美國留學(xué)生初等教育essay制定：Exploration on the Influence and Influence Mechanism of History of Science Education on Students’ Learning Natural Sciences

 

 

Proposal

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

History of science is the study of the history of the occurrence and development of science, history of science is considered as a very valuable educational resource for science education. Its educational value has been gradually paid a universal attention by educationalists and scientists, education for history of science has become an important strategy of science education (Solomon, Duveen & Scot, 1992). Many studies have confirmed that the conduct of science education will help students with acquiring scientific knowledge, thus affirming the importance of education for history of science. However, there is not a large amount of researches on through what areas the education for history of science influence students’ academic record, such as whether the education for history of science may affect the way of students’ learning thereby affecting students' mastery of scientific knowledge, whether the education for history of science is also likely to affect students' motivation to learn, thereby affecting students' mastery of scientific knowledge and so on. The author of this study believes that the education for history of science is important, but taking the right strategy for the education for history of science is also very important, otherwise the education for history of science may not achieve the intended purpose. Revealing through which links the education for history of science influence students’ academic record helps teachers to take a more targeted and appropriate strategy for education for history of science.科學(xué)史是科學(xué)的發(fā)生和發(fā)展史的研究，科學(xué)史是科學(xué)教育的一個(gè)非常寶貴的教育資源。其教育價(jià)值日益受到普遍關(guān)注的教育家和科學(xué)家，為科學(xué)史教育已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)重要的科學(xué)教育策略（所羅門，杜維恩與蘇格蘭人，1992）。許多研究已經(jīng)證實(shí)，科學(xué)教育的行為將幫助學(xué)生獲取科學(xué)知識(shí)，從而肯定了教育的重要性，對(duì)科學(xué)史。然而，沒有大量的研究在什么領(lǐng)域影響學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)成績的科學(xué)史教育，如是否為科學(xué)史教育可能會(huì)影響學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)從而影響學(xué)生科學(xué)知識(shí)的掌握方式，無論是科學(xué)史的教育也可能影響學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)動(dòng)機(jī)，進(jìn)而影響學(xué)生科學(xué)知識(shí)的掌握等。這項(xiàng)研究的作者認(rèn)為，科學(xué)史教育是重要的，但采取正確的策略，對(duì)于科學(xué)史教育是非常重要的，否則，科學(xué)史的教育不可能達(dá)到預(yù)期的目的。通過這些鏈接，揭示影響學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)成績的科學(xué)史教育有助于教師采取更具針對(duì)性和科學(xué)史教育適當(dāng)?shù)牟呗浴?p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

1.2 Research questions

This study aims to explore the influence of education for history of science on science education for students, based on this, it forms the following sub-questions.

•To explore whether the education for history of science helps students to master scientific knowledge and concepts;

•To discuss whether the education for history of science has a positive impact on students’ motivation of learning natural science;

•To analyze whether the education for history of science has a positive impact on students’ learning styles in learning natural science 

本研究旨在探討教育對(duì)學(xué)生科學(xué)的科學(xué)史教育的影響，在此基礎(chǔ)上，形成了以下問題。

•探索科學(xué)史教育有利于學(xué)生掌握科學(xué)知識(shí)和概念；

•討論是否對(duì)科學(xué)史教育對(duì)學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)自然科學(xué)的動(dòng)機(jī)產(chǎn)生積極的影響；

•分析是否科學(xué)史教育對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)自然科學(xué)的學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)風(fēng)格的積極影響

 

2.0 Literature review

This chapter is mainly through reviewing Solomon, Duveen and Scot’s (1992) and Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) researches to discover the strengths and weaknesses in their researches, so as to tally up the research contents and research methods which are meaningful for the author’s future research.

 

 

In Teaching about the Nature of Science through History: Action Research in the Classroom, Solomon, Duveen and Scot’s (1992) observe and record that through historical studies how learning science may have an impact on students’ understanding of the nature of science, as well as their learning of scientific concepts. This report describes the process of an 18-month action research about observing British pupils’ learning of nature of science. It took some aspects of history of science as the purpose. The action research happened within five classrooms. Practicing teachers who used a set of historical materials which were specially written for this study were involved in this research. Solomon, Duveen and Scot’s (1992) make use of an interviews and a questionnaire for data collection, investigating the differences existing in understanding and perception of scientific and concepts before and after intervening. The investigation results showed that, both types of data collection, questionnaire and interview revealed obviously that the curriculum provision for teaching the history of science contributed valuably to the students’ understanding of the nature of science.

