• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.337-345
• /
• 2007

The purposes of this study are to investigate and compare the characteristics of classification criteria of secondary school students and science teachers in relation to the three statesof matter. For this research, 76 middle school students in the7th grade who studied microscopic viewpoints about classifying the state of matter for the first time, 69 high school students in the 12th grade who studied Chemistry I and IIcourses successfully, and 130 secondary school science teachers, through a questionnaire. As a result, while having learned the three states of matter in the microscopic viewpoints, the majority of middle school students showed a high percentage of classification in the macroscopic viewpoints. For high school students, their percentage of classification included highmicroscopic viewpoints about solid and gas, the percentage of classification included macroscopic viewpoints about liquid state as alsohigh. The secondary school teachers gave answers in the macroscopic viewpoints and microscopic viewpoints equally, but their answers were just representation of the viewpoints list without the meaningful connection of the two type of viewpoints. To solve these problems, It is necessary to form connective change from the macroscopic viewpoints to the microscopic viewpoints about the criteria for classifying the States of Matter and various educational efforts.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.39 no.5
• /
• pp.681-694
• /
• 2019

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.