Paradigm Changes about Nature of Science and New Teaching Aproaches

Öz

Understandings about nature of science (NOS) are essential and critical components of scientific literacy which is the focus of science curriculums of many countries including Turkey. Paradigm changes about science and NOS have been occurred especially in the last 50 years and many studies have focused on improving students\' and teachers\' understandings about NOS. This paper is an interpretive review of NOS understandings that reflect paradigm changes and new teaching approaches. Based on literature review and authors\' experiences it is argued that explicit-reflective scientific argumentation and explicit-reflective inquiry strategies are most favorable strategies for teaching new NOS understandings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nature of Science, Teaching Nature of Science, Science Education, Scientific Argumentation, Scientific Inquiry

Bilimin Doğası Hakkında Paradigma Değişimleri ve Öğretimi ile İlgili Yeni Anlayışlar

Öz

Türkiye dahil pek çok ülkenin fen müfredatlarının odaklandığı bilim okuryazarlığının temel ve kritik bir bileşeni bilimin doğası ile ilgili anlayışlardır. Özellikle son 50 yılda bilim ve bilimin doğası ile ilgili paradigma değişimleri yaşanmış ve birçok çalışma öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin bilimin doğası hakkındaki yeni anlayışları kazanmasına odaklanmıştır. Bu makale yaşanan paradigma değişimlerini yansıtan bilimin doğası anlayışlarını ve bu anlayışların öğretimi ile ilgili yaklaşımları yorumsal bir bakış açısıyla ortaya koyan bir derleme çalışmasıdır. Literatür incelemesi ve yazarların deneyimlerine dayanarak bilimin doğası hakkındaki yeni anlayışların öğretimi için en uygun stratejilerin açık-düşündürücü bilimsel argümantasyon ve açık-düşündürücü sorgulayıcı-araştırma stratejileri olabileceği önUnderstandings about nature of science (NOS) are essential and critical components of scientific literacy which is the focus of science curriculums of many countries including Turkey. Paradigm changes about science and NOS have been occurred especially in the last 50 years and many studies have focused on improving students\' and teachers\' understandings about NOS. This paper is an interpretive review of NOS understandings that reflect paradigm changes and new teaching approaches. Based on literature review and authors\' experiences it is argued that explicit-reflective scientific argumentation and explicit-reflective inquiry strategies are most favorable strategies for teaching new NOS understandings. Bilimin Doğası, Bilimin Doğası Öğretimi, Fen Eğitimi, Bilimsel Argümantasyon, Bilimsel Sorgulayıcı-AraştırmaNature of Science, Teaching Nature of Science, Science Education, Scientific Argumentation, Scientific Inquiry Tam Metin Arşiv Yıl :2014 Cilt :34 No:2Yıl :2014 Cilt :34 No:1Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:3Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:2Yıl :2013 Cilt :33 No:1Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:3Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:2Yıl :2012 Cilt :32 No:1Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:3Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:2Yıl :2011 Cilt :31 No:1Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:3Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:2Yıl :2010 Cilt :30 No:1Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:3Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:2Yıl :2009 Cilt :29 No:1Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:3Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:2Yıl :2008 Cilt :28 No:1Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:3Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:2Yıl :2007 Cilt :27 No:1Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:3Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:2Yıl :2006 Cilt :26 No:1Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:3Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:2Yıl :2005 Cilt :25 No:1Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:3Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:2Yıl :2004 Cilt :24 No:1Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:3Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:2Yıl :2003 Cilt :23 No:1Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:3Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:2Yıl :2002 Cilt :22 No:1Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:3Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:2Yıl :2001 Cilt :21 No:1

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilimin Doğası, Bilimin Doğası Öğretimi, Fen Eğitimi, Bilimsel Argümantasyon, Bilimsel Sorgulayıcı-Araştırma

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but ... Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233.
2. 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.
3. Abd-El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of History of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.
4. Abraham, L. A. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field-based research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75(5), 229-232.
5. Akerson, V., Abd-El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity- based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.
6. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82.
7. Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P.J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (NCES 2008–016). NCES. Washington, DC.
8. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El Khalick, F.(2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of yhe nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563-581.

9. Bianchini, J.A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
10. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,18(1), 32-42.
11. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.
12. Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2004). The Nature of Science—Always part of the science story. The Science Teacher, 71, 28-31.
13. Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 42-45.
14. Colburn, A. (2004). Focusing labs on the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 32-35.
15. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
16. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
18. Duschl, R. (1990) Restructuring Science Education: The importance of theories and their development. New York:Teachers College Press.
19. Gürses, A., Doğar, Ç. ve Yalçın, M. (2005) “Bilimin doğası ve yüksek öğrenim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasına dair düşünceleri” Mill Eğitim Dergisi, 166, http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/166/index3-icindekiler.htm
20. Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
22. King, B. (1991). Begining teachers’ knowledge of and attitude toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 135-141.
23. Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 33–47.
24. Köseoğlu, F. (2007). Yeni Bir Paradigma: Yapılandırıcı Öğrenme ve Öğretme Modeli. Basımda.
25. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
26. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.
28. Lawson, A.E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743–760.
29. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 351-359.
30. Lederman, N.G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
31. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
32. Martin-Hansen, L. 2002. Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, Feb 2002, 34-37.
33. McComas, W.F. (1993). The effects of an intensive summer laboratory internship on secondary students’ understanding of the NOS as measured by the test on understanding of science (TOUS). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
34. Mccomas, W. F., & Olson, J., K. (2000) Internatıonal Science Education Standards documments (41-52) In W.F.Mccomas (Ed.) The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers
35. Meichtry, Y.J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389–407.
36. Moss, D.M., Abrams, E.D., & Kull, J.R. (1998). Describing students’ conceptions of the nature of science over an entire school years