Decisions involved in the development and validation of a contextualized questionnaire about nature of science views
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2017v22n2p57Keywords:
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, conceptions, questionnaire elaboration, nature of science (NOS), methodological practicesAbstract
Due to the importance that Nature of Science (NOS) has received in science teaching research, we reported on the procedures employed during the elaboration of a contextualized instrument that uses Ecology as a model for investigating NOS views among Biological Science undergraduates. We proposed orientation and principles that can contribute towards appropriate research procedures. The VENCCE (Students’ Views of the Nature of Science by way of Contextualization in Ecology, originated from the acronym in Portuguese) consists of five contextualized situations that have Ecology as theme and study model for understanding the NOS conceptions. Each situation is accompanied by statements to be marked according to respondents' agreement degree. The VENCCE enables the calculation of an index that indicates how well informed are the respondents' NOS conceptions. The reliability of VENCCE was considered adequate according to Cronbach's alpha estimated after an application with 691 undergraduate students. We introducing the VENCCE in its entirety and discuss the implications of using contextualized questionnaires. Epistemological and methodological decisions were justified, as a way of inciting reflection and aiding in decision making. Some of the strategies used for evaluating instrument efficacy, and which were based on analysis of the results from application, are also presented. This can be considered in an explicit and critical manner, when creating new questionnaires, in such a way, that they also make it possible to reflect a better understanding of students' NOS conceptions. On divulging our research decisions, we aim their generalization, as a form of expanding the application of the methodology and eliciting response during the elaboration of further research instruments.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. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). The Evolving Landscape Related to Assessment of Nature of Science. In Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G. (Orgs.), Handbook of research on science education, vol II, (pp.621-650). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701. DOI:10.1080/09500690050044044
Aflalo, E. (2014). Advancing the perceptions of the nature of science (NOS): integrating teaching the NOS in a science content course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 298-317. DOI:10.1080/02635143.2014.944492
Aikenhead, G. S. (1973). The measurement of High School students’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 539-549. DOI:10.1002/sce.3730570417
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. DOI:10.1002/sce.3730760503
Ajaja, P. O. (2012). Senior Secondary School Science Teachers in Delta and Edo States Conceptualization about the Nature of Science. International Education Studies, 5(3), 67-85. DOI:10.5539/ies.v5n3p67
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. DOI:10.1002/sce.20432
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives & Resources. Saint Paul, USA: SHiPS Education Press.
Allchin, D. (2015). Correcting the ‘Self-correcting" Mythos of Science. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 10(1), 19–35.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose Nature of Science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P
Alves, R. (2013). Filosofia da Ciência: introdução ao jogo e a suas regras (18a ed.). São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa, Portugal: Edições 70.
Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring Natural and Social Scientists’ Views of Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1286-1312. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.860496
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(3), 352–377. DOI:10.1002/sce.10063
Blackburn, S. (1997). Dicionário Oxford de filosofia. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.
Borda, E. J., Burgess, D. J., Plog, C. J., Dekalb, N. C., & Luce, M. M. (2009). Concept maps as tools for assessing students’ epistemologies of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 160-185.
Chaui, M. (2005). Convite à filosofia (13a ed.). São Paulo: Ática.
Chalmers, A. F. (1981) O que é ciência, afinal? (2a ed.) São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6a ed.). New York: Routledge.
Cofré, H., Vergara, C., Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., Santibáñez, D., Jiménez, J., & Yancovic, M. (2014). Improving Chilean In-service Elementary Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science Using Self-contained NOS and ContentEmbedded Mini-Courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(7), 759-783. DOI:10.1007/s10972-014-9399-7
Collins, S., Osborne, J., 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(7), 692-720. DOI:10.1002/tea.10105
Cronbach, J. L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. DOI:10.1007/BF02310555
Cronbach, J. L. (2004). My current t procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
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. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.840405
Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112. DOI:10.1002/tea.20243/
Duschl, R. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science: twenty-five years of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathematics, 85(7), 541-555. DOI:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1985.tb09662.x
Ferreira, J. M. H. (2009). Contribuições da história das (pseudo) ciências para a abordagem da Natureza da Ciência: um estudo de caso. In VII Encontro Nacional de Pesquisas em Educação em Ciências – SC. Florianópolis, SC.
Feyerabend, P. (1989). Contra o método. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves.
Gewandsznajder, F. (1989). O que é o método científico. São Paulo: Pioneira.
Gil, A. C. (1999). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. São Paulo: Editora Atlas S. A.
Gil-Pérez, D., Montoro, I. F., Alís, J. C., Cachapuz, A., & Praia, J. (2001). Para uma imagem não deformada do trabalho científico. Ciência & Educação, 7(2), 125-153. DOI:10.1590/S1516-7313200100020000
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. Ohio, USA.
Hacieminoglu, E., Ertepinar, H., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2012). Pre-Service Science Teachers Perceptions And Practices Related To History Of Science Instructions. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3(3), 53-59.
Harres, J. B. S. (1999). Uma revisão de pesquisas nas concepções de professores sobre a natureza da ciência e suas implicações para o ensino. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 4(3),197-211.
Hesse, M. B. (1954). Science and the Human Imagination. Londres: SCM Press.
Hora, H. R. M., Monteiro, G. T. R., & Arica, J. (2010). Confiabilidade em Questionários para Qualidade: Um estudo com o Coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach. Produto & Produção, 11(2), 85-103.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the Nature of Science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591-607. DOI:10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
Jenkins, E. W. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy for citizenship: What can we learn from the research and other evidence. In Sjoberg, S., & Kallerud, E. (Orgs.). Science, technology and citizenship: The public understanding of science and technology in science education and research policy, (pp. 29–50). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education.
