Toward inclusive science education: University scientists' views of students,instructional practices, and the nature of science

2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie A. Bianchini ◽  
David J. Whitney ◽  
Therese D. Breton ◽  
Bryan A. Hilton-Brown
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Instructional Practices ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
University Scientists

Beliefs of preschool teacher candidates about the nature of science

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 774-783
Author(s):  
Güzin Özyılmaz ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Science Teachers ◽  
Teacher Candidates ◽  
Preschool Education ◽  
Preschool Teacher ◽  
Spring Semester ◽  
Teachers Beliefs ◽  
Aim Of Science ◽  
Academic Year

The aim of science education is to enable children to become “science-literate.” Science literacy is defined as taking responsibility for and making decisions about situations requiring scientific understanding and having sufficient knowledge, skills, attitudes and understanding of values to put their decisions into practice. Revealing teachers’ beliefs can help to understand the types of experiences presented by teachers in their classrooms. Inadequate understandings and misbeliefs of teachers shape the first perceptions of children about the NOS when they are formally introduced with science education in their early childhood. Most of the studies were also performed with science teachers and there have been few studies conducted with preschool teachers. Therefore, the present study was directed towards determining NOS beliefs of preschool teacher candidates. To achieve this aim, Nature of Science Beliefs Scale (NOSBS), developed by Özcan and Turgut (2014), was administered to the preschool teacher candidates studying in Preschool Education Department of Buca Education Faculty at Dokuz Eylül University in the spring semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. In the study, the NOS beliefs of the teacher candidates were found to be acceptable in general. While the findings of this study are consistent with those revealed in several relevant studies in the literature

Exploring Pre-service Science Teachers’ Perspectives on the Nature of Science: A Comparative Study Between China and Canada

2021 ◽  
pp. 209653112096678
Author(s):  
Guihua Zhang ◽  
Yuanrong Li ◽  
George Zhou ◽  
Sonia Wai-Ying Ho
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Education ◽  
Science Education ◽  
Science Teacher ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Science Teachers ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Survey Design ◽  
Science Teacher Education ◽  
Teaching Behaviors ◽  
Preservice Science Teachers

Purpose: The Nature of Science (NOS) is an important component of scientific literacy. Science teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science (VNOS) directly affect their teaching behaviors. Therefore, it is of great significance to explore science teachers’ VNOS and find ways of improvement. This study was designed to comparatively investigate preservice science teachers’ VNOS between China and Canada. Design/Approach/Methods: The study employed a survey design to explore how Chinese and Canadian preservice science teachers understood the seven different aspects of NOS. Findings: Data showed that preservice science teachers in China and Canada both hold a modern view about science education. The level of Chinese and Canadian participants’ understanding of NOS was above the relatively naive level. Chinese teachers had better macro-understanding toward science education but their micro-mastery was insufficient. While the Canadian participants had a better understanding of the NOS than their Chinese counterparts. Originality/Value: Based on the research results and the experience of science education and teacher education in Canada, we suggested that there is a need to reconstruct the preservice science teacher education curriculum in China and promote the transformation in the science teacher educational system.

scholarly journals Usage of Terms “Science” and “Scientific Knowledge” in Nature of Science (NOS): Do Their Lexicons in Different Accounts Indicate Shared Conceptions?

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 252
Author(s):  
Ismo T. Koponen
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Embeddedness ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
Central Theme ◽  
Network Approach ◽  
Basic Vocabulary ◽  
Common Understanding

Nature of science (NOS) has been a central theme in science education and research on it for nearly three decades, but there is still debate on its proper focus and underpinnings. The focal points of these debates revolve around different ways of understanding the terms “science” and “scientific knowledge”. It is suggested here that the lack of agreement is at least partially related to and reflected as a lack of common vocabulary and terminology that would provide a shared basis for finding consensus. Consequently, the present study seeks motivation from the notions of centrality of lexicons in recognizing the identity of disciplinary communities and different schools of thought within NOS. Here, by using a network approach, we investigate how lexicons used by different authors to discuss NOS are confluent or divergent. The lexicons used in these texts are investigated on the basis of a network analysis. The results of the analysis reveal clear differences in the lexicons that are partially related to differences in views, as evident from the debates surrounding the consensus NOS. The most divergent views are related to epistemology, while regarding the practices and social embeddedness of science the lexicons overlap significantly. This suggests that, in consensus NOS, one can find much basis for converging views, with common understanding, where constructive communication may be possible. The basic vocabulary, in the form of a lexicon, can reveal much about the different stances and the differences and similarities between various disciplinary schools. The advantage of such an approach is its neutrality and how it keeps a distance from preferred epistemological positions and views of nature of knowledge.

