primary student teachers' conceptions of the nature of science
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]On: 04 May 2013, At: 12:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal ofScience EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Primary student teachers'conceptions of the natureof scienceKaren Murcia & Renato SchibeciPublished online: 26 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Karen Murcia & Renato Schibeci (1999): Primary studentteachers' conceptions of the nature of science, International Journal ofScience Education, 21:11, 1123-1140
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006999290101
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or makeany representation that the contents will be complete or accurateor up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drugdoses should be independently verified with primary sources. Thepublisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of theuse of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 1999, VOL. 21, NO. 11, 1123- 1140
Primary student teachers’ conceptions of the natureof science
Karen Murcia and Renato Schibeci, School of Education, MurdochUniversity, Western Australia
An understanding of current views of the nature of science continues to be regarded as an importantoutcome of school science. Studies of the conceptions of the nature of science held by primary schoolteacher education students is therefore important. This article reports the conceptions held by 73 pre-service primary teachers. There were elements in the conceptions of the nature of science articulated bythis group which clearly were not in accord with modern views. For example, one in five, in manyinstances, chose responses which would be unacceptable to many modern philosophies of science.Further, many chose `don’ t know’ as a response to a variety of specific propositions about science,ranging from a low of 1.5% to 3.15% of respondents. The responses of school leavers and mature agestudents did not differ in any substantial way. In addition, the use of newspaper science reports isdescribed as a novel means to probe conceptions of the nature of science.
Introduction
How can we help future teachers of science aviod the extreme, in Loving’ s words,of `final form science . . . science which treats all knowledge claims equally’ (1997:453)? Clearly, we must help them to understand better the nature of science.
The objective of the attainment of an understanding of the nature of science iscommon to many science curriculums (Lederman 1992). The nature of scienceobjective has been expressed over time in various forms: for example, in the 1960s,the emphasis in the science curriculums of Western countries was on scientificprocess and inquiry; more recently, it has been included as a critical component of`scientific literacy’ (Lederman 1992).
In Western Australia, the nature of science objective is evident in the scienceK to 10 student outcome statements (Education Department of Western Australia1994). The Student Outcome Statements for the WA Science Curriculum weredeveloped from the national science profile and are currently being reviewed. TheWorking Scientifically strand of the Student Outcome Statements is particularlyrelevant to students’ attainment of an understanding of the nature of science;relevant statements in this strand are as follows:
. describes the ways people in their community use science;
. identifies factors that influence people’ s perceptions of science;
. uses information as a stimulus for further investigation or analyses;
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950-0693 print/ISSN 1464-5289 online # 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/JNLS/sed.htm
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/JNLS/sed.htm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
. reports on factors that have been made possible or limited the work ofparticular scientists;
. identifies advantages and limitations of controlled experiments anddescribes alternatives;
. analyses the influence certain scientists have had on the ways we think aboutthe world;
. identifies and considers ethical implications of investigative procedures; and
. analyses the interactions between scientific developments and the beliefsand values of society.
(Education Department of Western Australia 1994: 52-53)
Researchers investigating students’ attainment of this objective have generallyconcluded students hold conceptions of the nature of science which the majorityof philosophers of science would regard as outmoded (Lederman 1992, Solomon etal. 1996). It is often posited that teachers with such outmoded views do notexplicitly tackle this aspect of science education in their classrooms. To makeeffective choices, they must have an understanding of what they are attemptingto communicate to their students (Lederman 1992). Teachers need to understandthe nature of science so they can model appropriate bahaviours and attitudes.
What do pre-service primary school teachers understand to be the nature ofscience? The present study provides some answers to this question for one sampleof pre-service primary school teachers. Before reporting our results, however, weneed to sketch some developments in the philosophy of science, in order to providea context for this inquiry.
Philosophy of science
The nature of science has generally been referred to as the values and assumptionsinherent in the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman and Zeidler 1987).There are currently two main philosophical doctrines influencing science educa-tion: (1) the established, dominant view usually termed logical empiricism’ ; and(2) the current challenger of accepted ideas, or the `new’ philosophy. Abimbola(1983) describes the `new’ philosophy of science as a cumulative doctrine of dif-ferent philosophical viewpoints. Common threads emerge when the work ofphilosophers such as Feyerabend, Kuhn and Polanyi are analysed. The `new’philosophy places the continuing nature of scientific research at the core of thescientific enterprise. Further, scientific results and knowledge are to be consideredcritically and not accepted as the foundation of science. Formal logic as the maintool of scientific analyses is rejected; rather, science history and the scientific com-munity are looked to for such analyses.
It is difficult to do justice to the `new’ philosophy in a few words. For thepurpose of the present study, however, the following basic tenets of the nature ofscience, consistent with the `new’ philosophy, are proposed. These statementsreflect major ideas in the `new’ philosophy of science and are consistent with thefollowing authors: Abimbola (1983), Cleminson (1990), Lederman (1992), Ryanand Aikenhead (1992) and American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) (1993):
(1) Scientific knowledge has a temporary status and should not be acceptedas unquestionable truth;
1124 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
(2) Scientists study a world in which they are a part and as such their work isnot objective or value free;
(3) New scientific knowledge is produced as a result of creativity andimagination coupled with scientific method;
(4) Science progresses through continuing research and critical questioning;(5) Science is dynamic and ongoing, not a static accumulation of informa-
tion;(6) Observations of the world are made through coloured lenses built up by
prior knowledge, beliefs and theories; and(7) Scientists and the scientific community generally display the professional
standards of openness of mind and honesty. They are moral and ethicalin their approach to their profession.
These themes emphasize that science is essentially a human activity. Theyreject the classical positivist assumption that neutral observations are possible.Rather, observations and indeed the scientific process, are theory based andvalue-laden. Science does not provide simple solutions: it is a dynamic processbased on continous research coupled with both imaginative and criticalthought.
Before we return to our study, we must, with Alters (1997) caution againstassuming there is a single, accepted philosophical view of the nature of science.Rather, we are proposing that the `new’ philosophy presents one valid view of thenature of science, and one that is more consistent with scientific practice than theviews presented in many science curriculum materials.
Conceptions of the nature of science: undergraduate studentsand beginning teachers
The literature suggests that the nature of science is not well understood byteachers. Most of the research into teachers’ conceptions of the nature of sciencehave focused on secondary science teachers (Aguirre et al. 1990, King 1991,Koulaidis and Ogborn 1995, Abd-El-Khalick and BouJaoude 1997). These studiesuse different methods and instruments for assessing teachers’ conceptions; never-theless, they all report results which indicate teachers’ conceptions are not con-sistent with modern scientific practice.
For example, Koulaidis and Ogborn (1995) reported that a sample of 54beginning teachers and 40 pre-service science teachers viewed the scientificmethod as a defining part of science and scientific knowledge as essentially nodifferent from other forms of knowledge. Further, the participants generally dis-played a `contextualist’ view of science, incorporating Kuhn’s idea of normal andrevolutionary science, and shifting the focus from methodology to the issue ofscientific change. Even more disturbing is King’ s (1991) investigation, whichassessed the understanding of the philosophy of science of 13 pre-service scienceteachers. The author concluded the individuals participating in his study hadminimal knowledge of the history and philosophy of science; further, they couldnot suggest teaching methods which would reflect the nature of science.
By using closed or multiple-choice type questions, both King (1991) andKoulaidis and Ogborn (1995) framed their instruments within a set ofspecific philosophical assumptions. In contrast to this, Aguirre et al. (1990)
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1125D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsite
De
Pari
s 1]
at 1
2:32
04
May
201
3
assessed a larger sample of 74 pre-service science teachers with 11 open-endedquestions. The open nature of the questions was conducive to eliciting theteachers’ own conceptions of the nature of science based on individualphilosophical assumptions. The student teachers, according to the authors,expressed views on the nature of science which ranged from `na õ¨ve’ to`moderately sophisticated’ . About 40% of the students appeared to hold a naõ veconception with some responses suggesting a view of scientific knowledge beingthere to be discovered.
Secondary science teachers were also the focus of Abd-El-Khalick andBouJaoude’ s (1997) study. Their sample of 25 practising science teachers all hada science background at the university level. The authors used a multiple-choicequestionnaire, a concept map of the structure of their specific discipline and clin-ical interviews. The researchers concluded that the respondents’ conception of thenature of science was fluid and lacked coherence. Some 48% of the sample, accord-ing to the authors, were found to have naõ ve views which were not consistent withmore recent conceptions of the nature of science.
The studies cited thus far have focused on high school teachers. Thesegenerally have some grounding in university science, unlike primary teacherswho often have minimal science. For this reason, some investigators havebeen interested in primary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Forexample, Bloom (1989) analysed the conceptions of science of 80 pre-serviceprimary teachers with a questionnaire which combined six open-ended questionsdealing with science knowledge, theories and evolution with a 21-item ratingscale. A significant proportion of the respondents held an anthropocentric viewof science, and expressed vague and misinformed definitions of theories whichcontributed to their confused discussion of the topic of `evolution’ . A secondstudy of pre-service primary teachers was conducted by Abell and Smith (1994):140 students in a primary science methods course. They analysed students’responses to the question, How would you define science? and compared theirfindings with Bloom’s study. They also compared their findings with the charac-terization of science expressed in Science for All Americans (American Associationfor the Advancement of Science 1989); the statements were used as a benchmarkfor analysing the degree of `scientific literacy’ among the students. They employedthe technique of analytic induction and generated the categories of discovery,knowledge, processes of science, explanation and education. The majority ofstudents incorporated the idea of discovering or finding out about the world intheir response. The second most frequent response category was knowledge: thesestudents viewed science as a product or set of ideas. The process of science wasfrequently mentioned, often in combination with other categories. Bloom’scategorization of responses to this question revealed similar patterns. Bloomdoes, however, use different categories. The categories of body of knowledgeand process are incorporated into Abell and Smith’ s discovery category. Abelland Smith concluded that their students generally did not display a clearconception of the nature of science; on the criteria presented in Science for AllAmericans (American Association for the Advance of Science 1990), the studentscould not be considered `scientifically literate. Lederman (1992) states this as aconclusion of many such studies, regardless of the instrument used to measureconceptions.
1126 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
The study
The nature of science in Western Australian (WA) primary science
The present study contributes to the relatively limited literature on pre-serviceprimary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. We have built on theinsights generated by the studies of Bloom (1989) and Abell and Smith (1994)in Canada and the USA, respectively.
As indicated earlier, the Student Outcome Statements for the WA ScienceCurriculum were developed from the national science profile and are currentlybeing reviewed (Education Department of WA 1994). There are eight levels ofoutcome statements in this strand; the underlying assumption is that students willmove from lower to higher levels as they move through primary and then highschool science. The major themes of the `new’ philosophy of science are reflectedto some extent in the lower levels, which deal primarily with scientific methods.The influence of themes from the `new’ philosophy is more strongly present inlevels six to eight. These outcome statements are general in nature and conse-quently open to different interpretations. The way teachers interpret each state-ment will be influenced by their personal beliefs and conceptions of science. The`new’ philosophy of science reflected in these statements may not influenceteachers’ practices or the classroom environment if they conflict with the indi-vidual teachers’ s conceptions of the nature of science. Many outdated philosophi-cal assumptions about science could be developed in primary school childrenbefore they begin working at level six and beyond. This could hinder students’attainment of these higher level outcomes.
Aim
The primary aim of this study is to investigate the major conceptions of the natureof science held by a sample of pre-service primary school teachers, and particualrlyto identify any differences between mature age and school leaver students. Asecondary aim was to evaluate the use of newspaper science reports as part of aprocedure to assess these conceptions
Sample
The data are based on the responses, in week 1, of 73 volunteer students who wereenrolled in an introductory physical science unit for primary pre-service teachers.Among the group were 38 mature age and 35 school leaver respondents.
The respondents’ science background
The science discipline(s) studied by the 73 respondents in Years 11 and 12 is givenin table 1. All the school leaver respondents had completed at least one Year 11and/or 12 science subject and only seven mature age respondents had no sciencebackground at this level. Human biology was the science subject studied by thegreatest number of respondents. The physical science background of the respon-dents is not as strong as their background in biological science.
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1127D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsite
De
Pari
s 1]
at 1
2:32
04
May
201
3
Questionnaire
The questionnaire administered in Week 1 of the semester comprised three sec-tions. The first section was a set of seven, open-ended questions based on a recentreport of scientific research, `Healthy Tipple’ , from the local metropolitan dailynewspaper, a copy of which is shown here.
Stimulus material `Healthy Tipple’People who enjoy the occasional drink may be doing more harm to their health thanregular drinkers, a Newcastle University study shows. Researchers found a couple ofdrinks each day was likely to prevent a heart attack. But those who indulged in alcoholonce in a while were more likely to suffer serious illness or die. The 10 year study,published in the British Medical Journal, also warned binge drinking was far more of ahealth risk than regular moderate consumption. It looked at 11,500 cases of peoplewho had suffered heart attacks and 6000 who had not.
(Western Australian Newspaper, 19 April 1997)
This contextual stimulus provided a concrete base for respondents to articulatetheir views about the nature of science. The questions posed on the newspaperarticle were as follows:
(1) In this article, what was the researchers’ conclusion and do you agreewith it? Why or why not?
(2) What do you think is the purpose of research of this kind?(3) The article is about one kind of science. What do you think is the pur-
pose of science generally?(4) How do you think the scientific results discussed in this article were
produced? That is, what procedures were used in this research?(5) The article states, Those who indulged in alcohol once in a while were more
likely to suffer serious illness or die. Do you think this statement is ascientific fact? Explain your answer.
(6) Do you think creativity plays a role in science? Explain why you think itdoes or doesn’ t.
(7) What do you mean by the term science? Explain in your own words.
This final question is intended to reveal specific assumptions about the nature ofscience. This question, used by Bloom (1989), allowed a comparison of the respon-dents’ conceptions between the two studies.
The second section of the questionnaire comprised 15 true/false items fromthe Test of Basic Scientific Literacy constructed by Laugksch and Spargo (1996a).Each item required students to choose one of three responses: true, false or don’t
1128 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Table 1. Percentage of respondents who had studied Year 11 and 12science (n ˆ 73)
Science
Biological Physical Both None
Mature age 26 7 9.5 9.5School leavers 28 6 15 0Total 54 13 25 10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
know. This instrument is described as a test of basic scientific literacy, based onselected recommendations of the American Association for the Advancement ofScience (1990) literacy report, Project 2061: Science for All Americans. One of thethree components of this test is the Nature of Science subtest. Fifteen of the 22questions in this subtest were selected for use in the questionnaire. The itemsselected were those most relevant to the basic tenets of the `new’ philosophyproposed in this current study. A total score for this section was calculated byawarding one for a response consistent with the `new’ philosophy, zero for the useof don’t know and negative one for responses which were inconsistent with the`new’ philosophy. A detailed development of this instrument is given inLaugksch and Spargo (1996b).
The final section of the questionnaire sought background information aboutthe respondents: gender; Year 11 and 12 science experience; and any science unitsthey may have studied at a post-secondary level.
The questionnaire was piloted on five practising, primary school teachers toensure the questions were clear and generated the desired type of response. Noproblems surfaced in this trial.
Analysis
The responses to the open-ended questions were analysed using the technique ofanalytic induction, based on Abell and Smith (1994). This process involved con-tinued readings of the respondents’ comments, to reveal common patterns.Categories were generated based on these patterns. The categories were clearlydefined and illustrated with confirming responses.
The responses were classified based on this developed category system. Thesecategories were then used to derive generalizations from the data. These general-izations were validated by returning to the respondents’ comments to find con-firming and discrepant cases. A small number of responses could not be placedinto a developed category. These are reported as unable to be categorized. Finally,the percentage of school leaver and mature age student responses in each categorywere calculated.
To illustrate the analytic procedure, responses to the question, What isscience? can be used. The categories used to analyse responses to this questionare the same as those developed by Bloom (1989). After repeated reading of theresponses, it was found that four categories emerged: a study of the world, process,body of knowledge and search for new developments.
As in Bloom’s study, most respondents referred to science as a study of theworld. In this category, a number of synonyms could be identified: phenomena, theunknown, the physical world, earth, life, things, everything around us, everydaylife, natural world, aspects of life, nature and technology and matter. The termstudy was also broadened to include: finding out, explaining, predicting, learning,giving reasons, understanding and hows and whys.
The second category focused on the process or methods of science: responsesincluded: experiment, testing and research. The complexity of responses varied assome responses combined the process of science with other concepts; an exampleis: `Developing theories based upon research and scientific in order to learn moreabout how things work’ .
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1129D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsite
De
Pari
s 1]
at 1
2:32
04
May
201
3
The next category, body of knowledge incorporated responses which viewedscience as a factually based; one respondent wrote, `science is learning aboutfacts’ . Knowledge was often presented as a set of ideas that could be acquired,evident in the following statement: `To acquire knowledge about the environmentwe are in’ . The responses included terms such as factually based, knowledge,understanding and being about facts.
