Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2019.39.5.681

A Comparative Study on the Various Perspectives on the Nature of Science through Textbook Analysis Centering on the Consensus View, Features of Science, and Family Resemblance Approach  

Jho, Hunkoog (Dankook University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.39, no.5, 2019 , pp. 681-694 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study intends to delineate the characteristics of various perspectives on the nature of science (NOS) through the textbook analysis. Thus, centering on a science textbook called Science Laboratory Experiments, this study analyzes the elements of the NOS from three different perspectives: the consensus view, features of science (FOS), and family resemblance approach (FRA). While the consensus view highlights the similar elements of the NOS across the topics, the FOS is concerned about empirical ways for doing science. The FRA rather focuses on socio-cultural aspects of science activities. While the consensus view is useful to reify the features of the NOS, the FRA helps to understand science from various viewpoints. Regarding the philosophical account for three perspectives, all of them are ambiguous to some extent. The consensus view holds contradictory dispositions e.g., relativism vs. (post-)positivism, and critical realism and instrumentalism. The FOS supports empirical tradition but cannot effectively cope with the anomalous situation. The FRA is useful to show up the ways of science in both microscopic (personal) and macroscopic (social) viewpoints. However, the broader concept about science may mislead understanding of the NOS. Consequently, this study provides some implication for improving the framework of the NOS and teaching the NOS in the classroom.
Keywords
discourse; family resemblance approach; features of science; nature of science; textbook analysis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.   DOI
2 Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2019-2139.   DOI
3 Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 78-107). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
4 Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practice and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
5 Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 311-328.   DOI
6 Feyerabend, P. K. (2010). Against method. London: Verso.
7 Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8 Shim, K.-C., Park, J.-S., Lee, G.-Y., Son, J.-W., Moon, H.-J., Park, J.-Y., et al. (2017). Science Laboratory Experiments. Seoul: Visang Education.
9 Giere, R. N. (1997). Understanding scientific reasoning. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
10 Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: selected essays and interviews (D. F. Bouchard, & S. Simon, Trans.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
11 Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy : A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
12 Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: Implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875-2905.   DOI
13 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(4), 493-509.   DOI
14 Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multidimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.   DOI
15 Waight, N. (2014). Technology knowledge: high school science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of technology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1143-1168.   DOI
16 Weedon, C. (1996). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
17 Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Philosophical investigations. London: Basil Blackwell & Mott.
18 Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.
19 Sismondo, S. (2010). An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
20 Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the Horse’s Mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639-2665.   DOI
21 Huh, K. (2012). On Michel Foucault’s concept of discours. Concept and communication, 9, 5-32.
22 Hunter, M., & Schaffer, S. (1989). Robert Hooke: New studies. Wolfeboro, NH: Boydell Press.
23 Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24 Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 999-1021). New York: Springer.
25 Jammer, M. (1989). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. Los Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers.
26 Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
27 Jenner, B., & Titscher, S. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
28 Khine, M. S. (2012). Advances in nature of science research: concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer.
29 Jho, H. (2014). Implications of science education as interdisciplinary education through the cases of scientists and artists in the modern era: Focus on the relationship between science and the arts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(8), 755-765.   DOI
30 Jho, H. (2018). Trends in research on the nature of science: A bibliometric analysis with R-mapping tool. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 18(18), 937-956.   DOI
31 Kimball, M. E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110-120.   DOI
32 Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists: A report on the HOSG instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47.   DOI
33 Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34 Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
35 Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
36 Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.   DOI
37 Lederman, N. G. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessment? Science & Education, 7(6), 595-615.   DOI
38 Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the Nature and ‘Goodness’ of Argument among College Students, Science Teachers, and Scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605.   DOI
39 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.   DOI
40 Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.   DOI
41 Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on science-technology-society’ (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.   DOI
42 Aldersey-Williams, H. (2011). Periodic tales: A cultural history of the elements, from Arsenic to Zinc. New York: Harper Collins.
43 American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
44 Artieres, P. (2011). Michel Foucault. Paris: Herne.
45 Arya, A. P. (1998). Introduction to classical mechanics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46 Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2014). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of NOS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1083-1115.   DOI
47 Bacon, F. (1994). Novum organum: With other parts of the great instauration. Chicago: Open Court.
48 Lee, S. W.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Students’ domain-specific epistemological beliefs: A comparison between biology and physics. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 215-229.
49 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.   DOI
50 Lederman, N. G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: a historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
51 Levere, T. H., & Shea, W. R. (1990). Nature, experiment, and the sciences : essays on Galileo and the history of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
52 Liou, P.-Y. (2015). Developing an instrument for assessing students’ concepts of the nature of technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 162-181.   DOI
53 Liu, S.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055-1073.   DOI
54 Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
55 Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161-174.   DOI
56 Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
57 Maudlin, T. (2010). The metaphysics within physics. New York: Oxford University Press.
58 Bady, R. J. (1979). Students’ understanding of the logic of hypothesis testing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(1), 61-65.   DOI
59 Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of pus survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.   DOI
60 Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1268-1312.
61 Cho, E, Kim, C., & Choe, S. (2018). A study on the plurality of nature of science in science education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 721-738.   DOI
62 Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.   DOI
63 Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Stengers, I. (1996). A history of chemistry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64 Bianchini, J. A., Whitney, D. J., Breton, T. D., & Hilton-Brown, B. A. (2002). Toward inclusive science education: University scientists views of students, instructional practices, and the nature of science. Science Education, 86(1), 42-78.   DOI
65 Clement, J. J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
66 Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science (Models and modeling in science education). New York: Springer.
67 Ministry of Education (2015). National science curriculum. (Vol. 2015-74). Sejong: Ministry of Education.
68 Maudlin, T. (2012). Philosophy of physics: Space and time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
69 McComas, W. F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
70 Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
71 Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2013). TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/frameworks.html.
72 National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
73 National Research Council (2012). Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
74 Newman, H. B., & Ypsilantis, T. (1996). History of original ideas and basic discoveries in particle physics. New York: Plenum Press.
75 Newton, I. (1952). Optics: Or a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflexions & colours of light. New York: Dover.
76 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
77 Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism : An introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London: Verso.
78 Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463-494.   DOI
79 Cofre, H., Nunez, P., Santibanez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 205-248.   DOI
80 Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Columbus, OH: Merrill Pub. Co.
81 Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C.-S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: a critical review of research. Science Education, 95, 961-999.   DOI
82 Peters-Burton, E., & Baynard, L. R. (2013). Network analysis of beliefs about the scientific enterprise: A comparison of scientists, middle school science teachers and eighth-grade science students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2801-2837.   DOI
83 Constantinou, C., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143-172.   DOI
84 Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educating Test Service.
85 Cooper, M., & Hunter, M. (2006). Robert Hooke: tercentennial studies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
86 Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics: The historical relation between philosophy and scientific theories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
87 Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
88 Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278.   DOI
89 Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
90 Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
91 Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
92 Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.   DOI
93 Sankey, H. (2008). Scientific realism and the rationality of science. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
94 Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What Scientists Say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727-771.   DOI
95 Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.   DOI