Science education: too much of too little.

1990 ◽  
Vol 258 (6) ◽  
pp. S3 ◽  
Author(s):  
R L Malvin
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
Science Teachers ◽  
School Children ◽  
Scientific Literacy ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
College And University ◽  
The Subject ◽  
University Scientists ◽  
Read Number

By all measures attempted, scientific literacy of the American public is sadly wanting. The vast majority of our secondary school children and adults have no knowledge of most of the basic terms or concepts of science. The reasons for this shortcoming are many but prominent among them are sadly deficient texts, teachers untrained in the subject matter they teach, and college and university scientists who divorce themselves from the problem, although probably deploring it. Our institutions are no aid. They reward scientific productivity (read: number of papers published per year and research dollars), not teaching. Some suggested cures are production of better texts, training of science teachers in the field in which they teach, and, most importantly, involvement of scientists in the process. We must be willing to spend some of our time with secondary school pupils and their teachers. All will gain from the experience.

scholarly journals Teaching Evolution in Muslim Countries: Is Constructivism a Solution or a Threat?

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 561-578
Author(s):  
Özgür Taşkın
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Education Research ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Scientific Discourse ◽  
Scientific Argumentation ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Teaching Evolution ◽  
Muslim Countries

Since the turn of this century, constructivism has dramatically influenced science education and, particularly in Muslim countries, the teaching of evolution. This influence came about gradually. After the 1980’s, Muslim graduate students studying Education in Western universities have been taught constructivism both as a theory of learning and a philosophy, more specifically, as an epistemological theory. This has impacted these students’ views of the nature of science, scientific argumentation, multiculturalism, and the function of democratic values and practices in education. The scope of this influence raises a number of serious questions: Has constructivism introduced a mode of reasoning into science and science education that is foreign to, and even anathema to, scientific discourse? Why does almost every science education research paper suggest or imply negotiation with clergy and religious NGOs? Such questions are discussed in the present paper. To answer these questions, this paper examines in the context of Enlightenment and secularism theoretical frameworks, the methodologies, and suggestions regarding the teaching of evolution in Muslim countries.

scholarly journals O problema da racionalidade da ciência no século XX e as implicações para um ensino crítico e reflexivo da ciência

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Letícia Lenzi
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Science Education ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Science Technology ◽  
Harsh Criticism ◽  
Scientific Judgment ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
New Criteria ◽  
Rationality Of Science

ResumoAo longo do século XX a concepção tradicional de racionalidade da ciência sofreu duras críticas, principalmente após os trabalhos de Thomas Kuhn a respeito dos critérios de evolução das teorias científicas ao longo da história. Assim, filósofos da ciência assumiram a tarefa de redefinir o que se entende por racionalidade da ciência, garantindo novos critérios para salvaguardar a consistência do juízo científico na articulação das ideias e teorias. Neste artigo, evidenciam-se essas questões para se discutir ações que possam promover uma educação científica crítica e reflexiva, contemplando a relação entre Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade e uma compreensão mais adequada da natureza da ciência. Palavras-chave: Racionalidade da ciência; Natureza da ciência; Educação científica. AbstractThroughout the twentieth century, the traditional conception of rationality of Science suffered harsh criticism, especially after Thomas Kuhn's work concerning the development criteria of scientific theories throughout history. Thus, philosophers of Science have assumed the task of redefining what is meant by rationality of Science, guaranteeing new criteria to safeguard the consistency of scientific judgment in the articulation of ideas and theories. In this article, these issues are highlighted to discuss actions that can promote critical and reflective scientific education, considering the relationship between Science, Technology and Society and a better understanding of the nature of Science.Keywords: Rationality of Science; Nature of Science; Science education.

scholarly journals Strategies for the Development and Application of Research Frameworks in Sciences Education Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Lindelani Mnguni
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Science Education ◽  
Education Research ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Science Education Research ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Research Frameworks

Recent research in social sciences and education shows that a significant number of studies are neither reproducible nor repeatable. This compromises the validity, reliability and trustworthiness of these studies, as they violate the prescriptions of the nature of science. This lack of validity, reliability and trustworthiness could be due to poorly conceptualized research frameworks, including the conceptual framework and theoretical framework. Additionally, there is an apparent confusion on the difference between the research frameworks and their role in research. The current paper defines the different research frameworks that are used in science education. It also provides systematic strategies for the development and application of research frameworks in science education research. By using these systematic strategies, researchers could enhance the validity, reliability and trustworthiness of their research.   Received: 2 August 2021 / Accepted: 18 September 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document