行政院國家科學委員會補助國內專家學者出席國際學術會議報告

96 年 7 月 10 日報告人姓名

陳素芬服務機構

及職稱國立台灣科技大學助理教授

時間會議地點

96 年 6 月 24 日起至 96 年

6 月 28 日止本會核定

補助文號

NSC 95-2511-S-011-001-MY3

會議名稱

(中文) 第九屆國際歷史、哲學與科學教學研討會

(英文) the Ninth International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference

發表論文題目

(中文)大學生的學科背景與科學本質觀

(英文) College Students’ Majors and Views on Nature of Science

附件三

表 Y04

報告內容應包括下列各項：

一、參加會議經過

六月二十四日至二十八日的會議中，本人主要參加的是有關科學史融入教學，以及大學生之知識論觀點的大會演講和發表。兩類皆與我目前所從事的國科會計畫相關。

二、與會心得

這次主要是發表不同學科背景之大學生的科學本質觀，以瞭解學科知識和課程結構對學生的科學信念的影響。該場次參與者有 20 餘位，座無虛席，Michael Clough, Clark Chinn, David Rudge, Garland Allen, Eric Scerri 和 Eric Howe 等前輩均給予許多指教。尤其 Jim Ryder 針對研究法的建議，對後續分析訪談資料非常有幫助。本人所主持的場次，也因一開始的相見歡介紹而能從頭到尾保持高度互動，使參與者一致認為收穫豐富。

此外，從所參加的 session 及 plenary presentation 裡，主要的收穫如下：

1. 瞭解目前研究結果與趨勢 2. 學習運用科學史融入教學 3. 思考尚待研究的議題

三、考察參觀活動(無是項活動者省略) 無

四、建議

這次有來自 32 個國家約 200 位與會。台灣發表了大約 10 篇論文，在與 Michael Matthews 和希臘、荷蘭的學者交談時，他們都主動提到台灣是這次與會人數最多的國家之一，他們非常讚賞台灣科教領域的研究成果。我深覺與有榮焉，受到極大的激勵，更敦促本人的研究活動。感謝國科會的支持，使國內科教人士與國際科教界有此交流活動，藉此提高我們的研究水準。個人也是藉此次會議，持續與國外的合作方案，希望能為科學本質的研究開創新局。

五、攜回資料名稱及內容會議中所發表的論文摘要數十篇論文、proceedings

Journal of Educational Thought, Interchange, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 等期刊文本

六、其他

論文請見附件一

表 Y04

(英文) Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching

(英文) Research and Development of Nature of Science-Explicit Curricular Materials for the Dissolving Unit.

Research and Development of Nature of Science-Explicit Curricular Materials-Pedagogical Perspective.

Scientists’ Perspectives and Experiences of Undergraduate Curriculum Reform.

報告內容應包括下列各項：

七、參加會議經過

三月三十日至四月二日四天的會議中，本人發表三篇論文並參加 History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science、College Science Teaching and Learning 和 Educational Technology 等主題的 sessions。這些主題均與我目前所從事的國科會計畫相關。

2. 個人將於下學年度至 Boston College 進修，這次得與 Michael Barnett 教授深入、

具體地討論研究案。

3. 由於區塊研究之科學本質團隊剛於 3 月底辦理一梯次的輔導員研習，藉 Baltimore 的會議與 Brian Hand 討論 3 月底辦理的情形，並 5 月研習的方向。

九、考察參觀活動(無是項活動者省略)

附件三

表 Y04

參觀四所 Boston 地區的小學。特別是與其校長和教師的座談，瞭解其課程與教學。

十、建議

這次看到台灣科教界多位學者參與 NARST 的核心委員會。深覺與有榮焉，受到極大的激勵，更敦促本人的研究活動。感謝國科會的支持，使國內科教人士與國際科教界有此交流活動，藉此提高我們的研究水準。個人也是藉此次會議，持續與國外的合作方案，希望能在研究上更上一層。

十一、攜回資料名稱及內容會議中所發表的論文摘要數十篇論文、proceedings 參觀學校之課程資料十二、其他

附件二為發表之論文之一

表 Y04

(英文) European Science Education Research Association 發表

論文題目

(中文)線上模擬實驗所傳達之科學探究觀

(英文) The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories

報告內容應包括下列各項：

十三、參加會議經過

八月三十一日至九月四日五天的會議中，本人發表論文並參加知識論、科學本質、

Science Teaching and Learning 和 Educational Technology 等主題的 sessions。這些主題均與我目前所從事的國科會計畫相關。

表 Y04

十八、其他

附件三為發表之論文

表 Y04

附件一

College Students’ Majors and Views on Nature of Science

Sufen Chen, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

Hsiao-yu Chen, Kun Shan University, Taiwan.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between students’ science backgrounds and their views on nature of science (NOS). This study focused on

domain-independent epistemological beliefs such as the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, nature of observation, scientific methods, and objectivity and subjectivity in science, and

domain-specific beliefs regarding to theory and law. The participants were 287 junior students at two research universities in Taiwan. They were asked to complete the questionnaire Views on Science and Education and additional items regarding how various experiences had helped them to understand the questions discussed in the questionnaire. The results indicated that different science majors varied in their views on both domain-independent and domain-specific issues.

