JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL.39,NO.6,PP.497–521(2002) Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire:Toward Valid and Meaningful Asssment of Learners’Conceptions of Nature of Science
Norm G.Lederman,1Fouad Abd-El-Khalick,2Randy L.Bell,3Rene´e S.Schwartz4
1Department of Mathematics and Science Education,Illinois Institute of Technology, 226Engineering1,10West32nd Street,Chicago,Illinois60616
2College of Education,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,311Education Building, 1310South Sixth Street,Champaign,Illinois61820
3Curry School of Education,Ruffner Hall,University of Virginia,405Emmet Street,
Charlottesville,Virginia22903-2495
4Department of Science and Mathematics Education,Oregon State University,
239Weniger Hall,Corvallis,Oregon97331
Received8April2001;Accepted10September2001americanpie
机器人瓦力插曲
Abstract:Helping students develop informed views of nature of science(NOS)has been and continues to be a central goal for kindergarten through Grade12(K–12)science education.Since the early 1960s,major efforts have been undertaken to enhance K–12students and science teachers’NOS views. However,the crucial component of asssing learners’NOS views remains an issue in rearch on NOS. This article aims to(a)trace the development of a new open-ended instrument,the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire(VNOS),which in conjunction with individual interviews aims to provide meaning-ful asssments of learners’NOS views;(b)outline the NOS framework that underlies the development of the VNOS;(c)prent evidence regarding the validity of the VNOS;(d)elucidate the u of the VNOS and associated interviews,and the range of NOS aspects that it aims to asss;and(e)discuss the ufulness of rich descriptive NOS profiles that the VNOS provides in rearch related to teaching and learning about NOS.The VNOS comes in respon to some calls within the science education community to go back to developing standardized forced-choice paper and pencil NOS asssment instruments designed for mass administrations to large samples.We believe that the calls ignore much of what was learned from rearch on teaching and learning about NOS over the past30years.The prent state of this line of rearch necessitates a focus on individual classroom interventions aimed at enhancing learners’NOS views,rather Correspondence to:Fouad Abd-El-Khalick;E-mail:fouad@uiuc.edu
DOI10.1002/tea.10034
校规校纪Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.).
ß2002Wiley Periodicals,Inc.
498LEDERMAN ET AL.
英语口语交际
than on mass asssments aimed at describing or evaluating students’beliefs.ß2002Wiley Periodicals, Inc.J Res Sci Teach39:497–521,2002
During the past85years,almost all scientists,science educators,and science education organizations have agreed on the objective of helping students develop informed conceptions of nature of science(NOS)(Abd-El-Khalick,Bell,&Lederman,1998;Duschl,1990;Meichtry, 1993).Prently,and despite their varying pedagogical or curricular emphas,there is agreement among the major reform efforts in science education(American Association for the Advancement of Science[AAAS],1990,1993;National Rearch Council[NRC],1996)about the goal of enhancing students’conceptions of NOS.However,rearch has consistently shown that kindergarten through Grade12(K–12)students,as well as teachers,have not attained desired understandings of ,
afraid怎么读
Abd-El-Khalick&Lederman,2000a;Duschl,1990; Lederman,1992;Ryan&Aikenhead,1992).Several attempts have been,and continue to be, undertaken to enhance students and science teachers’NOS ,Akerson,Abd-El-Khalick,&Lederman,2000;Billeh&Hasan,1975;Carey&Stauss,1968;Haukoos&Penick, 1983;Jelinek,1998;Ogunniyi,1983;Olstad,1969;Shapiro,1996;Solomon,Duveen,&Scot, 1994).
Nevertheless,the asssment of learners’NOS views remains an issue in rearch on NOS (Aikenhead,1988;Lederman,Wade,&Bell,1998).In the majority of the tho efforts, standardized and convergent paper and pencil instruments have been ud to asss learners’NOS views.Several problematic assumptions underlie such instruments and cast doubt on their validity(Aikenhead,Ryan,&Desautels,1989).Moreover,there are concerns regarding the ufulness of standardized instruments for rearch related to NOS.The purpo of this article is to report on the development of a new open-ended instrument,the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire(VNOS),and demonstrate the value of VNOS data to rearch on NOS in science education.More specifically,the article aims to(a)trace the development of the VNOS,which in conjunction with individual interviews aims to provide meaningful asssments of learners’NOS views;(b)outline the NOS framework that underlies the development of the VNOS;(c) prent eviden
ce regarding the validity of the VNOS;(d)elucidate the u of the VNOS and associated interviews,and the range of NOS aspects that it attempts to asss;and(e)discuss the ufulness of rich descriptive NOS profiles that the VNOS provides in rearch related to teaching and learning about NOS.In the prent discussion,‘‘meaningful asssments’’refer to asssment approaches that rve as an integral aspect of the learning process through providing teachers and learners with information and opportunities to clarify meaning,encourage reflection,and further learning(Zessoules&Gardner,1991).
