Secondary students’ understanding of the sociological dimension of the nature of science through the history of science

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español)
Published: Dec 4, 2018

Main Article Content

Antonio García-Carmona
Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales, Universidad de Sevilla
Spain
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-0340
José Antonio Acevedo-Díaz
Spain
Biography
María del Mar Aragón
Universidad de Cádiz
Spain
Vol. 2 No. 2 (2018), Research in science education, pages 43-54
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2018.2.2.4519
Submitted: Oct 4, 2018 Accepted: Nov 19, 2018 Published: Dec 4, 2018
How to Cite

Abstract

This article presents a meta-analysis of the results from three qualitative studies on the understanding of the sociological dimension of the nature of science (NOS) using three cases of the history of science (HOS): “Semmelweis and the childbed fever”, “The controversy between Pasteur and Pouchet on spontaneous generation”, and “Rosalind Franklin and the elucidation of the structure of DNA”. The three studies were conducted with secondary school students (15-18 years old) through a strategy based on critical reflection and debate on NOS issues. The analysis focused on determining the students’ references to the sociology of science descriptors, according to the assessment rubrics employed, that they included in their argued responses. It is concluded that the secondary students improved their understanding of how the sociological aspects influence the science development through the reflection and critical discussion around the HOS cases that were selected.

Keywords:

history of science, nature of science, secondary education, sociology of science

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1041-1060). Dordrecht: Springer.

Acevedo, J. A. (2006). Relevancia de los factores no-epistémicos en la percepción pública de los asuntos tecnocientíficos. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 3(3), 369-390.

Acevedo, J. A. y García-Carmona, A. (2016). «Algo antiguo, algo nuevo, algo prestado». Tendencias sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia en la educación científica. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 13(1), 3-19.

Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. y García-Carmona, A. (2017). Controversias en la historia de la ciencia y cultura científica. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata.

Acevedo, J. A., García-Carmona, A. y Aragón, M. M. (2015). Semmelweis y la fiebre puerperal – Texto de Historia de la Ciencia para Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Documento de trabajo. Recuperado de ResearchGate. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.13140/RG.2.1.4404.0087

Acevedo, J. A., García-Carmona, A. y Aragón, M. M. (2016). Rosalind Franklin y la doble hélice del ADN - Texto de Historia de la Ciencia para Educación Secundaria (17-18 años de edad). Recuperado de Research Gate. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36750.97603

Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., García-Carmona, A. y Aragón-Méndez, M. M. (2017a). Enseñar y aprender sobre naturaleza de la ciencia mediante el análisis de controversias de historia de la ciencia. Resultados y conclusiones de un proyecto de investigación didáctica. Madrid: OEI.

Acevedo, J. A., García-Carmona, A. y Aragón, M. M. (2017b). La controversia entre Pasteur y Pouchet sobre la generación espontánea – Texto de Historia de la Ciencia para Educación Secundaria (17-18 años de edad). Recuperado de Research Gate. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13633.56162

Allchin, D. (2004). Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88(6), 934-946.

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.

Clough M. P. (2011). The Story Behind the Science: Bringing Science and Scientists to Life in Post-Secondary Science Education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 701-717.

Clough, M. P. (2018). Teaching and Learning About the Nature of Science. Science & Education, 27(1-2), 1-5.

Dagher, Z. R. y Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1-2), 147-164.

Hodson, D. y Wong, S. L. (2017). Going Beyond the Consensus View: Broadening and Enriching the Scope of NOS-Oriented Curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3-17.

Irzik, G. y Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999-1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667-682.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. En S. K. Abell y N. G. Lederman (eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martins, A. F. P. (2015). Natureza da Ciência no ensino de ciências: uma proposta baseada em “temas” e “questões”. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 32(3),703-737.

Ruiz-Corbella, M. y López Gómez, E. (2017). El Meta-análisis como metodología de investigación en educación. Aula Magna 2.0. Recuperado de: https://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/3064

Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. Introducing qualitative methods series. London: Sage.

Wallace, J. (2017). Teaching NOS in an age of plurality. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 1-2.