Their views were moulded by their curricula and lab work.

Correspondence to: S. Chen; email: sufchen@mail.ntust.edu.tw

Contract grant sponsor: National Science Council; Contract grant number: NSC 952522S011001MY3

表 Y04

College Students’ Majors and Views on Nature of Science

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the similarities and differences of views about nature of science (NOS) among students in different majors to identify influences of science curriculum and instruction on their NOS views. An understanding of NOS is prerequisite to scientific literacy as recognized in international reform documents (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996;

Ministry of Education, 2003). Moreover, students’ perception and image of science guides their education, research, and attitudes towards science (Estes, Chandler, Horvath, & Backus, 2003).

Their views about NOS direct their inquiry processes (Sandoval, 2003). For example, making explicitly the goal of scientific inquiry, causal explanation, effectively focuses students on making sense of data and using empirical evidence to support their claims. Students’ learning, ability of solving problems, and critical thinking are also associated with their epistemological beliefs

(Schraw, 2001). Furthermore, a few studies have revealed that epistemological beliefs are partially domain-specific and domain-independent (Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Schraw, 2001; Estes et al., 2003). These studies typically measured students’ perception of research in various fields. Not surprisingly, students hold different stereotypes regarding the measurement and subjects involved in social science, psychological, biological, and physical science research. An important question remained unsolved is how students’ epistemological beliefs are moulded by content knowledge, curriculum, and instruction in each discipline.

Unlike pervious studies that generally compared students’ image on soft science to their image on hard science, we examined the differences of NOS views among students in different majors.

The frameworks were represented in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Moreover, we focused on tenets that are deemed to be domain-independent, including tentativeness of scientific knowledge, nature of observation, scientific methods, laws and theories, and objectivity and subjectivity in science (Good, Lederman, Gess-Newsome, McComas, & Cummins, 2000; Sandoval, 2003). An exception is related to scientific laws. Philosophers of biology have pointed out that physical science searches for universal laws, while biology generally uncovers historical particulars; physical laws are often empirical, but laws in biology are likely to be mathematical truth, however

nonempirical (Sober, 1993). For example, the model that sex ratio in a population evolves to 1:1 is applicable to some species, but not to the other species. It is more a mathematical model than a result of observations. Therefore, students in biology would have different views on what counts as laws. For the other issues, difference in views among students in different majors may be owing to the curricula and instruction, rather than the content knowledge of their disciplines. The results of this study would provide strong evidence on how curriculum and instruction influence students’ NOS views.

表 Y04

Method

The subjects were 287 junior students, including 70 in physics, 51 in chemistry, 56 in biology, 36 in life science, and 74 in humanities at two research universities in Taiwan. Among them, 14.6% were preservice teachers. They were surveyed in their required departmental courses using Views on Science and Education (VOSE) (Chen, 2006a, 2006b) questionnaire and additional items regarding how various experiences had helped them to understand the issues being discussed. The biology department took a traditional approach in curriculum, which emphasized ecology and physiology. In contrast, the department of life science highlighted molecular biology and structure in learning and research, and did not stress topics such as Mendelian inheritance and ecology.

VOSE consists of two parts that assess participants’ conceptions of NOS and attitudes toward teaching NOS as well as their underlying reasons. The data of this study were drawn from the conception part of the instrument. The conception part involves ten questions. Each question is followed by several items that represent different philosophical positions. The items were

empirically derived from the learners’ perspectives instead of experts’ presumption of reasonable responses. Participants were instructed to read all items of a question before ranking on the five-point scale for each item.

The five ranking items, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” were assigned with the numbers 0 to 4. The score for each issue is an average score of several items. Priority was given to the stance that most science educators have identified and the scores of other stances were reversed. The averaged scores of the issues were then applied to statistical analyses. The data drawn from different departments were treated separately and compared using ANOVA and Tukey

Students Figure 1. Framework for study of

students’ perception of research in physical science, biology, psychology, and social science.

Science

Figure 2. Framework for study of influence of students’ science background on their NOS views.

Life science majors

表 Y04

in SPSS software.

Result

Tentativeness. 77.5% of the subjects agreed that theories will evolve more accurately and completely, and 80.5% recognized that scientific research may face revolutionary change. A significant difference was found between life science/ physics majors and chemistry majors, F(4,282)=3.26, p=.012. The students in life science and physics put emphasis on the cumulative phase of scientific knowledge, while those in chemistry strongly believed that theories will be disproved sooner or later.

