Examining the Views About the Nature of Science Among Elementary Pre-service Teachers

The aim of science education is to enable children to become “science-literate.” Science literacy is defined as taking responsibility for and making decisions about situations requiring scientific understanding and having sufficient knowledge, skills, attitudes and understanding of values to put their decisions into practice. Revealing teachers’ beliefs can help to understand the types of experiences presented by teachers in their classrooms. Inadequate understandings and misbeliefs of teachers shape the first perceptions of children about the NOS when they are formally introduced with science education in their early childhood. Most of the studies were also performed with science teachers and there have been few studies conducted with preschool teachers. Therefore, the present study was directed towards determining NOS beliefs of preschool teacher candidates. To achieve this aim, Nature of Science Beliefs Scale (NOSBS), developed by Özcan and Turgut (2014), was administered to the preschool teacher candidates studying in Preschool Education Department of Buca Education Faculty at Dokuz Eylül University in the spring semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. In the study, the NOS beliefs of the teacher candidates were found to be acceptable in general. While the findings of this study are consistent with those revealed in several relevant studies in the literature

Download Full-text

STEM Education Problem Through Striking Differences Between Physics and Biology

10.31219/osf.io/4kydt ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Adib Rifqi Setiawan

Keyword(s):

Nature Of Science ◽

Stem Education ◽

Functional Relationship ◽

Theoretical Models ◽

Natural Sciences ◽

Physical Sciences ◽

P Values ◽

The Third ◽

Differences Of Opinion ◽

Biological Education

This work argues that fundamental differences of opinion as to the nature of science affect whether the “S” in STEM can really apply to all the natural sciences, which will affect how we structure and implement improvements in STEM education. The first part of the argument deals with often-taught definitions of words like “law” and “theory” that don’t really apply to much of physics. In the second part, we notes that mathematics remains inseparable from education in the physical sciences, but this is not the case in biology. Moreover, an appreciation for the worth of mathematical or theoretical models, even disjoint from experiments, is not generally a part of biological education. The third part is “the tyranny of hypotheses.” One of the “cultural” shocks I’ve had moving into biological fields is constantly hearing people talk about “hypotheses” and seeing a steady stream of bar graphs with asterisks and p-values. In physics, one almost never discusses hypotheses; rather, one test relationships between parameters, either analyzing them within some mechanistic framework, or empirically determining what the underlying functional relationship is.

Download Full-text