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,
青春感言239Weniger Hall,Corvallis,Oregon97331
Received8April2001;Accepted10September2001
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
Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.).
阿胶怎么吃ß2002Wiley Periodicals,Inc.
考研英语翻译真题498LEDERMAN ET AL.
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 ,
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).王菲的歌
blowBefore 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).
NOS
Typically,NOS refers to the epistemology and sociology of science,science as a way of knowing,or th
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 Knowledge
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).
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.
饼干的英文
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
函的模板
Below is given annual work summary, do not need friends can download after editor deleted!!!!!! Welcome to visit again
XXXX annual work summary
Dear every leader, colleagues:
Look back end of XXXX, XXXX years of work, have the joy of success in your work, have a collaboration with colleagues, working hard, also have disappointed when encountered difficulties and tbacks. Imperceptible in ten and orderly to be over a year, a year, under the loving care and guidance of the leadership of the company, under the support and help of colleagues, through their own efforts, various aspects have made certain progress, better to complete the job. For better work, sum up experience and lessons, will now work a brief summary.
To continuously strengthen learning, improve their comprehensive quality. With good comprehensive quality is the precondition of completes the labor of duty and conditions. A year always put learning in the important position, trying to improve their comprehensive quality. Continuous learning professional skills, learn from surrounding colleagues with rich work experience, equip themlves with knowledge, the expanded aspect of knowledge, efforts to improve their comprehensive quality.
The cond Do best, strictly perform their responsibilities. Set up the company, to maximize the customer to the satisfaction of the company's products, do a good job in technical rvices and product promotion to the company. And collected on the properties of the products of the company, i
n order to make improvement in time, make the products better meet the using demand of the scene.
Three to learn to be good at communication, coordinating assistance. On‐site technical rvice personnel should not only have strong professional technology, should also have good communication ability, a lot of a product due to improper operation to appear problem, but often not customers reflect the quality of no, so this time we need to find out the crux, and customer communication, standardized operation, to avoid customer's mistrust of the products and even the damage of the company's image. Some experiences in the past work, mentality is very important in the work, work to have passion, keep the smile of sunshine, can clo the distance between people, easy to communicate with the customer. Do better in the daily work to communicate with customers and achieve customer satisfaction, excellent technical rvice every time, on behalf of the customer on our products much a understanding and trust.
Fourth, we need to continue to learn professional knowledge, do practical grasp skilled operation. Over the past year, through continuous learning and fumble, studied the gas generation, collection and methods, gradually familiar with and master the company introduced the working principle, operation method of gas machine. With the help of the department leaders and colleagues, familiar
with and master the launch of the division principle, debugging method of the control system, and to wuhan Chen Guchong garbage power plant of gas machine control system transformation, learn to debug, accumulated some experience. All in all, over the past year, did some work, have also made some achievements, but the results can only reprent the past, there are some problems to work, can't meet the higher requirements. In the future work, I must develop the onelf advantage, lack of correct, foster strengths and circumvent weakness, for greater achievements. Looking forward to XXXX years of work, I'll be more efforts, constant progress in their jobs, make greater achievements. Every year I have progress, the growth of believe will get greater returns, I will my biggest contribution to the development of the company, believe in yourlf do better next year!
光芒英文I wish you all work study progress in the year to come.
