保持教师对科学本质“社会嵌入性”本质的看法:一种新的分析方法

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Science Teacher Education Pub Date : 2022-05-24 DOI:10.1080/1046560X.2022.2043575
H. Georgiou
{"title":"保持教师对科学本质“社会嵌入性”本质的看法:一种新的分析方法","authors":"H. Georgiou","doi":"10.1080/1046560X.2022.2043575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is generally accepted that a robust science education includes knowledge of science, as well as knowledge about science, or, in other words, an understanding of the “Nature of Science.” However, debates around what Nature of Science is and how to measure it are far from settled, and this compromises our ability to support teachers and students develop their understanding in this area. In this paper, two approaches assessing one aspect of the Nature of Science, the degree to which is it “socially embedded,” are compared. The VNOS-C was administered to a cohort of pre-service secondary science teachers and analyzed using the traditional approach as well as a new approach, using “Specialization” from a framework known as Legitimation Code Theory. The results from the standard analytical approach revealed that preservice teachers’ ideas were overwhelmingly Naïve or Mixed, and that these did not change over the course of the semester. However, there was insufficient discrimination between students’ ideas, particularly those in the Mixed category. The new approach was able to capture more of the nuances in preservice teachers’ responses. The potential of the new approach will be discussed in terms of its utility for understanding Nature of Science theory and improving assessment in relation to the “social embeddedness” tenet.","PeriodicalId":47326,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Teacher Education","volume":"34 1","pages":"248 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preservice Teachers’ Views of the “Social Embeddedness” Tenet of the Nature of Science: A New Method of Analysis\",\"authors\":\"H. Georgiou\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1046560X.2022.2043575\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT It is generally accepted that a robust science education includes knowledge of science, as well as knowledge about science, or, in other words, an understanding of the “Nature of Science.” However, debates around what Nature of Science is and how to measure it are far from settled, and this compromises our ability to support teachers and students develop their understanding in this area. In this paper, two approaches assessing one aspect of the Nature of Science, the degree to which is it “socially embedded,” are compared. The VNOS-C was administered to a cohort of pre-service secondary science teachers and analyzed using the traditional approach as well as a new approach, using “Specialization” from a framework known as Legitimation Code Theory. The results from the standard analytical approach revealed that preservice teachers’ ideas were overwhelmingly Naïve or Mixed, and that these did not change over the course of the semester. However, there was insufficient discrimination between students’ ideas, particularly those in the Mixed category. The new approach was able to capture more of the nuances in preservice teachers’ responses. The potential of the new approach will be discussed in terms of its utility for understanding Nature of Science theory and improving assessment in relation to the “social embeddedness” tenet.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Science Teacher Education\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"248 - 266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Science Teacher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2043575\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2043575","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要人们普遍认为,强有力的科学教育包括科学知识和科学知识,或者换句话说,包括对“科学本质”的理解。然而,关于什么是科学本质以及如何衡量科学本质的争论还远未解决,这损害了我们支持教师和学生发展对这一领域理解的能力。在这篇论文中,比较了两种评估科学本质一个方面的方法,即它“社会嵌入”的程度。VNOS-C对一组职前中学科学教师进行了管理,并使用传统方法和新方法进行了分析,使用了一个称为合法代码理论的框架中的“专业化”。标准分析方法的结果显示,职前教师的想法绝大多数是天真或混合的,而且这些想法在整个学期中没有改变。然而,对学生的想法,特别是混合类学生的想法没有充分的区别对待。新方法能够捕捉到职前教师反应中更多的细微差别。新方法的潜力将从其对理解科学本质理论和改进与“社会嵌入性”原则相关的评估的效用方面进行讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preservice Teachers’ Views of the “Social Embeddedness” Tenet of the Nature of Science: A New Method of Analysis
ABSTRACT It is generally accepted that a robust science education includes knowledge of science, as well as knowledge about science, or, in other words, an understanding of the “Nature of Science.” However, debates around what Nature of Science is and how to measure it are far from settled, and this compromises our ability to support teachers and students develop their understanding in this area. In this paper, two approaches assessing one aspect of the Nature of Science, the degree to which is it “socially embedded,” are compared. The VNOS-C was administered to a cohort of pre-service secondary science teachers and analyzed using the traditional approach as well as a new approach, using “Specialization” from a framework known as Legitimation Code Theory. The results from the standard analytical approach revealed that preservice teachers’ ideas were overwhelmingly Naïve or Mixed, and that these did not change over the course of the semester. However, there was insufficient discrimination between students’ ideas, particularly those in the Mixed category. The new approach was able to capture more of the nuances in preservice teachers’ responses. The potential of the new approach will be discussed in terms of its utility for understanding Nature of Science theory and improving assessment in relation to the “social embeddedness” tenet.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Science Teacher Education
Journal of Science Teacher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
10.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE) is the flagship journal of the Association for Science Teacher Education. It serves as a forum for disseminating high quality research and theoretical position papers concerning preservice and inservice education of science teachers. The Journal features pragmatic articles that offer ways to improve classroom teaching and learning, professional development, and teacher recruitment and retention at pre K-16 levels.
期刊最新文献
Where’s the Peanut Butter? Journaling about Science Practices in Everyday Life Integrating Text Structure Instruction in Science Education: A Design-Based Study What Makes this Lesson Engineering? What Makes it Science? Examining the Thought Processes of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers Science Teacher Action Research in Top Tier Science Education Journals: A Review of the Literature Integrated Language and Science & Technology Instruction: A Cognitive Task Analysis of the Required Teacher Expertise
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1