University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Analysis of Saudi Arabian middle and high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science

(USC Thesis Other)

Analysis of Saudi Arabian middle and high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DEFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly fix> m the original or copy submitted Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter &ce, vidiile others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell mfonnation Compai^ 300 North Zedb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ANALYSIS OF SAUDI ARABIAN MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE by H ^a Mohammed Ahnazroa A Dissextatica Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for the Degree Doctor o f Philosophy (Education) August 1997 Copyright 1997 H^aAlmazroa Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 9816006 m vn Microform 9816006 Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by E l y a M oham m ed A l m a z r o a under the direction of Auss Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dgfln of. G raduate Studies D ate..... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dedication To my brother Abdullah Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. til Acknowledgments I wish to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my advisor. Dr. William McComas, for his guidance, generous support, and endless personal encouragement, which guided me in the progress of completing this study. I should also thank the remaining members of my committee. Dr. Hocevar and Dr. Amtzenius, for their suggestions, assistance, and encouragement. Thanks and appreciation are expressed to the General Presidency of Girls’ Education in Saudi Arabia for their help in administering the research study in their schools. With much affection, I express thanks and appreciation to my beloved mother for her prayers and constant love. My appreciation and thanks also go to my sisters, Modhy, Fawzea, and Nora, for their constant love and support. I also would like to thank my sister-in-law, Husa, and my cousin and best friend, Abeer, for their encouragement. Special thanks are given to my son, Asim, for his patience and understanding during my study. Finally, I reserve my greatest gratitude and most heartfelt appreciation to my brothers, Nasser and Abdullah, for the sacrifices, emotional support, and all-around love. Without their support and imderstanding it would have been impossible to have come this far. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................ iii List of Tables and Figures..............................................................................................viii Page CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem................................................................................ 2 Purpose of the Study....................................................................................... 5 Significance of the Study................................................................................ 6 Assumptions.................................................................................................... 8 Limitations...................................................................................................... 9 Definition of Terms......................................................................................... 9 n. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................................................................11 Education in Saudi Arabia.............................................................................11 Historical Review..................................................................................11 The Structure of the Education System.................................................13 Teacher Education.................................................................................15 The Nature of Science....................................................................................16 Instrumentation............................................................................................. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Relationship Between Teachers’ and Students’ Views of Science.......25 Teachers’ Views of Science and their Teaching Behavior.................. 26 Teachers’ Classroom Behavior and Students’ Views of Science.......33 Studies of Science Teacher’s Conception of the Nature of Science............ 37 Factors Related to Teachers’ Views about Science......................................38 Imphcations of Teacher Understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) 42 Summary .......................................................................................................44 in. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................45 Scope of the Study........................................................................................45 Population.....................................................................................................46 Sampling Procedures.....................................................................................46 Instrumentation............................................................................................. 48 Nature of Science Scale (NOSS)..........................................................48 The Translation of the Instrument........................................................50 Data Collection Procedures...........................................................................51 Pilot Study..................................................................................................... 53 Data Analysis................................................................................................ 53 IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS................................................................................ 55 Description of the Respondents....................................................................56 Research Questions....................................................................................... 56 Research Question 1............................................................................. 56 Research Question 2............................................................................. 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VI Research Question 3..............................................................................72 Research Question 4..............................................................................74 Research Question 5..............................................................................75 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................. 77 Summary........................................................................................................ 77 Research Findings.......................................................................................... 79 Discussion...................................................................................................... 80 The issue of Gender..............................................................................86 The Issue of Major................................................................................88 The Issue of Teaching Experience........................................................88 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 89 Recommendations to Educational Authorities..................................... 89 Recommendations for Further Research...............................................90 Bibliography..................................................................................................................... 92 APPENDIX A. Nature of Science Scale (NOSS)........................................................ 102 APPENDIX B. The Arabic Version of NOSS............................................................104 APPENDIX C. Letter from the Saudi Educational Attaché to the Saudi Educational Authorities..................................................106 APPENDIX D. Letter to Science Teachers.................................................................107 APPENDIX E. Letter from the General Presidency of Girls’ Education to Female Science Teachers................................................................ 108 APPENDIX F. Letter from the Ministry of Education to Male Science Teachers 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vil LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES page Table 1. Researchers’ Assumptions about the Relationship Between Teachers’ Views on Science and their Teaching Behavior.....................................................26 2. Science Teachers’ Responses to the NOSS Individual Items................................. 58 3. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 1................................................................... 62 4 Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertain^, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 2................................................................... 63 5. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 3 ................................................................... 64 6. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 4 ................................................................... 65 7. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 5................................................................... 67 8. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 6................................................................... 68 9. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 7 ................................................................... 69 10. Science Teachers’ Agreement, Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 8................................................................... 70 11. Summary Data and Analysis of Variance Data for Comparisons Between Male and Female Teachers’ Conceptions of the NOS...........................................72 12. Summary Data and Analysis of Variance Data for Comparisons Among Science Teachers with Different Science Majors..................................................73 13. Least-Significant Difference Test Results: Pairwise Comparisons Among the Three Science Major Groups............................................................................ 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V Ill 14. Summary Data and Analysis of Variance Data for Comparisons Among Science Teachers with Different Teaching Experiences....................................... 74 15. Least-Significant Difference Tests Results: Pairwise Comparisons Among the Four Teaching Experience Groups...................................................................75 16. Analysis of Variance for Nature of Science Scores on NOSS..............................76 Figure 1. The Relationship Between Teachers’ and Students’ Views of Science................25 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I Introduction The shared vision of science education reform committees, represented by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Research Council (NRG), includes an understanding of the nature of science along with other general principles as a foundation for the reform in science education (Bybee et al. 1996). Understanding the nature of science refers to understanding the “values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific knowledge” (Lederman & Zeidler, 1987, p. 721). It has long been a major objective in science education and it is a major component in the scientific literacy goal, which is considered to be a central goal for all students (AAAS, 1990; National Science Teacher’s Association, 1982; Klopfer, 1960; Rubba & Anderson, 1978). It has been advocated that students should not only understand science principles and facts but also comprehend the way scientific knowledge has evolved and been validated as described by modem philosophers of science. In fact, it is an international trend in science education to present historical and philosophical aspects of science. In 1989, 1992, and 1995, three international conferences were held on the history and philosophy of science in relation to science education. The main objective of a number of additional conferences (Pavia, 1989; Munich, 1986; Paris, 1988) had been to investigate how and why the history and philosophy of science may be integrated into school science (Nielsen & Pual, 1990). The Science Council of Canada recommends presenting a more authentic view of science as one of the major recommendations for the renewal of Canadian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. science education (Gaskell, 1992). Five percent of the British national curriculum is devoted to the history and philosophy of science topics (Matthews, 1990). However, school science practices do not seem to articulate the Nature of Science (NOS). There is disappointment with the way science is presented in school, where science instruction does not emphasize presuppositions, values, aims, and limitations of science. Duschl (1994) argued that students are learning facts, hypothesis, and theories of science but not how this knowledge came to exist. He stated that students are learning the “what” of science but not the “how” of science, which he calls “final form science.” Kilbom (1982) agrees with Duschl that science instruction does not present the essential background for understanding the meaning of science. Gallagher (1991) indicated that observations of science lesso is revealed an emphasis on the body and terminology of knowledge of science. Researchers wrote about the incongruity between school science and science as described by modem philosophers of science. It is because, as Hodson (1986) states, developments in the philosophy of science did not influence development in science education. Unfortunately, most classroom practices and available curriculum materials stUl operate under the ninetheenth-century account of the philosophy of science (DeBoer, 1991). Nadeau and Desautels (1984) argue that the lack of attention to the NOS in science teaching brought about five myths: ‘blissful empiricism,' ‘naive realism,’ credulous experimentation,' blind idealism,’ and ‘excessive rationalism.’ Statement of the Problem Presenting the real picture of science in school science can not be accompUshed without science teachers’ understanding of the nature of the science they are teaching. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Science teachers must be aware of the hTO S because they “convey a concept of science at the very moment when they may think they are merely transmitting accepted knowledge” (Nadeau & Desautels, 1984, p. 12). Carey and Stauss (1970) have stated that, “If the teaching of science is to reflect the nature of science, then it becomes obvious that the science teachers possess an understanding of the nature of science” (p. 368). Science teachers are the most important component in science education (Yager, 1989) because they are the ones who translate the written ciuriculum into the classroom and decide what, how, and why to learn. Teachers are the cornerstone for any educational process, and they are the key factor in reaching the goals of any educational program. Unfortunately, the philosophical aspects of science are neglected in science teachers’ preservice program. Abimola (1983) and Summers (1982) believe that undergraduate science and science teacher education curricula do not emphasize historical and philosophical aspects of science. They do not value the nature of science, so teachers do not know how to teach the nature of science (Gallagher, 1991). Abell (1989) specifically looked at methods textbooks used in preservice elementary teachers and found them presenting an “incomplete and inadequate picture of science” (p. 8). Matthews ( 1994) reported that only four out of fifty-five institutions providing science teacher training in Australia offered a course in history and philosophy of science and, theorizing, argued that teachers’ ideas about science must be “picked up indirectly ” during his/her education in science content. Loving (1991) surveyed 17 members of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) whose institutions have undergraduate programs for science teachers and/or graduate science education programs. She found an overall lack of attention to any philosophy of science materials, with a few Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. exceptions. Only 13 percent of undergraduate science education majors and 19 percent of graduate students have had a philosophy of science course as part of their degree. The lack of attention to the epistemological and ideological roots of science in science teachers’ preparation programs have led researchers to question science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. In industrized coimtries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, a number of studies have been performed to assess and enhance science teachers’ conception of the nature of science. However, in the developing coimtries there is still a lack of research on teachers’ views of science. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate Saudi science teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science. If we are convinced about the importance of understanding the nature of science, then it is necessary to uncover teachers’ ideas and to use this knowledge as a baseline for future planning. Researchers, as will be shown in the literature review, have tried to identify variables which could be associated with teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Interestingly, none of the studies investigated the subjects’ gender, even though research (for example, Handley & Morse, 1984; Schibeci 8 c Riley, 1986) indicates that gender could be associated with attitudes and achievement in science classes. Recently, the largest-ever international math and science study found that boys outperformed girls in science in most of the 45 participating countries (Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1996). Thus, this study is an attempt to investigate the influence of the gender factor on science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. While acknowledging a number of out-of-school factors that could have an impact on the gender gap in science achievement and participation, research that looked at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. factors related to school assumes that differences in science achievement and attitudes stem firom differential treatment of boys and girls in the classroom. Research on the classroom enviroiunent (Jones & Wheatley, 1990 and Tobin & Garnett, 1987) shows that boys are more likely to respond to teacher questions and receive praise or criticism. These classroom interaction patterns affect boys’ learning and achievement in science. It is interesting to look at gender differences in science achievement where teachers’ differential expectations for girls and boys is nonexistent. In Saudi Arabia, coeducation is prohibited, and current science teachers are a product of completely gender-segregated schools. Therefore, it is an ideal place to examine male and female teachers’ views about science. The purpose of this dissertation, then, is to address that question, to explore the extent to which male and female science teachers understand the nature of science, or more specifically, their responses to characteristics of science, which will be defined in a later section. Another goal of this study is to investigate the influence of the teachers’ science major on their conception of the nature of science. Previous work on teachers’ views of science did not study the influence of the nature of the subject of science in relation to forming views about science. It is hoped that the findings of this study will shed some light on this topic. Teaching experience was included in the study to investigate the difference between novice and experienced teachers’ views of the nature of science. Purpose of the Studv This study is an attempt to determine whether science teachers in Saudi Arabia possess an understanding of the nature of science that is congruent with philosophers’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. interpretation of science. A second purpose is to identify variables that might contribute to an increase in their understanding and to determine the extent of these contributions. This study attempts to answer the following questions: 1. Do Saudi science teachers understand the nature of science? 2. Is there a difference between male and female science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science? 3. What relationships exist between science teachers’ concept of the nature of science as measured by “Nature of Science Scale ” (NOSS) and the following variables: a. Teachers’ science content major b. Years of teaching experience 4. Which of the previously cited variables contributes most to the science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science? Significance of the Studv The significance of the study springs mainly from its potential and practical contribution to the Saudi science teacher education program. There is a call to improve teacher inservice education in Saudi Arabia. Al-Ghamdi (1982) indicated that Saudi teachers were in great need of inservice training, according to his study of competency clusters. In science education in particular, Almazyed (1975), Aldubaiban (1983), and Almossa (1987) criticized the preparation programs for science teachers and recommended a quality inservice education. The design of quality inservice training should be preceded by an assessment of the teachers’ knowledge, skills, and practices, especially in Saudi Arabia where “the current practices of teacher education programs lack a clear vision and analysis of the needed teacher’s competencies and skills” (Abdoloziz, 1995, p. 15). