Abstract
This research study is designed to identify the 8th graders’ understandings about “science”, “scientist” and “the scientific process.” It consisted of 26 (15 females, 11 males) elementary school students who were randomly selected from an ele-mentary school in Istanbul. This was a qualitative research in nature for several reasons. First, the nature of research questions posed guided the researchers to focus on specific situations or people. It also required the researchers to put emphasis on words rather than numbers. Because of the lack of predetermined cat-egories of analysis, the research is more in-depth, open, and detailed. The data col-lected throughout the research shaped the analysis of the data and the rest of the research. Findings reveal that participants hold traditional views about science,
scientist, and the scientific process.
Key Words
Nature of Science, Qualitative Research, Scientist, Scientific Literacy, Science and Technology Education.
Elementary School Students’
Perceptions of Science and Scientific
Processes: A Qualitative Study
Gülfem MUfiLU*, Esra MACARO⁄LU AKGÜL**
© 2005 E¤itim Dan›flmanl›¤› ve Araflt›rmalar› ‹letiflim Hizmetleri Tic. Ltd. fiti. (EDAM)
*M.A., Marmara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ph. D. Candidate.
** Correspondence: Assist. Prof. Dr. Esra MACARO⁄LU AKGÜL, Yeditepe University, Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematic Education, ‹nönü Mah. Kay›flda¤› Cad. 26 A¤ustos Yerleflimi
34755 Kad›köy – ‹stanbul- Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice
One of the important objectives in science education is to make almost everybody scientifically literate within the framework of global education. Although there is no consensus on the definition of scientific literacy-concept, understanding the nature of science is cited as the major component of scientific literacy in the literature. Understanding the nature of science essentially requires that sci-ence be defined both as a product and a process and scientist and his/her characteristics consistent with the contemporary definition of science be known. The National Science Education Standards define scientific literacy as “the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs and economic pro-ductivity”. In addition, the NRC standards describe a vision of the scientifically literate person and present criteria for science educa-tion, emphasizing the inquiry nature of science within the science content standards. Parallel to the science-education reform efforts taking place in the United States, there are some international efforts in Europe as well as in other parts of the world. The Royal Society in the United Kingdom, an organization similar to the AAAS, defines three aspects of scientific literacy that are consistent with the AAAS’s definition. These dimensions of scientific literacy include: (a) Science content: understanding facts, laws, concepts and theories. (b) Scientific inquiry: understanding of the scientific approach to inquiry and the ability to define scientific study and discriminate between science and non-science. (c) Social enter-prise: understanding science as a social enterprise.
Although various individuals and organizations have slightly differ-ent definitions of scidiffer-entific literacy, they tend to weigh science con-tent and science processes equally. For instance, Driver identifies scientific literacy as a public understanding of science and states that public understanding of science involves not only an understanding of empirical inquiry procedures, but also the role of theoretical and conceptual ideas in framing any empirical inquiry and interpreting its outcomes. As implied in the various definitions of scientific liter-acy, understanding the nature of science is a central component of scientific literacy. Moreover, developing an “adequate understand-ing of the nature of science” is a desired outcome of science educa-tion at any level. Like scientific literacy, there are
multidimension-al and inconsistent definitions of the nature of science and the nature of scientific knowledge developed in different disciplines. Although people tend to use the nature of science and the nature of scientific knowledge interchangeably, they are not the same. Scientific knowledge refers to the products of science such as con-cepts, theories, and laws. The nature of science, however, refers to both products and processes of science including the nature of sci-entific knowledge, the scisci-entific enterprise, and scientists’ work. In other words, the nature of science encompasses the nature of scien-tific knowledge and the nature of scienscien-tific processes which consti-tute how this knowledge is produced. Scientific processes are activ-ities (e.g. observation and inference) which are related to the collec-tion and interpretacollec-tion of data and derivacollec-tion of conclusions. The nature of science consists of the epistemological commitments underlying these activities. There is no consensus on the definition of the nature of science among philosophers of science, historians of science, scientists, and science educators. However, most philosophers, historians, scientists, and science educators agreed on some general characteristics of the nature of scientific knowledge as embedded within the nature of science.
