Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.4.489

Developing the Questionnaire to Measure the Perception of the Norms of Science and Applying to Pre-service Science Teachers  

Ha, Minsu (Kangwon National University)
Shin, Sein (Chungbuk National University)
Lee, Jun-Ki (Jeonbuk National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.39, no.4, 2019 , pp. 489-498 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to develop and apply questionnaire to identify pre-service science teachers' level of norms of science based on CUDOs, a scientific norm presented by R. Merton. In addition, we compared the pre-service science teachers' perception of scientific norm by major, grade, and gender, and analyzed the types of scientific norms through cluster analysis. For the study, 260 pre-service science teachers from two universities were involved. First, based on the CUDOs of R. Merton, 32 questionnaire items from six domains (pursuit of personal interests through scientific research, the pursuit of national interests through scientific research, pursuit of universal welfare through scientific research, non-communalism, non-universalism, and anti-organized skepticism) were developed. The study found that the statistical validity and reliability of the questionnaire items were acceptable. There were no significant differences in the scores of pre-service science teachers' anti-scientific norm by gender, major, and academic year. We conducted a cluster analysis and identified three types of scientific norms (traditional scientific norm, modern pragmatism, and utilitarian views).
Keywords
Mertonian norms; assessment; sociology of science; science education;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Bernard, P., & Dudek, K. (2017). Revisiting students' perceptions of research scientist - outcomes of an indirect draw-a-scientist test (INDAST). Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(4), 562-575.
2 Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
3 Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (1999). Climate science: An empirical example of postnormal science. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80(3), 439-456.   DOI
4 Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2017). The Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(5), 1351-1367.   DOI
5 Broome, T. H., & Peirce, J. (1997). The heroic engineer. Journal of Engineering Education, 86, 51-55.   DOI
6 Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-ascientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.   DOI
7 Choi, K. H. (2005). Contemplation of Scientist's Social Role, Responsibility and its Educational Methods. Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 10, 49-67.
8 Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9 Gaston, J. (1978). The reward system in British and American science. New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
10 George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
11 Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
12 Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591-607.   DOI
13 Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764-789.   DOI
14 Kim, H. S. (2012). Climate change, science and community. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 268-285.   DOI
15 Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web SurveysThe Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity. Public opinion quarterly, 72(5), 847-865.   DOI
16 Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025-2047.   DOI
17 Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre-service teachers' understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.   DOI
18 Lee, J. K., Lee, T. K., & Ha M. (2013). Exploring the Evolution Patterns of Trading Zones Appearing in the Convergence of Teachers' Ideas: The Case Study of a Learning Community of Teaching Volunteers 'STEAM Teacher Community. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(5), 1055-1084.   DOI
19 Lee, Y. H. (2003). Beyond the ‘Science Wars': New direction of sociology of science. Economy and Society, 60, 195-217.
20 Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton's scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67-78.   DOI
21 Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press.
22 Mesci, G., & Renee'S, S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers' views of nature of science: why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 329-351.   DOI
23 Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5-8.   DOI
24 MEST (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology). (2011). 2009 revised science curriculum. Seoul: MEST.
25 Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised Science National Curriculum. Ministry of Education.
26 Mitroff, I. (1974). Norm and counter-norm in a selected group of the Apollo moon scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579-595.   DOI
27 MOE (Ministry of education). (2015). 2015 revised national curriculum of science. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
28 Mulkay, M. J. (1976). Norms and ideologies in science. Social Science Information, 15, 637-656.   DOI
29 Narayan, R., Park, S., Peker, D., & Suh, J. (2013). Students' images of scientists and doing science: An international comparison study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(2), 115-129.
30 Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European journal of social psychology, 15(3), 263-280.   DOI
31 Oreskes, N. (1996). Objectivity or heroism? On the invisivility of woman in science. Osiris, 11, 87-113.   DOI
32 Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers' views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595-615.   DOI
33 Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54-73.   DOI
34 Scrucca, L., Fop, M., Murphy, T. B., & Raftery, A. E. (2016). mclust 5: Clustering, classification and density estimation using gaussian finite mixture models. The R journal, 8(1), 289-317.   DOI
35 Shin, S., Lee, J. K., & Ha, M. (2016). Pre-service biology teachers' value orientation related to observation and representation: Focus on objectivity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 617-628.   DOI
36 Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
37 Smith, C. H. L. (1999). International collaboration in science and technology: Lessons from CERN. European Review, 7(1), 77-92.   DOI
38 Stohr, K. (2003). A multicentre collaboration to investigate the cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome. The Lancet, 361, 1730-1733.   DOI
39 Torresen, J. (2018). A review of future and ethical perspectives of robotics and AI. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4(75), 1-10.   DOI
40 Vermeulen, N., Parker, J. N., & Penders, B. (2013). Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology. Endeavour, 37(3), 162-171.   DOI
41 White, R., & Wallace, J. (1999). Heroism and science education reform. Research in Science Education, 29(4), 417-430.   DOI
42 Wright, B.D. & Linacre, J.M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square-fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
43 Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.   DOI
44 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.   DOI
45 Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46 Asilomar. (2017). Available at: https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/
47 Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 3-14.   DOI
48 Bak, H. J. (2010). Factors affecting the selection of research topics among Korean scientists - Pure scientific concern, external interests or peer recognition. Economy & Society, 85, 211-236.
49 Bak, H. J. (2006). Commercialization of science and changing normative structure of scientific community. Korean Journal of Sociology, 40(4), 19-47.
50 Bak, H. J. (2007). Perceptions and evaluation of norms of science among Korean scientific community. Journal of Science & Tecnology Studies, 7(2), 91-124.