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Therefore, this study is designed to help in assessing science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science and provide an insight on the need for inservice science teachers, especially since “science teacher in-service education is a new concept in educational planning development in the country” (Almossa, 1987, p. 44). The findings of such a study would be useful for the Ministry of Higher Education in designing a quality training program for science teachers. Also, science educators in Saudi colleges and universities could benefit from the conclusion of the study in future planning to improve preservice science teacher programs. The researcher expects that the conclusions from the study explained here would, in general, contribute to building a quality science education program in Saudi Arabia. Since the huge expansion in the Saudi educational system,^ a major concern is to improve the quality of education at all levels, especially at the science education level. The Fifth Five-Year Development Plan stated clearly that: At present. . . scientists, engineers, and technicians are not sufficient in quality or quantity to ensure future substantial development. . . It is now essential that a strong base for further development be firmly established by upgrading the level and quality of education in these fields (Ministry of Planning, 1990, p. 293). Also, comparing male and female teachers would help educational planners and poUcy makers in Saudi Arabia to identify the strengths and the weaknesses in male and female teacher preparation. Most studies of teacher education in Saudi Arabia are 1 In 1967 there were an estimated 441,871 students in the whole country; by 1991, the number had risen to approximately 3,109,525 (Minsitry of Education, 1992, p. 20). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 typically limited to one gender or the other because of the nature of the education system in the country On the theoretical level, the findings should yield a new contribution to the body of knowledge. Researchers are increasingly aware of the differences between females and males in science participation and achievement. They have attempted to address this situation by examining the differences between males and females to determine the practical and pedagogical barriers to females’ participation in science. Science education research suggests that teachers’ differential expectations for girls and boys contribute to the gender differences in science achievement. However, in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to compare the views about the nature of science held by males and females where the teachers’ differential expectations are not a factor, because students are taught in completely gender-segregated schools. Furthermore, a study of this type does not exist in Saudi Arabia. After reviewing all the available research published on science teacher education in Saudi Arabia, this researcher came to the conclusion that no study of this kind has yet been performed. However, such research has been done widely in the United States and other parts of the world. Therefore, this study will add to the existing literature and offer comparison between science teachers’ views in different cultures. Assumptions The findings of this study will be based on the following assiunptions; ^ See for example, Al-Mossa (1987), Al-Abdulhadi (1989), Dewaidi (1993), and Tashkandi (1981). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1. Understanding the nature of science is an important objective in science education. 2. Understanding the nature of science by science teachers is important if we expect science teaching to reflect an adequate picture of the nature of science. 3. The instnunent used in this study to measure science teachers’ conception of the nature of science is both valid and reliable. 4. Responses to the instrument are truthful. Lim itations Generalizations based on the results of this smdy must be considered with the following limitations in mind: 1. The study is limited to inservice science teachers in public schools in Riyadh City. 2. The study is limited by the validity of the measiurement instrument employed in the study. 3. The theoretical model of the nature of science is one of many possible models describing the nature of science. 4. The study was not designed to investigate all of the possible variables which may affect Saudi science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Definition of Terms Each of the following items is used in this dissertation in the sense indicated: 1. School science teacher: the teacher who teaches one of the three disciplines of science curriculum—biology, chemistry, or physics—in the intermediate or secondary schools. 2. Nature of Science: the characteristics of science presented by the “Nature Of Science Scale’’ (Kimball, 1967). The explanation of the model will be detailed later in the literature review in Chapter n. 3. Teacher’s Nature of Science Conception: the teacher’s knowledge of the ethics, methods, values, and assumptions of reaching scientific knowledge. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 4. Ministry of Education: the top authority responsible for the public education of males at all levels below the university in Saudi Arabia. 5. General Presidency of Girls’ Education: the government agency responsible for operating public education for female students from kindergarten to college. A Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 C H A PTER n Review of the Literature It is essential to introduce the reader to the Saudi educational system to understand the context of the study. Therefore, the chapter will begin with a description of the Saudi educational system. This will be followed by an explanation of what the science education community means by the construct “nature of science.” In addition, the relationship between teachers’ conceptions of science and their students’ conceptions of science will be discussed to help determine why teachers’ views of science are important. The studies which examined teachers’ conceptions of science and factors which could influence them will be summarized. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the implications of having science teachers adequately understand the epistemological and philosophical aspects of the science they are teaching. Education in Saudi Arabia Historical Review The earliest education organizations in the Arabian peninsula began in the seventh century with the teaching of Islam and the Holy Qur’an. Education was acquired in small schools located either near or in the mosques and called the “Khuttabs.” Education, in those days, meant reading, writing, and recitation of the Qur’an. Khuttabs were the only type of education that existed in the Arabian peninsula with the exception of the western part of the peninsula, which was under the rule of the Turks who introduced centralized governmental education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 In 1925, King Abdulaziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, established the Directorate of Education to manage the school system in Hijaz and other parts of the country. The first public secondary school, Elmi institute, was established in Mecca in 1926/27. The first public secondary school to include science courses was established in 1937, and its purpose was to prepare students for higher education in other Arab countries. The school taught a full curriculum which included sciences, math, English language in addition to Arabic, religious studies, and social studies. The science courses included biology, physics, and chemistry. A more organized educational system started to develop in the 1950s, with the increased national revenues fiom the exportation of oil. A new era in the Saudi educational system began in 1953 with the replacement of the Directorate of Education with the Ministry of Education, which became fully responsible for the education of males. Female government-supported education was not provided until 1960 with the establishment of the General Presidency of Girls’ Education. The opening of the first school for girls was resisted by some Saudis who were afiraid that education of females would lead to the destmction of Islamic and family values. Therefore, the supervision of girls’ education was given to the religious leaders to gain their support and approval for the establishment of schools for girls. As such, education of males is under the Ministry of Education supervision and girls’ education is under the General Presidency of Girls’ Education. But the curricula are similar for both boys and girls with minor exceptions in the areas of physical education and home economics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 The Structure of the Education System Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is run by four main authorities which implement a unified national policy planned by the Higher Committee for Education Policy. The four authorities are the Ministry of Education, the Presidency of Girls’ Education, the Ministry of Higher Education, and the General Organization of Technical Education and Vocational Training. 1. Ministry of Education. It is considered the largest centralized educational agency in Saudi Arabia. It is in charge of educating male students in 32 educational districts throughout the country. The Ministry of Education sets up the policy, and the school districts implement it through superintendents who are appointed by the Ministry. The Ministry is responsible for research and development of the curriculum in the Kingdom and also represents the Kingdom at international educational organization meetings. The Ministry provides the following types of education (for males only): - General education (elementary, intermediate, and secondary). - Teacher training. - Special education. - Adult education and literacy. 2. General Presidencv of Girls’ Education (GPGE). In the 1960s GPGE, which is lower than ministerial level, was founded to be responsible for girls’ education. The establishment of the GPGE was a turning point for development in girls’ education. Female students were given the same curricula and provided with the same type of equipment and physical facilities as the male smdents. The Presidency controls kindergartens in addition to the following types of girls’ education: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 - General Education (Elementary, Intermediate, and Secondary). - Teacher Training. - Colleges of Education. - Adult Education and Literacy. - Vocational Education and Training. 3. The General Organization for Technical Education and Vocational Training (GOTEVT). The government realized the need for trained manpower in the national development. Therefore, two institutes were founded. One is the General Administration for Technical Education, a division of the Ministry of Education, which supervises separate industrial, trade, and agricultural schools. And the other is the General Administration of Vocational Training, a division of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, which directed several vocational centers. In 1980 these two administrations were integrated into the GOTEVT. GOTEVT is now responsible for pre-vocational training centers (intermediate level), vocational and commercial secondary schools, and higher (post-secondary) technical institutes. 4. The Ministrv of Higher Education. It was established in 1975. Before that, higher education was administered by the Ministry of Education. Presently, the Ministry of Higher Education supports and supervises the Kingdom’s seven universities and sevenQr-eight colleges, and also coordinates post-secondary programs. 5. Others. In addition to these governmental agencies, there are other authorities which provide their affiliates and their children with primary and secondary education. However, these authorities follow the same study plan and curricula enforced in the Ministry of Education and in the Presidency of Girls’ Education. Also, there are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 authorities who provide military higher education and, usually, each branch of the Armed Forces has its own college. Teacher Education Saudi teacher education has developed steadily over the last five decades, paralleling the general development of the educational system. The first formal institute for teacher preparation, the Saudi ELMI Institute, was established at Makkah in 1926. It provided a 3-year program for students who had the ability to read and write and graduated teachers to serve in the early elementary schools. The establishment of the Ministry of Education in 1953 led to upgrading teacher preparation to an intermediate level certificate. Teachers could enroll in Elementary Teachers Institutes in which the required study would consist of three years after the elementary stage (Mosa, 1994). In 1965 the elementary teacher institutes were converted to secondary teachers institutes. Because of criticism of the Saudi teachers’ performance, in 1975 the Ministry of Education started Junior College Diploma, which accepts high school graduates. Later, those junior colleges were converted into teachers colleges to graduate teachers specializing in instruction at the elementary schools. Female teacher education has gone through extensive development since its beginning in 1960 when the GPGE established the first teacher institute, which admitted females who had the primary certificate. The GPGE supervised all types of programs of female teacher preparation including colleges of education for females, which were established to prepare female teachers for teaching in the intermediate and secondary female schools. In general, preservice teacher education has gone through a number of changes: intermediate, secondary, junior colleges, and teacher training four-year colleges. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 Currently, there are three systems of teacher education in the Kingdom. One is run by the Ministry of Education, which is responsible for planning and managing the 17 male teacher’s colleges, and the other is run by the GPGE, which supervises 26 female colleges. The third system is run by six colleges of education under the supervision of four universities which admit both sexes on separate campuses. The Nature of Science The “nature of science” is a phrase used to describe the scientific enterprise for science education. It is best defined as: a fertile hybrid arena which blends aspects of various social studies of science including the history, sociology, and philosophy of science combined with research fiom the cognitive sciences such as psychology into a rich description of what science is, how it works, how scientists operate as a social group and how society itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavors (McComas et al, in press: p. 3). Thus, understanding the nature of science entitles one to understand science presuppositions, values, aims, and its limitations. It has been advocated that students should not only understand science principles and facts but also comprehend the way scientific knowledge has evolved and been validated as described by modem philosophers of science. In fact, improving a student’s understanding of the nature of science is a major goal of science education (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990; National Science Teacher's Association, 1982; Rubba and Anderson, 1978). The advocacy for students’ understanding of science could be traced back to the early twentieth century. Although the expression “understanding the nature of science” was not stated clearly then, some elements and characteristics of science were spoken of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 as goals worth pursuing in science teaching. For example, Lederman (1992) reports that the Central Association of Science and Math Teacher's report (1907) strongly emphasized the scientific method and the process of science in science teaching. Dewey (1916) argued that understanding scientific method is more important than the acquisition of scientific knowledge (Hodson,199I). In 1946 James Bryand Conant delivered his famous Terry Lectures on the general topic of an historical approach to science at Yale University in which he expressed his opinion on the importance of understanding the tactics and strategy of science for those who are not scientists (Conant, 1951). It was not until the early sixties that the construct “the nature of science” was stated clearly as a major aim of science teaching by the National Society for the Study of Education (1960) in its 59th yearbook: First to teach some facts and principles of science; second to inoculate higher virtues, such as accuracy, critical thinking, scientific honesty and more generally scientific method; and third to develop an understanding and appreciation of science and scientists (as cited in MacKay, 1971, p. 57). It was the third aim of science teaching to develop an understanding of science among students. Currently, understanding the nature of science constitutes a major component of scientific literacy, which is seen to be a central goal for all students (AAAS, 1989; Garrison and Bently, 1990; Duschl, 1985; NSTA, 1982; Rubba and Anderson, 1978). Philosophers of science have tried to give an account of how science progresses and how scientific knowledge is validated. The dominant philosophy of science used to be positivism. It is associated mostly with the work of Francis Bacon and David Hume. The main ideas that underpin this philosophy is the belief that secure knowledge is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 induced with certainty firom an empirical base, scientific theories are clearly distinct from facts, and that scientific discoveries are validated through objective criteria. In the last few decades, a post-positivism philosophy of science has emerged and challenged the positivistic assumptions about the nature of science. The new philosophy of science, as Abimbola (1983) stated, “relies on the detailed study of the history of science for its analysis” (p. 186) and believes that theories and values are not completely separable from facts. Thus, there is no singular version of what is meant by the nature of science. A group of reputable authors in the philosophy of science stated their feeling as follows; “We have no well-confirmed general picture of how science works” (Ginev, 1990). They have some disagreements about the appropriate image of scientific inquiry (Duschl, 1994). There are significant points of disagreement between the major writers in the philosophy of science (Abimola, 1983). There are difficulties associated with determining what counts as a description of authentic science among philosophers of science, yet, there is significant agreement on tenets of philosophy of science that should inform science education. For example, philosophical assertions, such as that observation is theory-laden, scientific knowledge is tentative, and there is no one scientific method, would help to attenuate the effects of scientism ideology, which perceives scientific activity as objective, quantitative, and verifiable. A number of writers acknowledged the significant points of agreement in the philosophy of science. For instance, Doran, Guerin, and Cavalieri (1974) have analyzed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 11 instruments constructed and validated for assessment related to the nature of science and grouped the common elements characterizing science as follows: 1. Methods and aims of science. 2. Characteristics of scientists. 3. Assumptions of science. 4. Processes of science. 5. Interactions of science with society and technology. Cleminson (1990) and Hodson (1991) identified the agreement among philosophers on the role of observation in science as follow: 1. Scientific knowledge is tentative. 2. Observations are theory-dependent. 3. New knowledge in science is produced by creative acts along with the methods of scientific inquiry. 4. The acquisition of new scientific knowledge is disputable because observations are unreliable. 5. Scientists study a world of which they are a part, not a world firom which they, are discotmected. 6. Scientific method should not be equated with pure induction. Also, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) identified three principles of the nature of science that students should understand which are: 1. The scientific world view, which includes: that the world is understandable, scientific ideas are subject to change, scientific knowledge is durable, and science cannot provide complete answers to all questions. 2. Scientific methods of inquiry, which include: that science demands evidence, science is a blend of logic and imagination, science explains and predicts, science tries to identify and avoid bias, and science is not authoritarian. