indonesian preservice chemistry teachers’ views …fmipa.unj.ac.id/smte/sites/default/files... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
21/11/2015
1
INDONESIAN PRESERVICE CHEMISTRY
TEACHERS’ VIEWS ABOUT THE NATURE OF
SCIENCE (NOS)
SRI RAHAYU
Department of Chemistry
Faculty of Mathematics & Science
Universitas Negeri Malang (UM)
Email: [email protected]
http://www.um.ac.id/en/
Invited Paper for 8th SMTE International Conference on 21-24 November 2015 held at Sari Pan Pacifik Hotel, Jakarta, Indonesia
Job: Lecturer & Coordinator of Study
Program for Master and Doctor
in Chemistry Education, Graduate
School of UM
Institution: Chemistry Department,
Faculty of Mathematics & Science,
Universitas Negeri Malang (UM)
Education:
Bachelors in Chemistry Education (IKIP
Malang)
Master in Science Education (Deakin
University, Australia)
Doctor of Philosophy in Science Education
(Okayama University (Joint Graduate
School, Japan)
Teaching Duty:
General Chemistry
Research Methods in Chemistry Education
Chemistry Instructional Program
Development
Assessment in Chemistry Education
21/11/2015
2
About Me Research Interest Thema:
Scientific Literacy in Chemistry Education Imroving students’ HOTS in Chemistry Conceptual Change Approach for
Remediating & Preventing Misconceptions in Chemistry
International Publications:
Rahayu, S & Tytler, R. (1999). Progression in primary school children's conceptions of burning.... Researchin Science Education, 29(3), 295-312
Rahayu, S & Kita, M. (2010). An analysis of Indonesianand Japane.... International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8 (4), 667-688.
Rahayu, S., Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A.L., Kita, M., & Ibnu, S. (2011). Assessment of electrochemical concepts... Research in Science and Technological Education, 29(2), 169-188.
Rahayu, S., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D.F., Kita, M., & Ibnu, S. (2011). Understanding acid-base concept...International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9 (6), 1439-1458
Rahayu, S. 2015. How to evaluate affective dimension in Chemistry Education. In Kahveci, M. & Orgill, M. (Eds). Affective dimensions in chemistry education. Nederland: Springer
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULT & DISCUSSION
IMPLICATION
Indonesian Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Views About NOS
21/11/2015
3
Scientific
literacy
It is commonly portrayed as the ability to make
informed decisions on science and technology–
based issues.
It is linked to deep understandings of scientific
concepts, the processes of scientific inquiry, and
the nature of science (NOS).
Is an effort to reform education.
Is attempts at developing scientific literacy by
incorporating local wisdoms and the learning outcomes
(cognitive, affective and skills ) (BNSP, 2013).
is to strengthen teaching learning process by using
scientific inquiry as a teaching approach (i.e. teachers
are urged to implement the steps of observing,
questioning, collecting data, reasoning and
communicating).
The use of scientific inquiry will help to ensure that students
develop a deep understanding of science and scientific
inquiry since they learn through inquiry how to do science,
learn about the nature of science and learn the science
content.
Indonesian context
21/11/2015
4
Effective Chemistry
Teaching
Strengthening teachers’
understanding of NOS
Prerequisite for
Strong Understandings
of NOS
Familiar with what scientist do &
think
(Prospective)
Chemistry Teacher
When implementing
scientific inquiry
IS typically refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992, 2007).
is a fundamental domain for guiding scienceeducators in accurately portraying science tostudents (McComas, Clough & Almazroa, 2002,p.5).
Therefore, students’ understanding of the NOS, its presuppositions, values, aims, and limitations should be encouraged and this is one of important goals of science teaching.
THE NATURE OF SCIENCE (NOS)
21/11/2015
5
1. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS NECESSARY TO INVOLVE OBSERVATION
AND INFERENCE.
Observations are descriptive statements about natural
phenomena that are “directly” accessible to the senses
and about which several observers can reach consensus
with relative ease (Lederman, Lederman, & Antink, 2013).
By contrast, inferences are statements about phenomena
that are not “directly” accessible to the senses (Lederman,
Lederman, & Antink, 2013). The inference is the result of a
mental process which attempts to explain or speculate
about that observation.
Scientific models (e.g. atom, molecules) are inferred
constructs that help to explain observable phenomena.
Therefore, the scientific models are not copies of reality.
Scientific theories are analogous to scientific models in the
sense that theories are inferred explanations for observable
phenomena (McComas, 1998).