The final category, search for new developments dealt with responses whichmake reference to medicine, lifestyle or technology. This category was not wellrepresented in this study, nor was it in Bloom’s (1989) study.
Results
Section One: Open-ended questions
What is the researchers’ conclusion and do you agree with it? Why or why not? Aminority gave a scientifically based explanation of their agreement or disagree-ment. Included as a scientific reason were issues such as other variables possiblyaffecting results, the use of inadequate statistics and insufficient evidence or infor-mation on which to base a conclusion. Responses categorized as having no scien-tific basis generally mentioned issues relating to the respondent’ s own personalexperience or beliefs. Those who did not express any agreement or disagreementwith the conclusion mostly gave no reason; those who did give a reason noted a lackof information provided in the newspaper article: for example, `I can’ t agree ordisagree, as not enough info (is) given for me to form an opinion’ . Following arethe categories generated from the responses, with sample responses; figures inparentheses indicate the percentage of mature age students and school leavers,respectively, whose responses fitted that category: Agree/scientific base: `The con-clusion is backed up with statistics.’ (1.5, 3.5); Disagree/scientific base: `Study of11,500 people not a large percentage of the world population.’ (12.5, 4); Agree/noscience base: `I think drinking in moderation is better than binge drinking.’ (5.5,5.5); Disagree/no science base: `It eats your liver and increases your weight.’ (11,23); and, unable to be categorized (5.5, 1.5).
What do you think is the purpose of research of this kind? A significant propor-tion (45%) referred to the promotion of healthy lifestyles or improving health,perhaps because the stimulus reported research into the effects of alcohol on theprobability of heart attack. Some respondents referred to a need to inform thecommunity as a way of promoting healthy lifestyles. Following are the categoriesgenerated from the responses, with sample responses; figures in parentheses indi-cate the percentage of mature age students and school leavers, respectively, whoseresponses fitted that category: Inform public: `To inform the public of the risk ofbinge drinking’ (5.5, 15); Healthy lifestyles: `To prevent binge drinking and alco-holism and promote healthy lifestyles among the public’ (26, 19); Discovery: `Tostudy the effects drinking can have on people and its relationship to heart attacks’(8, 10); Knowledge: `To increase our knowledge about the effects of substances i.e.alcohol on humans’ (1.5, 1.5); unable to be categorized (11, 2.5).
The next question, What do you think is the purpose of science generally? wasbased on Bloom’s (1989) study. Responses, especially in the quality of life cate-gory, showed that science is seen as a means of improving healthy, lifestyle, tech-nology and the environment. Bloom noted a common theme throughout the
1130 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
responses: a common concern to `make sense out of the world’ . This conception ofscience is also evident in the current study: responses included terms such asexplain, find answers, learn, understand and gain knowledge. The category, pro-cess of science, also incorporates the idea of making sense of our world but focuseson the methods used: the purpose of science was expressed in terms of discovery,experimenting, to explore and research. Most (82%) gave a response which wasplaced in a single category. Following are the categories generated from theresponses, with sample responses; figures in parentheses indicate the percentageof mature age students and school leavers, respectively, whose responses fitted thatcategory: Process of science: `Science is about discovering, exploring, discussingand experimenting with the known and the unknown’ (16.5, 13.5); Understand theworld: `To learn more about the world and (how) things in it work’ (29, 22);Inform: `To inform people about the facts of the world’ (7, 4); Improve qualityof life: `To discover technological advances and better ways of living’ (9.,5, 12.5);no response (1.5, 2.5). Some 18% of responses to this question involved two cate-gories rather than a single category. The most frequent category used in a combi-nation was the category, improve quality of life. Combinations of this type suggestthe learning of facts, discovering the unknown or the informing the communityserves the ultimate purpose of improving the quality of human life, as illustratedby the response: `To investigate and learn about ourselves and our environment, sothat this information may some day help improve humans and their environment’ .
What procedures were used in this research? The categories developed from theresponses deal with the level of scientific complexity in the responses. The test andcontrol category incorporates responses that deal with the use of a controlledexperiment for the testing of a variable. The heart attack vs alcohol categoryincludes responses which address a relationship between these variables but donot consider science methods or research procedures: the categories data collectionand science process incorporate relatively simplistic views of scientific procedures.The specific procedural detail referred to in the stimulus article was not referredto. The responses in the data collection category made no reference to scientificprocedures beyond a method of data collection. The science process categoryincludes responses which refer to general scientific methods with no reference tothe relevant information provided. Following are the categories generated from theresponses, with sample responses; figures in parentheses indicate the percentage ofmature age students and school leavers, respectively, whose responses fitted thatcategory: Data collection: `Surveys, medical examinations of those being surveyed’(29, 23); Test and control: `Those who suffered heart attacks and those who didn’ twere asked how regularly they drank (alcohol)’ (9.5, 9.5); Heart attack vs alcohol:`Looked at a range of people who use alcohol and had a heart attack’ (7, 5.5); andscience process: `Fair tests were used, i.e. of many different kinds of people andrepeated several times’ (4, 9.5); no response (3, 0).
Those who indulged in alcohol once in a while were more likely to suffer seriousillness or die. Do you think this statement is a scientific fact? Responses varied interms of their scientific complexity. The category fact and theory includes theresponses which differentiated between the concepts of fact and theory: responsesreferred to concepts such as generalizations and a general statement relevant to thisparticular study or sample. In the science methods category responses addressedissues related to scientific methods but did not differentiate between fact andtheory. Other responses and no scientific base to them and were categorized as
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1131D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsite
De
Pari
s 1]
at 1
2:32
04
May
201
3
non-science responses: a significant group within this category referred to thetentative nature of the wording used in the stimulus article. The remainingresponses were placed in the fact category as respondents accepted this statementas fact. Following are the categories generated from the responses, with sampleresponses; figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of mature age studentsand school leavers, respectively, whose responses fitted that category: Fact andtheory: `No, it is a generalization reached from one study. It is only a theory’ (9.5,12.5); Science methods: `It takes more than one study to prove something’ (19,9.5); Non-science response: `Not a fact due to the words’ (19, 18); and Fact: `Yes,it has been researched’ (1.5, 4); no response (3, 4).