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 3. The nature of the scientific enterprise, which includes: that science is a complex social activity, science is organized into content disciplines and is conducted in various institutions, that there are generally accepted ethical principles in theconduct of science, and scientists participate in public affairs both as specialists and as citizens. Recently, Driver et al. (1996) identified three features as key elements of an understanding of the nature of science. They are: understanding of the purpose of scientific work, understanding of the nature and status of scientific knowledge, and understanding of science as social enterprise. Most recently, McComas and Olson (in press) reviewed science education standards documents from several countries to find consensus regarding the NOS issues that should inform science education. They derived thirty individual statements and subsumed them into four larger categories which are: 1) Philosophical, 2) Sociological, 3) Psychological, and 4) Historical statements and assumptions. Instrumentation A number of investigators have tried to derive particular criteria for measuring the objective understanding of the nature of science by developing a model of the nature of science based on points of agreement among philosophers of science. A survey of the literature revealed many instruments which were developed for objective evaluation related to the nature of science. The most widely used instruments are: Test on Understanding Science (TOUS) The Test on Understanding Science (TOUS) was developed by Cooley and Klopfer (1963). Form W of TOUS consists of 60 multiple choice tests and has three Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 subscales. The reliability of the three subscales, scientific enterprise, scientists, and methods and aims of science are 0.58,0.52, and 0.58, respectively. The reliability of the total score is 0.76. Its content validation was established by a review of science educators, science teachers, professors of science, professors of the history and philosophy of science and by a review of the literature. Even though TOUS is one of the most widely used instruments, criticisms of it have also emerged. Aikenhead (1973), stated that Wheeler (1968) argued that TOUS items embrace a negative viewpoint of science, and Hukens (1963), in a factor analysis study, concluded that TOUS loaded strongly on a verbal factor. Still, Aikenhead believes that TOUS items evoke a response of attitude, students perceive the test as concerned with their appreciation or lack of appreciation for science, and the items are answered based on a scientist’s “good guy” image. Science Process Inventory (SPI) SPI was developed by Welch in 1966 and later revised to contain 135 item force- choice inventory (agree/disagree) (Welch and Pella, 1967). SPI resembles TOUS subscale HI in that it assesses the subject’s awareness of the methods and processes of scientific knowledge. The instrument was validated by a review the literature, the judgment of “experts,” and the ability of the instrument to distinguish among different groups of examiners. The author preferred not to use this instrument because of its length. This 135- item instrument takes more than an hour to administer. Another reason is its forced- response nature. When using this instrument, the subjects do not have a chance to express uncertainty or neutrality. They have to either agree or disagree with the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 statements. Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes (WISP) WISP has been developed by the Scientific Literacy Research Center and consists of ninety-three statements, which are evaluated as accurate, inacciurate, or not understood. The responses “inaccurate” and “not understood” are scored as the opposite of “accurate.” The contents of WISP are almost identical to SPI (Aikenhead, 1973). The use of this instrument in assessing science teachers’ views about the nature of science is inappropriate because, Sharmaim (1985) and Billeh and Hasan (1975) argued that WISP measures knowledge of the science processes rather than their associated philosophical components. In a very recent review of assessing understanding of the NOS, it was stated that the instrument validi^ for measuring NOS is questionable if it concentrates on areas other than the NOS, such as the process of science (Lederman et al., in press). Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS) This 48-item Likert scale response format was developed by Rubba and Anderson to assess the first of seven dimensions of the “scientific literacy” definition established by Showalter and his colleagues (Rubba and Anderson, 1978). The first NSKS dimension is understanding the nature of scientific knowledge described as: 1) amoral, 2) creative, 3) developmental, 4) parsimonious, 5) testable, and 6) unified. The reliability of the NSKS was assessed with several samples of students at the high school and college levels. The content validity was judged by a panel of experts during its development. Although this instrument has good reliability and validity data, it was not considered suitable for this research purpose because the instrument assesses the subject’s conception about the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 nature of scientific knowledge only, it does not assess conception of the nature of the scientific enterprise and the nature of scientists. Meichtry (1993) distinguished between the terms science and scient^c knowledge. Views On Science Technology Society (VOSTS) This instrument represents a shift from the conventional to the empirically derived instrument. It consists of 114 multiple-choice items addressing a broad range of science- technology-society topics. The contents of VOSTS are based on the theoretical models of science that validated the standardized instruments used in earlier years and on more recent literature concerning the epistemological, social, and technological aspects of science. The conceptual outline of the VOSTS content includes the following; science and technology, influence of society on science/technology, influence of science/technology on society, influence of school science on society, characteristics of scientists, social construction of technology, and nature of scientific knowledge (Aikenhead et al., 1989). In spite of the popularity of this instrument in research, it was not chosen for the research endeavor discussed here because it is more like an interpretative model of the participants’ views and does not yield numerical values. The research interest in this study is to provide statistical analysis for teachers’ responses and, thus, VOSTS was not considered appropriate for this smdy. Nature of Science Scale (NOSS) The instrument was designed by Kimball to determine whether science teachers have the same view of science as scientists. It is a 29-item Likert scale that measures Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 understandings based on a theoretical model of the nature of science developed by Kimball. Its content validity was originally established by nine experts, and its empirical validity was established by the test’s ability to discriminate between science majors and those who were not. This instrument is selected for this research smdy because: 1. The instrument explicitly specifies a model of the nature of science without pretending to be the only model. Locus (1975), in his recommendation for the maimer of use of data derived fiom the instrument, recommended that they "explicitly specify the philosophic assumption(s) of the instruments” (p. 484). 2. The split-half reliability coefficient was 0.72 in the preliminary smdy in developing the instrument. The alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.74 as reported by Anderson (1986) and 0.71 as reported by Cobem (1989). 3. The instrument’s content was validated by a panel of five science educators and two science professors. And the construct validity of the instrument was established by the test’s ability to discriminate between college graduates who were science majors and those who were not. Billeh and Hasan (1975), in their review of NOS instruments, have considered NOSS to be a valid instrument fiom both the constmct and content perspective. 4. The development, validation, and reliability measurers of the instrument were carried out with college graduates, which make these measures suitable for use with science teachers who are college graduates. 5. It has 3-option Likert scale response: agree, disagree, neutral. This offers fieedom of expression to subjects. 6. It is a 29-item instrument which makes it easy to administer and yet, its validity is sufficient for the purpose of examining the nature of science conception. 7. It has been used by many researchers to assess the subject’s understanding about the nature of science (Anderson et al., 1986; Cobem, 1989; Dushl and Wright, 1989; Folajimi, 1988; and Ogunniyi, 1983). Criticism has recently been leveled at this instrument by Lederman et al. (in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 press). The instrument was criticized because the reliability and validity data were carried out with college graduates and thus lacks reliability with respect to the high school population. That is not a concern here because science teachers are the subjects of the study, not students. The other criticism that has been voiced is the instrument’s lack of subscales, which means only unitary scores can be obtained. However, the researcher did not rely only on the total score in the data analysis, the eight model declarations were utilized to create a thematic analysis. The Relationship between Teachers and Students Views of Science The smdy is based on the belief by many researchers that the smdents’ views on the nature of science are influenced by teachers’ views on the nature of science (Connelly, 1971; Makey, 1971; Ogunniyi, 1982; Robinson, 1965, 1969; and Schwab, 1962). Thus, if we want to improve smdents’ views of the nature of science, which is a major goal of science education, we first have to consider science teachers’ views on the nature of science. However, one may wonder how teachers’ views about the nature of science could affect smdents’ views about science. The figure below illustrates this relationship. Figure 1: The relationship between teachers and smdents views of science Teacher’s Conceptions of the Nature of Science Teachers’ Behaviors C D ' (2)- (3) Smdents Conceptions of the Nature of Science Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 The figure above shows that teachers’ views of the nature of science could influence students’ views (relationship 3 in the fîgme). This is not a direct relationship, it could be explained by looking at relationships (1) and (2). There is research that concludes that teachers’ views of science could influence their behavior (relationship 1) which, in turn, influences the views of science received by students (relationship 2). The following two sections will be devoted to empirical studies related to relationships (1) and (2). Teachers’ Views of Science and Their Teaching Behaviors Regarding relationship (1) in the figure, it is believed that a teacher’s understanding of science influences the way he/she conducts instruction in the classroom. In other words, there is a correspondence between teachers’ views about science and the way in which they deal with observation and experimentation in laboratory classes. Many science educators discussed the influence of a teacher's understanding of science on the way he/she conducts instruction in the classroom. It is quite common in the literature to find statements supporting the relationship between teachers’ views of science and their classroom behavior (see Table 1). Table 1 Researchers’ Assumptions about the Relationship Between Teachers’ Views on Science and their Teaching Behavior AUTHOR STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTION Abimbola, 1983 Knowledge of the history of development of the concepts, laws, and theories in the appropriate science will help teachers to enrich their instruction (p. 189). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 Carey and Stauss, 1970 If the teacher's imderstanding and philosophy of science is not congruent with the current interpretations of the nature of science . . . then the instructional outcomes will not be representative of science (p. 368). Gill, 1977 The type of science imparted to students depends on the teachers own views as to the nature of science (p. 4). Hurd, 1969 It is undoubtedly true, a teacher's conception of what science is influences not only what he teaches, but how he teaches (p. 16). Nunan, 1977 Thus, the image of science adopted by this teacher would influence content and treatment decisions in the classroom (p. 68). Ogunniyi, 1983 If science teachers hold inadequate views of science then the instructional outcomes will inevitably be a cormption of what they are supposed to teach (p. 193). Robinson, 1969 It is assumed that a teacher's conception of the nature of science is an important force in shaping his classroom behavior (p. 99). Studies used a variety of investigative methods to explore this relationship. Four studies concluded that a teacher’s conception of the nature of science could impact his/her teaching. However, Lederman and Ziedler’s (1987) study concluded otherwise. They investigated the relationship by doing qualitative observation in the classroom of 18 biology teachers and came up with a data set for each teacher. They performed a systematic pairwise qualitative comparison among the 18 data sets to classify differences in the classroom and instruction used by the teachers. As a result of this, Lederman derived 44 classroom variables that differentiate between the behaviors of the 18 teachers. The 44 classroom variables were categorized as follows: teacher’s general instructional Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 approach, teacher’s content-specific characteristics, teacher’s non-instructional characteristics, student characteristics, and classroom atmosphere. The processes of deriving the classroom variables were done by Lederman without knowledge about the teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science. Zeidler, the second investigator administered the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS) to the science teachers and categorized teachers who exhibited the highest scores on NSKS as “high” and those exhibiting the lowest as “low.” To test the assumption that a teacher’s classroom behaviors differ as a result of a teacher’s conception of the nature of science, they tested the capability of each classroom variable to statistically differentiate between high and low teachers. They concluded that a “teacher’s classroom behavior doesn’t vary as a direct result of his/her conception” (p. 731). Lederman and Ziedler's conclusion, that a teacher's views of science do not really have an impact on a teacher's behavior, was challenged by Brickhouse. Brickhouse (1989) considered the influence of teachers’ beliefs about philosophy of science on their connection to classroom practice. She conducted extensive interviews and observations of three science teachers. The findings revealed that the teachers' nature of science conceptions influence their decisions about what they teach. For example, one teacher viewed theories as truth that had been uncovered through rigid experimentation; therefore, in her classroom the intent of instruction was for students to get at and learn the truth. She evaluated students’ performance in science activities only by the products of the activity. In this teacher’s opinion, the scientific process is fully inductive, and therefore her lab instruction consisted of information about precise procedures to acquire the right answer. The second teacher thought of theories as tools to solve problems, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 therefore her students used theories to explain observations and to resolve problems. The third teacher viewed science as the accumulation of knowledge, and that was reflected in his teaching of the development of atomic theory. He illustrated the various models as building on one another, and every scientist referred to gave increased detail to the former model of the atom. Brickhouse concluded that teachers’ philosophies influence their laboratory instruction, the ways in which they used demonstrations, and their instructional goals. The two empirical research data by Lederman (1987) and Brickhouse (1989) seem to yield contradictory conclusions concerning the issue of the influence of teachers’ views of science on their teaching practices. However, there is noteworthy evidence in science education research to maintain Brickhouse's conclusion. Studies by Smith and Anderson (1984), Lantz and Kass (1987), Duschl and Wright (1989) indicate that a teacher’s interpretation of science is reflected in the way he/she designs his/her science lessons. Smith and Anderson (1984) observed an elementary science teacher teaching an activity-based unit on plant growth and photosynthesis. They reported that the teacher was surprised to learn that her students could not predict whether or not seeds beginning to grow in the dark would survive, even though her students had spent two weeks measuring and observing two planted grass seeds in the light and in the dark. The teacher hoped that her students would derive photosynthesis, a theoretical construct, from empirical observations of plants grown in the light and dark. The teacher's expectation for her students was influenced by her philosophy of science. She believed that scientific theories are implied from data through inductive logic. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 In Canada, Lantz and Kass (1987) tried to propose a model of a teacher's interpretation of curriculum materials which uses the term "functional paradigm” as a primary construct. The term functional paradigm is similar to the paradigm that guides the scientists. In their illustration of applying the model to the three chemistry teachers who adopted the same materials, they found that these teachers’ views of chemistry influenced their choices of the curriculum materials. For example, the first teacher, who viewed chemistry as a stable body of concepts, principles, and theories, covered several theoretical topics fi*om different courses that he had taught earlier, and therefore he had difficulty finishing the course in the time allotted. The second viewed chemistry as a body of scientific knowledge and taught all the topics included in the program. However, the third teacher, who perceives chemistry as a constantly developing body of knowledge, limited his presentation to the essence topics in the materials to picture some aspects of the nature of science. Dushl and Wright (1989) investigated high school teachers’ decision-making models for planning and teaching science. Based on the study, they postulated that there are three ingredients in science teachers’ decision-making models of reality for the selection, implementation, and development of instructional tasks, which are (a) student development, (b) curriculum guide objectives, and (c) pressures of accountability. They resolved that teachers do not think about the nature or the role of scientific theories or subject matter in the selection, implementation, and development of instructional tasks. This conclusion was used by Lederman (1992) as evidence to counter the presumed relationship between teaches’ conception and their teaching behavior. He reported, “The nature and role of scientific theories are not integral components in the constellation of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 influences affecting teacher’ s educational decisions” (p. 347). Duschl and Wright pointed out that none of the teachers hold newer views about the nature of science which explains their apathy to the role of scientific theories in their decision-making models. They stated that “the lack of consideration for an accurate portrayal of the cognitive activities of science can be explained by teachers’ lack of knowledge about the nature of science” (p. 493). Therefore, we can say that if those teachers are informed about the most fundamental issues in science, for example, the creation and validation of scientific knowledge, then these new views may influence teachers’ decision making. They indicated that there is a strong emphasis on memorization of the vocabulary of science with limited weight on matters related to the nature of science, and that is because they believe that a “teacher's knowledge of science is limited to the body of knowledge of science” (p. 125). The researcher takes the position that science teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the nature of science influence their classroom behavior. That is, the teacher will consider the nature of science in his/her science teaching and the teacher’s views of science will be translated through his/her lesson plans and classroom discussions. In fact, the influence of a subject-matter understanding on the teacher’s behavior is not limited to science education research alone. Teachers’ conceptions of the subject matter appear to affect their practices in other areas. Shavelson and Stem (1981) reported that, in general, conceptions of the subject matter is an important factor that may affect teachers’ pedagogical decisions and judgments. Tuan (1991) cited Bawden, Blenke, and Duffy research on reading in which they noted that older teachers with more teaching experience have a skilled-oriented conception of reading and consequently have Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 different instructional activities and time allocation than younger teachers with a child- centered conception of reading. Also, in mathematics, Thompson (1982) found that teachers’ conception of math influence their behavior. Taun (1991) states that scholars in teachers’ thinking research such as Olson (1980), (1981), Duffe (1977), Elbaz (1981), Thompson (1982), Tabuchnick and Ziesner (1985), and Hoton and Anderson (1987) showed that a teacher's beliefs, values, and personal philosophies have an impact on a teacher’ s instruction and curriculum. In general, we can refer to Salomon’s (1988) statement, in which he said: As teachers we do not just act as the gateway to knowledge. We ourselves represent, embody our curriculum. And, in our teaching, we can convey not just our explicit knowledge but also our position towards it, the personal ramifications and implications which it has for us. (p. 42) We cannot draw the conclusion that there is an uninterrupted relationship between teachers’ philosophical points of view of science and their classroom instruction, because teaching is a complex activity and cause and efiect relations are difficult to determine. Teachers have to consider a myriad of factors when they plan their lessons, and that is why it is sometimes difficult to find a direct relationship between teachers’ views of science and their practices because of the possibility that different beliefs, besides the ones a teacher has about science, could influence their decisions, planning, and teaching. Clark (1988) maintains that research on teachers’ preconceptions and classroom instruction “has documented the many heretofore unappreciated ways in which the practice