Laws are statements or descriptions of what happens among
observable phenomena (Lederman, Lederman, & Antink,
2013: Robertson, 2009). For example, the law of conservation
of mass in chemistry.
Theories generally provide mechanisms that explain the
things we observe. For example, the kinetic molecular theory
serves to explain phenomena that relate to changes in the
physical states of matter, others that relate to the rates of
chemical reactions, and still other phenomena that relate to
heat and its transfer. The kinetic theory of gases qualifies as a
theory because it provides a mechanism rather than just a
description of results. The kinetic theory of gases will never
become a law. If a theory is any good, it explains a law. The
highest award for a theory is that it is a good theory, not that
it becomes a law (Robertson, 2009).
2. THERE IS A CRUCIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC LAWS AND THEORIES.
21/11/2015
6
This means that science is based on and/or derived
from observations of the world around us from
which interpretations are made. Scientists depend
on empirical evidence to produce scientific
knowledge. Any scientific explanation must be
consistent with empirical evidence, and new
evidence brings the revision of scientific
knowledge.
3. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS EMPIRICALLY BASED.
Scientists do strive to be objective, but it is just not
possible to make truly objective observations and
interpretations without any bias. Individual scientist have
theoretical commitments, beliefs, previous knowledge,
training, experiences, and expectations actually influence
their work (Lederman, 2007, p. 834). Different scientists can
interpret the same datasets differently. All these background
factors form a mind-set that affects the problems scientists
investigate and how they conduct their investigations. This
scientist mind-set account for the role of subjectivity in the
production of scientific knowledge.
4. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS SUBJECTIVE (THEORY-LADEN)
21/11/2015
7
Science affects and is affected by the various
elements (e.g. politics, economics, power structures,
religion and philosophy) and intellectual spheres of the
culture in which it is embedded” (Lederman et al.,
2002, p. 501). The values of the culture also determine
what and how science is conducted, interpreted,
accepted, and utilized (Schwartz, Lederman, &
Crawford, 2004: 613). The practice of acupuncture, for
example, was not accepted by western science until
western science explanations for the success of
acupuncture could be provided (Lederman, 2007:
834), Therefore, the direction and the products of
science will be also influenced by the society and the
culture in which the science is conducted.
5. SCIENCE AS A HUMAN ENTERPRISE IS PRACTICED
IN THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER CULTURE, AND ITS
SCIENTISTS ARE THE PRODUCT OF THAT CULTURE.
Scientist use a systematic approach called scientific inquiry in an
effort to answer their questions of interest. The approach includes
traditional science processes (e.g. observing, inferring, classifying,
predicting, measuring, questioning, interpreting and analyzing
data), scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop
scientific knowledge (Lederman & Lederman, 2012). There is no
prescribed sequence of the approach or a stricky determined
way to answer the question or to solve a problem. Scientific
problems can be solved by different methods and the selection of
a successful method is determined by conditions (Lederman et
al., 2002; McComas & Olson, 1998; Osborne et al., 2003).
Therefore, the scientific method steps drawn in the school
textbooks or university textbooks is not the only method that leads
to reliable results.
6. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL STEP-BY-STEP SCIENTIFIC METHOD
21/11/2015
8
Scientific claims change as new evidence, made possible
through advances in theory and technology, is brought to
bear on existing theories or laws, or as old evidence is
reinterpreted in the light of new theoretical advances or
shifts in the directions of established research programs.
Tentativeness in science does not only arise from the fact
that scientific knowledge is inferential, creative, and socially
and culturally embedded. There are also compelling logical
arguments that lend credence to the notion of
tentativeness in science.
7. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE INCLUDING “FACTS,”
THEORIES, AND LAWS, IS TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO
CHANGE ALTHOUGH IT IS RELIABLE AND DURABLE
Research Question:
What are prospective chemistry teachers’ view
of the NOS, particularly with regard to the
general aspects of NOS such as the
tentativeness, empirical-based, observation and
inference, creativity, subjective, universal
scientific method, scientific theory and laws,
socially and culturally embedded?
The findings of this study may inform stakeholders about the
current state of prospective chemistry teachers’ understanding of
the NOS and, subsequently, inform the design and
implementation of program and curricula that promote
understanding of the NOS at the teacher education level.
21/11/2015
9
Participants
64 prospective chemistry teachers (a 3-year Teachers’
preparation program at the State University of Malang
Indonesia.
The subject was chosen as convenient sample.
According to Carey and Stauss (1970), students’
understanding about the nature of science did not
depend on the number of college science courses
they had taken, or their grade point average.