Creativity in science. Respondents were asked to consider whether creativityplays a role in science and to give a reason for their response. The majority ofrespondents expressed the conception of creativity playing some part in scientificendeavours. The role they perceived creativity to take, however, varied. The cate-gory science procedures was generated to include responses that referred to thecreativity needed to design research or experimental procedures. Other responsesdiscussed the creativity involved in generating new ideas, discovering and devel-oping technology or inventing. These types of responses were grouped in thecategory new ideas. The category limited creativity, as the title suggests, incorpo-rated responses that indicated a limited role for creativity in science. A smallproportion of responses discussed the use of creativity in the development oftheories; these responses did not discuss the role of the creativity in the generationof abstract theories and these responses were grouped in the category theories.Some expressed the belief that science was fact or truth and creativity did not havea place. Following are the categories generated from the responses, with sampleresponses; figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of mature age studentsand school leavers, respectively, whose responses fitted that category: Not a factdue to the words, Fact or truth: `Science is based in factual research’ (5.5, 4);Science procedures: `Yes, in designing experiments and research’ (18, 16); Newideas: `Yes. Without creativity nothing new would come about. Imagination is thebasis of creating something new’ (16.5, 16.5); Limited creativity: `(It) plays somerole as without it there would be less hypotheses created to study’ (5.5, 1.5); andTheories: `Yes, many concepts learned in science are theories created by scientists’(1.5, 2.5); no response (5.5, 7).
What is science? The categories used to analyse responses to this question arethe same as those developed by Bloom (1989). As in Bloom’s study, most respon-dents referred to science as a study of the world: in this category, they referred toconcepts such as discovery, investigating, searching for explanations, explainingcauses, exploration and finding out about every day life. The second categoryfocused on the process or methods of science: here the responses incorporatedideas associated with experimenting and the methods of investigation. Abell andSmith (1994) also found it useful to use a process category: 25% of responsesmentioned the processes of science but mostly in combination with another cate-gory. In the present study, ten respondents (13.5 per cent) combined categories intheir response. They most frequently did so with the processes of science. Thebody of knowledge category incorporated responses which viewed science as a setof ideas. The terms used in association with this concept are answers, facts, truth,discipline and product. The final category, search for new developments, dealtwith responses which make reference to medicine, lifestyle or technology. The
1132 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
categories, with illustrative responses, were: Study of world: `It is the study of thephysical world around us as to why or what happens’ ; Process: (i) single:`Conducting experiments and gathering research’ ; (ii) combination: `Science isabout facts and researching to prove predictions’ ; Body of knowledge: `How weexplain certain things and give evidence to support explanations’ ; and, Search fornew developments: `Research to improve technology and medicine’ . Abell andSmith (1994) developed five categories, `discovery’ , `knowledge’ , `processes’ and`explanation’ Bloom (1989) developed the additional category `education’ . Theyreported that nearly 20% of the respondents defined science education rather thanscience, perhaps reflecting their orientations as classroom teachers. The percent-age of responses to the question, What is science? is given in table 2 together withthe corresponding data from Bloom (1989). The current study reveals a distri-bution of responses similar to Bloom’s. A substantial majority of respondents inboth studies expressed a conception of science as a study of the world.
Section Two: True/false items
Table 3 displays the percentage of respondents choosing true, false and don’t knowto each of the 15 true/false items.
Discussion
On eight of the 15 true/false statements over 70% of the respondents (table 3)answered in a way consistent with the `new’ philosophy, which suggests the fol-lowing views on the nature of science. Scientists are thought to have shared beliefsand attitudes about their work and, in turn, the spreading of scientific informationis viewed as important to progress in science. It is also apparent that a strongconcept of scientists’ work being affected by personal beliefs, values and back-ground exists in the study group. This conception, combined with an awareness ofpressures to gain and maintain research funding, could have contributed to theirbelief that scientists interpret and report data in a biased way. This group, how-ever, believes scientists should not be made to feel they must reach a particularresult when carrying out an investigation.
Responses to other statements showed a relatively high degree of uncertaintyand views inconsistent with the `new’ philosophy of science. Generally the respon-dents displayed a naõ ve and unclear understanding of scientific method. This wasparticularly so in terms of the discovery of `truth’ through observations and the
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1133
Table 2. Percentage of responses to the question, What Is Science?
Present study Bloom (1989)Category n ˆ 73 n ˆ 80
Study of the world 63 85Process 21 19Body of knowledge 17 11Search for new developments 1 3No response 13 0
Note: Totals add to more than 100 per cent because some respondents gave more than one response.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
1134 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Tab
le3.
Th
ep
erc
enta
geof
resp
on
den
tsan
swer
ing
tru
e,fa
lse
an
dd
on’t
kn
ow
totr
ue
/fal
seit
em
s(n
ˆ73
)
Tru
eF
alse
Don
’tkn
ow
Sta
tem
ent
Mat
ure
Sc.
leav
erT
otal
Mat
ure
Sc.
leav
erT
otal
Mat
ure
Sc.
leav
erT
otal
Sci
enti
sts
shar
ece
rtai
nb
elie
fsan
dat
titu
des
abou
tw
hat
4034
748
1119
43
7th
eyd
oan
dh
owth
eyvi
ewth
eir
wor
kT
her
ear
efi
xed
step
sth
atsc
ien
tist
sal
way
sfo
llow
to11
1223
.534
3367
73
9.5
lead
them
wit
hou
tfa
ilto
scie
nti
fic
know
led
geS
oon
eror
late
r,th
eva
lid
ity
(i.e
.tr
uth
)of
scie
nti
fic
2218
4022
1840
812
20cl
aim
sis
sett
led
by
refe
rrin
gto
obse
rvat
ion
sof
ph
enom
ena
Th
ep
roce
ssof
pu
ttin
gfo
rwar
dan
dte
stin
gh
ypot
hes
es4
5.5
9.5
3436
7013
.57
20.5
(i.e
.p
rovi
sion
alex
pla
nat
ion
s)is
not
one
ofth
ech
ief
acti
viti
esof
scie
nti
sts
Sci
enti
fic
theo
ries
shou
ldex
pla
inad
dit
ion
alob
serv
atio
ns
24.5
20.5
4513
.511
2514
16.5
30th
atw
ere
not
use
din
dev
elop
ing
the
theo
ries
inth
efi
rst
pla
ceS
cien
tifi
cev
iden
ceca
nb
eb
iase
d(i
.e.
dis
tort
ed)
inth
e45
4590
:57
1.5
80
1.5
1.5
way
that
dat
aar
ein
terp
rete
d,
reco
rded
,re
por
ted
orse
lect
edS
cien
tist
sm
ay,
bec
ause
ofth
eir
bac
kgro
un
d,
per
son
al46
4592
31.
54
31.
54
bel
iefs
and
valu
es,
emp
has
ise
dif
fere
nt
inte
rpre
tati
ons
ofev
iden
ce
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1135In
carr
yin
gou
tan
inve
stig
atio
n,
no
scie
nti
stm
ust
be
39.5
39.5
798.
51.
59.
54
711
.5m
ade
tofe
elth
ats/
he
shou
ldre
ach
ap
arti
cula
rre
sult
Eve
nth
ough
scie
nce
isan
acti
vity
carr
ied
out
by
man
y18
422
1828
.546
:516
.515
31.5
dif
fere
nt
peo
ple
,sc
ien
ceh
ard
lyev
erre
flec
tsva
lues
and
view
poi
nts
rela
ted
toso
ciet
y(e
.g.
view
son
wom
en,
pol
itic
alb
elie
fs)
Th
esp
read
ing
ofsc
ien
tifi
cin
form
atio
nis
un
imp
orta
nt
5.5
1.5
744
4083
:53
69.
5to
the
pro
gres
sof
scie
nce
Sci
enti
fic
fiel
ds
such
asch
emis
try
and
bio
logy
hav
e7
714
39.5
31.5
715.
59.
515
fixe
db
oun
dar
ies
orb
ord
ers
Th
eb
odie
s(e
.g.
the
dif
fere
nt
gove
rnm
ent
dep
artm
ents
)38
.537
75:5
2.5
1.5
411
9.5
15w
hic
hsu
pp
lyth
em
oney
for
rese
arch
infl
uen
ceth
ed
irec
tion
ofsc
ien
ce(i
.e.
wh
ich
rese
arch
tou
nd
erta
ke)
Bec
ause
ofst
ron
gly
hel
dtr
adit
ion
sin
scie
nce
,m
ost
2520
.545
816
.525
1911
30sc
ien
tist
sb
ehav
ep
rofe
ssio
nal
lyan
det
hic
ally
(i.e
.in
am
oral
and
hon
est
way
)S
cien
tifi
cet
hic
s(i
.e.
syst
emof
mor
als)
isco
nce
rned
31.5
3062
71.
58
13.5
16.5
30w
ith
,am
ongs
tot
her
thin
gs,
the
pos
sib
leh
arm
that
cou
ldre
sult
from
scie
nti
fic
exp
erim
ents
Sci
enti
sts
can
seld
omb
rin
gfi
nal
answ
ers
tom
atte
rs31
.520
.552
9.5
9.5
1911
1829
ofp
ub
lic
deb
ate
(e.g
.n
ucl
ear
pow
eror
con
serv
atio
nof
the
envi
ron
men
t)
Not
e:T
he
`acc
epta
ble
’re
spon
seis
und
erli
ned
.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
role of these truths in answering matters of public debate. The respondents alsoshowed a poorly developed understanding of scientific theory. There was littleawareness of the social context of science and scientists’ work in the responses.Interestingly, there was not strong support for the idea that scientists behaveprofessionally and ethically.
There did not appear to be substantial differences in conceptions of the natureof science held by the mature age and school leaver respondents. For example, thepercentage of each group who chose `true’ on the 15 true/false items is very similar.The two exceptions, in which there were differences of more than 10 percentagepoints, were:
. Even though science is an activity carried out by many different people,science hardly ever reflects values and viewpoints related to society (e.g.views on women, political beliefs); and
. Scientists can seldom bring final answers to matters of public debate.
In both cases, the mature age group had a higher percentage of `true’ responses.The mean total score on the true/false items was 8 for the school leaver and 7.4
for mature age students. This was true even though all the school leavers had aYear 11 and 12 science background. Seven mature age respondents had no scienceexperience at the Year 11 and 12 level; when these mature age respondents wereremoved from the sample the mean score for this group rose to 8.
Further, there appear to be no substantial differences in the responses ofmature age and school leaver respondents to the open-ended questions. Withboth groups, many of the answers were simplistic and did not indicate a well-formed conception of the nature of science. Respondents’ comments in relationto the purpose of science generally reflected centrality of humans in science:science meets the needs of humanity by informing the community and improvingthe quality of life. There is a focus on the processes of science leading to knowledgeabout the world in which we live.
