Representations of nature of science in U.S. science standards: A historical account with contemporary implications
Representations of nature of science in U.S. science standards: A historical account with contemporary implications
复制标题
美国科学标准中科学本质的表述：具有当代意义的历史叙述
DOI：
10.1002/tea.21551
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
F. Abd‐El‐Khalick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ryan Summers;Sahar Alameh;Jeanne L. Brunner;John Maddux;R. Wallon;F. Abd‐El‐Khalick
这项研究评估了美国国家科学标准中科学本质（NOS）的表述，并研究了这些表述在20世纪80年代至2016年期间的变化。从对科学方法论的共识视角和以往侧重于文本内容分析的研究出发，对文献进行了10个目标科学方法论方面的考察：经验性、尝试性、推理性、创造性、理论驱动性和社会性科学方法论，以及“科学方法论”的神话、科学理论和规律的本质、科学的社会和文化嵌入性。分析了来自48个州的98份州文件，并从34个州收集了多个版本。此外，评估了下一代科学标准（NGSS）的相关材料对相同NOS方面的覆盖。收集的材料作为整个文件进行评分，包括超过11，000页的文本，每个目标方面，反映了文本中NOS的处理（天真与知情）和呈现方式（显式与隐式）。总体而言，令人惊讶的是，在过去的30年里，国家标准文件在NOS覆盖范围方面几乎没有改善。NOS标准文件对NOS的大多数关键方面保持沉默，并且显示明确的、知情的表示的方面的数量保持不变。与许多当代文件相比，NGSS表现良好，但它们未能以理想的方式解决所有目标NOS方面的问题。进一步的分析提出了关切的程度，国家充分采用和传播的方式与NGSS一致的标准，尽管声明的意图，这可能会产生负面影响NOS覆盖的教学资源和课堂法规。为了提高NOS表示的标准，认识到这些文件中发挥的作用，在塑造教材和教学中的科学课堂，从分析材料的例子突出了多个方面的知情和明确的表示。
This study evaluated the representations of nature of science (NOS) in U.S. state science standards, and examined the changes in these representations from documents advanced in the 1980s through 2016. Drawing from the consensus perspective on NOS and prior studies focusing on the analysis of textual content, documents were inspected for 10 target NOS aspects: the empirical, tentative, inferential, creative, theory‐driven, and social NOS, in addition to the myth of “The Scientific Method,” the nature of scientific theories and laws, and the social and cultural embeddedness of science. Ninety‐eight state documents from 48 states were analyzed and multiple editions were collected from 34 states. Additionally, relevant materials from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were assessed for their coverage of the same NOS aspects. Collected materials were scored as whole documents, including over 11,000 pages of text in total, on each target aspect, which reflected the treatment (naïve vs. informed) of NOS in text and the manner of presentation (explicit vs. implicit). Overall, surprisingly, state standards documents have improved very little with respect to their NOS coverage over the last 30 years. NOS standards documents remain silent on a majority of key aspects of NOS, and the number of aspects showing explicit, informed representations has held constant. TheNGSSperformed well compared to many contemporary documents, but they failed to address all target NOS aspects in a desirable manner. Further analysis raised concerns with the degree that states fully adopt and disseminate standards in manner consistent with theNGSSdespite stated intentions, which may negatively impact NOS coverage in instructional resources and classroom enactments. To improve NOS representations in standards, recognizing the role these documents play in shaping instructional materials and teaching in the science classroom, exemplars from analyzed materials were highlighted with informed and explicit representations of multiple aspects.