A concepção sobre a natureza do conhecimento científico de estudantes e professores do ensino médio da região de Santa Maria: influência de um curso baseado na resolução de problemas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X27113Abstract
Nowadays, science education has been extensively criticized mainly due to the fact that teaching science procedures have not allowed the formation of individuals that use science knowledge to solve problems on their daily lives. The low quality of science education certainly is responsible for the stereotyped view that population has about science and scientist, and also for the inadequate conceptions about the nature of scientific knowledge.Consequently, the development of methodologies that can enhance the quality of science education are needed. In the present report, the effect of a short course (40 hours) based on the resolution of problems (and that can be classified as apprentice centered) of high-school teachers and students from Santa Maria and surroundings were evaluated. The Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS) was used and this scale is sub-divided in 6 conceptual subscale (amoral, creative, developmental, parsimonious, testable, and unified). The results showed that the experimental courses (muscle contraction, digestion, respiration, and photosynthesis), in which the apprentices are engaged in solving their own problems, improved the students and teachers understanding about the nature of scientific knowledge. The improvement on the test (NSKS) occurred predominantly within the creative subscale, presumably due to the fact that the apprentices had to be creative in order to solve the proposed or generated problems during the course. These results suggest that it would be useful to teachers in service (as well as preservice teachers) to experience problem-based and experimental courses, because a better understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge by science teachers certainly will improve science education, at least with regard to the high-school students understanding.
Downloads
References
Astolfi, J.P. e Develay, M. (1990). A didática das ciências. Papirus Editora, Campinas, SP. Brasil.
Backer, D.R. (1991). A summary of research in science education -1989. Science Education, 75, 255- 401.
Beltran, N. O. e Ciscato, C. A. M. (1991). Química. Coleção Magistério 2º Grau -Série Formação Geral. Cortez Editora.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M. Jay, E. & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if works: A study of grade 7 students: understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
de Meis, L., Machado, R. C. P., Lessa, F. & Rumjanek, V. M. B. D. (1991). Science and industry in developed and developing countries. Ciência e Cultura, 43, 278-283.
de Meis, L., Machado, R. C: P., Lustosa, P., Soares, V. R., Caldeira, M. T. & Fonseca, L. (1993). The stereotyped image of the scientist among students of different countries: Evoking the alchemist? Biochemical Education, 21; 75-81.
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.
Miller, P. E. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students of biology to understand science. lowa Academy of Science, 70, 510-513.
Model, H. I. e Michael, J. A.(1993). Promoting active learning in the life science class-room: Defining the issues. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 701.1-7.
Pessoa, O. F., Gevertz, R. & Silva, A.G. (1979). A degradação do conhecimento. Como ensinar ciências. São Paulo. Nacional. Capo 3:49-66.
Rodrigues, P. S. e de Meis, L. (1994). The challenge of science education in developed and developing countries. 20th Century Science beyond the Metropolis. ORSTOM Conference, Paris, September 19-23.
Rodrigues, P. S., Souza, D. O., Rocha, J. B. T. , Fonseca, L. G. , de Meis, L. (1994). Students· and teachers: conception of the nature of science. XXIII Reunião Anual da SBBq, pg 104.
Rubba, P. A. e Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to asses secondary students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62,449-458.
Smith, C. A., Powell, S. C. & Wood, E. J. (1995). Problem-based leaming and problem-solving skills. Biochemical Education, 23. 149-152.
Schimidt, C. A. (1967). Test on understanding science: A comparison among school groups. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 365-366.
Volpe, E. P. (1984). The shame of science education. In: Science as a Way of Knowing I -Evolutionary Biology. American Zoologist, 24 (2), 433-442.
Yager, R.G. (1966). Teacher effects upon the outcomes of science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 236-242.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