A summary of the respondents’ conceptions of science, in relation to the basictenets of the `new’ philosophy proposed in this study follow.
(1) Scientific knowledge has a temporary status and should not be accepted asunquestionable truth. Overall, responses suggest that science is perceived to be aprocess of discovery in which the truth about the world is uncovered. Scientificknowledge appears to be largely accepted as truth if there is sufficient researchevidence to support it. There appears to be minimal awareness of the tentativenature of scientific knowledge: 22% respondents only addressed the tentative nat-ure of research findings with varying degrees of complexity.
(2) Scientists study a world in which they are a part and as such their work is notobjective or value free. Respondents generally did not express opinions consistentwith this element of the nature of science. There appears to be a degree of uncer-tainty amongst the respondents regarding scientists’ ability to make objectiveobservations: 40% of respondents accepted that the validity of scientific claimscould be settled by referring to observations of phenomena, suggesting that theyview observations as objective and value free. A further 40% of respondents did notaccept this statement or agree that observations can be made objectively. A smallbut significant proportion of respondents suggest scientists’ work is value free asscience hardly ever reflects the values and view points in the wider society.
1136 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
Positivist assumptions regarding the objective nature of scientific observationswere prevalent.
(3) New scientific knowledge is produced as a result of creativity and imaginationcoupled with scientific method. Science is primarily viewed by the respondents asproviding answers to questions about the world. There appears to be a limitedunderstanding of scientists working creatively and with imagination to generateexplanations of the world in which we live. Approximately 70% of respondentsrelate creativity to either the generation of new ideas for research or the develop-ment of experimental procedures. Nearly 10% of respondents did not relate crea-tivity to science as they hold the conception that science is based on `fact’ or`truth’ . Very few respondents related creativity to the development of abstractideas; further, they generally did not show an awareness of the role creativityand imagination have taken in the development of scientific theories and models.Responses generally reflect a limited understanding of scientific method: only 20%of respondents could identify the procedures of the controlled experiment dis-cussed in the stimulus article. The majority of respondents gave a simplisticdescription of possible methods of data collection.
(4) Science progresses through continuing research and critical questioning.Respondents did not appear to have a developed conception of the role of criticalquestioning in scientific endeavours: approximately 80% of respondents showed noscientific basis to their thinking or evidence of having engaged the newspaperarticle in a critical manner. This trend is consistent with the respondents’ accept-ance of scientific knowledge as `fact’ if it has research evidence to support it. Only asmall proportion of respondents addressed the need for continuing research; thiswas generally expressed in relation to providing evidence to support scientificknowledge.
(5) Science is dynamic and continuing, not a static accumulation of information.Approximately 65% of respondents explained science as a study of the world. Theyincorporated ideas such as discovery, searching for explanations and finding outabout everyday life. Science was generally viewed as a process in which data aregathered so knowledge about the world can be uncovered. A smaller group, 16%,explained science as a body of knowledge. An underlying assumption of this con-ception is the existence of a set of facts or knowledge base: this dominant concep-tion of science suggest the respondents view science as a relatively staticaccumulation of information, rather than as a dynamic discipline.
(6) Observations of the world are made through coloured lenses built up by priorknowledge, beliefs and theories. There was little evidence that respondents appre-ciated the social and cultural context in which scientists work. However, mostrespondents (92%) accepted the possibility of scientists’ background, personalbeliefs and values affecting their interpretation of evidence.
(7) Scientists and the scientific community generally display the professionalstandards of openness of mind and honesty. Twenty-five % of respondents do notaccept that scientists behave professionally and ethically: 45% only accepted thatscientists display these qualities. A relatively large proportion, 30%, expresseduncertainty in relation to this statement. The majority of respondents alsoexpressed the belief that scientists’ research can be affected by funding and scien-tists themselves may bias evidence in the way it is selected, interpreted, recorded,or reported.
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1137D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsite
De
Pari
s 1]
at 1
2:32
04
May
201
3
Conclusion
Loving (1997: 440) noted: `There has been a revival of interest in studies dealingwith students, teachers, and scientists’ views of the nature of science and to whatextent they are congruent with current conceptions.’ Conceptions of the nature ofscience have been investigated with a variety of traditional methods, many of themlisted in Alters (1997). This study has used a newspaper science report as a sti-mulus to help participants articulate their views of the nature of science. We havefound the use of this concrete stimulus provides a rich source of information abouttheir conceptions. This approach has been used by Korpan et al. (1997), to assessscientific literacy; in their view, an understanding of the nature of science affectsthe individual’ s ability to comprehend, interpret, and evaluate information andconclusions based on scientific research. A clear and formed conception of thenature of science allows the individual to critically question media reports andadvertising which are based on scientific claims.
Positivist assumptions are still prevalent in school science: for example, scien-tists are often presented as working in an objective and detached manner, andscience is generally presented both by teachers and in resource materials, as themeans for discovering knowledge about the world in which we live. This scientificknowledge is predominantly presented as a static set of facts to be learned.Assessment guidelines and practices encourage this conception of the naturescience.
The `new’ philosophy of science endeavours to reflect the practice of science inour modern Western society. This doctrine is centred on continuing researchcoupled with critical questioning. It also views creativity as an integral part ofscientific work as abstract theories and models are produced as a result of combin-ing imagination with scientific methods. The knowledge generated is presented bythis doctrine as tentative, and as such should not be equated with `truth’ or `fact’ .The `new’ philosophy represents science as a dynamic discipline changing withdevelopments in the dominant culture. Scientists and the scientific community areboth a product and part of the society in which they live and, as such, their work isnot objective or value free. They do, however, generally conduct their work in aprofessional and ethical manner. Science was predominantly viewed, by partici-pants in this study, as a means for searching for explanations about everyday life.Science was generally presented as a process of discovery in which the truth aboutthe world is uncovered. The respondents in this study appeared to hold concep-tions of the nature of science similar to those reported by Bloom (1989) and Abelland Smith (1994).