Solomon, Duveen and Scot (1992) were through a survey to find that there were differences in students’ awareness and perception of scientific concepts and knowledge before and after they were intervened, confirming that the teaching of history of science contributed largely to students' understanding of the nature of science. their research designs helped them to achieve the purpose of the study better. The biggest advantage of Solomon, Duveen and Scot’s (1992) research is the use of combination of qualitative research and quantitative research approaches, both the qualitative and quantitative research results were consistent, making the findings have a high degree of reliability and validity. It not only confirms the importance of teaching of the history of science, but also to some extent explains why the teaching of history of science is so important. The disadvantage is that he makes use of an action research method, and as action research methods lack scientific rigor, in an actual research, it might not be able to tightly control the conditions, there might be not enough accuracy, reliability for the research results. For example, Solomon, Duveen and Scot (1992) applied different teachers to different classes, as the teaching styles of different teachers’ were different, some students’ understanding and perception of scientific knowledge and concepts have been improved after the intervention, which might be because they preferred the teaching style of certain, rather than the teaching of history of science.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

Solomon, Duveen and Scot (1992) implemented an action research project. Their research mainly identified the importance of teaching of history of science for science education. In this study, it will be through first-hand data to support his conclusions, and further explore through which links, the teaching of history of science has a positive influence on students’ learning scientific knowledge. This study will also adopt an action research method, like what Solomon, Duveen and Scot (1992) did in their study. This research may also be because of being unable to closely control the conditions, leading to the lack of enough accuracy, reliability. In order to better implement interventions towards students, in this study, it will especially write some historical materials. The criteria for selection of the historical material is, these historical materials should ease of comprehension, fit with syllabus content and what pupils need to learn.

 

 

Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) research discusses the influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) research purpose was to assess the influence of the history of science (HOS) courses on college students' conceptions of nature of science (NOS), it examined whether participants who entered the HOS courses with a conceptual framework consistent with contemporary NOS views acquired more elaborate NOS understandings. In Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) research, the participants were 166 undergraduate and graduate students and 15 preservice secondary science teachers. An open-ended questionnaire was used to assess participants' pre- and post-instruction NOS views. Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) research results showed that HOS courses affected students' NOS views slightly. This finding did not provide empirical support for advocating that HOS course would help with students' NOS views.

 

 

The study implemented research from the perspectives of both teachers and students respectively, it made use of controversy course, evolution course, the survey course, these three courses as a means of intervention, using open-ended questionnaires and semi-structured interview for collecting data, which was a more comprehensive study of the impact of the teaching of history of science, the entire research design of Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) study was valid for meeting the research questions. History of science teaching contains many contents, to fully investigate the impact of teaching for history of science, it must first of all determines the contents of history of science teaching. Contents of history of science teaching used in this study were divided into three parts: controversy course, evolution course, the survey course. These three courses represent the main contents of history of science teaching today, Khalick and Lederman (2000) investigated the impact of these three courses, which could reflect the impact of history of science teaching more comprehensively. This is one of the strengths of this study. Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) research reveals that it should make sure the contents of history of science teaching, making use of controversy course, evolution course, the survey course as a means of intervention, which can better reflect the influence of history of science teaching. Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) study puts forward the view that history of science education does not have a positive impact on students’ science education. Their data were from open-ended questionnaires and semi-structured interviews, data collected from both research methods were not conducive to quantitative analysis. At the same time, it failed to use attitude scale to measure changes in respondents’ views before and after intervention, it just asked the respondents to state their subjective feelings. Therefore, the author believes that the biggest drawback of this research lies in a lack of quantitative data to support conclusions.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) study is an action research project. Their research identified the importance of three main history of science teaching courses for science education. In this study, it will be through first-hand data to confirm or disprove their conclusions, then further explore through which links, history of science teaching has positive impact on students’ learning of scientific knowledge. Like what Khalick and Lederman (2000) did in their study, in this study, it will also use a semi-structured interview, but interview has the disadvantage of consuming more time, manpower and material resources. As an interview is costly, time-consuming, it is difficult to carry out with a large-scale, the sample size will be small, resulting in a lack of enough representativeness of the interview. In order to better implement interventions towards students, this study will take controversy course, evolution course, the survey course as a means of intervention, which can better reflect the influence of history of science teaching.

 

 

This study will be based on the research contents and methods of Solomon, Duveen and Scot’s (1992) and Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) studies, specific research steps will be presented in next chapter.

 

 

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Research approach

Quantitative research is a research method which measures and analyzes the part of a thing which can be quantified to examine researchers’ theoretical hypotheses towards certain things (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). This study needs to evaluate whether there are differences in students’ cognitive levels towards scientific knowledge before and after interventions, the differences in the levels will be reflected through students’ scores in the questionnaire, thus a quantitative research approach is needed.

