Examination of the Current and Desired Status of Science Education Curriculum Based on the Nature of Science Components from Students’ Points of View (Case of University of Isfahan and Isfahan University of Technology)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Abstract
       The main purpose of this study was to examine views of the science students about the science education curriculum based on nature of science components. A total of 277 undergraduate students from different fields of study including Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, and the related fields participated in this study. The research method was descriptive. A researcher-made questionnaire was the instrument used to collect the required data. The reliability of the questionnaire was found to be 0.81 through Cronbach’s Alpha. The major aspects of the nature of science that were examined in this study included tentativeness, empirical basis, creativity, subjectivity, socio-cultural issues, observation/interpretation and theory/law. These components were examined regarding the four basic elements of curriculum, namely, objectives, content, implementation and evaluation in current and desired states. The results indicated that from the students’ perspectives none of the curriculum dimensions was based on the nature of science components in the current state. However, in their opinion, curriculum objectives were closer to the desired state in terms of having nature of science components. Also, evaluation was furthest away from the desired state in this regard. The participants argued that more than any other elements, science curriculum objectives should be based on the nature of science components in the desired state. Based on the students’ opinions, for a curriculum to be in line with the nature of science components, after curriculum objectives, it must have the most attention paid to implementation and evaluation.

Keywords

References

  1. الف. فارسی

    1. سلطانی، اصغر؛ شریف، مصطفی؛ رکنی‌زاده، رسول (1390). بررسی دیدگاه اعضای انجمن‌‌های علمی کشور درباره ویژگی‌‌‌‌های ماهیتی علم. دانشور رفتار (تربیت و اجتماع)، سال هفدهم، شماره42، 314-293.
    2. کریمی، محمدحسن؛ مزیدی، محمد؛ مهرمحمدی؛ محمود (1386). نقد و بررسی کتاب علوم پایه اول راهنمایی تحصیلی از منظر فلسفه علم. مجله علوم اجتماعی و انسانی دانشگاه شیراز، سال بیست و ششم، شماره 52، 136-111.

     

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    1. Akcay, B. (2007). The influence of the history of science course on pre-service science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science concepts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa.
      1. Al-Saidi, A. M. (2004). The influence explicit versus implicit instructional approaches during a technology-based curriculum on students’ understanding of nature of science (NOS). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Carolina.
      2. Dagher, Z., Brickhouse, N., Shipman, H., & Letts, W. (2004). Howsome college students represent their understandings of the nature of scientific theories. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 735–755.
      3. Eisner, E. W. (1984). No easy answers: Joseph Schwab's contributions to curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 14 (2), 201-210.
      4. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination (3rd edition). Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall.
      5. Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process viewof students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70.
      6. Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of Freshman Physics Students’ Views on the Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 248-264.
      7. Kattoula, E. H. (2005). Conceptual change in pre-service teachers’ views on nature of science when learning a unit on the physics of waves. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, GeorgiaStateUniversity.
      8. Kimball, M. E., (1968) .Understanding nature of science: A comparison of Scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2)1), 110-120.
      9. Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.
      10. Laugksch, R., &Spargo, P. (1999). Scientific literacy of selected South African matriculant entering tertiary education: A baseline study. South African Journal of Science, 95, 427–432.
      11. Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Se´re´, M.-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497–527.
      12. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present and future. In: Abell, S. K., and Lederman, N.G. (eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
      13. 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.
      14. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., &Almazroa, H. (2002). 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. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 3-39.
      15. McComas, W., F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science and science education. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
      16. Mortimer, E. (1995). Conceptual change or conceptual profile change? Science & Education, 4, 267–285.
      17. Oliva, P. F. (2005). Developing the curriculum (6thed.). New York: Pearson education Inc.
      18. Ornstien, A. g. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: foundation, principles, and Issues (4th Ed.).New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
      19. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘‘ideas-about-science’’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
      20. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ Beliefs about nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278.
    2. Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ perceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559-580.
    3. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Interpreting experimental data: The views of upper secondary school and university science students. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1069–1084.
    4. Ryder, J., Leach, J., &Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 201–219.
    5. Se´re´, M.-G., Fernandez-Gonzalez, M., Gallegos, J.A., Gonzalez-Garcia, F., De Manuel, E., Perales, F.J., & Leach, J. (2001). Images of science linked to labwork: A survey of secondary school and university students. Research in Science Education, 31, 499–523.
    6. Sullivan, T. J. (2001). Methods of social research. New York: Harcourt Inc.
    7. Taba, H. (1971). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Publishers Ltd.
    8. Tao, P., K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 147–171.
    9. Tsai, C., C. (1999).Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths: A study of eight graders’ scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654– 674.
    10. Tsai, C., C., & Liu, S., Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views towards science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621–1638.
    11. Tyler, T. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    12. Vanderlinden, D. W. (2007). Teaching the content and context of science: The effect of using historical narratives to teach the nature of science and science content in an undergraduate introductory geology course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University.
Journal of Curriculum Research
Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
October 2013
Pages 115-140

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 October 2012
  • Revise Date: 16 February 2014
  • Accept Date: 21 April 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics