بررسی وضعیت درک دانشجو- معلمان آموزش علوم تجربی از ماهیت علم تجربی: مطالعه موردی مراکز تربیت‌معلم تهران
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسیمحمد ظاهری 1 , صابر عبدالملکی 2 , لیلا فرجادمند 3
1 - کارشناس ارشد تحقیقات آموزشی ، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
3 - 1. دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه پیام نور تهران، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: مبانی فلسفی علم تجربی, دستاوردهای علم تجربی, روش علمی, آموزش علوم تجربی, ماهیت علم تجربی,
چکیده مقاله :
پژوهشحاضر به‌منظور بررسی میزان درک دانشجو- معلمان آموزش علوم تجربی از ماهیت علمتجربی در مراکز تربیت‌معلم استان تهران انجام شد. روش پژوهش مذکور، توصیفی - زمینه‌یابیاست. جامعة آماری پژوهشی تمامی دانشجو - معلمان زن و مرد رشته آموزش علوم تجربیاست که تعداد آن‌ها 300 نفر بودند. با توجه به تعداد کم‌حجم جامعه برای نمونه‌گیریاز روش سرشماری استفاده گردید. برای اندازه‌گیری درک دانشجو- معلمان از ماهیت علمتجربی از پرسشنامه‌ای محقق ساخته استفاده شد. روایی محتوایی این پرسشنامه توسطمتخصصان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. همچنین روایی سازه آن نیز از طریق تحلیل عاملیاکتشافی تأیید شد. پایایی پرسشنامه با استفاده از روش آلفای کرونباخ (84/0=)محاسبه شد. داده‌های پژوهش از طریق آمار توصیفی (مانند فراوانی، درصد فراوانی انحرافمعیار) و آمار استنباطی (مانند آزمونتی و همبستگی) با استفاده از نرم‌افزار spss مورد تحلیل شدند. یافته‌ها نشان داد کهدانشجو - معلمان آموزش علوم تجربی درک درست و کافی از ماهیت کلی علم تجربی و مؤلفه‌هایآن (مبانی فلسفی علم تجربی، مراحل مختلف روش علمی و دستاوردهای علم تجربی) ندارندو بین سابقه تدریس دانشجو - معلمان آموزش علوم تجربی و درک آن‌ها از ماهیت علمتجربی رابطه معنی‌داری وجود ندارد. همچنین بین عملکرد دانشجو - معلمان با درکماهیت علم تجربی همبستگی معنی‌داری وجود داشت و از نظر جنسیت نیز در درک ماهیتعلمی تفاوت معنادار مشاهده شد.
The objective of this research is studying the perception of student teachers of science education of the empirical nature of science in the teacher training centers of Tehran province. Method of the research was descriptive and field-searching. The statistical society consists of all the male and female teachers and students of science education in the teacher training centers of Tehran province. Since the population of the society was only 300 people, the sampling was carried out by the WRT sampling method. For data collection, the researcher designed a 31-component questionnaire. The content validity of the questionnaire was assessed by experts and its construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach's alpha method (α=0.84) was eventually verified. All the data were analyzed via the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, independent t-test, and ANOVA variance analysis in SPSS software. The results indicated that student teachers of experimental science education do not have a correct and sufficient understanding of the nature of science and its components -- philosophical foundations of science, different steps of an empirical method, scientific achievements – and there is no significant relation between the teaching experiences of the teacher students and their understanding of the true nature of the empirical science. In addition, there is a significant correlation at p ≤ 0.01 between the student teachers’ performances and their understanding of the nature of science, and the sex of the student teachers was also significant in understanding the nature of science.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University,Oregon.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in pre-service elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, bu.. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching With and About Nature of Science, and Science Teacher Knowledge Domains. Science & Education;, Vol. 22 Issue 9, p2087.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching With and About Nature of Science, and Science Teacher Knowledge Domains. Science & Education;, Vol. 22 Issue 9, p2087.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000a). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
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, 665–701.
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.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & An-Phong, L. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 835–855.
Abdolmaleki S,;Dorrani K,;Karamdust N,;Sadrolashrafi M. (2015). The Nature of Science: Case Study of University of Tehran Undergraduate Students’ Attitude. CSTP. 2015; 3 (5):133-152. Persian.
Abdolmaleki,S; Sakizadeh, M;Masoumi, M. (1392). scientific literacy The universal goal of science education in the twenty-first century, with emphasis on curriculum goals and content. 12th National Conference on Curriculum Studies in Iran. Change in Curriculum of Education Curricula. Islamic Azad University of Birjand. Persian.
Abdolmaleki.S. (2014). investigated the status of scientific literacy in undergraduate students of faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences and Faculty of sciences Tehran University. Master's thesis. Tehran University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Persian.
Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.
Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 751–772.
Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Amani, M et al. (2005). science teacher guide books. Tehran: Iranian textbooks publishing. Persian.
American Association for Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans.New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press
Badryan, A. (2008). Chemistry education. Tehran: Mabnaye Kherad Publications.
Bell, R. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. Best Practices in Science Education, 22, 1-6.
Bell, R.L. (2008). Teaching the nature of science through process skills: Activities for grades 3-8. New York: Allyn & Bacon/Longman.
Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relation to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53–62.
Bybee.Rodger W. & Bruce Fuchs(2006). Preparing the 21st Century Workforce: A New Reform in Science and Technology Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 349–352.
Daneshpejo,Z. (2003).Assessment of professional skills of teachers of science and math in the course of guidance and presentation of its quality improvement methods. Journal of Educational Innovation. Volume 2, Issue 6; From PP 69 - 94. Persian.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. NY: Teachers College Press.
Farmery, C. (2002). Teaching Science 3-11: The Essential Guide. London: Continuum.
Fathyazar, E. (1998). Study of the extent of understanding of the nature of science in the students of the experimental and mathematical sciences in the third year of physics. The new educational system, the secretaries of science, the students of the secretary and the professors in East Azarbaijan province. Institute of Education and Research.
Fensham, P. (2002). Providing Suitable Content in the "Science for all" Curriculum. Education Studies in Science Education, 21, 1-20.
Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawing. School Science & Mathematics, 102(7):335–345.
Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, Saiqa Azam & Rizwan Akram Rana Secondary School Science Teachers’ Views About the ‘Nature of Science. Bulletin of Education and Research December 2009, Vol. 31, No. 2 pp 29-44. Persian.
Hanuscin, Deborah L, Lee, Michele H, & Akerson, Valarie L. (2011). Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science education, 95(1), 145-167.
Holbrook, J. & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy, International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275-288.
Jordan, R., & Duncan, R. G. (2009). Student teachers’ images of science in ecology and genetics. Educational Research, 43 (2), 63-69.
Kamisah,Osman & Neelavany, Marimuthu. (2010). Setting new learning targets for the 21st century science education in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science 2, 3737–33741.
Karimi, M.H. (2007). Review of the book of the first Middle school sciences in the field of philosophy of science, Journal of Social Sciences and Human Sciences, University of Shiraz. Volume 26, Number 3 (52) (Specialized Journal of Educational Sciences); pp 111 -136. Persian.
Lederman, N,. & Zeidler, d. (1987). Science Teachers Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Do They Really Influence Teacher Behavior?. Science Education, 71(15). 721-734.
Lederman, N. (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.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G.
Lederman, N.G. & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Lederman, N.G. (1999). Teachers’ Understanding of the Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: Factors That Facilitate or Impede the Relationship. Journal of Research in Science. VOL. 36, NO. 8, PP. 916–929.
Lederman, N.G. (1986). Students’ and Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: A Reassessment. School Science and Mathematics, 86(2), 91-99.
Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
Liu,X. (2009).Beyond Science Literacy: Science and the Public: International Journal of Environmental & Science Education.Vol. 4, No. 3, July 2009, 301-311.
Marks, R. and Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting Scientific Literacy Using a Sociocritical and Problem-Oriented Approach to Chemistry Teaching: Concept, Examples, Experiences. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 4 (3): 231-245.
McComas, W. E (1997, spring). The nature of the laboratory experience: A guide for describing, classifying and enhancing hands-on activities. CSTA Journal, No.1, 6-9.
McComas, W.F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10–16.
McComas.w.f. (2014). The Language of Science Education:An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts in Science Teaching and Learning. Sense Publishers, AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mola Gulakhachi, S. (2011). Study the experience of high school science teachers about the nature of science and how it reflects in textbooks. Master's thesis, Tabriz University, Faculty of Psychology and Education. persian
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E.D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8):771–790.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nuangchalerm, P. (2009). Preservice teachers perception about nature of science. The Social Sciences. 4(5): 463-467.
OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world (vol. 1). Paris:OECD Publications.
Osborne, Jonathan. (2007). Science Education for the Twenty First Century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,, 3(3), 173-184.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sadler T.D. (2002). Sociosciencetific issue research and its relevance for science education. Invited Seminar present to science education Graduate Students at the University of South Florida.Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Sa'idi, M. (2011). Review the views of students and teachers about Nature of Science. Master thesis, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. persian
Turiman,Punia, Jizah Omar, Adzliana Mohd Daud, Kamisah Osman(2012). Fostering the 21st Century Skills through Scientific Literacy and Science Process Skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science. Volume 59, 17 October, Pages 110–116.
Welch, W.W. & Walberg, H.J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 373–383.
Zamani,B. E. (2007). Comparison of the Scientific Spirituality and Scientificism in the textbooks of the Empirical Sciences of the Elementary Countries of Iran and the United Kingdom. Journal of Social Sciences and Human Sciences at Shiraz University. Volume 26, No. 3.
_||_