 

 

Qualitative research is the approach that researchers use to define or deal with a problem. The specific purpose is to thoroughly examine the views of respondents’, so as to further explore the reasons for respondents’ certain actions (Hendricks, 2012). This study focuses on exploring why the education for history of science is so important for science education, by what means and links the education for history of science has a positive impact on students’ learning natural science, which requires an in-depth understanding of the inner thoughts of students, so qualitative research is more suitable for this.

 

 

This research will make use of a combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches, which will help to meet the research objectives, at the same time, the quantitative and qualitative results of this study can verify each other to find whether that are consistent mutually, which can also help to improve the credibility of the study.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

3.2 Research methods

The quantitative research in this study will use the form of questionnaires. A questionnaire can collect large amounts of data and information in a short period of time, it can also save manpower, material and financial resources, at the same time, the results of questionnaires also facilitate data statistics (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007).

 

 

The qualitative research in this study will make use of interviews. Interview is a basic research method that is through a face-to-face interview between interviewers and respondents to understand interviewees’ human psychology and behavior (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007).  Interviews are divided into structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews. A semi-structured interview is between a structured interview and an unstructured interview. In a semi-structured interview, although interviewers control the structure of the interview to a certain extent, respondents are also to express their views and opinions to a large extent (Hendricks, 2012). Semi-structured interviews have the advantages of both structured and unstructured interviews, they can not only avoid the lack of flexibility of structured interviews, as well as the difficulty in making an in-depth discussion, but also avoid the time-consuming, laborious limitations of structured interviews and the difficulty for conducting analysis (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007). Thus this study will use a semi-structured interview.

 

 

The successful completion of an interview requires with highly skilled techniques and specially trained interviewers. The author of this study may be inadequate in the interview level, in the interview process, some important information may be omitted due to unskilled recording skills, leading to a lack of enough validity of this interview.

 

 

3.3 Research design

The research objects of this study will be 50 8-12 years old pupils, all students will attend the same history of science causes and are required to complete the same assignments. The science history course is divided into three types, courses of each type will be offered two times a week and last a total of 5 weeks. Contents of courses of the three types will refer to Khalick and Lederman’s (2000) research, specific contents are described as follows. The first course is entitled as controversy course. It focuses on accounts of controversial scientific discoveries. The course aims to strengthen the rational, social and psychological characteristics that have typed the meaning and methods of the natural sciences. The second course is survey course, it focuses on the interaction of scientific ideas with their social and cultural contexts. The third course is evolution course, from its inception to the present, the course discusses the reception and history of evolution theory.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

This study will invite teachers with rich experience in teaching to be responsible for history of science teaching, the researcher will collaborate with the teachers to participate in the teaching of history of science. The researcher will be primarily responsible for recording the behavior, language, learning attitude and all other relevant details of students in the classrooms. After class, the researcher will discuss with the teachers to adjust the teaching content and teaching methods.

 

 

In the beginning and at the end of all courses, a questionnaire and an interview will be carried out towards the students. The questionnaires will be distributed and taken back through an on-site form. The questionnaire aims at investigating students' views towards natural science knowledge, motivation for learning natural science and learning styles for natural science. Answers of the questions in the questionnaire will be expressed by using Likert scale (1= least agreement to 5= most agreement). The specific content of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix 1. The interview will be carried out by using a semi-structured interview, the interview of each time will last about 30 minutes. The interview objects will be nine randomly drawing students. The interview aims at investigating the students' views towards natural science knowledge, motivation for learning natural science and learning styles of natural science, as well as their psychology and views for learning of natural sciences. The interview outline is shown in Appendix 2.

 

 

3.4 Data analysis

Data analysis of the questionnaire will be mainly through comparing whether there are differences in students’ scores the before and after the interventions, so as to understand whether history of science courses had an impact on them. Analysis of the interview will be mainly by comparing whether there are differences in students’ psychology, cognition and motivation towards scientific knowledge learning before and after interventions, so as to understand through which links what history of science course affects students.