Therefore, the use of any grade could not influence
their current understandings of nature of science. The
participants had taken almost all of the compulsory
requirements in chemistry (e.g., general, organic,
analytical, inorganic, and physical chemistry,
biochemistry). They took also the chemistry teaching
methods and learning and instructions courses.
The survey instrument was a questionnaire called the
Nature of Science Profile (NOSP) (Table 1).
The questionnaire consisted of 17 open ended
questions which were adopted from: View of NOS
form-B (VNOS-B) (Lederman, 2002), VNOS-C
instruments (Lederman, Khalick, Bell, dan Renee,
2002), open ended questionnaires (Lederman, Abd-
El- Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Abd-El-Khalik &
Dogan, 2008), and interview protocol (Lederman,
Khalick, dan Bell, 1998).
The questionnaire addressed 8 aspects of NOS: the
tentativeness, empirical-based, observation and
inference, creativity, subjective, universal scientific
method, scientific theory and laws, socially and
culturally embedded. The questionnaire was
validated by a chemistry educator in terms of
wording.
The Instrument
21/11/2015
10
NOSP questionnaires were administered to 93 Year 3
undergraduate students at State University of Malang,
only complete responses were counted as research data
and the data were collected from 64 undergraduate
students.
15 Selected participants were interviewed using structure
interview procedures.
Each response in each item was then recoded and
triangulated with interview responses.
Data Collection and Analysis
In data analysis, the author read each response
carefully and interpreted it into three groups: (1)
informed views; (2) partly informed views; and (3)
naïve views. These categories were adapted from
Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick (2008). After that, the author
asked a chemistry educator to independently
analyze the subset data and ask to categorize into
the three groups. The agreement rate of both
researcher and chemistry educator was 98%. The
disagreement of interpretation was resolved through
the discussion.
This co-judging was done to improve the reliability of
the findings. Table 2 shows illustrative examples of
responses to NOSP items within the three categories.
Table 2
Illustrative examples of
responses to NOSP items
21/11/2015
11
Table 3. Percentages of students’ responses in each aspect of
NOS within the three categories.
NOS Aspect No.
Item
Category
(Total responses= 1088) Total
Informed
Views
Partly Informed
Views
Naïve Views
Tentative (subject to change) 1 40(62.5%) 19(29.7%) 5(7.8%) 64(100%)
2 47(73.4%) 15(23.4%) 2(3.1%) 64(100%)
Empirically based 3 39(60.1%) 22(34.4%) 3(4.7%) 64(100%)
4 44(68.8.0%) 15(23.4.2%) 5(7.8%) 64(100%)
Observation and inference 5 18(28.1%) 11(17.2%) 35(54.7%) 64(100%)
6 22(34.4%) 13(20.3%) 29(45.3%) 64(100%)
Inference, imagination, &
creativity
7 45(70.3%) 7(10.9%) 12(18.8%) 64(100%)
8 47(73.4%) 5(7.8%) 12(18.8%) 64(100%)
Subjective (theory laden) 9 59(92.2%) 4(6.3%) 1(1.6%) 64(100%)
10 54(84.4%) 6(9.4%) 4(6.3%) 64(100%)
Step-by-step scientific
method
11 5(7.8%) 2(3.1%) 57(89.1%) 64(100%)
12 4(6.3%) 1(1.6%) 59(92.2%) 64(100%)
Scientific theories and laws. 13 2(3.1%) 2(3.1%) 60(93.8%) 64(100%)
14 2(3.1%) 1(1.6%) 61(95.3%) 64(100%)
15 1(1.6%) 1(1.6%) 62(96.9%) 64(100%)
Socially and culturally
embedded
16 55(85.9%) 3(4.7%) 6(9.4%) 64(100%)
17 63(98.4%) 1(1.6%) 0(0.0%) 64(100%)
Total: 1088
The results of the study show that the
distribution of students’ responses among the
‘‘informed’’, ‘‘partly informed’’ and ‘‘naïve ’’
categories were varied across questions or
lack of coherence.
Most of the students (ranged between 60% -
98%) hold “informed views” of NOS in the
aspects of: tentativeness; empirical-based;
inference, imagination, & creativity;
subjective (theory laden); and socially and
culturally embedded.
In the contrary, most of the students (ranged
between 89% - 97%) hold “naïve views” of
NOS in the aspects of: step-by-step scientific
method and scientific theories and laws.
