Students' Views of Nature of Science Instrument

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzung-Jin Lin ◽  
Amos Yoong Shin Goh ◽  
Ching Sing Chai ◽  
Chin-Chung Tsai
Keyword(s):  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Science Instrument

scholarly journals VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSES FOR THE NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUMENT SECONDARY (NOSI-S)

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-437
Author(s):  
Senar Temel ◽  
Şenol Şen ◽  
Özgür Özcan
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Prospective Teachers ◽  
Secondary School Students ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Fit Indices ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
School Students ◽  
Instrument Validity ◽  
Science Instrument

This research aims to adapt The Nature of Science Instrument Elementary Scale (NOSI-E) developed by Peoples (2012) into Turkish for secondary school students and to analyse the psychometric properties of the scale setting out from the fact that it is a necessity of science education aimed to achieve for students/prospective teachers to have adequate understanding of the nature of science. The validity analyses for the scale were performed with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Cronbach alpha (α) coefficients were calculated for reliability. Following CFA, it was taken for granted that the fit indices for the model met the goodness of fit criterion. On examining the fit indices, the scale was regarded to attain construct validity due to the fact that the χ2/df ratio (1.42) was below 3, that the RMSEA value was at the level of .04 and that the NNFI and CFI (>.90) values were at acceptable levels. On the other hand, α coefficients, which were the internal consistency coefficients calculated for the reliability analysis of the scale, were found to range between .631 and .775, and for the overall scale was calculated as .814. These reliability index values were considered to be at acceptable levels. Keywords: nature of science, NOSI-S, instrument reliability, secondary school students, instrument validity.

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

STEM Education Problem Through Striking Differences Between Physics and Biology

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adib Rifqi Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Nature Of Science ◽  
Stem Education ◽  
Functional Relationship ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Physical Sciences ◽  
P Values ◽  
The Third ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
Biological Education

This work argues that fundamental differences of opinion as to the nature of science affect whether the “S” in STEM can really apply to all the natural sciences, which will affect how we structure and implement improvements in STEM education. The first part of the argument deals with often-taught definitions of words like “law” and “theory” that don’t really apply to much of physics. In the second part, we notes that mathematics remains inseparable from education in the physical sciences, but this is not the case in biology. Moreover, an appreciation for the worth of mathematical or theoretical models, even disjoint from experiments, is not generally a part of biological education. The third part is “the tyranny of hypotheses.” One of the “cultural” shocks I’ve had moving into biological fields is constantly hearing people talk about “hypotheses” and seeing a steady stream of bar graphs with asterisks and p-values. In physics, one almost never discusses hypotheses; rather, one test relationships between parameters, either analyzing them within some mechanistic framework, or empirically determining what the underlying functional relationship is.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document