Session Information
22 SES 10 B, Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
The educators have concerned the construct of “nature of science” (NOS) over the years. But still there is no definite definition of NOS. The nature of science refers to “the values and assumptions inherent to science, scientific knowledge, and the development of scientific knowledge” (Lederman, 1992). However, science is a human activity dealing with natural phenomena. In process of science data are collected and analyzed to explain natural phenomena. Another concept which pretends to be a science is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience can be defined as a systematic body of propositions, practices, and attitudes that gives the appearence of being a science (Martin, 1972).
Although there are number of researches about students’ scientific belief, their pseudoscientific beliefs are generally neglected in science education. These pseudoscientific beliefs would complicate their learning about nature of science. Conceptualizing underlying assumptions of nature of science is stated as one of the most essential and perennial goals of the science education in many studies (Lederman, 1992; Lederman, 2007). Additionally, National Science Education Standards of America stated that student should develop an understanding of what science is, what science is not, what science can and cannot do, how science contributes to culture (NRC, 1996). The demarcation between what science is and what science is not refers to understanding the relationship between science and pseudoscience. However, research has consistently shown that students both have naive understanding of nature of science (Lederman, 1992; Lederman, 2007) and have widespread pseudoscientific beliefs (Martin, 1994).
Many attempts have been applied to teach nature of science and to develop the students’ naive views about nature of science. One of the current attempts is investigating students’ views about nature of science while they were reasoning about socio-scientific issues (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004; Sadler, Barab, & Scott, 2007; Sadler, 2009). Sadler, Barab, & Scott (2007) stated that negotiation of socio-scientific issues requires the integration of science concepts and processes with social constructs and practices. Thus, these issues can close the gap between school science and social life of the students. Thus the researchers believe that reasoning about pseudoscientific issues would be another interesting way to investigate students’ views about nature of science as it is in the socio-scientific issues.
The purpose of the present study is to analyze the undergraduate science students views about NOS in pseudoscientific context and to investigate the difference between their views about NOS in terms of their grade levels. The research questions which guided the present study are that “What are the undergraduate science students’ nature of science views while they are reasoning about pseudoscientific context related to the earthquake?” and “Is there any difference between undergraduate science students’ views about nature of science in pseudoscientific contexts related to the earthquake in terms of their grade levels?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Lecompte, M. D. & Preissle, J., (1993). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research (2nd Ed). San Diego: Academic Press. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. Lederman, N.G. (2007) Nature of science: past, present, and future. In Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G. (Eds), Handbook of research on science education, pp. 831-879. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lederman, N.G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239. Martin, M. (1972). Concepts of Science Education: A Philosophical Analysis, Scott, Foresman, and Co., Chicago, IL. Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the Paranormal, and Science Education. Science & Education, 3, 357-371. National Research Council (NRC) (1996), National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC (National Academic Pres). Sadler, T. (2009). Socioscientific issues in science education: labels, reasoning, and transfer. Cult Stud of Sci Educ, 4, 697–703. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007).What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391. Sadler, T., Chambers, W. & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. Winne, P., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 532-566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 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, 343-367.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.