Before discussing the VNOS,we will outline the NOS framework that underlies its development and briefly discuss some problematic aspects of standardized and convergent paper and pencil NOS asssment instruments.For a comprehensive review of tho latter instruments and an explication of the pros and cons associated with the u of convergent and standardized versus alternative approaches,such as open-ended questionnaires and interviews,to asss learners’NOS views,the reader is referred to Lederman et al.(1998).
NOStransfer
Typically,NOS refers to the epistemology and sociology of science,science as a way of knowing,or thunder my skin
e values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development (Lederman,1992).The characterizations nevertheless remain general,and philosophers, historians,and sociologists of science are quick to disagree on specific issues regarding NOS.
VIEWS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE499 The u of the phra NOS throughout this article instead of the more stylistically appropriate the NOS,is intended to reflect the authors’lack of belief in the existence of a singular NOS or agreement on what the phra specifically means(Abd-El-Khalick&Lederman,2000a).Such disagreement,however,should not be surprising or disconcerting given the multifaceted and complex nature of science.Moreover,similar to scientific knowledge,conceptions of NOS are tentative and dynamic.The conceptions have changed throughout the development of science and systematic thinking about its nature and workings(e Abd-El-Khalick&Lederman,2000a, for a broad survey of the changes).
It is our view,however,that many disagreements about the specific definition or meaning of NOS that continue to exist among philosophers,historians,sociologists,and science educators are irrelevant to K–12instruction.The issue of the existence of an objective reality compared with phenomenal realities is a ca in point.Moreover,at one point in time and at a certain level of generality,there is a shared wisdom(even though no complete agreement)about NOS among philosophers,historians,and
sociologists of science(Smith,Lederman,Bell, McComas,&Clough,1997).For instance,currently it would be difficult to reject the theory-laden nature of scientific obrvations or defend a deterministic/absolutist or empiricist con-ception of NOS.At such a level of generality,some important aspects of NOS are not controversial.Some of the latter aspects,which we believe are accessible to K–12students and relevant to their daily lives,were adopted and emphasized for the purpo of developing the VNOS:scientific knowledge is tentative;empirical;theory-laden;partly the product of human inference,imagination,and creativity;and socially and culturally embedded.Three additional important aspects are the distinction between obrvation and inference,the lack of a universal recipelike method for doing science,and the functions of and relationships between scientific theories and laws.The NOS aspects have been emphasized in recent science education reform ,AAAS,1990,1993;Millar&Osborne,1998;NRC,1996).
In this regard,individuals often conflate NOS with science process.In agreement with aforementioned reform documents,we consider scientific process to be activities related to the collection and interpretation of data,and the derivation of conclusions.NOS,by comparison,is concerned with the values and epistemological assumptions underlying the activities(Abd-El-Khalick et al.,1998;Chiappetta,Koballa,&Collette,1998).For example,obrving and hypothesizing ar
e scientific process.Related NOS conceptions include the understandings that obrvations are constrained by our perceptual apparatus,that the generation of hypo-thes necessarily involves imagination and creativity,and that both activities are inherently theory-laden.Although there is overlap and interaction between science process and NOS, it is nevertheless important to distinguish the two.In addition,(a)the generalizations pre-nted in the following discussion of the NOS aspects should be construed in the context of K–12science education,rather than the context of educating graduate students in philosophy or history of science;and(b)each of the NOS aspects could be approached at different levels of depth and complexity depending on the background and grade level of students.
The Empirical Nature of Scientific Knowledgelivereception
Science is at least partially bad on obrvations of the natural world,and‘‘sooner or later,the validity of scientific claims is ttled by referring to obrvations of phenomena’’(AAAS,1990,p.4).However,scientists do not have direct access to most natural phenomena. Obrvations of nature are alwaysfiltered through our perceptual apparatus and/or intricate instrumentation,interpreted from within elaborate theoretical frameworks,and almost always mediated by a host of assumptions that underlie the functioning of scientific instruments.
500LEDERMAN ET AL.
Obrvation,Inference,and Theoretical Entities in Science
Students should be able to distinguish between obrvation and inference.Obrvations are descriptive statements about natural phenomena that are directly accessible to the ns (or extensions of the ns)and about which obrvers can reach connsus with relative ea. For example,objects relead above ground level tend to fall to the ground.By contrast, inferences are statements about phenomena that are not directly accessible to the ns.For example,objects tend to fall to the ground becau of gravity.The notion of gravity is inferential in the n that it can be accesd and/or measured only through its manifestations or effects, such as the perturbations in predicted planetary orbits due to interplanetary attractions,and the bending of light coming from the stars as its rays pass through the sun’s gravitationalfield. An understanding of the crucial distinction between obrvation and inference is a precursor to making n of a multitude of inferential and theoretical entities and terms that inhabit the worlds of science.Examples of such entities include atoms,molecular orbitals,species,genes, photons,magneticfields,and gravitational forces(Hull,1998,p.146).
