DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.RC.2016.24.a1Published:
06/14/2016Issue:
Vol. 24 No. 1 (2016): January-April 2016Section:
Science EducationHistoria y filosofía de la ciencia como guía para comprender la naturaleza de la ciencia
History and Philosophy of Science as a Guide to Understanding Nature of Science
Keywords:
history, philosophy, nature of science (en).Keywords:
history, philosophy, nature of science (es).Downloads
Abstract (es)
La naturaleza de la ciencia (NOS) se considera que es un tema controvertido por los historiadores, los filósofos de educadores de la ciencia y de la ciencia. Es paradójico que todos enseñar ciencia y todavía tienen dificultades para comprender lo que es la ciencia y cómo se desarrolla y progresa. Un obstáculo importante en la comprensión de la NOS es que la ciencia es sobre todo "antinatural", es decir que no se puede aprender mediante una simple observación de los fenómenos. En la mayor parte de la historia del mundo y la filosofía de la ciencia son contenido de la ciencia "dentro" y como tal puede guiar nuestra comprensión de la NOS. Sin embargo, algunos profesores de disciplinas científicas consideran el "giro histórico" como anticuada y, por tanto, el abandono del enfoque histórico y en su lugar hacen hincapié en el modelo basado en la visión naturalista de la ciencia. El objetivo de esta presentación es mostrar que el enfoque histórico es una parte muy importante de la enseñanza de la ciencia y de hecho complementa el naturalismo. La comprensión de la NOS requiere generalmente dos aspectos de la ciencia: dominio general y dominio específico. En el aula esto puede ser ilustrado por la discusión de los modelos atómicos desarrollados en el siglo 20 que constituyen el aspecto específico de dominio de la NOS.
Abstract (en)
Nature of science (NOS) is considered to be a controversial topic by historians, philosophers of science and science educators. It is paradoxical that we all teach science and still have difficulties in understanding what science is and how it develops and progresses. A major obstacle in understanding NOS is that science is primarily ‘unnatural’, that is it cannot be learned by a simple observation of phenomena. In most parts of the world history and philosophy of science are ‘inside’ science content and as such can guide our understanding of NOS. However, some science educators consider the ‘historical turn’ as dated and hence neglect the historical approach and instead emphasize the model based naturalist view of science. The objective of this presentation is to show that the historical approach is very much a part of teaching science and actually complements naturalism. Understanding NOS generally requires two aspects of science: Domain general and domain specific. In the classroom this can be illustrated by discussing the atomic models developed in the early 20th century which constitute the domain specific aspect of NOS.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understanding about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353-374.
Bevilacqua, F., & Bordoni, S. (1998). New contents for new media: Pavia project physics. Science & education, 7, 451-469.
Chang, Y.-H., Chang, C.-Y., & Tseng, Y.-H. (2010). Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 315-331.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Deng, F., Chai, C.S., Tsai, C.-C., & Lin, T.-J. (2014). Assessing South China (Guangzhou) high school students’ views on nature of science: A validation study. Science & Education, 23, 843-863.
Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109-2139.
Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S., & Davidson, C. (1920). A determination of the deflection of light by the sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of May 29, 1919. Royal Society Philosophical Transactions, 220, 291-333.
Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9, 247-263.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S.L. (2014). From the horse’s mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639-2665.
Holton, G. (1978). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161-224.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 591-607.
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.
Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R. (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, 497-521.
Machamer, P., & Wolters, G. (2004). Introduction. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, values and objectivity (pp. 1-13). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Michelson, A.A., & Morley, E.W. (1887). On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether. American Journal of Science, 34(3rd series), 333-345.
Matthews, M.R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (20th anniversary revised and expanded edition). New York: Routledge.
Millikan, R.A. (1917). The electron. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McComas, W.F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M.P. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85, 684-690.
Niaz, M. (2005). An appraisal of the controversial nature of the oil drop experiment: Is closure possible? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 681-702.
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘science in the making’ to understanding the nature of science: An overview for science educators. New York: Routledge.
Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Niaz, M., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., & Metz, D. (2010). Leon Cooper’s perspective on teaching science: An interview study. Science & Education, 19, 39-54.
Niaz, M., & Rodríguez, M.A. (2001). Do we have to introduce history and philosophy of science or is it already ‘inside’ chemistry? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 159-164.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
Rutherford, E. (1911). The scattering of alpha and beta particles by matter and the structure of the atom. Philosophical Magazine, 21, 669-688.
Schwab, J.J. (1974). The concept of the structure of a discipline. In E.W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 162-175). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.
Smith, M.U., & Scharmann, L.C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493-509.
Smith, M.U., & Scharmann, L.C. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219-248.
Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2013). Design of chemistry teacher education course on nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2193-2225.
Wolpert, L. (1993). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wong, S.L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109-130.
How to Cite
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Download Citation
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Revista Científica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
When submitting their article to the Scientific Journal, the author(s) certifies that their manuscript has not been, nor will it be, presented or published in any other scientific journal.
Within the editorial policies established for the Scientific Journal, costs are not established at any stage of the editorial process, the submission of articles, the editing, publication and subsequent downloading of the contents is free of charge, since the journal is a non-profit academic publication. profit.