Observation. The subjects across different majors performed similarly on this issue. 80.2% of them pointed out that scientists’ observations may be affected by their anticipation and

preconceptions. Half of them addressed that scientists conduct objective observations.

Scientific method. The majority of students recognized that scientists use a variety of methods to conduct research. Compared with physics and life science majors, significantly more chemistry majors claimed that scientists use various methods to obtain results, F (4,282)=2.51, p=.04.

Moreover, the participants in physics stated that no matter how the results are obtained, scientists use the scientific method to verify it in contrast to the opinions of those in chemistry. Finally, a considerably higher percentage of students in humanities (about 40%) circled uncertain or no comment on the items. They seemed to have difficulties choosing a position.

Theory and law. The subjects commonly considered that laws and theories are discovered from the natural world. However, theories are not as certain as laws. They believed if a theory stands up to many tests it will eventually become a law; therefore, a law has more supporting evidences.

Physics and chemistry majors were more likely to acknowledge that theories are constructed by scientists, compared with life science majors, F (4,282)=2.88, p=.02. Nevertheless, regarding the epistemological status of laws, physics majors were as conservative as life science majors and asserted that laws are discovered, while biology majors believed that laws are invented since there are no absolutes in nature, F (4,282)=3.32, p=.01. The humanities majors again had a high proportion addressing uncertain about the issue.

Objectivity and subjectivity. The participants’ views were generally consistent with those of Kuhn and Feyerabend: scientific activities are affected by factors such as socio-culture, paradigm,

reputations of scientists, personal beliefs, and imagination. However, the subjects argued whether scientists used simplicity and intuition to judge the merits of a theory. Even though scientific investigation is influenced by so many factors, most subjects insisted that objectivity remains the greatest value in science, and scientists triangulate data and review each other’s work to enhance the objectivity. It should also be noted that participants from different departments held distinct views about simplicity, intuition, and imagination. Those in physics deemed simplicity to be a criterion and intuition to be used for assessing a theory, but those in life science and biology disagreed with both views, F (4,282)=11.41 and 7.36, p=.001. The participants in science, physics in particular, thought that scientists use their imagination more or less in scientific research, whereas those in humanities considered that imagination is inconsistent with the logical principles of science and

表 Y04

lacks reliability, F (4,282)=13.77, p=.001.

Source of NOS views. The students felt that a few experiences were particularly helpful for them to understand the issues discussed in VOSE, including taking courses, reading general science books and biographies, research experience, contact with scientists, and peer discussion. Physics majors mainly learned from science courses, science books for the public, and biographies.

Chemistry majors obtained views of NOS from research experience and contact with scientists.

Humanities majors expressed scarce relevant experiences.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although the issues discussed in this study are mostly domain-independent, we found that different majors varied in their views. Firstly, the physics majors were more likely to recognize the factors of parsimony, intuition, and imagination in scientific investigation and theory choice.

This might be due to the emphasis of equations, mathematical calculations, and abstract concepts in their courses. Secondly, chemistry majors were less naïve about the scientific method and

discovering truth as a result of relatively more lab work involved in curriculum and contact with research faculty. The Chemistry Department required 18 credits of laboratories, while the Physics, Life Science, and Biology Departments required only 6, 9, and 14 credits, respectively. Moreover, all chemistry majors had to take 3 credits of undergraduate research, in which they were able to work closely with faculty and be involved in a research team.

Thirdly, in consistent with philosophers of biology, biology majors cast doubt on the belief that general laws exist in natural world for scientists to uncover. They also disagreed with parsimony.

These views may be domain-specific resulting from the diverse and complicated system common in biology. The life science students, however, were similar to physical science students and did not have these domain-specific views. This might be caused by the curricular approach took by the department. The Department of Life Science emphasized cell and molecular biology, biophysical chemistry, bioinformatics, and structural biology. In contrast, the Biology Department drew attention to genetics, developmental biology, plant biology, population and evolutionary biology, ecology, and biodiversity. The life science majors gradually took a physicalistic view and did not learn the epistemological particularities of the domain of biology. Finally, the students in

humanities had more naïve NOS views and often expressed uncertain about an issue.

College students and pre-/in-service high school science teachers alike trained in different science disciplines have some different NOS views. An understanding of the relationship between NOS views and majors will help science educators to consider about curriculum and pedagogy that may promote understanding of NOS for different groups of students. For example, more lab work and opportunities to conduct research with faculty may help college students to obtain informed views about scientific methods and construction of scientific knowledge. For teacher education

在文檔中數位實驗課程對高中生學習科學的影響 (頁 31-61)