of teaching can be as complex and cognitively demanding as the practice of medicine, law, architecture” (p. 8). Therefore, the complexity of teaching could Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 sometimes hinder teachers firom reflecting their views of science on their classroom instructions. However, that does not mean that science teachers who are aware of the philosophical aspects of science will plan, select science materials, and teach science as do those teachers who lack knowledge about the history and modem philosophy of science. Teachers’ Classroom Behavior and Students' Views of Science Teachers’ practices can influence the way students think of science. Certain classroom instructions may mislead students about the nature of scientific knowledge. For example, when the teacher states the problem for students and provides the materials and the procedures leading to the correct conclusion, then the students can perceive that by following certain steps, scientists can reach scientific principles and theories and will develop inductivist views of science, which is considered to be inadequate by philosophers of sciences. However, when the teacher guides the students to design and critique their investigations, the students will get a sense of the human face of science. Burbules et al. (1991) recommended certain modifications in science instructions to provide a more accurate view of science to students. They suggested that classrooms should look like modem research laboratories, where students participate in science activities as part of a social group. In fact, the literature has pointed out that the way science is taught may intervene with students acquiring an adequate understanding of science (Eylen and Linn, 1989). There is evidence in science education literature to show that a teacher’s classroom practices do influence a student's understanding of the nature of science (relationship 2 in Figure 1). For example, Lederman and Druger (1985) found that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 students’ views of science are positively influenced by science teachers who model an inquiry or problem-solving teaching approach. They identified 44 teacher behaviors and classroom climate variables that could be related to specific changes in a student's understanding of the nature of science, as measured by the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS). They found that students’ views of the nature of science change, when there are inquiry-oriented questions and problem-solving activities, and when there is frequent teacher-student interaction and little emphasis on rote memory and on implicit references to the nature of science. Lederman and Druger’s findings supported Haukoo and Penick’s (1983) study in which they compared the influence of two classroom climates on students’ learning of science process skills and content achievement in college level science classes. Even though students in the discovery classroom climate achieved equally on learning of biological content of the course, the students in the discovery climate classroom achieved significantly higher scores in science process skills, as measured by the Welch Science Process Inventory. Dibbs (1982) investigated the relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ views on science. The study involved five science classes that were taught by teachers teaching unambiguously on inductivist (I-type), verifications (V-type), or hypothetico deductivist (H-type) conceptions on the nature of scientific experiments. Dibbs identified the inductivist-type teachers as the ones who have an observational style to teaching science, the verification-type teachers as the ones who have an informative style, and hypothetico-deductivist type as the ones who have a problem-solving style. To investigate the influence of such practices on students’ ideas of science, students were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 asked to write a story about a scientist. By counting the number of times students used certain terminology or sentences, an interesting difference among the students receiving the different teaching practices were found. Dibbs reported: Pupils who had been exposed to H style of teaching used words such as “ideas,” “think,” “thought,” “problem,” “question,” “test,” “testing,” “check,” and “clues” more often than did those who had been in the I or V groups. Pupils from the I group seemed to favor words such as “record,” “recording,” “noted,” “sample,” “specimen,” “notice,” “look,” “observations,” “information,” “discovery,” “theory,” “pattern,” and “conclusion." . . . All mentioned experiments frequently but pupils from the V groups more often said that they “prove” something (pp. 202, 203). Munby (1976) argued that the way teachers verbally present science could have potential consequences on a student's views of the nature of science. He hypothesized that the language of instruction is significant for a student’s understanding. That is, different understandings are obtainable from different contexts in which scientific communication might be understood. He explained that when a teacher uses scientific communication in an ordinary language context, for example, saying “... our description of the process says ...” and “... experimenters were led to construct. . then students will interpret that science does not portray reality, that scientists innovate something that enables us to conceptualize reality, that scientific explanations are useful tools in developing scientific knowledge which is the instrumentalist view of science. However, when the teacher uses scientific language for an explanation such as saying that electrons are bound, or dislodged, and students interpret it in an ordinary language context, then students may assume that the scientist found the electrons when they did the experiments and, as a result, develop a realist view of science. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 Zeidler and Lederman (1989) utilized an empirical study to extend Munby's findings. The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not teachers’ presentations of the subject matter have an impact on students’ formulation of a world view of science. They administered Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS) to 18 science teachers and their 409 students at the begimiing and at the end of the semester. They used composite scores of student changes on the Testable, Developmental, and Creative subscales to compare classes that exhibited the greatest change with those classes that had the least change on the NSKS. Qualitative observations of each teacher were conducted to obtain transcripts of teacher/class verbalizations. They found that certain messages about the nature of science were communicated through teachers’ ordinary discourse and were subsequently conveyed to their students. For example, when the teacher used ordinary language in discussing science constructs such as, “This portion of the amino acid is called the amino group. It contains a nitrogen atom and two hydrogen. Always and forever... Exactly, always and forever” (p. 780), the students tended to have a realist conception of science. Alternatively, when the teacher used precise language in presenting science constructs, such as “... The periodic table is just something created by scientists to organize all the elements... This brings up again another problem that always exists in classification...” (p. 778), students tended to have an instrumentalist view of science. Researchers concluded that clearly there is a relationship between teachers’ language and students’ views of science. In summary, the research is fairly convincing that teachers’ views of the nature of science influence their students’ views (relationship 3 in the figure). Teachers’ beliefs Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 influence their behavior (Brickhouse, 1989; Duschl & Wright, 1989; Lantz & Kass, 1987; and Smith & Anderson, 1984) which, in turn, influences the views of science received by students (Dipps, 1982; Haukoo & Penick’s, 1983; Lederman & Dmger, 1985; Munby, 1976; and Zeidler & Lederman, 1989). Hence, efforts to investigate teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science to see if they have the adequate conception is important in improving any educational program. The next section will deal with prior studies of teachers’ beliefs of the nature of science. Studies of Science Teachers’ Conception of the Nature of Science A number of studies have been carried out to measure teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. One of the first efforts to assess science teachers’ ideas about the philosophy of science was undertaken during the school year 1946-47. Fifty-six Minnesota high schools were selected at random to take part in a comprehensive study of science instruction. Anderson took one phase of the study, which is description of the biology and the chemistry teaching practices. Anderson posed eight questions about the scientific method to the 58 biology teachers and 55 chemistry teachers. He concluded that the teachers lacked knowledge regarding the scientific method. He implied that they were concerned with imparting scientific facts to students at the expense of engendering an understanding of the processes of obtaining those scientific facts (Anderson, 1950). Miller (1963) conducted one of the most-ciied studies of teachers’ views of science. The Test on Understanding Science (TOUS) exam was administered to 51 biology teachers and five student groups, spanning grades 7-12. He found that the eleventh and twelfth grade smdents who were of high ability scored above 50 percent of their teachers. It was disclosed that many science teachers do not understand science as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 well as their students. Several years later, Schmidt (1967) replicated Miller’s study and concluded that the problem identified by Miller still existed. Factors Related to Teachers’ Views About Science Researchers, in their attempts to assess science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science, were trying to identify variables that are related to teachers’ views of science. Basically, the researchers investigated science content knowledge in relation to understanding the nature of that knowledge. It was presumed that learning more science would lead to understanding the nature of science. Other researchers were interested in questioning the influence of experiences in real science on the participants’ views of science. They compared the views of science held by science teachers and professional scientists to see if participation in real science affects scientists’ views of science. A number of studies were initiated to answer the following question: Is there a relationship between teachers’ knowledge of science content and their understanding of the nature of science? Teachers’ content knowledge was measured by looking at variables related to the teachers’ academic record; teachers’ understanding of science was measured using standardized instruments. The studies included prospective and experienced elementary and secondary science teachers. To illustrate. Miller (1963) conducted one of the most-cited studies of teachers’ views of science measured by TOUS. The data revealed no significant correlation between the two factors. Carey and Stauss (1968) administrated the Wilch Inventory Science Process (WISP) test to prospective secondary science teachers and (1970) to experienced science teachers. The WISP scores were correlated with the following variables: 1. High school science units. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 2. College mathematics hours, 3. College biology hours, 4. College physical science hours, 5. Total college science hours, 6. College mathematics grade average, 7. College biology grade average, 8. College physical science grade average, 9. Total science grade average, and 10. Total college grade average. It has been concluded that none of the previous academic variables are associated with teachers’ understanding of science. Anderson, Harty, and Samuel (1986) compared the two groups of 1969 and 1984 prospective science teachers in terms of their conceptions of the nature of science as measured by the Nature of Science Scale (NOSS). The two groups differed in the amount of semester hours of science completed for certification requirements. Even though both groups expressed incompetent views of science, interestingly, the 1984 group with 51 semester hours of science requirement was significantly higher than the 1969 group with 64 semester hours of science. Mikael Rymonda (1986) analyzed the prospective secondary school science teachers’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. She identified academic variables which might contribute to the teachers’ views of science. Using the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS), she found that variables such as the subject’s science major GPA, overall science GPA, number of semester hours of science major completed, and number of semester hours of overall science completed did not yield significant correlation with the subject’s understanding of science with the exception of the orientation toward science process variable. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 More recently, Aguirre, Haggerty, and Linder (1990) asked 74 Canadian preservice secondary science teachers 11 open-ended questions about science, teaching, and learning. Data revealed that even though they identified some elements of the three phases of science, as identified by Hodson ( 1986), which are generation, testing, and validation of scientific knowledge, about 40 percent of the subjects believed that the primary activities of science are directed to answering questions and providing explanations. Over half of them did not understand the whys and hows of science. Given the fact that all of the subjects held bachelor’s degrees in science, the authors were surprised to find such misconceptions about science. Regarding the second question: Does research experience in science affect the participant’s view of science? Researchers sought to answer the question by comparing the views of science held by science teachers and by scientists. Benhke (1961) investigated the views of a group of scientists and a group of secondary science teachers regarding the following: (a) the nature of science, (b) science and society, (c) the scientist and society, and (d) the teaching of science. Surprisingly, over one-half of the teachers and 20 percent of the scientists view content of science as fixed and unchangeable, which reflects a misunderstanding of science. He found that teachers differed the most from the scientists on statements which involve ^n understanding of the scientific enterprise in some depth. Kimball (1967) felt that investigating the philosophical perspectives held by scientists and science teachers might provide interesting implications for science teacher education. He developed the NOSS instrument to measure the conception of the nature of science and administered it to science major graduates from Stanford University and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 San Jose State College. He was interested in investigating the difference between those science majors who had entered professional science and those who became science teachers. He wanted to know if the difference in understanding the nature of science could be attributed to training or to experience. Using NOSS, he concluded that there is no significant difference in understanding the nature of science between scientists and science teachers. It seems puzzling that scientists who work in real scientific investigations themselves do not understand the nature of science, however, it is possible that the scientists implicitly comprehend the NOS but cannot exphcitly state their positions. Visavateeranon (1992) insisted on examining empirically the effect of research experience on teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science. The study involved 31 teachers who worked on research projects with university faculty in the lab or in the field for two to four weeks. The researcher compared teachers’ pre- and post-experience perceptions of science using the Nature of Science-Key Features test, lesson plans, interviews, and journals. It was found that only 18 to 27 percent of teachers changed their traditional views of science to more contemporary views of science. The researcher recommended assigned reading materials on the history of science. She suggested that the positivistic ideas expressed by scientists and science teachers are due to the “scientists and secondary science teacher’s deep initiation into the norms of the scientific community” (p. 269). They see themselves as role models, so they are likely to present normative rather than realistic views of science. Another reason, she suggested, could be that the scientists are working within the accepted paradigms of “normal science” (Khun, 1970). They are using accepted theories to answer new questions posed by government Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 and business. Therefore, their work may resemble positivistic modes of scientific research. Interest in the philosophical conceptions of science held by science teachers continues to occupy researchers’ attention. Studies have concluded that neither research experience in science or extensive science course work is sufficient for improving science teachers’ views of science. Imnlications of Teacher Understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS") The justification for the teacher understanding of the nature of science could be based on the following reasons. First, there is a practical argument for improving science teachers’ conceptions of the NOS. In the last few years, there has been a significant growth of interest in how philosophical aspects of science can and should relate to science education. In 1989, 1992, and 1995 three international conferences were held on the history and philosophy of science in science education. The main objective of a number of additional conferences (Pavia 1983; Munich 1986; Paris 1988) has been to investigate why and how history and philosophy of science may be integrated in school science (Nielsen & Pual, 1990). The new reforms in school science recommend the inclusion of history and philosophy of science HPS-related topics in schools. Project 2061 emphasizes the importance of students understanding the nature of science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990). In Britain, Matthews (1991) pointed out that the HPS topics comprise five percent of the curriculum. Additionally, there is the trend toward the integration of science-technology-society themes into contemporary school programs. Logically, promoting philosophy of science in school science should influence the education of science teachers. Rise of historical Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 and philosophical aspects of science in school cannot be achieved without adequate preparation of teachers in the epistemology of science. Therefore, attention should be given to the role of epistemology of science in teacher preparation programs. Second, teachers should be able to comprehend the philosophical issues of science to help them understand authentic science. Science teachers may imderstand the atomic model and Boyles’ law, but they may not understand what law, theory, and model mean in the discipline. One of the major theses of Michael Martin’s (1972) book “Concepts of Science Education: A Philosophical Analysis” is that philosophy of science smdy is beneficial to the science educator. A recent book by Matthews, on history and philosophy of science (HPS) and science teaching, argues for the inclusion of HPS course in science teacher programs (1994). He gives many examples where knowledge of the historical and philosophical aspects of science can contribute to more valuable teaching. Smdies in philosophy of science will clarify teachers’ thought about the nature of science and help them understand the roles and methods which guide the study in the discipline. Manuel (1981) referred to the role of epistemology in British teacher education: This more philosophical background which is being advocated for teachers would, it is believed, enable them to handle their science teaching in a more informed and versatile manner and to be in a more effective position to help their pupils build up the coherent picture of science—appropriate to age and ability— which is so often lacking (p. 771). Surely, lack of knowledge about philosophy of science would hinder teachers’ incorporation of philosophical aspects of science into their teaching. In King’s (1991) study, the 13 science teachers attributed the difficulties of incorporating ideas such as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 discovery and relevance into their science instructions to their ignorance about history and philosophy of science. Third, it has been argued that knowledge about the NOS will enable teachers to implement students’ conceptual change. Studies of the process of historical conceptual development may shed some light on the individual’s cognitive development. Because of the persistence of students’ naive ideas in science, it has been suggested that teachers could use the conceptual development of scientific terms to help students illuminate the conceptual journey they have to make from their naive misconception to an understanding of the concept In other words, a teacher’s interest in HPS could assist him/her to understand the psychology of students’ learning (Matthews, 1994). Summary Understanding the nature of science has long been a major objective in science education. There is no standardized definition for the term NOS; however, there are many attempts to find the agreed-upon NOS elements, and many instruments have been developed for the purpose of measuring NOS conception. Researchers are interested in investigating science teachers’ conceptions of the NOS because it is believed that teachers’ views of how science works affect their students’ views of science. A number of smdies have shown that the way teachers think of science influences their classroom instruction, which in tiun influences their smdents conceptions of science. Research that looked into teachers’ philosophical conceptions of science has shown that neither extensive science course work nor research experience in science is helpful for improving science teachers’ views of the NOS. Thus, more research is needed to locate factors that could be related to teachers’ conceptions of the NOS. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 CHAPTER m Methodology The study was concerned with measuring Saudi science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. It provides a tentative identification of variables that might contribute to increasing teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and determine the extent and amount of these contributions. This chapter provides a detailed description of the methodology employed to answer the research questions. Topics covered include a discussion of the: (a) scope of the study, (b) population, (c) sampling procedures, (d) instrumentation, (e) data collection procedures, (f) pilot study, and (g) data analysis. Scope of the Studv The object of this research is to measure Saudi science teacher’s views about the nature of science. An analysis of factors which could influence teachers’ views about the nature of science was included. These factors are: gender, science major, and teaching experience. In this study, it is a major concern to investigate whether these factors have an impact on the science teachers’ conception about the nature of science as measured by the Nature Of Science Scale (NOSS). The gender issue has long demanded attention in science education. An educational system like the Saudi educational system, where coeducation is nonexistent, would be an ideal place to look at male and female teachers’ views of the nature of science. The variable of the academic major was collected to compare the overall effect of science courses on the teacher’s understanding of the nature of science, while variable teaching experience is collected to investigate the differences between novice and experienced teachers in understanding the nature of science. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 Population The population of this study includes male and female science teachers who (a) teach science at the intermediate and secondary stages in Saudi Arabia, (b) are employed by the Ministry of Education and the General Presidency of Girls’ Education, (c) teach in public schools in Riyadh, and (d) graduated firom universities or colleges of education- science departments, colleges of science, colleges of applied science, science and mathematics centers, or from equivalent institutes in other countries. The target population of the study is 1435 science teachers and is divided into two categories: 1. Six hundred and twelve male science teachers in 137 intermediate and 47 secondary schools for boys. There were 393 intermediate science teachers and 219 secondary science teachers. There are 215 native Saudi teachers representing 35 percent of the total number of science teachers in the city. The remaining 65 percent, or 397, were non-Saudi science teachers, mostly from the Arab countries of Egypt, Sudan, Syria, and Jordan. 2. Eight hundred and twenty three female science teachers in 142 intermediate and 85 secondary schools for girls. There were 259 intermediate science teachers and 564 secondary science teachers. All are Saudi teachers with the exception of three teachers (General Presidency of Female Education, 1996). Sampling Procedure Since the population for this study is divided into males and females, two samples Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 were drawn.^ The first sample is drawn firom the female science teachers category which includes ail the elements in the population, that is all the female science teachers in Riyadh city. To provide the second representative sample firom the male target population, the researcher followed the stratified sampling method. According to Babbie (1991), a stratified sample is “a method for obtaining a greater degree of representation decreasing the probable sampling error” (p. 215). The following procedures were followed: 1. A list of the names and addresses of intermediate and secondary schools in Riyadh was obtained firom the Ministry of Education. 2. A list of science teachers in Riyadh was also obtained firom the Ministry of Education. 3. The geographical location of the schools in Riyadh was used as the sampling frame of the study. According to the list of addresses of schools obtained firom the Ministry of Education, schools are distributed into five areas: north, south, east, west, and central part of Riyadh. The geographical location within a city is chosen to stratify the sample, to ensure representation of social classes. 4. Schools in each one of the five areas in the city were stratified into two categories: intermediate and secondary schools. 5. An average of four schools were selected randomly firom the intermediate schools category, and an average of three schools firom secondary schools in each area. All schools were listed in Arabic language alphabetical order and were assigned numbers. A table of random numbers was used to obtain a total of 35 schools. 6. Surveyed all science teachers in each school facilitated the distribution of the questionnaire. ^ Article 155 of the Educational Policy of Saudi Arabia states that the separation of the sexes in all levels of education, with the exception of kindergarten and nursery, and some private elementary schools in the first and secondary grades as well as some medical school classes. But the curricula are similar for both boys and girls, with minor exceptions in physical education and home economics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Instrumentation In order to complete this study, the Nature of Science Scale (NOSS) was used to collect data. Also, a survey of personal backgroimd was used to collect the demographic data. Subjects were asked to specify their gender, major, and teaching experience. Nature of Science Scale (NOSS) Kimball (1967) developed the Nature of Science Scale (NOSS) (Appendix A) to compare qualified science teachers and scientists in terms of their understanding of the nature of science. The instrument is based on a theoretical model of the nature of science developed out of extensive study of the literature on the nature and philosophy of science. The nature of science inherent in the instrument is consistent with views expressed by Conant and Bronowski, and additional support for the model assertions was found in other philosophers of science writing. The model of the nature of science in NOSS is based on the following assertions: 1. The fundamental driving force in science is curiosity concerning the physical universe. It has no connection with outcomes, applications, or uses aside from the generation of new knowledge. 2. In the search for knowledge, science is process-oriented; it is a dynamic, ongoing activity rather than a static accumulation of information. 3. In dealing with knowledge as it is developed and manipulated, science aims at ever-increasing comprehensiveness and simplification, emphasizing mathematical language as the most precise and simplest means of stating relationships. 4. There is not one “scientific method” as often described in school science textbooks. Rather, there are as many methods of science as there are practitioners. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 5. The methods of science are characterized by a few attributes which are more in the realm of values than techniques. Among those traits of science are dependence upon sense experience, insistence on operational definitions, recognition of the arbitrariness of definitions and schemes of classification or organization, and the evaluation of scientific work in terms of reproducibility and of usefulness in furthering scientific inquiry. 6. A basic characteristic of science is a faith in the susceptibility of the physicaluniverse to human ordering and understanding. 7. Science has a unique attribute of openness of mind, allowing for willingness to change opinion in the face of evidence, and opeimess of the realm of investigation, unlimited by such factors as religion, politics, or geography. 8. Tentativeness and uncertainty mark all of science. Nothing is ever completely proven in science, and recognition of this fact is a guiding consideration of the discipline (Kimbale, 1967: p. 111-112). Using predominated assertions about the nature of science, 200 statements were initially developed, but after pilot testing, 29 items were arranged in a Likert-type scale which became the Nature of Science Scale (NOSS) (see Appendix A). The Nature of Science Scale is scored by counting three points for each response in agreement with the nature of science model, two points for a neutral response, and one point for a response opposite to the response predicted by the model. The same system applies in reverse to statements inconsistent with the model. The split-half reliability of the original instrument was 0.72 as measured by Kimball. The content validity was established by a panel made up of two experienced science teachers, two school science supervisors, three science professors, and two professors of science education who approved the initial 200 statements. Its empirical validity was established by the instrument’s abiliQr to discriminate between science majors and those who were not. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 The NOSS has been used several times in research related to students’, teachers’, and scientists’ conceptions of the nature of science. Anderson et al. (1986) used the instrument with preservice science teachers and reported an alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.74, while Cobem (1989) gave a reliability estimate of 0.71. In a review of instruments used for the purpose of examining the nature of science conception, it was found that only NOSS has been rated to be a valid instrument from both the construct and content perspectives (Billeh and Hassan 1975). The Translation of the Instrument The researcher translated the instrument from English to Arabic. To ensure the validity of the translated form, a committee method approach was followed (Brislin, 1980). The English version of the instrument was translated into Arabic independently by four bilingual graduate students. The bilinguals then compared their translations and arrived at a consensus version. It was easy to reach a consensus version because the researcher supplied the bilinguals with a copy of translations of the common terms found in the instrument such as: the scientific method and the scientific investigation. The Arabic translation for the terms were taken directly from leading philosophy of science books written in Arabic. In the second phase of the translation, the consensus version was reviewed by four Saudi graduate students. Afrer receiving their suggestions, some minor changes were made in the translation. (Appendix B includes the Arabic version of the instrument.) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 Data Collection Procedure The following procedures were used when collecting the data for this study. Since the researcher is sponsored by the Saudi Educational attaché in the USA, the researcher sent a summary of her proposal, accompanied by a letter from her academic advisor to the Saudi Educational attaché. The Saudi Educational attaché then wrote a letter to the authorities in education in Saudi Arabia stating the hope that the researcher would receive all the help she needed for the completion of the study (Appendix C). The researcher decided to go to Saudi Arabia for approximately 11 weeks to collect the data. The researcher contacted both the Ministry of Education and the General Presidency of Girls’ Education (GPGE) to obtain permission to access the male and female populations for conducting her study. The Ministry of Education and the General Presidency of Girls’ Education each wrote a letter directed to the school principals in Riyadh to secure their help and cooperation in completing the study. The distribution of the questioimaire to the male and female science teachers differed because of the segregation between males and females in Saudi Arabia. The researcher visited the Educational Supervision Main Office in GPGE and explained the nature of her study and, therefore, was given the opportunity to distribute her study questioimaires to all female intermediate and secondary schools in Riyadh (227 schools). Each copy of the instrument had attached to it a letter from the researcher explaining the need and purpose of the study (Appendix D), and a letter from the GPGE to the school principals encouraging their school science teachers to respond to the instrument (Appendix E ). A total of 227 envelopes, corresponding to the number of female intermediate and secondary schools in Riyadh, were prepared. Each envelope Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 included a number of copies corresponding to the number of science teachers in each school. The envelopes were distributed to schools through the mail office at the Educational Supervision Main Office, within a four week period, a follow-up to the questionnaire was conducted through phone calls and personal contact with principals of the schools. As for male teachers, the questionnaire was distributed by hand to all principals of the thirty-five randomly-selected intermediate and secondary schools. Each school was given copies of the instrument corresponding to the number of science teachers in the school. A cover letter was attached with the questioimaire urging science teachers to complete all the items and a letter firom the Ministry of Education urging the school principals to cooperate in conducting the study (Appendix F). Approximately four weeks after distributing the instrument to all subjects, the school principals were contacted through phone calls thanking them for participating and urging the return of any responses not yet received. By the end of the seventh week following the distribution of the questionnaire, all the copies were collected by hand firom the randomly-selected schools. Through these procedures, the instrument was distributed to all female science teachers (823) in all intermediate and secondary schools in Riyadh (277) and to 145 male science teachers in the 35 randomly selected schools. At the end of the seventh week into the survey, data were collected firom 870 respondents, representing 89 percent of the total number of questionnaires distributed (978). The responses were complete and usable except 84 responses, which makes the total of respondents firom the two samples 786. Female science teacher responses totaled 649, representing 79 percent of all female Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 science teachers in Riyadh. Male science teacher responses totaled 137, representing 95 percent of the male science teacher sample. Pilot Studv Subjects for the pilot study included 30 male and female science teachers who did not participate in this study. Through personal contact, the researcher introduced the instrument to sixteen female science teachers in military and private guard schools, which were not included in the final study sample. Also, the instrument was introduced to fourteen male science teachers who teach in intermediate and secondary schools not included in the sample study. The respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire and submit their comments on the instrument. There were two purposes for this pilot study. The first purpose was to test the instrument for appropriateness to Saudi science teachers in terms of the instrument readability, clarity, and understanding. The second purpose was to estimate the reliability of the survey instrument. Cronbach’s Alpha Correlation Coefficient was used to calculate the internal consistency between an individual’s items and the total scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha of internal consistency was 0.74, which indicates acceptable reliability in educational research. The researcher did minor changes in the terminology of the instrument based on the suggestions of the pilot study comments. For example, science was replaced by natural sciences through all items. Data Analysis The data were collected and scored by the researcher. The data were analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics such as percentage, group means, firequencies, and F-test of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 analysis of variance (ANOVA). The researcher used the Statistical Package for Social Science to perform the analysis of data. The F-test was used to measure the difference of science teacher male and female conceptions of the nature of science, the differences of major, and the differences of teaching experience in the conception of the nature of science among Saudi science teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 CHAPTER IV Results and Analysis This chapter presents the results of the analysis of data collected from middle and secondary science teachers in the city of Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. The data were collected and analyzed according to the procedures and to the five major research questions descnoed previously. The first question is an attempt to describe the science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentages, means, grand means, and frequencies. The second research question was an attempt to identify the differences of conceptions of the nature of science that might exist between male and female science teachers. The data collected were analyzed using the F-test analysis, which compares statistically the scores of male and female science teachers. The third study question was designed to find out whether there is any significant differences among teachers of different science majors in terms of their understanding of the nature of science. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The fourth major question was an attempt to find out any significant differences in understanding the nature of science among science teachers of different teaching experience. Again, the one-way ANOVA was applied to test if such differences exist. The last study question was concerned with finding out which of the previously cited variables contributes the most to the science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Analysis of variance was also used in analyzing data collected for this question. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 Description of the Respondents As mentioned in Chapter m, 978 questionnaires were distributed to the middle and high school science teachers who were employed in Riyadh for the years 1995-1996. The number of returned and useable responses was 786, which constitutes 80 percent of the distributed questionnaires. The total number of science teachers sampled, 786, was composed of 137 (17 percent) male and 649 (83 percent) female middle and secondary science teachers. The majority of the teachers in the study (423) have a biology major. The second largest category was composed of teachers who have a chemistry major. The number of teachers in this group was 236 (30 percent). The number of teachers who had a major in physics was 127 (16 percent). The respondents have an average of only two years of teaching experience; the majoriQr of those, that is, about three-quarter, have been teaching science for one to eight years. Only six percent have been teaching science for more than fourteen years. The rest (18 percent) have teaching experience of nine to fourteen years. In regard to nationality, there were 770 Saudi science teachers and 16 non-Saudi science teachers. The respondents’ level of education indicated ten types of degrees obtained from different institutes qualifying a person to teach science at secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. Research Questions Research Question 1: What do Saudi school science teachers perceive to be the nature of science? The nature of science conceptions of 786 science teachers in middle and secondary schools were determined by analyzing their responses to the 29 NQSS items Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 developed by Kimball (1967). The research instrument was a Likert-type scale ranging from “agree” to “disagree” responses. The Cronbach’s Alpha Correlation CoefGcient was used to calculate the internal consistency between an individual’s items and the total scale. The Cronbach’s Alpha of internal consistency was 0.71, which indicates acceptable reliability in educational research. The items were scored by giving three points for responses in agreement with the model, two points for uncertainty, and one point for responses disagreeing with the model. The scores for the items were totaled to obtain a single total score for each teacher on the NOSS. Therefore, the highest total score possible on the test is 87 points (3 X 29 items) indicating great understanding. The lowest possible total score is 29 (IX 29) and indicates very poor understanding. In other words, the more consistent a subject’s views are with the premises of the scale, the higher the scores on the NOSS scale. Researcher designated the total NOSS scores as agree or disagree with the NOSS model according to the following: A score of 29 - 48 was considered to be No Agreement, 49 - 67 Uncertain, and 68 - 87 Agreement. The value of the intervals (19) was found by dividing the range between the highest and the lowest in the total score (58) by the three points on the instrument scale. Frequency and descriptive statistics on the data showed that the subjects’ total scores on the NOSS ranged from 34 (indicating disagreement with the NOSS model) to 87 (indicating agreement with the NOSS model). The group mean for the teachers’ conception of the nature of science score was 45.96, indicating that these teachers, as a group, do not agree with assertions about the nature of science indicated by the NOSS. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 In terms of teachers’ responses to individual items in NOSS, item analysis results showed that there is little agreement among Saudi science teachers with the model response for NOSS items. Table 2 shows the response model, the group mean, and standard deviation for each NOSS item. An average score of three would indicate that each member of the group agreed with the NOSS model item. An average score of one would indicate absolutely no agreement with the model item. The researcher designated the response means as “agree” or “disagree” according to the following intervals for each point on the scale, where the mean of 1 - 1.66 was considered as No Agreement, 1.67 - 2.32 as Uncertain, and 2.33 - 3 as Agreement. The 0.66 value of the intervals was found by dividing the number of distances in the 3-point scale (2) by the three points on the instrument scale. Examination of Table 2 reveals that the respondents disagree with or are uncertain about 26 of the statements contained in the 29-statement NOSS model. In other words, Saudi science teachers showed understanding of only three characteristics of the nature of science as described by Kimball ( 1967). They understand that the criteria for accepting scientific work are that it is useful in predicting future events; that today’s practices in designing electrical apparams will not be discarded if it is found in the future that electricity does not consist of electrons; and that science has limitations. Table 2 Science Teachers Responses to the NOSS 29 Individual Items Item NOSS Model Item Standard Number Items Response Means Deviation 19. Theories and predictions A 2.43 .79 25. Electrical particles and future D 2.41 .80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 Item NOSS Number Items Model Response Item Means Standard Deviation 22. Limitation of science A 2.36 .85 2. Scientific classification schemes A 2.09 .78 16. Nature of scientific models A 2.06 .87 14. Invasion / Intrusion of science D 2.06 .86 6. Scientific investigation and bias D 2.03 .85 18. Sharing scientific findings D 1.96 .83 10. Ultimate goal of science A 1.94 .92 7. Science and complex knowledge D 1.93 .94 9. Deductive and inductive approach D 1.65 .83 26. Solving scientific problems D 1.55 .82 4. Objective of working scientist D 1.48 .81 17. Scientific investigation procedures D 1.42 .73 5. Scientific hypothesis and data D 1.40 .74 3. Discoveries and scientific method D 1.32 .68 20. Universal law of nature D 1.32 .67 27. Scientific method and myth A 1.29 .63 11. Definition of science D 1.28 .62 13. Teams of scientific research D 1.27 .59 28. Dedication for scientific work D 1.25 .59 12. Science and mankind D 1.24 .62 23. Science and engine D 1.20 .54 8. Science and practical applications D 1.16 .53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 Item NOSS Number Items Model Response Item Means Standard Deviation 15. Individual vs. Team research D 1.16 .51 24. Science and home appliances D 1.13 .46 21. Steps of scientific method D 1.11 .42 29. Characteristics of science D 1.05 .30 1. Most importantscientific ideas D 1.11 .42 However, since NOSS is composed of eight declarations, and each of the eight model declarations is based on a varying number of questions nested within the 29-item instrument, the analysis will center on the eight model declarations that represent a set of major themes around which the researcher built a thematic analysis of the results. Model declaration 1: The fundamental driving force in science is curiosity concerning the physical universe. It has no connection with outcomes, applications, or uses aside from a generation of new knowledge. The following items deal with this theme. 4. The primary objective of working scientists is to improve human welfare. 8. A fundamental principle of science is that discoveries and research should have some practical applications. 12. Science tries mainly to develop new machines and processes for the betterment of mankind. 23. The steam engine was one of the earliest and most important developments of modem science. 24. Scientific research should be given credit for producing such things as modem refrigerators, television, and home air conditioning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 25. If at some future date it is found that electricity does not consist of electrons, today’s practices in designing electrical apparatus will have to be discarded. 29. An important characteristic of the scientific enterprise is its emphasis on the practical. Table 3 shows the extent of science teachers’ agreement, uncertainty, and disagreement with items related to Model Declaration One. The seven items in this theme were designed to evoke responses which would give some indication of the respondent’s view of the purpose of science. It seems that the respondents had a clear disagreement with model declaration number one. For example, almost all the respondents (96.6 percent) answered “agree” for item 29, “an important characteristic of scientific enterprise is its emphasis on the practical”; the response model is “disagree.” Also, they had high disagreement with the model response for item 24, “scientific research should be given credit for producing such things as modem refrigerators, television, and home air conditioning.” About 91.6 percent answered “agree,” and the model response is “disagree.” Obviously, respondents perceive societal needs, not curiosity, as the driving force in science. This is certainly illustrated in their high agreement (90.8 percent) with the statement, “A fundamental principle of science is that discoveries and research should have some practical applications.” It seems that the respondents do not differentiate between the purpose of science and the purpose of technology. Their responses to item 4, 12, and 23 indicate that the majority of them believe that science is primarily concerned with development of useful technology; 70 to 80 percent think that the primary objective for scientists is improving human welfare and that science aims at developing new machines for mankind. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 The only item related to Model Declaration One that received relatively high agreement with the model response was item 25. About 61.2 percent of the science teachers answered “disagree” for the item: “If at some future date it is found that electricity does not consist of electrons, today’s practices in designing electrical apparatus will have to be discarded.” Table 3 for Declaration 1 “NOSS” NOSS Agreement with Uncertainty about Disagreement with Item model response model response model response No % No % No % 4 159 20.2 61 7.8 566 72.0 8 55 7.2 17 2.2 714 90.8 12 78 9.9 36 4.6 672 85.5 23 51 6.5 57 7.3 678 86.3 24 39 5.0 27 3.4 720 90.6 25 481 61.2 148 18.8 157 20.0 29 15 1.9 12 1.5 759 96.6 Model Declaration 2: In the search for knowledge, science is a process-oriented, dynamic, ongoing activity rather than a static accumulation of information. The only item that deals with this theme is: 11. The best definition of science would be “an organized body of knowledge.” This item directly tests the respondents’ views of the definition of science. The view of science as an organized body of knowledge seems to be the dominant view Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 among Saudi science teachers. They perceive science as a product not as a process of finding out what exists in the world. Only 9 percent of them disagree with this view and 9.5 percent are uncertain about their views. Table 4 Science Teachers’ Agreement. Uncertaintv. and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 2 “NOSS” NOSS Agreement with Uncertainty about Disagreement with Item model response model response model response No % No % No % 11 73 9.3 75 9.5 638 81.2 Model Declaration 3: In dealing with knowledge as it is developed and manipulated, science aims at ever-increasing comprehensiveness and simplification, emphasizing mathematical language as the most precise and simplest means of stating relationships. Items involved with this theme are: 7. Science is constantly working toward more detailed and complex knowledge. 10. The ultimate goal of all science is to reduce observations and phenomena to a collection of mathematical relationships. Scientific process leads to simplification. However, about a half of Saudi science teachers do not think of science this way. Forty-eight and one-half percent of them answered “agree” to item seven, “Science is constantly working toward more detailed and complex knowledge,” while the model response is “disagree.” Likewise, 45.2 percent do not understand that the intent of scientific endeavor is to reach a simple concept that could explain many phenomena. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 Table 5 for Declaration 3 NOSS Item Agreement with model response No % Uncertainty about model response No % Disagreement with model response No % 7 324 41.2 81 10.3 381 48.5 10 311 39.6 120 15.3 355 45.2 Model Declaration 4: There is no one “scientific method” as often described in school science textbooks. Rather, there are as many methods of science as there are practitioners. There are nine items that explore this theme: 1. The most important scientific ideas have been the result of a systematic process of logical thought. 3. Thanks to the discovery of the scientific method, new discoveries in science have begun to come faster. 9. While biologists use the deductive approach to a problem, physicists always work inductively. 13. Any scientific research broader than a single specialty can only be carried out through the use of a team of researchers from various relevant fields. 15. Team research is more productive than individual research. 17. Scientific investigations follow definite approved procedures. 21. The scientific method follows the five regular steps of defining the problem, gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing it, and drawing conclusions firom it. 27. Scientific method is a myth which is usually read into the story after it has been completed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 28. Scientific work requires a dedication that excludes many aspects of the lives of people in other fields of work. All of the nine items’ responses that assess science teachers’ views of science methods point to the respondents’ disagreement with Model Declaration Five. They were strongly committed to a scientific method approach to science. It is believed by 92.7 percent that the scientific method follows the five regular steps of defining the problem; gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing it, and drawing conclusions from it. Their answers to items 3,9, 17, and 27 obviously show that they think scientists follow defined procedures in their scientific investigations. Also their answers to Item 1, 13, and 15 show that they perceive team research to be more productive than individual research because scientific ideas are reached through logic, not through individual creativity and imagination. Table 6 Science Teachers’ Agreement. Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response ^ f o r ^ g l ^ ____________________________________________________________________________ NOSS Agreement with Uncertainty about Disagreement with Item model response model response model response No % No % No % 1 72 9.2 88 11.2 626 79.6 3 98 12.5 58 7.4 630 80.2 9 178 22.6 154 19.6 454 57.8 3 57 7.3 102 13.0 627 79.8 15 50 6.4 29 3.7 707 89.9 17 114 14.5 103 13.1 569 72.4 21 30 3.8 27 3.4 729 92.7 27 77 9.8 72 9.2 637 81.0 28 64 8.1 66 8.4 656 83.5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 Model Declaration 5: The methods of science are characterized by a few attributes, which are more in the realm of values than techniques. Among these traits of science are dependence upon sense experience, insistence on operational definitions, recognition of the arbitrariness of definition and schemes of classification or organization, and the evaluation of scientific work in terms of reproducibility and of usefulness in furthering scientific inquiry. These items are intended to convey this theme: 2. Classification schemes are imposed upon nature by the scientists; they are not inherent in the materials classified. 16. Many scientific models are man-made and do not pretend to represent reality. 19. The essential test of a scientific theory is its ability to correctly predict future events. Model Declaration Five states that scientific connotations emphasize values more than techniques. Yet, a division of opinion was discovered to exist among the teachers over this idea. To illustrate, the model response for items 2 and 16 is “agree”; about a third of the respondents answered “agree,” a third answered “disagree,” and the rest answered “uncertain.” In other words, about a third of Saudi science teachers understand that scientific models and classification schemes are human constmcts, a third of them perceive them as real, existing entities, and the rest are unsure of their views on this issue. However, item analysis results found that item 19, which also mirrors Model Declaration Five, received the highest agreement among the respondents. Sixty-two and one-half percent of the participants answered “agree” to the item, “The essential test of a scientific theory is its ability to correctly predict future events”; the model response is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 “agree.” It seems that the respondents agree with the model criteria in accepting a scientific theory, which is the ability and usefulness of the theory in answering more questions in scientific research. Hence, we can say that the instrumentalist view of science is more popular than the realist view of science among Saudi teachers. Table 7 Science Teachers’ Agreement. Uncertainty, and Disagreement with the Model Response for Declaration 5 “NOSS” NOSS Agreement with Uncertainty about Disagreement with Item model response No % model response No % model response No % 2 277 35.2 303 38.5 206 26.2 16 325 41.3 183 23.3 278 35.4 19 491 62.5 144 18.3 151 19.2 Model Declaration 6: A basic characteristic of science is a faith in the susceptibility of the physical universe to human ordering and understanding. Items which relate to this theme are: 6. The scientific investigation of human behavior is useless because it is subject to unconscious bias of the investigator. 14. Investigation of the possibilities of creating life in the laboratory is an invasion of science into areas where it does not belong. Science teachers as a group do not seem to align themselves with or against Model Declaration Six, as indicated by their responses to item 6 and 14. About a third of the respondents agreed with the model response in believing that our perception of realiQr depends totally on our means of exploration of the world and that science is a tool for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 understanding of nature. The second one-third disagreed with this view, while the rest of them indicated their uncertainty about their views on this issue. Table 8 for Declaration 6 NOSS Item Agreement with model response No % “NOSS” Uncertainty about model response No % Disagreement with model response No % 6 295 37.5 223 28.4 268 34.1 14 319 40.6 199 25.3 268 34.1 Model Declaration 7: Science has a unique attribute of openness of mind, allowing for willingness to change opinion in the face of evidence, and the openness of the realm of investigation, unlimited by such factors as religion, politics, or geography. The only item related to this theme: 18. Most scientists are reluctant to share their findings with foreigners, being mindful of the problem of national security. Item analysis results found that 31.9 percent of science teachers agree with the model response in believing that scientists share their findings with other scientists regardless of their nationality. In disagreement with the the model response were 36.1 percent of the subjects. The rest marked the Uncertain position on this issue. However, it should be noted that the concept of openness in Model Declaration Seven indicates two things: openness of science to revision in the light of new data and openness of the scientists in sharing their science with other scientists from different cultures or religions. However, item 18 measures only the respondents’ views about the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 openness of the scientists. Hence, the item concentrates on the characteristics of the scientists, and therefore the researcher felt that another statement about the opeimess of science should be added here. Table 9 for Declaration 7 “NOSS” NOSS Agreement with Uncertainty about Disagreement with Item model response model response model response No % No % No % 18 251 31.9 251 31.9 284 36.1 Model Declaration 8: Tentativeness and uncertainty mark all of science. Nothing is ever completely proven in science, and recognition of this fact is a guiding consideration of the discipline. There are four items which touch on this theme; 5. While a scientific hypothesis may have to be altered on the basis of newly discovered data, a physical law is permanent. 20. When a larger number of observations have shown results consistent with a general rule, this generalization is considered to be a universal law of nature. 22. One of the distinguishing traits of science is that it recognizes its own limitations. 26. By application of the scientific method, step by step, man can solve almost any problem or almost any question in the realm of nature. Science teachers, as their responses to item 5 and 20 indicated, do not believe in the tentativeness of science. About two thirds of them perceive a physical law as an absolute principle of nature and not as a human constmct. However, they believe in the limitation of science, as their responses indicate. Sixty and four-tenths percent answered Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 “agree” to item 22, “One of the distinguishing traits of science is that it recognizes its own limitations”; the model response is “agree.” Table 10 for Declaration 8 NOSS Item Agreement with model response No % “NOSS” Uncertainty about model response No % Disagreement with model response No % 5 118 15.2 81 10.3 587 74.7 20 91 11.6 70 8.9 625 79.5 22 475 60.4 116 14.8 195 24.8 26 164 20.9 101 12.8 521 66.3 Although item 26 also measured the respondents’ views of the limitation of science, it was found that 66.3 percent of the respondents’ answers opposed the model response. The researcher feels that although the respondents understood the limits of science, nevertheless, as their responses to item 22 showed, they did not show agreement with item 26 because there was confusion in stating the item. Item 26, “by application of the scientific method, step by step, man can solve almost any problem or almost any question in the realm of nature,” appears to measure two conceptions. The first phrase, “by application of the scientific method, step by step,” measures science method conception while the second phrase, “man can solve almost any problem or almost any question in the realm of nature,” measures the limitation of science conception. Hence, the respondents possibly focused on the first phrase and stated their opinions about science methods, which is commitment to a scientific method, as shown before. Hence, this item ^ __ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 could do its purpose, which is measuring the respondents’ views of the limitation of science, by omitting the first phrase. Summary of Research Question 1 Summarizing the findings firom research question niunber one, it was found that there is little agreement among Saudi science teachers with the model response for NOSS items. It is discouraging to report that only 6 of the 786 science teachers teaching in middle and secondary schools in Riyadh had an adequate understanding of the philosophical assertions of science as measured by Kimbal (1967). As a group they agree with the model response on only three items firom the 29 NOSS items. Analysis of teachers’ responses on a thematic basis revealed that Saudi science teachers have a technological view of science and define science as a body of knowledge. They believe that there is one scientific method and that scientists follow definite patterns in their scientific investigations. Moreover, they do not see the tentative natiure of science. They are divided on issues related to the aims of scientific research, the traits of science methods in terms of its emphasis on values and facts, the physical nature and our perception of reality, and the openness of the scientist’s mind. Research Question 2: Is there a difference between male and female science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science? The summary statistics in Table 11 explain the results of the F-test analysis that compared male and female science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. The table shows the calculated means and the standard deviation between male and female teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 Table II Summary Data and Analysis of Variance Data for Comparisons Between Male and Female Teachers’ Conceptions of the NOS Male Female Number Mean Standard deyiation 137 45.50 6.77 649 48.13 5.19 Source df SS MS F F-yalue Between groups 1 783.730 783.730 25.919* Within groups 784 23,705.9 30.237 *p<.05 As can be seen in Table 11, there is a difference between male and female science teachers. The male teachers tend to understand the philosophical aspects of science better than the female teachers. The mean difference between the score of males (48.13) and the score of female (45.S0)shows that a significant number of male teachers comprehend philosophy of science more adequately than do female Saudi science teachers. To test the statistical significance of this difference, an ANOVA was performed on the data and the F-test indicates a significant difference between male and female F(l,786)=25.92, p < .05. This shows that