Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Korean University Students' Philosophical Stances of Understanding Atomic Structure in terms of the Lakatosian View

  • Published : 2005.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to investigate Korean university students' understanding of the structure of the atom based on a Lakatosian view. In this study, we examined twenty-three Korean university students' understandings of atomic structure using an open-ended questionnaire. The participants were all junior students majoring in chemistry education in Korea. The characteristics of students' understanding were categorized into three philosophical stances based on the classification criteria. Assertions were constructed concerning students' written descriptions of the development of scientific knowledge with respect to atomic structure: (a) characteristics of positivist response; (b) characteristics of transitional response; (c) characteristics of Lakatosian response; and (d) tendencies in students' responses.

Keywords

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
  2. Achinstein, P. (1991). Particles and waves: Historical essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Oxford University Press
  3. Blanco, R. & Niaz, M. (1998). Baroque Tower on a Gothic Base: A Lakatosian Reconstruction of Students' and Teachers' Understanding of Structure of the Atom. Science and Education, 7, 327-360 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008641112709
  4. Burbules, N.C., & Linn, M.C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence of contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 227-241 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130302
  5. Casti, J. L. (1989). Paradigms lost: Images of man in the mirror of science. New York, NY: Morrow
  6. Coxhead, P., & Whitfiel, R.C. (1975). Science understanding measure: Test manual. Birmingham: University of Aston
  7. Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559904
  8. Duschl, R.A., & Gitomer, D.H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839-858 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280909
  9. Eichinger, D.C., Abell, S.K. & Dagher, Z.R.( 1997). Developing a Graduate Level Science Education Course on the Nature of Science. Science & Education, 6, 417-429 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008673508960
  10. Gilbert, J.K., & Swift, D.J. (1985). Toward a Lakatosian analysis of the Piagetian and alternative conceptions research programs. Science Education, 69, 681-696 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690510
  11. Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children's understanding of science: some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24, 41-52 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01447339
  12. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of 'the atom'. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993-1009 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416875
  13. Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C., & Noh, T. (2004). Examining students' views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314-334 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20053
  14. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. (3rd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  15. Kitchener, R.F. (1987). Genetic epistemology, equilibration and the rationality of scientific change, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 18, 339-366 https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(87)90024-0
  16. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  17. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  18. Lederman, N.G. & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students perceptions of tentativeness in science: development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207
  19. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  20. Matkins, J.J., Bell, R., Irving, K. & McNall, R.(2002). Impacts of Contextual and Explicit Instruction on Preservice Elementary Teachers' Understandings of the Nature of Science, Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Charlotte, NC, January 10-13, 2002
  21. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P. & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of sCIence in science education. In McComas, W.F.(Eds.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies(pp.3-36). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
  22. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press
  23. Niaz, M. (1993). Competing Research Programs in Science Education: A Lakatosian Interpretation. Interchange, 24, 181-190 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01447347
  24. Niaz, M. (1994). Enhancing thinking skills: Domain specific/domain general strategies-A dilemma for science education, Instructional Science, 22, 413-422 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00897976
  25. Niaz, M. (1995). Progressive transitions from algorithmic to conceptual understanding in student ability to solve chemistry problems: A Lakatosian interpretation. Science Education, 79(1), 19-36 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790103
  26. Niaz, M. (1998). A Lakatosian conceptual change teaching strategy based on student ability to build models with varying degrees of conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Science & Education, 7, 107-127 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008671632536
  27. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Argumnts, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students' understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10035
  28. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  29. Rowell, J.A., & Cawthron, E.R. (1982). Images of science: An empirical study. European Journal of Science Education, 4, 79-94 https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528820040109
  30. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational researcher, 15, 4-14
  31. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409-421 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290408
  32. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching, Synthese, 80, 121-140 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869951