Suggesting a NOS Map for Nature of Science for Science Education Instruction

Jun-Young Oh

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

Full Text (PDF)

Jun-Young Oh ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Hanyang University^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Background:
The aims of this research are 1) to explore the inter-relationships within the individual elements or tenets of Nature of Science (NOS), based on the dimensions of scientific knowledge in science learning, and 2) to consider Kuhn's concept of how scientific revolution takes place.

Material and methods:
This study suggests that instruction according to our NOS Flowchart should include the tenets of NOS. The aspects of NOS that have been emphasized in recent science education reform documents disagree with the received views of common science. Attitudes about science can have a significant effect on scientific literacy. In education theory, the understanding of content lies in the cognitive domain, whereas attitudes lie in the affective domain.

Results:
There are three major dimensions of learning in science: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Additionally, it is valuable to introduce students at the primary level to some of the ideas developed by Kuhn. Key aspects of NOS are, in fact, good applications to the history of science through Kuhn’s philosophy.

Conclusions:
Therefore, an NOS Flow Map could be a promising means of understanding the NOS tenets and an explicit and reflective tool for science teachers to enhance scientific teaching and learning.

Keywords

nature of science
NOS flow map
attitudes
skills
knowledge
scientific literacy
Kuhn's philosophy

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2017, Volume 13, Issue 5, 1461-1483

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

Publication date: 04 Jan 2017

Article Views: 1401

Article Downloads: 1945

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 1041-1060). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Abd-El-Kalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students’ Views of Nature of Science, Journal of research in science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835- 855.
Abruscato, J. (1982). Teaching children science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). One the Nature of Teaching nature of science: Pre-service early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213-233.
Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 751-772.
Allchin, D. (1999). Values in Science: An Educational Perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1-12.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518- 542.
Allchin, D. (2012). Towards clarity on Whole Science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96, 693-700.
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, Minnesota: SHiPS Education Press.
Allchin, D. (2014). From Science Studies to Scientific Literacy: A View from the Classroom. Science & Education, Online First.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1967). Guide for inservice instruction. Washington: AAAS Miscellaneous Publication.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061-Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). AAAS Project 2061 Science Assessment Website. Project 2061. (2011, April 9). Retrieved from http://assessment.aaas.org
Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Bell. R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s Box. In L. B. Flick and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (pp. 427-446). The Netherland: Springer
Brown, H. I. (1977). Perception, Theory and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, R. W., Buchwald, C. E., Crissman, S., Kuerbis, P. J., Matsumoto, C., & McInerney, J. D. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary school: framework for curriculum and instruction. Andover, MA and Washington, DC: A Partnership of the NETWORK, Inc. and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, CO.
Caduto, M. J. (1985). A Guide on Environmental Values Education. Unesco-UNEP International Environmental Education Programme, Environmental Education Series 13, Division of Science, Technical and Environmental Education.
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordercht: Springer.
Clough, M.P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education,15, 463–494.
Clough, M.P. (2006). Learners’ Responses to the Demands of Conceptual Change: Considerations for Effective Nature of Science Instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494.
Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview Theory and Conceptual Change in Science Education. Science Education, 80(5), 579-610
Cohen, I. B. (1985). The Birth of a New Physics: Revised and Updated. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Crophy, A. J. (2008). Creativity in Education and Learning: A guide for teachers and educator. New York: Routledge.
Csikszentmilhalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper C0llins.
Danielson, C. (2001). New Trends in Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12-15.
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.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledges, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 3-4.
Fuselier, L. C., Jacson, J. K., & Stoiko, R. (2015). Social and Rational: The Presentation of Nature of Science and the Uptake of Change in Evolution Textbooks. Science education, 100(12), 239-265.
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Giere, R. N. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gillies, D. (1993). Philosophy of science in twentieth century: Four central Themes. Oxford: Black Well Publisher.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Gould, S. J. (1988). The case of the creeping fox terrier clone. Natural History, 96(1), 16–24.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Henry, J. (2012). A Short History of Scientific Thought. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science for Science Education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591-607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999 – 1021). New York, NY: Springer.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific revolutions (3rd Edition), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
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.
Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of Nature of Science within Inquiry and Science Instruction. In L.B. Flick, and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (pp. 301-317). Netherland: Springer
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.
Lee, M., and Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315-1327.
Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College Students’ Scientific Epistemological Views and Thinking Patterns in Socioscientific Decision Making. Science Education, 95, 497-517.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (ed.), The role and character of the nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp.3-39). New York: Kluwer Academic Publication.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case from curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389-407.
Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academic Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of Science in General Chemistry Textbooks. New York: Springer.
Oh, J.-Y. (2011). Using an Enhanced Conflict Map in The Classroom (Photoelectric Effect) Based on Lakatosian Heuristic Principle Strategies, international journal of science and mathematics education, 9. 1135-1166.
Oh, J.-Y. (2014). Suggesting a Flow Map of the Nature of Science for Nature of Science. In B. Zhang et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Science Education 2012 Proceedings: Science Education: Policies and Social Responsibilities (Chapter 13), Springer-VerlagBerin Heidelberg.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & 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(7), 692-720.
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Transforming holistic assessment and grading into a vehicle for complex learning. In G. Joughin (ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376.
Sadler, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. New York: Springer.
Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Trowbridge, L. W., & Bybee, R.W. (1986). Becoming a secondary school science teacher. Columbia: Merrill Publishing Company.
Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Westfall, R. S. (1971). The construction of modern science. New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
Zeitler, W.R., and Barufaldi, J. P. (1988). Elementary School: A perspective for teachers. New York: Longman.
Yager, S. O., Yager, R. E., & Lim, G. (1999). The Advantages of an STS Approach Over a Typical Textbook Dominated Approach in Middle School Science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(5), 248-260.
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.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343– 367.
Zeitler, W. R., & Barufaldi, J. P. (1988). Elementary school: A Perspective for teachers. New York: Longman.

How to cite this article

APA

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. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

Vancouver

Oh JY. Suggesting a NOS Map for Nature of Science for Science Education Instruction. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(5):1461-83. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

AMA

Oh JY. Suggesting a NOS Map for Nature of Science for Science Education Instruction. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2017;13(5), 1461-1483. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

Chicago

Oh, Jun-Young. "Suggesting a NOS Map for Nature of Science for Science Education Instruction". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2017 13 no. 5 (2017): 1461-1483. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

Harvard

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), pp. 1461-1483. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a

MLA

Oh, Jun-Young "Suggesting a NOS Map for Nature of Science for Science Education Instruction". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 13, no. 5, 2017, pp. 1461-1483. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00680a