Kanji, G. K. (2006). 100 Statistical Tests (3a ed.). Londres: Sage Publications.
Khishfe, S., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299-334. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2017.1280741
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. (2a ed.). New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Kneller, G. F. (1980). A ciência como atividade humana. São Paulo: Zahar; Edusp.
Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 273283. DOI:10.1080/0950069950170301
Kuhn, T. (1978). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Latour, B. (2001). A esperança de Pandora: ensaio sobre a realidade dos estudos científicos. Bauru: EDUSC.
Lawton, J. H. (1999). Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos, 84(2), 177-192.
Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sére, M. G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 497-527. DOI:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00013-X
Lecky, P. (1969). Self-Consistency: A Theory of Personality. Garden City: Doubleday. In Alves, R. (2003). Filosofia da Ciência: introdução ao jogo e a suas regras. (18a. ed.) São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
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. DOI:10.1002/tea.3660290404
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of Science: Past, Present and Future. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Orgs.). Handbook of research on science education (pp.831-880). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & 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. DOI:10.1002/tea.10034
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Orgs.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 600-620). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., & O’malley. (1990). Student’s perceptions of tentativeness in science: development, use and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225-239. DOI:10.1002/sce.3730740207
Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2006). Student understanding of science and scientific inquiry (SUSSI): Revision and further validation of an assessment instrument. In The annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55. DOI:10.12691/ajphr-3-3-7
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.
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.
Matthews, M. R. (1992). History, philosophy and science teaching: the present reapprochement. Science & Education, 1(1), 11-48.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science Education, 17(2), 249-263. DOI:10.1007/BF00430208
McComas, W. F., Clough, M., & Almazora, H. (1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education: an introduction. Science & Education, 7(6), 511- 532. DOI:10.1023/A:1008642510402
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In McComas, W. F. (Org.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies, (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McIntosh, R. P. (1987). Pluralism in ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18, 321-341.
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. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<405::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., Robb, J. (2001). Examining Student Conceptions of the Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771-790. DOI:10.1080/09500690010016030
Murray, B. G. (1992). Research methods in physics and biology. Oikos, 64(3), 594–596
.
Murray, B. G. (2001). Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific? Biological Reviews, 76(2), 255-289. DOI:10.1017/S146479310100567X
Myrdal, G. (1969). Objectivity in Social Research. Nova York: Random House.
Nagel, E. (1974). La estructura de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Paidos.
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. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2010.511297
Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: philosophical perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 530-540. DOI:10.1080/0950069890110505
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(7), 692-720. DOI:10.1002/tea.10105
Oviedo, H. C., Campo-Arias, A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 34(4), 572-580.
Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the Nature of Science through the Millikan - Ehrenhaft dispute. Science & Education, 20(10), 943- 960.
Parassuraman, V., Zeithami, 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. DOI: 10.2307/1251430
Pereira, N. H. A. (2015). A ecologia como modelo para investigar concepções sobre a natureza da ciência (SP). Dissertação de Mestrado. Instituto de Biociências da Universidade de São Paulo. Recuperado de http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/41/41134/tde15032016141816/
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alfa. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381-391 DOI:10.1086/209405
.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278. DOI:10.1002/sce.3730770302
Popper, K. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
Porlán, R. (1994). Las concepciones epistemológicas de los professores: el caso de los estudiantes de magisterio. Investigación en la Escuela, 22, 67-84.
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Recuperado de http://www.R-project.org/.
Robinson, J. T. (1965). Science teaching and the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(1), 37-50. DOI:10.1002/tea.3660030107
Rosenberg, A. (2008). Biology. In Psillos, S., Curd, M. (Orgs.). The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. (pp. 511–519). London: Routledge.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconception about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559-580. DOI:10.1002/sce.3730760602
Scheneider. (2013). The ecological literature, an idea-free distribution. Ecology Letters, 16(12),1421-1423. DOI:10.1111/ele.12196
Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P. (2001). The contribution of the history of physics in physics education: a review. Science & Education, 10(1-2), 153-172. DOI:10.1023/A:1008702000098
Shader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1994). Applied ecology and the logic of case studies. Philosophy of Science, 61(2), 228-249. DOI:10.1086/289797
Shrader-Frechette, K., Earl, D. McCoy. (1993). Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sober, E. (1997). Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science, 64, 458-467. DOI:10.1086/392622
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421. DOI:10.1002/tea.3660290408
Tozzini, D. L. (2014). Filosofia da Ciência de Thomas Kuhn: conceitos e racionalidade científica. São Paulo: Atlas.
Vázquez, A., Manassero, M. A. (1999). Response and scoring models for the “Views on Science Technology-Society” instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 231-247. DOI:10.1080/095006999290679
Waters?Adams, S., & Nias, J. (2003). Using action research as a methodological tool: Understanding teachers’ understanding of science. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 283–300. DOI:10.1080/09650790300200210
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
IENCI is an Open Access journal, which does not have to pay any charges either for the submission or processing of articles. The journal has adopted the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which states that the users have the right to read, write down, copy, distribute, print, conduct searches and make direct links with the complete texts of the published articles.
The author responsible for the submission represents all the authors of the work and when the article is sent to the journal, guarantees that he has the permission of his/her co-authors to do so. In the same way, he/she provides an assurance that the article does not infringe authors´ rights and that there are no signs of plagiarism in the work. The journal is not responsible for any opinions that are expressed.
All the articles are published with a Creative Commons License Attribution Non-commercial 4.0 International. The authors hold the copyright of their works and must be contacted directly if there is any commercial interest in the use of their works.
