Différences entre versions de « Discussion:Diagnostic des conceptions préalables sur la nature de la science »
(Page créée avec « compléter avec cet article : Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2013). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of nos. I... ») |
|||
| Ligne 2 : | Ligne 2 : | ||
Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2013). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of nos. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-33. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9449-1 | Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2013). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of nos. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-33. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9449-1 | ||
| + | |||
Abstract : | Abstract : | ||
The purpose of this study was to explore 15 graduate research assistants’ understanding of the nature of science. Data were collected through administration of a modified version of the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C). The findings suggest that graduate research assistants held underdeveloped views related to several nature of science (NOS) aspects including the argumentative nature of science, the process of modeling in science, scientists’ treatment of unexpected results, collaborative nature of science, and the process of theory formation. The discussion focuses on the missing link in preparation of future scientists and offers suggestions to address the learning needs of graduate research assistants regarding their understanding of NOS. | The purpose of this study was to explore 15 graduate research assistants’ understanding of the nature of science. Data were collected through administration of a modified version of the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C). The findings suggest that graduate research assistants held underdeveloped views related to several nature of science (NOS) aspects including the argumentative nature of science, the process of modeling in science, scientists’ treatment of unexpected results, collaborative nature of science, and the process of theory formation. The discussion focuses on the missing link in preparation of future scientists and offers suggestions to address the learning needs of graduate research assistants regarding their understanding of NOS. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Voir aussi et compléter avec les "mythes sur la nature de la science" décrits par W. F. McComas (ed.)(1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Et notamment ce chapitre publié par Comas sur le web : http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf | ||
| + | Avec la note suivante : | ||
| + | This chapter is an expanded and modified version of those originally published in | ||
| + | School Science and Mathematics under the title, Myths of Science: Reexamining What | ||
| + | We Think We Know About the Nature of Science (1996), 96, 10-16, and in Skeptic , 15 | ||
| + | Myths of Science: Lessons of Misconceptions and Misunderstandings from a Science | ||
| + | Educator (1997), 5, 88-95. | ||
Version du 28 mars 2014 à 04:43
compléter avec cet article :
Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2013). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of nos. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-33. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9449-1
Abstract : The purpose of this study was to explore 15 graduate research assistants’ understanding of the nature of science. Data were collected through administration of a modified version of the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C). The findings suggest that graduate research assistants held underdeveloped views related to several nature of science (NOS) aspects including the argumentative nature of science, the process of modeling in science, scientists’ treatment of unexpected results, collaborative nature of science, and the process of theory formation. The discussion focuses on the missing link in preparation of future scientists and offers suggestions to address the learning needs of graduate research assistants regarding their understanding of NOS.
Voir aussi et compléter avec les "mythes sur la nature de la science" décrits par W. F. McComas (ed.)(1998). The Nature of Science in Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Et notamment ce chapitre publié par Comas sur le web : http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf Avec la note suivante : This chapter is an expanded and modified version of those originally published in School Science and Mathematics under the title, Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know About the Nature of Science (1996), 96, 10-16, and in Skeptic , 15 Myths of Science: Lessons of Misconceptions and Misunderstandings from a Science Educator (1997), 5, 88-95.
