Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextualized Questionnaire for Investigating Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Procedure and Principles for Elaboration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Teaching Science with Context

Part of the book series: Science: Philosophy, History and Education ((SPHE))

Abstract

The chapter signalizes the importance of the research on Nature of Science (NOS), illustrating how it is maturing in Brazil. The work reports on the procedure employed during the elaboration of a contextualized instrument using Ecology as a model for investigating NOS conceptions among Biological Science undergraduates. The authors propose orientation and principles that contribute toward research procedures, justifying the epistemological and methodological decisions. They also present strategies used for evaluating instrument efficacy, with a question grid constructed, in addition to the procedure and the principles adopted. This strategy furnished an explicit and critical manner of creating new questionnaires that deepened the analysis of the students’ conceptions of NOS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Such as: Robinson (1965), Duschl (1985), Lederman (1992), Matthews (1992), Monk and Osborne (1997), McComas et al. (1998), Seroglou and Koumaras (2001), Abd-El-Khalick (2012), and Allchin (2013).

  2. 2.

    Such as: Osborne et al. (2003), Lederman (2007), and Paraskevopoulou and Koliopoulos (2011).

  3. 3.

    Such as: Lederman (1992, 2007), McComas et al. (1998), Stanley and Brickhouse (2001), Osborne et al. (2003), McComas (2008), and Abd-El-Khalick (2012).

  4. 4.

    Such as: Laudan (1981), Allchin (2015), and Romero (2016).

  5. 5.

    Such as: Gliem and Gliem (2003), Kline (2005), and Maroco and Garcia-Marques (2006).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). The evolving landscape related to assessment of nature of science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 621–650). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1973). The measurement of high school students’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 539–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science–Technology–Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. Saint Paul: SHiPS Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2015). Correcting the ‘Self-correcting’ mythos of science. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 10, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, N. H., & Scarpa, D. L. (2017). A systematic review of studies about conceptions on the nature of science in science education. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 17(2), 621–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiGiuseppe, M. (2014). Representing nature of science in a science textbook: Exploring author–editor–publisher interactions. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1061–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science: Twenty-five years of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathematics, 85(7), 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, A. C. (1999). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. São Paulo: Editora Atlas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Pérez, D., Montoro, I. F., Alís, J. C., Cachapuz, A., & Praia, J. (2001). Para uma imagem não deformada do trabalho científico. Ciência and Educação, 7(2), 125–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest research to practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education (pp. 82–88). http://www.alumni-osu.org/midwest/proceeding.html. Accessed 20 Jul 2016.

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology, The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science (Vol. 19). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, J. H. (1999). Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos, 84, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 831–880). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 600–620). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Student’s perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manassero, M. A., & Vázquez, A. A. (2001). Instrumentos y métodos para la evaluación de las actitudes relacionadas con la ciencia, la tecnología y la sociedad. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 1(20), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroco, J., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2006). Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas. Laboratório de Psicologia, 4(1), 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1992). History, philosophy and science teaching: The present rapprochement. Science & Education, 1(1), 11–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Almazora, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, R. P. (1987). Pluralism in ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18, 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B. G. (1992). Research methods in physics and biology. Oikos, 64, 594–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B. G. (2001). Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific? Biological Reviews, 76, 255–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1373–1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oviedo, H. C., & Campo-Arias, A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 34(4), 572–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Science & Education, 20(10), 943–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parassuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. T. (1965). Science teaching and the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, F. (2016). Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 60(A), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A. (2008). Biology. In M. Curd & S. Psillos (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 511–519). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P. (2001). The contribution of the history of physics in physics education: A review. Science & Education, 10(1–2), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1997). Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science, 64, 458–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching science: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85(1), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Nathália Helena Azevedo & Daniela Lopes Scarpa

Authors
  1. Nathália Helena Azevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Lopes Scarpa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathália Helena Azevedo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Maria Elice de Brzezinski Prestes

  2. Institute of Physics of São Carlos, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Cibelle Celestino Silva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Azevedo, N.H., Scarpa, D.L. (2018). Contextualized Questionnaire for Investigating Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Procedure and Principles for Elaboration. In: Prestes, M., Silva, C. (eds) Teaching Science with Context. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74036-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74036-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74035-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74036-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation