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
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.... Research in Science Education, 29(3), 295-312
Rahayu, S & Kita, M. (2010). An analysis of Indonesian and 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
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
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 science educators in accurately portraying science to students (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)
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.
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)
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 determinewhat 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
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 isinferential, creative, and socially and culturally embedded. There are alsocompelling 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.
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
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
Table 3. Percentages of students’ responses in each aspect of NOS within the three categories.
NOS Aspect No.
Item
Category (Total response s= 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.
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) “.
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 continuously proved 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.
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 methodas 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