There was minimal evidence to suggest the respondents could criticallyquestion media reports of research from a scientific perspective. Positivist idealsof objectivity and detachment in scientific research were prevalent among theserespondents. The relatively limited understanding of the nature of scienceamongst most of these pre-service primary school teachers is likely to affecttheir teaching of science in the classroom. Dated positivist assumptions aboutthe nature of science would influence students’ learning in a way which couldhinder their attainment of higher level outcome statements.
Pre-service primary school teachers could be further helped to revise theirideas by starting science units with a discussion of the nature of science.Opportunities should be provided for them to reflect on and question existing
1138 K. MURCIA AND RENATO SCHIBECI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013
conceptions. After having engaged in science activities, their conceptions couldbe challenged by suggesting reasonable alternatives to their conclusions.Pre-service primary school teachers would also benefit from using scientificmodels and theories for problem-solving, so they could appreciate them as a toolof inquiry rather than a package of facts (Abell and Smith 1994). Studying thehistory of science could enrich their understanding of the nature of science bycontributing to a better understanding of the social and cultural influences affect-ing this discipline.
Further studies into conceptions of the nature of science could make a valuablecontribution to science education. As an extension of this study it would bedesirable to investigate if teachers’ conception of the nature of science affecthow science is taught in the classroom. Do teachers who appear to hold aconception of science consistent with the `new’ philosophy reflect this in theirteaching methods and their classroom environment? This would be particularlyinteresting in light of the positivist assumptions present in many science resourcematerials, assessment guidelines and common library resources such asencyclopaedias. It should also be questioned if teachers’ conceptions of thenature of science affect students’ beliefs and learning. Do students holdconceptions of the nature of science consistent with their teacher and the classroomenvironment? If this is not the case, then what other variables could be affectingstudents’ conceptions of the nature of science? Studies into the differences betweengroups of teachers in terms of age, science background and specific teaching areawould enrich the current understanding of teachers’ conceptions of the nature ofscience. Information of this type could aid in the development of meaningfulapproaches during teacher education programmes, for clarifying the nature ofscience. Methods for this clarification should be investigated so effectiveprocedures could be incorporated into science and science methods units inteacher education programmes. An understanding of the nature of science is im-portant for pre-service students for both pedagogical and cultural reasons. This isan area in which future studies could make a valuable contribution to scienceeducation.
There are, of course, limitations to this study. The assertions made cannotbe generalized from this small sample to all pre-service primary school teachers.The assertions generated can provide an indication only of the conception of thenature of science held by the wider population of pre-service primary schoolteachers.
As Alters (1997: 48) noted: `Science education literature and organizationsclearly present that the NOS [nature of science] is a major, if not the major, goalin science education.’ Clearly, we must help future teachers of science present aview of the nature of science which is realistic. We must also be sure to be sensitiveto the differing positions held by philosophers of science: that is, we must present aposition which Loving articulated as follows.
A balanced approach involves being aware of varying positions on the nature ofscience and viewing Western science - when well done - as more of a loose config-uration of critical processes and conceptual frameworks, including various methods,aims and theories all designed to shed light on nature. All of this, however, must bedone in the context of a human endeavour that is both interpretive and tentative.(1997: 437)
CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 1139D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsite
De
Pari
s 1]
at 1
2:32
04
May
201
3
References
ABD-EL-KHALICH, F. and BOUJAOUDE, S . (1997) An exploratory study of the knowledge basefor science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673-699.
ABELL, S . and SMITH, D. (1994) What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ concep-tions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 473-487.
ABIMBOLA, I. (1983) The relevance of the `new’ philosophy of science for the science cur-riculum. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 181-193.
AGUIRRE, J., HAGGERTY, S. and LINDER, C. (1990) Student teachers’ conceptions of science,teaching and learning: a case study in preservice science education. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 12, 381-390.
ALTERS, B. (1997) Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39-55.
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1990) Project 2061: Sciencefor All Americans (New York: Oxford University Press).
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) (1993) Benchmarks forScience Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press).
BLOOM, J. (1989) Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: science, theoriesand evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401-415.
CLEMINSON, A. (1990) Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the lightof contemporary notions of the nature of science and of how children learn science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 429-445.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (1994) Science: Student OutcomeStatements. Working edition (Perth: author).
KING, B. (1991) Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philo-sophy of science. Science Education, 75, 135-141.
KORPAN, C. , BISANZ, G., BISANZ, J. and HENDERSON, J. (1997) Assessing literacy in science:evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515-532.
KOULAIDIS, V. and OGBORN, J. (1995) Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: how welldo we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273-283.
LAUGKSCH, R. and SPARGO, P. (1996a) Test of Basic Scientific Literacy. Science EducationUnit. University of Cape Town, Rodenbosch, South Africa.
LAUGKSCH, R. and SPARGO, P. (1996b) Construction of paper-and-pencil Test of BasicScientific Literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5,331-359.
LEDERMAN, N. (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a reviewof the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
LEDERMAN, N. and ZEIDLER, D. (1987) Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science:do they really influence teacher behaviour? Science Education, 71, 721-734.
LOVING, C. C. (1997) From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: science education’ sjourney through positivist-postmodern journey through positivist-postmodern terri-tory. American Education Research Journal, 34, 421-452.
RYAN, A. G. and AIKENHEAD, G. S. (1992) Student’ s preconceptions about the epistemologyof science. Science Education, 76, 559-580.
SOLOMON, J., SCOTT, L. and DUVEEN, J. (1996) Large scale exploration of pupils’ under-standing of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493-508.
1140 CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 12:
32 0
4 M
ay 2
013