NOS) covers the aim, development, criticism and explanation of science. This study examines the impact that studying philosophy and history of science has on undergraduate students’ views about the NOS. Studying the NOS helps students to understand what science is, how to characterize the nature of its practitioners’ activities, and what is the significance of the whole enterprise. It is shown that having students study scientific concepts through the eyes of philosophers and historical scientists, actively engages them in the process of inquiry and challenges them to increase their understanding of the NOS. This study showed that studying philosophy and history of science in a student-centered classroom had a strong influence on students’ views about the NOS in that many students changed their views about the NOS. Students who did not change their over-all perception gave much clearer expositions of their views.
KeywordsNature of ScienceHistory of SciencePhilosophy of ScienceReflective WritingCourse Dossier
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & 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
Aikenhead, G. S. (1987). High-School Graduates’ Beliefs about Science-Technology-Society. III. Characteristics and Limitations of Scientific Knowledge. Science Education, 71, 459-487. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710402
Akcay, B., & Akcay, H. (2015). Effectiveness of Science-Technology-Society (STS) Instruction on Student Understanding of the Nature of Science and Attitudes toward Science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.50889
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Backhus, D. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2006). Addressing the Nature of Science in Preservice Science Teacher Preparation Programs: Science Educator Perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 65-81.
Bacon, F. (1863) The New Organon, in The Works (Vol. 8). Translated by of James Spedding.
Bransford, J. D., Zech, L., Schwartz, D., Barron, B., Vye, N., & CTGV. (1999). Designs for Environments that Invite and Sustain Mathematical Thinking. In Cobb, P. (Ed.), Symbolizing, Communicating, and Mathematizing: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design (pp. 275-324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The Public’s Bounded Understanding of Science. Educational Psychology, 49, 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
Cakici, Y., & Bayir, E. (2012). Developing Children’s Views of the Nature of Science through Role Play. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1075-1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.647109
Carnes, M. C. (2014). Minds on Fire: How Role-Immersion Games Transform College. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674735606
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science: An Introduction. Science & Education, 17, 143-145.
Connally, P., & Vilardi, T. (1989). Writing to Learn Mathematics and Science, Teachers. New York: College Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research (4th Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-Centered Teacher-Student Relationships Are Effective: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113-143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 236-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390
de Carvalho, A. M. P., & Vannucchi, A. I. (2000). History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: Some Answers to “How?”. Science & Education, 9, 427-448. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008709929524
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Triangulation: A Case for Methodological Evaluation and Combination. Sociological Methods, 339-357.
Duschl, R. (2000). Making the Nature of Science Explicit. Improving Science Education: The Contribution of Research (pp. 187-206).
Erstad, O., & Sefton-Green, J. (2012). Identity, Community, and Learning Lives in the Digital Age. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026239
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change (pp. 30-46). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975/2004). Truth and Method. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners’ Knowledge in Optics: Interpretation, Structure and Analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 57-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900290000
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
Huang, X., & Kalman, C. S. (2012). A Case Study on Reflective Writing. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42, 92-99.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2006). Concentration of the Most-Cited Papers in the Scientific Literature: Analysis of Journal Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 1, e5.
Kalman, C. S. (2002). Developing Critical Thinking in Undergraduate Courses: A Philosophical Approach. Science & Education, 11, 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013071130538
Kalman, C. S. (2010). Enabling Students to Develop a Scientific Mindset. Science & Education, 19, 147-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9186-6
Kalman, C. S. (2011). Enhancing Students’ Conceptual Understanding by Engaging Science Text with Reflective Writing as a Hermeneutical Circle. Science & Education, 20, 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9298-z
Kalman, C. S. (2018). Successful Science and Engineering Teaching: Theoretical and Learning Perspectives (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66140-7
Kalman, C. S., Aulls, M. W., Rohar, S., & Godley, J. (2008). Students’ Perceptions of Reflective Writing as a Tool for Exploring an Introductory Textbook. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, 74.
Kennedy, M. M., & Barnes, H. (1994). Implications of Cognitive Science for Teacher Education. In J. N. Mangieri, & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating Powerful Thinking in Teachers and Students: Diverse Perspectives (pp. 195-212). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Khanam, W. N. (2014). Helping Students to Get a Better Understanding of Physics Concepts Using the Learning Tool “Course Dossier Method”. Diss. Concordia University.
Khanam, W. N., & Kalman, C. S. (2017). Implementation and Evaluation of the Course Dossier Methodology. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8, Article 7. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol8/iss1/7 https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2017.1.7
Kuhn, T. S. (1963). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
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 (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & 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
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work. London: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future: The Report of a Seminar Series Funded by the Nuffield Foundation. London: King’s College London, School of Education.
Minnaert, A., Boekaerts, M., & de Brabander, C. (2007) Autonomy, Competence, and Social Relatedness in Task Interest within Project-Based Education. Psychological Reports, 101, 574-586. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.101.2.574-586
Müller, F. H., & Louw, J. (2004). Learning Environment, Motivation and Interest: Perspectives on Self-Determination Theory. South African Journal of Psychology, 34, 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630403400201
National Science Board (US). (2002). Science & Engineering Indicators. National Science Board.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Science & Engineering Indicators: Attitudes towards Science: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Packer, S. (2010). Statistics Prepared for Commonwealth Research on Education in Small States. UK: University of Bristol.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative Analysis. Health Services Research, 34, 1189-1208.
Popper, K. R. (1992). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
Porter, S. E., & Robinson, J. C. (2011). Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Priest, H., Roberts, P., & Woods, L. (2002). An Overview of Three Different Approaches to the Interpretation of Qualitative Data. Part 1: Theoretical Issues. Nurse Researcher, 10, 43.
Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An Explicit and Reflective Approach to the Use of History to Promote Understanding of the Nature of Science. Science & Education, 18, 561-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9088-4
Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science: Epistemic Cognition, Motivated Reasoning, and Conceptual Change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
Smit, K., de Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2014). Student-Centred and Teacher-Centred Learning Environment in Pre-Vocational Secondary Education: Psychological Needs, and Motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 695-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2013.821090
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The Effects of Professional Development on Science Teaching Practices and Classroom Culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9 3.0.CO;2-0
Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). Outcome Pattern Matching and Program Theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90052-9
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the Translation of Nature of Science Understandings into Instructional Practice: Teachers’ Nature of Science Pedagogical Content Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 425-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.786852
Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A Vision of Vygotsky (pp. 60-63). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research Design and Methods (6th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.