Using the history of science as a tool for teaching: Strengths and Weaknesses of Pre-service Biology Teachers

Öz

The history of science (HOS) is considered as a potential resource and a meaningful device for not only learning the content and also developing the understanding about nature of science. The purpose of this study is to observe experiences of pre-service teachers during their teaching practices based on HOS in order to understand their positions in instruction. A qualitative methodology was utilized with participation of 15 pre-service biology teachers who enrolled in a using HOS in biology teaching course. At the end of the semester, pre-service teachers were asked to prepare a lesson plan and enact a lesson based on HOS covering the subject that they selected before. Data were collected through lesson plans and reflective journals. Inductive code generation and collective comparison were employed for the analysis. Analysis was presented under three themes as before, during and after the teaching practices and revealed preservice teachers' purposes, concerns, strengths, weaknesses, and decisions during the whole process. The results of the research revealed that while pre-service teachers stated that HOS was easy to use for humanization, they had difficulty in making a connection between HOS and content knowledge. These findings can help design teacher education programs with courses of the HOS, which focuses on pedagogical aspect as well as conceptual aspect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• History of science
• classroom practices
• pre-service teachers

Kaynakça

1. 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(10), 1057–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098- 2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C
2. Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2009). A research-informed instructional unit to teach the nature of science to pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 18(9), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11191-009-9189-3
3. Allchin, D. (2008). Naturalizing as an error-type in Biology. Filosofia e História da Biologia, v. 3, p. 95-117.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061. (2009). Benchmarks for scientific literacy (revised). Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061report. New York: Oxford University Press at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum (accessed 8 December 2014).
5. Bakanay, Ç. D., & Çakır, M. (2022). In-service science teachers’ purposes for integrating the history of science: the role of their science teaching orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 44(6), 939-961.
6. Bakanay, Ç. D., & Güney, B. G. (2018). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının derslerde bilim tarihi kullanımına yönelik algıları. Bilim Eğitim Sanat ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 2(2), 108-114.
7. Becker B. J. (2001). MindWorks: Making scientific concepts come alive: Final report, WestEd, https://eee.uci.edu/ clients/bjbecker/cv.html accessed 20 March 2019
8. Borko, H., Cone, R., Russo, N., & Shavelson, R. (1979). Teachers’ decision making.In P. Peterbon and H. Walberg (Eds.),Research on teaching: Concepts, findings) and implications. .Berkeley,California : , McCutchan, 1979.

9. Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. (January 01, 2008). Teachers’ decision making : from Alan J. Bishop to today. British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) (1918) Report of the Committee on Science in Secondary Schools (with contents). Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: 1917 (London: John Murray).
10. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice. Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
11. Chan, V. (2011). Teaching Oral Communication in Undergraduate Science: Are We Doing Enough and Doing it Right?. Journal of learning design, 4(3), 71-79.
12. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7
13. Clough, M. P., Berg, C. A., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: a framework for teacher decision-making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 821–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10763-008-9146-7
14. Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2001). “I don’t have enough time”‐Teachers’ interpretations of time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of educational administration, 39(3), 266-281.
15. Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian occupational therapy journal, 54(2), 88-94.
16. de Andrade Martins, R., Silva, C. C., & Prestes, M. E. B. (2014). History and Philosophy of Science in Science Education, in Brazil. In International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 2271-2299). Springer, Dordrecht.
17. De Hosson, C., & Décamp, N. (2014). Using ancient Chinese and Greek astronomical data: A training sequence in elementary astronomy for pre-service primary school teachers. Science & Education, 23(4), 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9625-2
18. DfE (Department for Education) (2014a) The National Curriculum for England, London: DfE. Online, available Duschl, R.A. (1987). Improving science teacher education programs through inclusion of history and philosophy of science. In J.P. Barufaldi (ed.), Improving Preservice/ In-service Science Teacher Education: Future Perspectives, the 1987 AETS Yearbook, Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.
19. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). Experts’ views on using history and philosophy of science in the practice of physics instruction. Science and Education, 10(4), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011209131446
20. Guney, B. G., & Seker, H. (2012). The Use of History of Science as a Cultural Tool to Promote Students’ Empathy with the Culture of Science. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 533-539. Heering, P. (2009). The role of historical experiments in science teacher training: Experiences and perspectives.
21. Actes d’Història de la Ciènca I de la Tècnica Nova època, 2 (1), 389 - 399. Henke, A., Höttecke, D., & Riess, F. (2009, June). Case studies for teaching and learning with history and philosophy of science. In Tenth International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference (pp. 24–28).
22. Hunter, M C (1979) “Teaching Is Dectston Making” Educatinal Leadership 37,1 57-60 Irez,S & Çakir, M. (2010). Horizon of science education reform in Turkey: Challenges ahead. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 79-96.
23. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<5::AIDSCE2> 3.0.CO;2-0
24. Jenkins, E. (2007). School science: A questionable construct?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3), 265-282.
25. King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750112
26. Klopfer, L. and Cooley, W. (1963). Effectiveness of 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, 35-47 Leite, L. (2002). History of Science in Science Education: Development and Validation of a Checklist for Analysing the Historical Content of Science Textbooks. Science and Education, 11, 4, 333-59.
27. Lin, H. (1998). Enhancing college students’ attitudes toward science through the history of science. Proceedings- National Science Council Republic of China Part D Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 8(2), 86-91.
28. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. sage.
29. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science: Psychology Press.
30. Matthews, M. R. (1997) Scheffler Revisited on the Role of History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teacher Education, Studies in Philosophy and Education 17(1–2), 159–173.
31. Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı (2007a). 9. Sınıf Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Oğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanliği.
32. Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı (2013). 10. Sınıf Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Oğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanliği.
33. Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı (2013). 11. Sınıf Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Oğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanliği.
34. Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı (2018). 11. Sınıf Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Oğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanliği. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.1316627
35. Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı (2018). 12. Sınıf Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi Oğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanliği.
36. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science education, 81(4), 405-424.
37. Moura B.A., Silva C.C. (2018) Critical and Transformative Teachers: A Rationale for History and Philosophy of Science in Teacher Education. In: Prestes M., Silva C. (eds) Teaching Science with Context. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham
38. Moura, B. A., & Silva, C. C. (2013). Multi-contextual approach of history of science (MCAHS): Introducing historical content in science teacher training. In Proceedings of the 12th biennial conference of the international history, philosophy and science teaching group.
39. NAEP (2007) United States., WestEd (Organization) & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2007). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Dept. of Education.
40. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
41. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
42. Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı (YÖK) (2022). Yeni öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları, Biyoloji Öğretmenliği Lisans Programı. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Biyoloji_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf adresinden 20. 10.2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.