International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2015, Vol. 11(1) 113-131

The Effect of Explicit-Reflective and Historical Approach on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science

Canay Pekbay, & Serkan Yilmaz

pp. 113 - 131   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2015.029

Published online: February 15, 2015  |   Number of Views: 0  |  Number of Download: 29


Abstract

This study aims to explore the influence of nature of science (NOS) activities based on explicit- reflective and historical approach on preservice elementary teachers’ views of NOS aspects. Mixed- method approach including both qualitative and quantitative methods was used. The sample consisted of 83 preservice elementary teachers of a public university. Activities in experimental group were prepared as per explicit-reflective approach, whereas per historical approach in the other group. Views of NOS questionnaire was applied both as a pretest and posttest to explore students’ views about NOS aspects. During a 3-week application, worksheets were used and we benefited from observation checklists to control potential threats to internal validity. While content analysis method was used in qualitative analysis; frequency, percentage, Wilcoxon sign and Mann-Whitney tests were facilitated in quantitative part. Results indicated that students who experienced explicit-reflective instruction made statistically significant gains in their views of NOS aspects and accordingly some implications were presented.

Keywords: Nature of science, explicit-reflective approach, historical approach, preservice teachers


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Pekbay, C. & Yilmaz, S. (2015). The Effect of Explicit-Reflective and Historical Approach on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science . International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(1), 113-131.

Harvard
Pekbay, C. and Yilmaz, S. (2015). The Effect of Explicit-Reflective and Historical Approach on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science . International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(1), pp. 113-131.

Chicago 16th edition
Pekbay, Canay and Serkan Yilmaz (2015). "The Effect of Explicit-Reflective and Historical Approach on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science ". International Journal of Progressive Education 11 (1):113-131.

References
  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(3), 215–233. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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(1), 15–42. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810. [Google Scholar]
  4. 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(4), 417–437. [Google Scholar]
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. [Google Scholar]
  6. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855. [Google Scholar]
  7. Akerson, V. L., 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(4), 295–317. [Google Scholar]
  8. Akerson, V. L., Donnelly, L. A., Riggs, M. L., & Eastwood, J. L. (2012). Developing a community of practice to support preservice elementary teachers’ nature of science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1371–1392. [Google Scholar]
  9. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194–213. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2007). “Bilimin Doğasının Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarına Kütle Çekim Konusu İçeriğinde Farklı Yaklaşımlarla Öğretilmesine Yönelik Bir Çalışma”. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal on Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414–436. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87: 352–377. [Google Scholar]
  13. Beşli, B. (2008). “Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilim Tarihinden Kesitler İncelemelerinin  Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Görüşlerine Etkisi”. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chamnanwong, P., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). The possibility of historical approach in cells teaching for explicit nature of science. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 7(22), 4685–4689. [Google Scholar]
  15. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dass, P. M. (2005). Understanding the nature of scientific enterprise (NOSE) through a discourse with its history: the influence of an undergraduate “history of science” course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(1), 87–115. [Google Scholar]
  17. Doğan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’  conceptions of nature of science: a national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112. [Google Scholar]
  18. Doğan, N., & Özcan, M. B. (2010). Tarihsel yaklaşımın 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin geliştirilmesine etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 187–208. [Google Scholar]
  19. Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks, Science Education, 93, 422–447. [Google Scholar]
  20. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  21. Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496. [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim, S. Y., & Karen, I. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215. [Google Scholar]
  24. Küçük, M. (2006). “Bilimin Doğasını İlköğretim 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerine Öğretmeye Yönelik Bir Çalışma”. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  25. Küçük, M. (2008). Improving preservice elementary teachers’ views of the nature of science using explicit-reflective teaching in a science, technology and society course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2). [Google Scholar]
  26. Leblebicioğlu, G., Metin, D., & Yardımcı, E. (2012). Bilim danışmanlığı eğitiminin fen ve matematik alanları öğretmenlerinin bilimin doğasını tanımalarına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37, 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lin. H., & Chen, C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers‟ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792. [Google Scholar]
  30. McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths, In McComas, W. F. (Ed.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–72). The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  31. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science and Education, 17, 249–263. [Google Scholar]
  32. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education, in W. F. McComas (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, (s: 3–39). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  33. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389–407. [Google Scholar]
  34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications Ltd. London: United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
  35. Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384– 403. [Google Scholar]
  36. 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. [Google Scholar]
  37. National Research Council (2000). Toxicological Effects of Methyl mercury. Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methyl mercury, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science  in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645. [Google Scholar]
  39. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & Mccarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science  through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409–421. [Google Scholar]
  40. Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12(7), 617–643. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tolvanen, S., Jansson, J., Vesterinen, V., & Aksela, M. (2014). How to use historical approach to  teach nature of science in chemistry education. Science & Education, 23(8), 1605–1636. [Google Scholar]
  42. Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 224–229. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yıldırım, C. (2005). Bilimin Öncüleri (22. Baskı). Ankara: TÜBİTAK Yayınları. [Google Scholar]