Method and Results
Based on these definitions of scientific literacy and the nature of science,
this research study is designed to identify the 8th graders’ under-standings about “science”, “scientist” and “the scientific process.” It consisted of 26 (15 females, 11 males) elementary school students who were randomly selected from an elementary school in Istanbul. This was a qualitative research in nature for several reasons. First, the nature of research questions posed guided the researchers to focus on specific situations or people. It also required the researchers to put emphasis on words rather than numbers. Because of the lack of predetermined categories of analysis, the research is more in-depth, open, and detailed. The data collected throughout the research shaped the analysis of the data and the rest of the research. All these characteristics make qualitative approach more appropri-ate, because qualitative method permits the researchers to study
selected issues in-depth. Therefore, the major data collection sources were qualitative in nature such as student-generated arti-facts and interviews. The first data source was “what is science scale” developed by the researchers. The scale consisted of open-ended questions which address definitions and characteristics of science, scientist, and scientific processes. Student responses to scale were open-coded according to qualitative research data analy-sis techniques and conanaly-sistent with the grounded theory. Assertions were generated. Assertions were cross-checked with the document analysis of student-generated artifacts, such as stories and drawings. Findings reveal that participants hold traditional views about sci-ence, scientist, and scientific process.
Kaynakça-References
Aranson, B. (2000). Bilimsel gaflar:Do¤ruya giden e¤ri yolda serüvenler(çev. N. Ar›k). Ankara: TÜB‹TAK Yay›nlar›.
Arslan, A. (1996). ‹lkokul ö¤rencilerinde gözlenen bilimsel beceriler. Yay›mlanmam›fl doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. California: Sage. Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. R. Durant, & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe (pp. 129-137). London: Science Museum.
Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 335–345.
Gould, S. J. (2000). Darwin ve sonras›. Ankara: TÜB‹TAK Yay›nlar›.
Hamm, M. (1992). Shamos and Bybee discuss scientific literacy at NYAS. School Sci-ence & Mathematics,1, 6-9
Koch, A., & Eckstein, S. G. (1995). Skills needed for reading comprehension of physics texts and their relation to problem solving ability. Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, 32, 613-628.
Lewis, B. F. (1998). Science as it exist within the worldview of high-achieving sixth-graders. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teac-hing. San Diego, CA.
Mayer, V. J. (1997). Global science literacy: An earth system view. Journal of Rese-arch in Science Teaching, 34, 101-105.
Medawar, P. B. (2000). Genç bilim adam›na ö¤ütler(çev. N. Ar›k). Ankara: TÜB‹-TAK Yay›nlar›.
Mufllu, G. (2004). ‹lkö¤retim ikinci kademe ö¤rencilerinin bilim ve bilimsel süreç kav-ramlar›na iliflkin alg›lar›. Yay›nlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi E¤itim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, ‹stanbul.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a post baccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595-615.
Roberts, R. (2001). Procedural understanding in biology: The “thinking behind the doing”. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 113.
Ryan, G. A., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the episte-mology of science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.
Schibeci, R. A., & Murcia, K. (2000). “Science is about facts,” or is it? Journal of Col-lege Science Teaching, 29, 205-209.
Smith, U. M., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493-509.
Solbes, J., & Vilches, A. (1997). STS interactions and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science Education, 81, 377–386.
Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ un-derstanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493–508.
Sutman, F. X. (1996). Scientific literacy: A functional definition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 459-461.
Temiz, B. K. (2001). Lise 1. s›n›f fizik dersi program›n›n ö¤rencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerini gelifltirmeye uygunlu¤unun incelenmesi. Yay›mlanmam›fl yüksek lisans te-zi, Gazi Üniversitesi E¤itim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Roger T. Cunningham, ve Turgut, M. F., (1997). ‹lkö¤retim fen ö¤retimi. YÖK Dün-ya Bankas› Milli E¤itimi Gelifltirme Projesi, Ankara.
Yetim, N. (1996). Farkl› toplumsal kümelerde bilim ve bilim adam› imgesi. Yay›mlan-mam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Mersin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Mersin. Y›ld›r›m, A. & fiimflek, H. (2000). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araflt›rma yöntemleri. Anka-ra: Seçkin Yay›nc›l›k.
Yoshida, A. (1989). Results and implications of children’s views of science across the six countries. National Association for Researching in Science Teaching, San Diego, Ca-lifornia.
