ترسیم اشاره‌هایی برای تدریس علوم بر بنیاد تبیینی کل نگرانه از ماهیت علم

پژوهش نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت

مقاله 3، دوره 6، شماره 1، تابستان 1395، صفحه 125-146  

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/fe.v6i1.48378

نویسندگان

پروین بازقندی ¹؛ سعید ضرغامی¹؛ یحیی قائدی¹؛ علیرضا محمودنیا²؛ خسرو باقری نوع پرست³

¹دانشگاه خوارزمی

²دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

³نیو سوت ولز

چکیده

هدف این پژوهش، تبیین نقش ابعاد مختلف ماهیت علم در آموزش علوم است. لذا، همسو با نظریه پیچیدگی و با بهره گیری از نگرشی کل نگرانه، چنین استدلال شد که طرح پرسش‌های فلسفی در قلمروهای تاریخ، جامعه شناسی و روان شناسی علم نیز به فلسفه علم در روشنگری ماهیت علم کمک می‌کند. بر اساس یافته ها بازنگری در بینش استقرایی و توجه به جنبه سازه گرایانه علم در کنار ماهیت واقع گرایانه آن در تدریس علوم ضروری است. اندیشیدن در تاریخ علم نیز فهم علم در بستر تاریخ را ایجاب می‌کند. اشاره جامعه شناسی علم نیز روشنگری نقش دانشمندان در توسعه اجتماعی و تعامل با دیگر عاملان اجتماعی چون فیلسوفان و هنرمندان است. قلمرو روان شناسی علم نیز روشن می‌کند که آزاد گذاشتن دانش آموزان در اندیشیدن در حوزه علم بر مبنای تمایلات زیبایی شناسانه و متافیزیکی و ورای باور همگانی زمینه بروز ایده‌های نو در فراگیر است. بنابراین، پرورش نگرش کل نگرانه فراگیران در علم آموزی اهمیت دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تدریس علوم؛ نظریه پیچیدگی؛ ماهیت علم

مراجع

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on pre-service science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education. 27(1), 15–42. Doi: 10.1080/09500690410001673810

Bagheri Noaparast, K. (1995). Toward a more realistic constructivism. Advances in personal construct theory. (3), 37-59. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2413866

Bazghandi, P. (2011). Investigating the principles and methods of teaching chemistry based on review and critique of Feyerabend’s theory about the nature of science and the manner of its expansion, (MA thesis, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran). (In Persian)

Ben-David, J., and Sullivan, T. A. (1975). Sociology of science. Annual Review of Sociology. 1(1), 203–222. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001223.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. New York: Rout ledge.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd Ed). Cambridge: Hackett publishing company.

Clarck, C. (1997). Why teachers need philosophy? (K. Bagheri Noaparast, Trans.). In: K, Bagheri and M. Attaran (Eds.), Contemporary philosophy of education. Tehran: Mehrab Ghalam. (In Persian).

Davis, B., and Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and Education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ezatkhah, K. (2011). The teaching method of natural and social sciences in primary schools. Tehran: Payame Noor. (In Persian)

Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against method. (3 rd Ed). London: Verso.

Feyerabend, P. K. (1999). Knowledge, science and relativism: philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feist, G. J. (2006). The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Glasersfeld, E. V. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, 6 (1–3), 31–43. Doi: 10.1023/A: 1011345023932

Goldman, S. L. (2007). Systems, chaos, and self-organization. In Great scientific ideas that changed the world (pp. 92-102). Virginia: The teaching company.

Hanna, P., and Harrison, B. (2002). The limits of relativism in the late Wittgenstein. In S. D. Hales (Ed.), A companion to relativism. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hooker, C. (2011). Philosophy of complex systems. New York: Elsevier.

Kuhn, T. S. (1952). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: university of Chicago press.

Lakatos, I. (1976). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos., and A. Musgrave (Eds.), criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 53-70). London: Rout Ledge.

Lederman, N., and Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Avoiding de- natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies (pp. 83-126). London: Kluwer academic publishers.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., and Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39 (6), 497-521. Doi: 10.1002/tea.10034

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell., and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Losee, J. (2001). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science. (4rd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mason. M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. New York: Wiley and Blackwell.

Mathews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Rout ledge.

Matthews, M. (2002). Foreword and introduction. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies (pp. xi-xxi). London: Kluwer academic publishers.

McComas, W. F. (2002). The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies (pp. 53-70). London: Kluwer academic publishers.

McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., and Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies (pp. 3-39). London: Kluwer academic publishers.

McComas, W. F., and Olson, J.K. (2002). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationals and strategies (pp. 41-52). London: Kluwer academic publishers.

Merton, R. B. (1992). The sociology of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Naghib Zadeh, M. A. (2007). An Introduction to 20th philosophical views. Tehran: Tahoori. (In Persian).

Niaz, M. (2008). Teaching general chemistry: a history and philosophy of science approach. New York: Nova Science.

Peters, M. (2006). Philosophy of science education. Educational philosophy and theory. 38(5), 579-584. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00223.x

Pinnick, C., and Gale, G. (2000). Philosophy of science and history of science: A troubling interaction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 31(1), 109–125. doi: 10.1023/A:1008353021407

Popper, K. R. (2010). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. New York and London: Rout ledge.

Scheffler, I. (1992). Philosophy and the curriculum. Science and education. 1(4), 385-394. Doi: 10.1007/BF00430965

Staley, K. W. (1999). Logic, Liberty, and Anarchy: Mill and Feyerabend on scientific method. The Social Science Journal. 36(4), 603-614. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(99)00042-7

Trefil, J. (Ed.). (2003). the nature of science: An A-Z guide to the laws and principles governing our universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Vihalemm, R. (2007). Philosophy of chemistry and the image of sciencc. Foundation of Science. (12), 223–234. Doi: 10.1007/s10699-006-9105-0

Wallner, F. (1994). Constructive realism: aspects of a new epistemological movement. Vienna: BraumÜller.

Zarghami-Hamrah, S. (2011). Deconstruction of knowledge nature in the views of Derrida and Feyerabend: the possibility and necessity of interdisciplinary studies in higher education, International journal of interdisciplinary social sciences. 5(2), 481-490. Retrieved from: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/73151269

Zarghami-Hamrah, S. (2014). A constructivist/realistic vision toward the nature and elements of science: A base for revising in science education. Foundations of education. 4(1), 5-28. Retrieved from: http://fedu.um.ac.ir/index.php/education/article/view/29506 (In Persian)