پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 556 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,410 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,319,023 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 3,814,489 |
رویکرد و مؤلفه‌های مناسب آموزش ماهیت علم در درس فیزیک | ||
| مطالعات بین رشته ای در آموزش | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 4، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 10، خرداد 1404، صفحه 39-68 اصل مقاله (1.67 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48310/ise.2025.18053.1182 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| جلال عبدالهی* 1؛ ایرج نیک سرشت2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری تاریخ و فلسفه علم ، دانشگاه تهران ، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار تاریخ و فلسفه علم، پژوهشکده تاریخ علم، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پیشینه و اهداف: علوم تجربی، به‌ویژه فیزیک، از مهم‌ترین دستاوردهای بشری محسوب می‌شوند؛ اما آگاهی عمومی از سازوکار علمی و نحوه انجام فعالیت‌های علمی محدود است. یکی از دلایل این مسئله، غفلت از آموزش «ماهیت علم» در برنامه‌های درسی علوم است. این مقاله با هدف بررسی رویکردهای مختلف در آموزش ماهیت علم، به‌ویژه در درس فیزیک، و انتخاب رویکردی مناسب برای این منظور نگاشته شده است. روش‌ها: روش پژوهش مبتنی بر مطالعۀ کتابخانه‌ای و تحلیل محتوایی است که به بررسی و مقایسه دو رویکرد مطرح در آموزش ماهیت علم، یعنی رویکرد توافقی (مؤلفه‌ای) و رویکرد شباهت خانوادگی می‌پردازد. یافته‌ها: تحلیل‌ها نشان می‌دهد که رویکرد توافقی با وجود کاستی‌هایی، ساختاری منسجم و قابل‌اجرا دارد. در مقابل، رویکرد شباهت خانوادگی از جامعیت نظری بیشتری برخوردار است اما به دلیل پیچیدگی‌های اجرایی، برای سطوح آموزشی همچون دبیرستان چندان مناسب نیست. نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به محدودیت‌های اجرایی رویکرد شباهت خانوادگی، استفاده از رویکرد توافقی برای آموزش ماهیت علم در فیزیک توصیه می‌شود. البته به‌منظور ارتقای این رویکرد، پیشنهاد می‌شود که مؤلفه‌های تکمیلی برگرفته از بینش‌های رویکرد شباهت خانوادگی به آن افزوده شوند. همچنین، برای گنجاندن این مؤلفه‌ها در محتوای درسی، طرحی با عنوان «هر فصل، چند مؤلفه» ارائه شده است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| آموزش فیزیک؛ تاریخ علم؛ فلسفه علم؛ ماهیت علم؛ رویکرد توافقی؛ رویکرد شباهت خانوادگی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Appropriate Approach and Components for Teaching the Nature of Science in Physics Courses | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Jalal Abdollahi1؛ Iraj Nikseresht,2 | ||
| 1PhD student in History of Science, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor of History and philosophy of Science, Institute for the History of Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Background and aim: Sciences, especially physics, are among the most significant achievements of humanity. However, few people are aware of the actual mechanisms of science and the way scientific activities are conducted. One reason for this lack of awareness is the insufficient attention to the "nature of science" in the curriculum and science education. This paper addresses the topic of the nature of science and the appropriate method for presenting and teaching it, particularly in physics lessons (in Iran). Data and method: Presenting the nature of science through several components has become a standard approach known as the consensus approach. However, this approach has faced criticism and shortcomings. In response, the family resemblance approach has been proposed. Given these two important approaches, the question arises: What is the appropriate method for teaching the nature of science in physics? The article discusses the drawbacks and advantages of both the consensus and family resemblance approaches. Findings: Despite the comprehensiveness of the family resemblance approach, its complexities make its implementation in high school challenging. Conclusion: To achieve better and more coherent teaching of the nature of science in physics, the component-based approach should still be utilized. Suitable additional components should be added to address the shortcomings of the consensus approach and insights of the family resemblance approach. Furthermore, to better integrate these components into the educational content, a proposal titled "Each Chapter, Several Components" is suggested. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Physics Education, Nature of Science, Consensus Approaches, Family Resemblance Approach, Philosophy of Science, History of Science | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Chalmers, A. F. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Open University Press. Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. Cheung, K. K. C., & Erduran, S. (2023). A systematic review of research on family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 32(5), 1637–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00379-3 Chiappetta, E. L., Koballa, T. R., & Collette, A. T. (1998). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (4th ed.). Merrill. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4 Fjelland, R. (2022). Teaching philosophy of science to science students: An alternative approach. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 41(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09802-8 Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Joham, B. (2018). Professionalising physics teachers in doing experimental work. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 8(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.333 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.927936 Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_30 Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2023). Revisiting the foundations of the family resemblance approach to nature of science: Some new ideas. Science & Education, 32(5), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00375-7 Kötter, M., & Hammann, M. (2017). Controversy as a blind spot in teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 26(5), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9913-3 Koponen, I. T. (2021). Nature of science (NOS) being acquainted with science of science (SoS): Providing a panoramic picture of sciences to embody NOS for pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 11(3), Article 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030107 Koyré, A. (1978). Galileo studies (J. Mepham, Trans.). Harvester Press. (Original work published 1939) 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034 Matthews, M. R. (2000). Foreword and introduction. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. ix–xx). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 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). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0_1 McComas, W. F. (2020). Considering a consensus view of nature of science content for school science purposes. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 23–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_2 McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 16(3), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(85)90003-2 Newton, I. (1693). Letters from Newton to Bentley: II. In I. B. Cohen (Ed.), Isaac Newton’s papers & letters on natural philosophy (pp. 300–309). Harvard University Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105 Paul, R. (2020). Critical thinking, moral integrity, and citizenship: Teaching for the intellectual virtue. In G. Axtell (Ed.), Knowledge, belief, and character: Readings in virtue epistemology (pp. 163–175). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Sankey, H. (2023). The objectivity of science. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 17(45), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2023.17473 Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100(4), 706–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21216 Smith, S. E. (2017, November 13). Why philosophy is so important in science education. Aeon. https://aeon.co/ideas/why-philosophy-is-so-important-in-science-education van Dijk, E. M. (2013). Relevant features of science: Values in conservation biology. Science & Education, 22(9), 2141–2156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9496-y Wong, S. L., Kwan, J., Hodson, D., & Yung, B. H. W. (2009). Turning crisis into opportunity: Nature of science and scientific inquiry as illustrated in the scientific research on severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science & Education, 18(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9123-5 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 564 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 335 |
||