任何时候Scientific Theories and Laws
Scientific theories are well-established,highly substantiated,internally consistent systems of explanations(Suppe,1977).Theories rve to explain large ts of emingly unrelated obrvations in more than onefield of investigation.For example,the kinetic molecular theory rves to explain phenomena related to changes in the physical states of matter,the rates of chemical reactions,and other phenomena related to heat and its transfer.More important, theories have a major role in generating rearch problems and guiding future investigations. Scientific theories are often bad on a t of assumptions or axioms and posit the existence of nonobrvable entities.Thus,theories cannot be directly tested.Only indirect evidence can be ud to support theories and establish their validity.Scientists derive specific testable predictions from theories and check them against tangible data.An agreement between such predictions and empirical evidence rves to increa the level of confidence in the tested theory.
Cloly related to the distinction between obrvation and inference is the distinction between scientific theories and laws.In general,laws are descriptive statements of relationships among obrvable phenomena.Boyle’s law,which relates the pressure of a gas to its volume at a constant temperature,is a ca in point.Theories,by contrast,are inferred explanations for obrvable phenomena or regularities in tho phenomena.For example,the kinetic molecular theory rves to e
xplain Boyle’s law.Students often(a)hold a simplistic,hierarchical view of the relationship between theories and laws whereby theories become laws depending on the availability of supporting evidence;and(b)believe that laws have a higher status than theories. Both notions are inappropriate.Theories and laws are different kinds of knowledge and one does not become the other.Theories are as legitimate a product of science as laws.
The Creative and Imaginative Nature of Scientific Knowledge Science is empirical.The development of scientific knowledge involves making obrvations of nature.Nonetheless,generating scientific knowledge also involves human imagination and creativity.Science,contrary to common belief,is not a lifeless,entirely rational, and orderly activity.Science involves the invention of explanations and theoretical entities, which requires a great deal of creativity on the part of scientists.The leap from atomic spectral lines to Bohr’s model of the atom with its elaborate orbits and energy levels is an example.This
VIEWS OF NATURE OF SCIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE501 aspect of science,coupled with its inferential nature,entails that scientific entities such as atoms and species are functional theoretical models rather than faithful copies of reality.
The Theory-Laden Nature of Scientific Knowledge
Scientific knowledge is theory-laden.Scientists’theoretical and disciplinary commitments, beliefs,prior knowledge,training,experiences,and expectations actually influence their work. All the background factors form a mindt that affects the problems scientists investigate and how they conduct their investigations,what they obrve(and do not obrve),and how they interpret their obrvations.This(sometimes collective)individuality or mindt accounts for the role of theory in the production of scientific knowledge.Contrary to common belief,science never starts with neutral obrvations(Popper,1992).Obrvations(and investigations)are always motivated and guided by,and acquire meaning in reference to questions or problems, which are derived from certain theoretical perspectives.
The Social and Cultural Embeddedness of Scientific Knowledge Science as a human enterpri is practiced in the context of a larger culture and its practitioners are the product of that culture.Science,it follows,affects and is affected by the various elements and intellectual spheres of the culture in which it is embedded.The elements include,but are not limited to,social fabric,power structures,politics,socioeconomic factors, philosophy,and religion.Telling the story of hominid evolution,which is central to the biosocial sciences,may illustrate how social and cultural factors affect scientific knowledge.Scientists have formulated differing storylines about hominid evolution.Un
til recently,the dominant story was centered on the man-hunter and his crucial role in human evolution(Lovejoy,1981),a scenario consistent with the White male culture that dominated scientific circles until the early 1970s.As feminist scientists achieved recognition in science,the story about hominid evolution started to change.One story more consistent with a feminist approach is centered on the female-gatherer and her central role in the evolution of humans(Hrdy,1986).Both storylines are consistent with the available evidence.
Myth of The Scientific Method
完美小姐进化论 动漫One of the most widely held misconceptions about science is the existence of the scientific method.The modern origins of this misconception may be traced to Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum(1620/1996),in which the inductive method was propounded to guarantee‘‘certain’’knowledge.Since the17th century,inductivism and veral other epistemological stances that aimed to achieve the same end(although in tho latter stances the criterion of certainty was either replaced with notions of high probability or abandoned altogether)have been debunked,such as Bayesianism,falsificationism,and hypothetico-deductivism(Gillies,1993). Nonetheless,some of tho stances,especially inductivism and falsificationism,are still widely popularized in science textbooks and even explicitly taught in classrooms.The myth of the scientific
method is regularly manifested in the belief that there is a recipelike stepwi pro-cedure that all scientists follow when they do science.This notion was explicitly debunked: There is no single scientific method that would guarantee the development of infallible knowledge(AAAS,1993;Bauer,1994;Feyerabend,1993;NRC,1996;Shapin,1996).It is true that scientists obrve,compare,measure,test,speculate,hypothesize,create ideas and conceptual tools,and construct theories and explanations.However,there is no single quence
