한국과학교육학회지 (Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education)

  • 제33권3호
  • /
  • Pages.553-568
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 1226-5187(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-8489(eISSN)
한국과학교육학회 (The Korean Association for Science Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Proposal of Inclusive Framework of the Nature of Science (NOS) Based on the 4 Themes of Scientific Literacy for K-12 School Science

  • 투고 : 2012.10.05
  • 심사 : 2013.02.20
  • 발행 : 2013.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Although many researchers and science educators agree that understanding of the nature of science is essential in order for students to be a scientific literate person, it is not easy to compromise exactly what kind of understanding of the nature of science is required to achieve this goal (Smith & Scharmann, 1999). This study discusses a theoretical background about the nature of science (NOS) including some consensus views of the NOS that several important U.S. educational reform documents and science researchers have presented over the past several decades. Finally, this study proposes an inclusive framework of the nature of science based on the four categories of scientific literacy, which are (1) science as a body of knowledge, (2) science as a way of investigating, (3) science as a way of thinking, and (4) the interaction of science, technology, and society. Each category of the framework includes several statements about the nature of science to describe each theme of the NOS. This framework is comprehensive and inclusive because it is suggested by examining several major U.S. national-level documents and in the publications of science education researchers presented about the nature of science. Significantly, many of the key ideas were added into category (4) and category (3), which indicates that the current literature stresses the relationship among science, technology, and society as well as the work of scientists.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000, April). Explicit reflective content-embedded nature of science instruction: Abandoning scientism, but…Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers'views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10143
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Boujaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673-699. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199709)34:7<673::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-J
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science on students'view of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C
  6. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers' instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 213-233.
  7. Ackerson, V. L., Morrison, J.A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers'retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching pupils "ideas-about-science": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10136
  11. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2005). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting. Dallas, TX.
  12. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
  13. Chiappetta, E.L., & Koballa, Jr., T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary school ($5^{th}$ ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  14. Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A qualitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 936-951.
  15. Collette, A., & Chiappetta, L. E. (1984). Science Instruction in the middle and secondary schools. St. Louis, MO: Times Millor/Mosby
  16. Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, A., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press
  17. Felske, D. D. (2000). A historical examination of the nature of science and its consensus as presented in the benchmarks for science literacy and national science education standards. Doctoral Dissertation. Houston, TX: University of Houston
  18. Giere, R. N. (1988). Exploring science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  19. Glasson, G., & Bently, M. (1999). Scientists' views of the nature of science in relation to their own research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
  20. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
  21. Laudan, L., Donova, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., Thagard, P., & Wykstra, S. (1986). Scientific chamge: Philosophical models and historical research, 69, 141-223.
  22. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  23. Lederman, N. G. (2002). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education [On- Line], 3(2), Retrieved December 5, 2006 from. http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html
  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  25. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. InW. McComas (Ed.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83-126). Doedrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  26. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz, R. S., & Akerson, V. L. (2001, March). Assessing the un-assessable: View of the nature of science questionnaire (VNOS). A paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
  27. McComas, W. F. (2005). Seeking NOS standards: What content consensus exists in popular books on the nature of science? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting. Dallas, TX.
  28. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (p. 53-70). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  29. McComas, W.F., Clough, M. P., & & Almazroa, H. (1998). A review of the role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (p.3-39). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  30. McComas, W., & Olson, J. (2000). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. McComas (Ed), The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies (p. 41-52). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
  31. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice teachers'views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137-1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20377
  32. Miller, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future (London: King's College).
  33. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  34. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn. Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  35. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education, DC: National Academy Press.
  36. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science Education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
  37. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The implicit communication of nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96, 652-684. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21005
  38. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe., Miller, 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, 692-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  39. Park, J. (2007). A study of new modles for scientific inquiry activity through understanding the nature of science (NOS). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 27. 153-167.
  40. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2000, April). Understanding the nature of science through scientific inquiry: An explicit approach to bridge the gap. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
  41. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Thompson,T. (2001, March). Grade nine students'views of nature of science and scientific inquiry: the effects of an inquiry-enthusiast's approach to teaching science as inquiry. A paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
  42. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493- 509. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199907)83:4<493::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-U

피인용 문헌

  1. Analysis of the Presentation for the Nature of Science in Elementary Science Textbooks using the Four Themes of Scientific Literacy vol.33, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15267/keses.2014.33.2.207
  2. Comparative Analysis of the Presentation of the Nature of Science (NOS) in Korea and US Elementary Science Textbooks vol.34, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.3.0207
  3. 우리나라 생명과학 관련 분야 재미 과학자들은 어떻게 과학의 본성을 이해하고 있는가? vol.34, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2014.34.7.0677
  4. Analysis of Middle School Environmental Education Textbooks using the Environmental Literacy based on the Four Themes of Scientific Literacy vol.28, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17965/kjee.2015.28.1.1
  5. Analysis of the Presentation for the Nature of Science in Life Science Chapters ofthe 2009 Revised Middle School Science Textbooks vol.44, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2016.44.1.25
  6. 공업계열 특성화고 학생들의 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 인식 탐구 - 과학기술사 수업을 중심으로 - vol.45, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.15717/bioedu.2017.45.1.199
  7. 기술의 본성(NOT) 개념 틀 제안 및 이공계 대학생들의 기술의 본성(NOT)에 대한 인식 탐구 vol.43, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.3.363
  8. 2015 개정 교육과정 통합과학 교과서의 과학의 본성(NOS) 분석 vol.44, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2020.44.3.273