21/11/2015
12
For the NOS aspect of observation and inference, it
could be seen that they hold mixed views between
naïve (averaged 50%), informed (averaged 18%) and
partly informed views (averaged 19%).
Similar findings on the lack of coherence of NOS views
had also hold by in-service secondary science teachers
reported by other studies (e.q. Abd-El-Khalick and
BouJaoude (1997), particularly on the aspect of
relationship between scientific theories and laws and
the existence of a universal step-by-step scientific
method.
Furthermore, they reported that although all participants
expressed some views that were consistent with current
conceptions of NOS, the larger majority held naive views
of crucial NOS aspects, such as relationship between
scientific theories and laws, and the existence of a
universal step-by-step scientific method. Their findings
were rather similar to the findings of this study.
EXAMPLES OF STUDENTS’ RESPONSES
“A theory is a tested explanation of basic natural phenomena. Note that we cannot prove a theory absolutely. It is always possible that further experiments will show the theory to be limited or that someone will develop a better theory”.
“a law is a concise statement or mathematical equation about a fundamental relationship or regularity of nature”. (Ebbing & Gammon, 2009:4)
Aspek NOS: Relationship between scientific theories
and laws,
“A theory is a well-tested, unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. Theories are the cornerstone of our understanding of the natural world at any given time. Remember, though, that theories are inventions of the human mind. Theories can and do change as new facts are uncovered.” law—a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a behavior or a relation that seems always to be the same under the same conditions” (Kotz, Treichel& Townsend, 2012:4) “.
Kotz, C., John, Treichel, M., Paul, & Townsend, R., John. 2012. hemistry & Chemical Reactivity, Eighth Edition. USA : Brooks/Cole.
Ebbing, D., Darrel & Gammon, D., Steven. 2009. General Chemistry Ninth Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
21/11/2015
13
The Questions:
1. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Explain
your answer!
2. Is it possible that a scientific theory turns into a scientific law when
supported by evidence? Explain your answer.
3. Does a scientific law have high status that a scientific theory? Explain
your answer.
Examples of Students’ Responses (Naive views):
“ Yes, law is regularity form while a theory is statement. A theory can change while a law has higher position than theory” (for Q3)
“Yes, because in constructing a theory, at the beginning a hypotheses is constructed then examined and if it is continuouslyproved the hypotheses will become a theory. A theory that continuously proved can change into a law” (for Q2)
“Law is a development of a theory supported by evidences and has beed proven.” (for Q1)
Aspek NOS: the existence of a universal step-by-
step scientific method
Silberberg & Martin (2010: 8) stated that “If we
could break down a “typical” modern scientist’s
thought processes, we could organize them into
an approach called the scientific method. This
approach is not a stepwise checklist, but rather
a flexible process of creative thinking and testing
aimed at objective, verifiable discoveries about
how nature works. Note, however, that there is
no typical scientist and no single method, and
that luck or a “flash” of insight can and often has
played a key role in scientific discovery.
Silberberg, S.,Martin. 2010. Principles of General Chemistry. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
21/11/2015
14
Students’ Responses (Naive views):
“Yes. All scientists use the same scientific method to solve problems because the scientific method has been patent that make the result valid” (for Q1)
“Yes, because the steps in scientific method can facilitate scientists in their research and the research will have direction”. (for Q2)
Yes, correct. Because step-by-step in scientific method has been a very scientifically complete research and each researcher must follow the established method although his research is not always successful. (for Q1)
1. Do all scientists especially in the field of chemistry use similar
scientific method when they solve problems?
2. The best scientists/chemists are those who follow the steps of
the scientific method. Explain what you think about this
statement.
The questions:
The study show that the distribution of students’ responses among
the ‘‘informed’’, ‘‘partly informed’’ and ‘‘naïve ’’ categories were
varied across questions or lack of coherence. Therefore, it is
important to strenghten students’ conceptions of NOS, especially on
the aspect of observation and inference, relationship between
scientific theories and laws and the existence of a universal step-by-
step scientific method as they should implement scientific inquiry
based on the New curriculum 2013.
However, simply possessing valid conceptions of NOS does not
necessarily result in improved student conceptions of science
content. Teachers or prospective teachers should also stress on
higher level thinking skills, problem solving, and frequent higher level
questioning (Lederman, 1992).
Therefore, asking teachers to learn about, experience, and reflect on
inquiry-based instruction in conjunction with explicit instruction on the
NOS may be a valuable strategy to improve teachers’ views of the
NOS (Schwartz, Lederman, and Crawford, 2004),
21/11/2015
15