 

 

3.5 Reliability and validity

The reliability test of the questionnaire is mainly through using inter-item consistency method. By using SPSS 16.0 to calculate Cronbach's α, if α> 0.7 the reliability of the questionnaire is satisfactory. Relevant experts and scholars will be invited to test the content validity of the questionnaire, if the Content Validity Index (CVI) is greater than 0.7, the content validity will be qualified (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

In order to ensure the reliability and validity of analysis of the interview data, first of all, the interview content will be recorded and taken down, which facilitates subsequent verification towards the data and information. Then, the process of data processing will strictly follow Yin’s (2011) steps, ensuring that valuable data and information can be processed via a complete and accurate analysis. Firstly, it will design coding table. Secondly, all information collected in the interview will be compiled, classified and organized into a textual form. Thirdly, it will be according to the coding table to sort out the data.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

3.6 Timeline

This study will be based on the following schedule to complete the study.

Task Time Days

1 Questionnaire (First time) 1st July, 2013-7th July, 2013 7

2 Interview (First time) 1st July, 2013-7th July, 2013 7

3 Course (First week) 1st July, 2013-7th July, 2013 7

4 Course (Second week) 8th July, 2013-14th July, 2013 7

5 Course (Third week) 15th July, 2013-21st July, 2013 7

6 Course (Fourth week) 22nd July, 2013-28th July, 2013 7

7 Course (Fifth week) 29th July, 2013-4th August, 2013 7

8 Questionnaire (Second time) 5th August, 2013-11th August, 2013 7

9 Interview (Second time) 12th August, 2013-18th August, 2013 7

8 Data analysis 19th August, 2013-25th August, 2013 7

9 Thesis writing 26th August, 2013-23rd September 2013 28

 

 

3.7 Resources

Resources will be used in this study include computers, software such as Excel, SPSS 16.0 for storing data and statistics. Recording equipment will be used for recording the interview content. Printers will be used for the production of the questionnaire. The author is able to afford all expenditure in this research, the author have the ability to arrange the teaching sites, teachers and students required in this study.

 

 

3.8 Ethic

All acquired data and personal information in this study will only be used in this study, they will not be used for other commercial purposes to cause the disclosure of personal information. All respondents in this study will be able to separate clearly express their opinions, the author of this study will not intend to induce the respondents wittingly. In this study, all original data and information will be stored and recorded, the researcher will be involved in all process of data collection personally to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the research data. Data entry and analysis process will be through cross-checking and verification to ensure the accuracy of the data analysis results, so as to avoid the situation of errors in expression of information.#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

 

 

3.9 Anticipated outcome

Through this study, the author hopes to prove that whether studying the history of science can deepen and improve students' perception and understanding of scientific knowledge, whether the learning of history of science can motivate students’ motivation in learning natural science, making them more active in learning natural science knowledge, whether the learning of history of science can encourage students’ to improve their learning styles and make greater use of inquiry learning.

 

 

References

Hendricks, C. (2012). Improving Schools through Action Research: A Reflective Practice Approach. Peachpit Press, 110-122.

Khalick, F. A. E. & Lederman, N G. (2000). The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students' Views http://www.ttc-switch.com/jyx/ of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057±1095.

Nunnally , J. C, & Bernstein, I. H(1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed .).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students. Essex, Pearson Education Limited.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J. & Scot, L. (1992). Teaching About the Nature of Science through History: Action Research in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford.

 

 

ppendix 1 Questionnaire 

 

Please tick the options that can reflect your true opinion most.

1. Natural sciences are different from other disciplines, such as social science, philosophy, religion courses, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

2. Natural science theories and knowledge are constantly evolving and updated, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ #p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#□ □ □ □

3. Experimental study plays an important role in natural sciences, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

4. You have a great interest in studying natural sciences, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

5. In the process of study of natural sciences, you always solve problems positively, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

6. You are willing to learn relevant knowledge of natural sciences, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □

7. Through learning knowledge from textbook, you can acquire sufficient knowledge of natural sciences, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

8. In the face of scientific theories and knowledge, you are interested to prove or overthrow them by experiments, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

9. You hope to solve and understand the problems encountered in natural sciences through experiments, do you agree? Least agreement---Most agreement

1 2 3 4 5

□ □ □ □ □

 

 

 

Appendix 2 Interview Questions

1. In your opinion, what, is science? What makes science different from other disciplines, e.g., religion, philosophy?

2. Are experiments necessary for the development of scientific knowledge?

-If yes, using an example to explain why.

* If no, using an example to explain why.

3. After scientists have developed a scientific theory, e.g., atomic theory, evolution theory, does the theory ever change?

4 Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Please give an example.

5. Does studying natural sciences bring benefits? Why?#p#分頁標(biāo)題#e#

6. Are you interested in natural science knowledge? Why?

7. If you are a scientist, how would you solve scientific problems that you encounter?

8. When you encounter problems in natural science learning, how would you solve them? Why?