Saudi male science teachers understand the nature of science better than female science teachers as measured by NOSS. Research Question 3: Are there differences among teachers with different science majors in terms of their understanding of the nature of science? To answer this question, a one-way ANOVA was performed on the data collected. The mean oyerall NOSS scores for each science major are shown in Table 12. The calculations reflect a combined score of male and female teachers. There are 127 male and female science teachers with physics major, 236 with chemistry major and 423 with biology major. As can be seen (M), teachers with physics major haye the greatest Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 conception of the nature of science, followed by teachers with chemistry major, who in turn have more understanding of the nature of science than teachers with biology major. The F-test in Table 12 indicates that those differences are significant (F=7.055, p<.05). Table 12 with Different Science Maiors Science Major n M SD Physics 127 47.59 7.43 Chemistry 236 45.93 5.18 Biology 423 45.48 5.05 Source SS df MS F Between groups 433.48 2 216.740 7.055* Within groups 24056.1 783 30.723 *p<.05 To look for significant differences among the three groups, a post-hoc contrast was conducted. Comparisons of the groups were made using Least Significant Difference (LSD) test, as can be seen in Table 13. Table 13 Least-Significant Difference Test Results: Pairwise Comparisons among the Three Science Major Groups Groups Physics Chemistry Biology Physics ------- 1.6626* 2.1059* Chemistry — .4433 Biology — *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. The result indicates that teachers with physics major have significantly different conceptions of the nature of science than do teachers with chemistry or biology majors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 There was no significant difference between teachers with chemistry major and teachers with biology major in terms of their understanding of the nature of science. Research Question 4: Are there differences among science teachers with different teaching experiences in terms of their understanding of the nature of science? Through a one-way ANOVA, science teachers’ responses to NOSS were analyzed in terms of their teaching experience. The number, mean, and standard deviation scores for each group are shown in Table 14. Table 14 with Different Teaching Exoeriences Teaching Experience n M SD 1 to 3 years 296 46.29 5.61 4 to 8 years 297 46.47 6.05 9 to 14 years 145 44.60 4.51 More than 14 years 48 44.81 4.50 Source SS df MS F Between groups 438.689 3 146.230 4.755* Within groups 4050.9 782 30.756 *p<.05 Table 14 shows that most of the science teachers are new to the profession because education is beginning to expand in Saudi Arabia. More schools have opened, and therefore more teachers are being trained. There are 296 teachers who have one to three years of teaching experience and 297 teachers who have four to eight years’ teaching experience; 145 have nine to fourteen years’ teaching experience, and only 45 have teaching experience of more than fourteen years. The F-test in Table 14 indicates that there is a significant difference between teachers with different teaching experiences in terms of their understanding of the nature of science. The significant F statistics were Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 then followed by post-hoc contrasts designed to investigate mean differences among the four teaching experience groups. Comparisons of the groups were made using LSD test as shown in Table 15. The table shows that teachers with nine to fourteen years’ teaching experience have significantly better conceptions of NOS than teachers with one to three years or teachers with four to eight years’ teaching experience. There was no significant difference between other groups. Table 15 Least-Significant Difference Tests Results: Pairwise Comparisons Among the Four Teaching Experience Groups Teaching Experience lto3 years 4to8 years 9tol4 years More thanl4years 1 to 3 years — .1808 1.6836* 1.4780 4 to 8 years — 1.8645* 1.6589 9 to 14 years — .2056 More than 14 years — *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Research Question 5: Which of the previously-cited variables contributes to the science teacher’s understanding of the nature of science? Science teachers’ responses to NOSS were subjected to a 2 x 3 x 4 analysis of variance to examine the effect of gender, major, and teaching experience on conception of the nature of science. An examination of Table 16 indicates that the analysis did not produce a significant interaction among gender, major, and teaching experience. However, on overall NOSS scores, gender (F 1,786 = 25.38, p < .05), science major (F 2,876 = 6.34, p< .05), and teaching experience (F 3,786 = 4.14, p < .05) are all significant main effects. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 Table 16 Analysis of Variance for Nature of Science Scores on NOSS Source Sum of Squares df Mean square F Sig Eta Squared Gender 746.237 I 746.237 25.385 .000 .032 Major 372.976 2 186.488 6.344 .002 .016 Teaching experience 365.086 3 121.695 4.140 .006 .016 Gender ♦Major 27.749 2 13.875 .472 .624 .001 Gender ♦Teaching experience 89.477 3 29.826 1.015 .386 .004 Major ♦Teaching Experience 137.482 6 22.914 .779 .586 -006 Source Sum of Squares df Mean square F Sig Eta Squared Gender ♦Major ♦Teaching experience 211.875 6 35.313 1.201 .303 .009 It appears that the science teachers’ gender, major, and years of teaching did contribute very little to the subjects’ variance and the explanation of their conception of the nature of science. The variance accounted for by all these variables is as little as 8.5 percent. In terms of the variance accoimted for by individual variables, it was found that subjects’ teaching experience and their science major each accounted for an amount of variance of 0.016 percent; 0.032 percent of the variance was attributed to the subjects’ gender. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 CHAPTER V Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations Summary Understanding the nature of science is a major goal of science instruction (AAAS, 1990, 1993; Bybee, 1986; Garrison and Bentley, 1990; National Science Teacher’s Association, 1982, 1985; and Rubba and Anderson, 1978). The phrase nature of science (NOS) is used by science educators to describe authentic science. While acknowledging the disagreement among philosophers of science on some issues, science educators have identified the common threads in the philosophy of science that should be a focus in science teaching. Science education researchers have pointed out the importance of teachers’ understanding of the NOS and have assumed that there was a correspondence between teachers’ views about science and the way in which they deal with related issues in class. It was not until the late 1980s that researchers concerned themselves with testing the assumption made by these scholars. The evidence in science education research is clear that the way teachers conduct instruction in the classroom influences the way students think of science. And therefore, eflbrts to enlighten science teachers about the nature of science is based on the idea that teachers will reflect those adequate ideas in their classroom instruction, and therefore students will pick up adequate views about the nature of science. Hence, there is interest in science education research to assess and identify variables related to teachers’ views of science. Therefore, the purpose of this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 investigation was to determine whether Saudi science teachers possessed a perception of science consistent with the philosophy of science as described by the NOSS “Nature of Science Scale.” There was also an attempt to study the influence of gender, major, and years of teaching on teachers conception of science. The study was conducted during the Spring semester of the 1995-1996 academic year in the capital of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh. The Saudi education system is a gender- segregated system, and therefore the sample for this study consisted of 145 male science teachers teaching in 35 boys’ middle and secondary schools, and all female science teachers (823) teaching in 227 middle and secondary schools. The researcher obtained a high rate of return (89 percent); 84 percent of them were useable, which yielded 786 cases to be analyzed. The instrument used for this study was the “Natme of Science Scale” (Kimble, 1967). It is based on eight model declarations, which are: 1) science is characterized by its openness, 2) scientific work must be reproducible, 3) the findings of science are tentative, 4) science is an ongoing process, 5) scientists believe that the universe can be ordered, 6) curiosity is the fimdamental driving force of science, 7) science strives for parsimony of explanation, and 8) there is no single scientific method. Teachers expressed their conceptions by indicating if they “Agree,” “Disagree,” or “Uncertain” about each of the 29 items that pertained to the model declarations. Other data collection included gender, major, and teaching experience. Data from the returned and qualified questiormaires were analyzed and reported by frequency and descriptive statistics. Also, one-way ANOVA and factorial ANOVA were utilized to answer the research questions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Research Findings 1. Saudi middle and secondary school science teachers did not have an adequate understanding of the nature of science as their group mean indicated (45.96). The majority of them, about 76 percent, showed disagreement with the NOSS philosophical assertions. In other words, they scored below 48 on the NOSS. It is discouraging to find that only six science teachers understood the nature of science, that is they scored between 67.6 and 87 on NOSS. The rest of them (26 percent) were uncertain about their views of science. 2. Item analysis results found that respondents had agreement with only three items from the 29 NOSS items. They understood that the criteria for accepting scientific work is its usefulness in predicting future events, that today’s practices in designing electrical apparatus will not be discarded if it is found in the future that electricity does not consist of electrons, and that science has limitations. 3. Many misconceptions about the NOS dominate Saudi science teachers’ views about the NOS. It was found that the respondents equate science with technology in perceiving human welfare as a primary objective for scientists and development of new machines for mankind as the main purpose of science. Also, it was found that they define science as a body of knowledge. In addition, they believe that there is universal scientific method and that scientists follow a common series of steps in their scientific research. Moreover, they see scientific knowledge as absolute truth, and therefore they do not believe in the tentative nature of science. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 4. Science teachers are divided on issues related to the aims of scientific research, the traits o f science methods in terms of their emphasis on values and facts, the physical nature and our perception of reality, and the openness of the scientific mind. 5. Although the group as a whole did not show adequate understanding of the nature of science, male science teachers were significantly more aligned with the NOSS model than the female science teachers. 6. Statistical analysis of the data also showed that teachers with physics major understood the NOS better than teachers with chemistry major and teachers with biology major. 7. It was found that teachers who were newest to the profession agreed with NOSS model response more often than experienced teachers did. 8. A factorial ANOVA statistical technique found that the variance accounted for by gender, major, and teaching experience for all science teachers was as little as 8.5 percent. Discussion Saudi science teachers demonstrate a very poor understanding of the nature of science, according to their scores on NOSS. The findings are disturbing because they show that among the 786 science teachers participating in the smdy only 6 teachers seemed to have an adequate understanding about the nature of science. These results, though, are not surprising; the literature documents many misconceptions about the nature of science among preservice and inservice science teachers (Aguirre et al., 1990; Carey & Stauss, 1970; and Pomeroy, 1993). A Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 The group mean (45.96) indicates that they do not have a feel for how science is done and how scientists work together. Also, previous studies which used the same instrument with the same scoring system found American preservice science teachers to have a mean of 58.1 (Anderson et al., 1986). In Nigeria it was found that preservice secondary science teachers have a mean of 49.5 (Cobem,1989). One implication of these findings is clear. Although all the science teachers have a major in science, they have not attained a realistic understanding of science and scientists as a result of their exposure to science instruction. Gallagher (1991) believes that secondary science teachers have misconceptions about the NOS because teacher preparation programs emphasize science content without attention to how this science knowledge came to exist, probably because the professors do not believe in the importance of such studies. Also, he believes that science teachers use of content and tradition-driven textbooks could make the situation worse. It has been found that Saudi science teachers hold numerous misconceptions about the purpose of science, definition of science, science methods, and scientific knowledge. For example, they do not see science as concerned with developing explanations, instead, they view it as a mean of improving the human condition. In other words, they confuse the purpose of science with the purpose of technology. They believe that science is primarily concemed with development of useful technology. For example, 96.6 percent of science teachers thought that an important characteristic of the scientific enterprise is its emphasis on the practical, and 91.6 percent thought that scientific research should be given credit for producing such things as modem refiigerators, television, and home air conditioning. Nigerian science teachers also viewed the purpose Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 of science in technological terms, as Ogunniyi (1982) and Cobem (1989) indicated. Cobem (1989) thinks that the view of science in terms of technology seems to be popular in third world countries because most of the scientific research in third world countries tends to be in the applied side rather than the pure side as in Western societies. It is true that in Saudi Arabia, one of the objectives of King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), formally known as the National Center for Science and Technology, is to “create and manage a system of national research laboratories to focus on applied research of unique interest and need to Saudi Arabia” (Aighafis, 1992, p. 11). Nonetheless, the confusion between science and technology seems to be a conunon misconception even in industrial countries. Bloom (1989) found that elementary science teachers believe that the primary purpose of science is to benefit humankind. Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) reported that 2000 Canadian upper secondary students confused science with technology. McComas (in press) considered the confusion between science and technology one of fifteen major issues related to NOS and problematic for many science educators. He went on to say that the distinction between science and technology now could be not crucial because most scientific investigations are funded by organizations with a specific agenda, and therefore scientists do not have the luxury of investigating scientific issues only to satisfy their curiosity, as did scientists of the Victorian age. Yet, scientific organizations, and probably the media, may contribute to the puzzlement between pure science and applied science and, therefore, should have a role in enlightening the public about the different roles of both science and technology. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Another distortion of science teachers conceptions of the nature of science is their view of what science actually means. Item analysis results found that 81.2 percent of the science teachers define science as an organized body of knowledge. Saudi science teachers’ narrow meaning of science could be the consequence of their training in science. Usually tremendous amounts of science content are taught on a limited schedule, and consequently most science courses are simply lectures, with infirequent lab work. Thus, the products of science are taught at the cost o f teaching how this product came to exist, and unfortunately the body-of-knowledge view of science is introduced to future teachers. This view of science is reinforced when those teachers find themselves dealing with the Saudis’ extremely centralized education system. Teachers all over the country are asked to teach science from the same textbook, following the same schedule, without giving teachers the freedom to go into detail on some topics if they need to. Therefore, they try to cover all topics in a shallow manne, and teaching this way naturally leads to emphasis on memorization of facts and technical vocabulary, which could shape teachers’ views of science, hi fact, Saudi science curriculum emphasizes knowledge and comprehension instructional objectives, as Al-Rashed (1986) concluded in his content analysis study of the Saudi science curriculum in three grade levels. In fact, memorization is still the backbone of the system (Abir, 1993). Another distortion of the NOS is the teachers’ strong commitment to a scientific method approach to science. Ninety-two and seven-tenths percent believe that the scientific method follows the five regular steps of defining the problem: gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing it, and drawing conclusions from it. Eighty and two-tenths percent believe that scientists follow defined procedures in their investigations. And S Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 seventy-nine and six-tenths percent think logic, not creativity, leads to scientific ideas. It appears that the predominant view among Saudi science teachers is one that embraces inductive and empiricist views of science. Induction, which is mostly associated with Francis Bacon, claims that true generalizations can be inferred firom a series of specific observations. However, one of the problems with induction is that generalizations can not be valid, as it is impossible to collect aU present, past, and future observations. This view of science as inductivist-empiricist processes also seems to be dominant among Australian science teachers (Rowell & Cawthron, 1982). Many researchers cautioned the science education community about the implications of teachers continuing to subscribe to an inductive empiricist view of science. They recommended replacing this outdated philosophy by the post-positivism philosophy of science that relies on the detailed study of the history of science for its analysis (Abimbola, 1983; Duschl, 1990). Another misconception Saudi teachers have about the nature of science is their views about the tentativeness and uncertainty of scientific knowledge. Only 15.2 percent of the teachers think that physical law is tentative. It is a serious problem when teachers of science, who are seen as instrumentalists in educating the public about science and iechnology, do not understand the tentative nature of science. Unquestionably, these teachers will not be able to explain to their students the disappearance of scientific facts they have already learned. As a result, students, as Connelly et al. (1977) cautioned, may have a cynical attitude toward the scientific enterprise. When teachers understand that science is a process of improving knowledge, then they will be able to justify to students the disappearance of scientific “facts” and it is hoped that students will see the changes in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 scientific knowledge as a strength of an ongoing process. Certainly, the teachers’ own inadequate views about the nature of science are among the major causes for the deficiency of science teaching in accomplishing goals in relation to children’s understanding of science (Hodson,1988). In conclusion, it is clear that much of the Saudi science teachers’ imderstanding of science is not satisfactory and is a distortion of what really exists. They need to know about the “hows and whys” of science, because the structure of scientific knowledge, as Schwab (1962) described, is not limited to the basic concepts and principles of the subject but also includes the ways in which the particular subject’s knowledge are established. Shulman (1987) considered subject-matter knowledge, which is knowledge about the facts and structure of the discipline, to be one o f three categories of knowledge necessary for effective teaching. In fact, interest in a teacher’s subject-matter knowledge has risen in research on teaching in general. McDiarmid et al. (1989) argued that subject-matter understanding is a revised goal for educating teachers, and therefore teachers are expected to understand “what experts in the field do, how knowledge evolves, what the standards of evidence are” (as cited in Anderson and Mitchener, 1994, p. 14). Interestingly, the need to improve Saudi teachers’ ideas about the philosophical issues in science has been felt by the teachers themselves. In an attempt to identify the top 25 needs of Saudi science teachers, as perceived by science teachers, principals, and science supervisors, Almossa found that updating one’s background in the philosophy of science ranked fourteenth among the 25 perceived needs (Almossa, 1987). This study supports the previous calls to improve the quality of Saudi teachers in general. Al-ghamdi (1982) showed that Saudi teachers are in great need of inservice Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 6 training, according to all of his study competency clusters. He recommended a national commission for inservice teacher training be established and a nationwide inservice needs assessment be administered. Aleissa (1988) considered the shortage of adequately qualified teachers and inadequate training of teachers to be teacher problems facing education in Saudi Arabia. The findings are significant enough to reflect on, if the country wants to align its educational system with new international trends in science education. If these teachers’ existing beliefs are not addressed and challenged, then the nature of science misconceptions is likely to persist and dominate Saudi science education. There should be explicit curricular goals regarding the epistemology of science in teacher education programs. There have been numerous calls for the NOS to be built and taught directly through formal instruction on the NOS in teacher training (Bently & Garrison, 1991; Gill, 1977; Harms & Yager, 1981; King, 1991; Manuel, 1981; Martin, 1972; Matthew, 1990; Matthew, 1991; Nunan, 1977; Robinson, 1969; and Summers, 1982). The Issue of Gender The important conclusion to be drawn firom this study is that a significant difference in understanding the NOS clearly exists between male and female science teachers in Saudi Arabia. As stated in Chapter I, previous research on teachers’ views of science did not investigate the influence of the gender factor. The only study that can be related here is the study done by Robert et al. (1995). They found that boy and girl students view the nature of science differently. Girls tended to perceive science more in terms of workable solutions to problems where boys leaned towards knowledge making and new discovery. Hence, more research is needed on the influence of the gender factor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 on teachers’ views of science. The gender effect in this study could be attributed to the Saudi education system, which is a gender-segregated system. Science teachers are products of this system, and therefore the reported difference in viewing science between males and females here could be a result of being in different educational settings. However, science education research, which compared males and females in Saudi secondary schools, did not support this assumption. For example, Alrashed (1983) looked at the general affective behavior toward science among Saudi students’ secondary school scientific section and concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between male and female when analyzed according to interest, appreciation, attitudes, and values toward science. More recently, Al-Rubayea reported that male and female students hold essentially the same level and kinds of physics misconceptions. Thus, he stated that “in a small snapshot of Saudi education, the Saudi Arabian government has succeeded in maintaining the country’s culture and implementing a separate but equivalent education of males and females.’ ’ (Al-Rubayea, 1996: p. 115). A plausible explanation for the difference in understanding the NOS between male and female science teachers could be related to the traditional and cultural expectations. Al-Manea (1984) stated: In Saudi Arabia there are many traditional attitudes toward women which affect their education and make it less important than man’s. The perception of the role of women as housekeeper and producer of children would seem to indicate that women’s abilities are limited to a very narrow scope and that women’s interest should be focused only on these expected roles, (p. 112) In fact, science-related careers are very limited for women in Saudi Arabia, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 that explains the low number of female students pursuing science studies in Saudi schools. Thus, the gender effects should not be surprising in this study. The Issue of Major Another area which merits further study relates to the relationship between teachers’ science majors and their understanding of the nature of science. Teachers with a major in physics seem to align themselves with the NOS philosophical assertions to a greater degree than teachers with chemistry majors and teachers with biology majors. Previous studies, however, compare science major with non-science major (Benhke, 1961; Visavateeranon, 1992; Kimball, 1967). A possible explanation for this finding is the way sciences are taught. It is common in physics major classes to mention the historical aspects of science content more than is done in the chemistry and biology majors. For example, names such as Newton and Einstein and changing paradigms associated with them are always part of studying physics. In fact, philosophers of science themselves select physics content more than any other science Held for use in their philosophical arguments. Thus, this could be a reason for physics students to better understand the sociology and history of science. Still, this suggests a very interesting avenue for further research. The Issue of Teaching Experience Teaching experience has been found to be significantly related to teachers’ gain scores on the Nature of Science Scale. This conclusion does not support the conclusions reached by Kimball (1967), Lavach (1969), and Billeh and Hasan (1975). This study found that those respondents who were newest in the profession agreed with the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 assertions about the nature of science more than did the more experienced. Interestingly, the only six teachers in the group who showed an adequate understanding of the NOS, all have teaching experience of no more than eight years. One may explain that years of teaching experience in an extremely centralized education system could influence teachers philosophical beliefs about some issues as explained above. Another reason which could explain the relationship between the nature of science conception and the years of teaching is the curriculum trends in science education. Perhaps the science curriculum at the university level during the last few years are better able to assist teachers to understand NOS. Or perhaps science educators are better informed to educate their students about the nature of science. More likely, other multiple factors are responsible. The results are engaging, however, and are worthy of further investigation. Recommendations Recommendations to Educational Authorities 1. As the literature review has shown in Chapter II, no precise description of the nature of science exists. Therefore, science educators in Saudi Arabia should produce a definition of the nature of science that is useful and relevant to the general goals of Saudi science teaching. Characteristics of the nature of science should be established in a similar way as the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated in its project 2061 (AAAS, 1993). 2. Explicit instructional goals related to the nature of science for elementary and secondary education should be established. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 3. The literature indicates that explicit instruction about philosophical aspects of science does succeed in improving teachers views about the nature of science (Carey & Hassan, 1968; Billeh & Hasan, 1975; and Lavach, 1969). Devoting an independent course on the nature of science to an already crowded teacher education program could be a problem. Therefore, science teaching methods courses should include explicit instruction about the NOS throughout the course when discussing objectives, evaluation, and laboratory. 4. The findings of this smdy and the conclusions drawn should be used in planning inservice programs for science teachers. Recommendations for Further Research 1. Since this smdy is mainly limited to middle and secondary science teachers in Riyadh (central region), similar smdies should be conducted to measure science teachers’ conception of the nature of science in the rest of the country. 2. Further smdies of a similar nature should be taken into consideration to smdy the NOS conceptions of elementary teachers, prospective science teachers, science educators, and elementary and secondary smdents. 3. An analysis of the science textbooks used in secondary schools in Saudi Arabia, in terms of their coverage of the nature of science aspects, should be undertaken. 4. Since there are three systems of teacher education in the kingdom, as mentioned in Chapter II, t would be interesting to contrast and compare the three systems through analysis of science content textbooks and science education methods textbooks, with regard to providing graduates with adequate conception of the NOS. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 5. Further study should be performed to explore the effects of a teacher’s science major on his/her understanding about philosophical issues in science. 6. Also, a replication study should be conducted to study the effects of gender and teaching experience on teachers’ conceptions of the NOS. 7. Analysis of variance has been used in this study to analyze the relationships between science teachers’ understanding of the NOS and some selected variables such as gender, major, and teaching experience. However, it was found that these variables accounted for as little as 8.5 percent of the explained variance in the subjects’ understanding of science. From the viewpoint of future research, more variables, possibly enhancing the understanding of the nature of science, should be identified and included. 8. Regarding use of NOSS in future research, the author offers two recommendations based on discussion in Chapter m . First, an item about the openness of science should be added because item 18 measures the respondents’ views about the openness of scientists in participating with other scientists from different culture, not about the openness of science itself to modification in the light of new data. Second, since item 26 is supposed to measure the respondents’ views about the limitation of science, the first phase of the item, “by application of the scientific method, step by step,’ ’ should be omitted because it concentrates on views about science methods. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 Bibliography Abell, S. K. (1989). The nature of science as portrayed to preservice elementary teachers via methods textbooks. In D. E. Herget (Eds.), Tbe history and philosophy of science in science teaching (pp. 1-14). Tallahassee: Florida State University. Abimola, O. A. (1983). The relevance of the “new” philosophy of science for the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics. &3(3). 183-190. Abir, M. (1993). Saudi Arabia: Government. Society, and the Gulf Crisis. New York : Routledge. Abdulaziz, O. (1995). Tmnmving the quality of the preparation of middle school mathematics teachers at colleges of education in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, California. Aguirre, J. M ., Haggerty, S. M ., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teacher’s conceptions of science, teaching, and learning: A case smdy in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education. 12 (4). 381-390. Aikenhead, G. S. (1973). The measurement of high school smdents’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education. 57 (4). 539-549. Aikenhead, G. S ., Ryan, A. G ., & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on Science-technology- society. Form CDN. mc.5. Unpublished manuscript. University of Saskatchewanensis. Al- abdulhadi, A. S. (1989). Program articulation between secondary schools and universities as perceived bv science teachers in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University. Al-Dubaiban, S. M. ( 1983). Analysis of teaching behaviors of science teachers trained at the SMD and determination of faculty policies toward these behaviors in Dammam. Saudi Arabia .Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Northern Colorado. Aleissa, M. (1988). A plan for a functional educational resource system to create a new learning environment in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Wales College of Cardiff. Alghafis, A. N. (1992). Universities in Saudi Arabia : Their role in science and technology. & development. New York : University Press of America, Inc. AL-Ghamdi, AAÎ. (1982). The professional development of inservice teachers in Saudi Arabia : A smdv of the practice and needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 Al-Manea, A. (1984). Historical and contemporary policies of women’s education in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Almazyed, M. L (1975). Science education in public secondary schools in Saudi Arabia as perceived bv science teachers and science students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Oregon. Almossa, L A. (1987). A need assessment of Saudi intermediate school teachers of science : A basis for inservise and preservice program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. Al-Munea, S. A.(1994). A descriptive study of the attitude toward women in science among the adolescent students of different sex, grade, and socio-economic status (SES) in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Al-Rashed, A. A. (1986). Content analysis and international comparison of Saudi science curriculum in three grade levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of New York, Baffalo. Al-Rasheed, A.A. (1983). An investigation of the general affective behavior toward science held bv secondary school scientific section students at Rjvadh Citv. Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Northern Colorado. Al-Rubaye, A. A. (1996). Analysis of Saudi Arabian high school students misconcentions about physics concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061 : Science for all Americans. Washington, D. C. : Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Oxford: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science literacy: Proiect 2061. Oxford: Oxford Anderson, H.O., Harty, H., & Samuel, KV. (1986). Nature of science, 1969 and 1984: Perspectives of preservice secondary science teachers. School Science and Mathematics. 86 (1), 43-50. Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gabel (Eds.). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3- 44). New York: National Science Teacher Association. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 Anderson, K. E. ( 1950). The teachers of science in a representative sampling of Minnesota schools. Science Education. 34 (1). 57-66. Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6* ed.). California: Adsworth, Inc. Behnke, F. L. (1961). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics. 6 1 .193- 207. Bently, M. L. & Garrison, J. W. (1991). The role of philosophy of science in science teacher education. Joumal of Science Teacher Education. 2 (3) 67-71. Billeh, V.Y. & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors affecting teachers gain in imderstanding the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 12,209-219. Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: Science, theories, and evolution. International Joumal of Science Education. 11 (4), 401-415. Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies of teachers: personal theories. International Joumal of Science Education . 11(4). 4 3 7 ^ 9 . Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lotmer &J. W. Berry (Eds.), Held methods in cross-cultural research, (pp.137-64). New bury Park, CA : Sage. Burbules, N. C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? hitemational Joumal of Science Education. 13 (3). 227-241. Bybee, R. W., Rutherford, F. J ., & Wheeler, G. F. (1996, March/April). Cooperative era of reform in science education. Science Education News. 14. (2) 3-4. Carey, L. R. & Stauss, A. N. (1968). An analysis of experienced science teachers understanding of the nature of science. Science Education. 52 (4), 358-363. Carey, L.R. & Stauss, A. N. (1970). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. School Science and Mathematics. 70.366-376. Clark, C. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher. 17,5-12. Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature of science and how children leam science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 27 (5). 429-445. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 Cobem, W. W.(1989). A comparative analysis of NOSS profiles on Nigerian and American preservice, secondary science teachers. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 26 ffy) 533- 541. Conant, J. B. ( 1951). On understanding science: An historical approach. New York: The New American Library. Coimelly, F. M. (1971). The nature of science and science teaching. School Review. 79 (3) 489^92. Connelly, F. M., Wahlstrom, M. W., Rnegold, M., & Hbaz, F. (1977). Inauirv teaching in science: A hand book for secondarv school teachers. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational iimovation. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 1.73-80. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A historv of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Dewaidi, J. M. (1993). Selected factors influencing Saudi Arabian teacher’s attimde toward classroom educational media and technolopv utilization. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University. Doran, R. L ., Guerin R. O ., & Cavalieri, J. (1974). An analysis of several instruments measuring “Nature of Science Objectives.”. Science Education. 58(3). 321-329. Dibbs, D. R. (1982). An investigation into the nature and consequences of teachers implicit philosophies of science. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Aston, Binningham,UK. Driver, R., Leach, J ., Miller, R ., & Scott, P.(1996). Young People’s hnage of science. Buckingham: Open University Press. Duschl, R. A. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science Twenty-Five Years of Mutually Exclusive Development School Science and Mathemarics.85 (7). 542-555. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restmcturing science education. New York: Teachers College Press. Duschl, R. A.(1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science, fii L.G. Dorothy (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 445-455). New York: MacMillan. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 Duschi, R. A. and Wright, F. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decisions— Making models for planning and teaching science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 26.467- 502. Eylon, B. S. & Linn, M. C.(1989). Learning and instruction: An examination of how research perspective in science education. Review of Educational Research.58 (3). 251-301. Folajimi, A. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education. 72 (1). 73-82. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education .7 5 (1). 121-133. Garrison, J. W. & Bently, M. (1990). Science education, conceptual change, and breaking with every day experience. Smdies in Philosophv and Eduction. 10 (1). 19-36. Gaskell, P. J. (1992). Authentic science and school science. International Joumal of Science Education. 14(31.265-272. General Presidency for Girls Education. (1996). Statistical card for 1996. Gill, W. (1977). The editor’s pace. The Australian science teacher’s journal. 23 (2), 4. Ginev, D. (1990). Towards a new image of science : Science teaching and non- analytical philosophy of science. Smdies in Philosophv and Education. 10.63-71. Handley, H. & Morse, L. (1984). Two-year study relating adolescents’ self concept and gender role perceptions to achievement and attitudes toward science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 21. 599-607. Harms, H. & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research savs to the science teacher. Vol. 3. Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers’ Association. Haukoos, G. D. and Penick, T. E. (1983). The influence o f classroom climate on science process and context achievement of community college students. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 20 (7\. 629-637. Hodson. D. (1986). Rethinking the role and status of observation in science curriculum. Joumal of curriculum studies. 18 (4). 381-396. Hodson, D.(1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education. 72. 19-40. Hodson, D. (1991). Philosophy of science and science education. In M. Matthews (Eds.), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 Historv. philosophv and science teaching: Selected readings (pp. 19-32). New York: Teachers College Press. Hurd. P. D. (1969). New directions in teaching secondarv school science. Chicago: Rand McNally Jones, G. & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching.27 (9),861-874. Kilboum, B. (1982). Curriculum materials, teaching, and potential outcomes for students : A qualitative analysis. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 19 (8), 675-688. Kimball, M. (1967) Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teacher. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. S. 110-120. King, B3.(1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education. 7 5 .135-141. Klopfer, L. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 6. 87-95. Lantz, O. & Kass, H.(1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Eduction.71 (1),117-134. Lederman, N. (1986). Students and teacher’s understanding of the nature of science: A reassessment. School Science and Mathematics. 86 (2). 91-99. Lederman, N. (1992). Students and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Joumal of Research in Science T eaching. 24(4). 331-359. Lederman, N. & Dmger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in smdents’ conceptions of the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 22 (7), 649- 662. Lederman, N. & Zeidler, D. (1987) Science teachers conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior. Science Education. 71(5). 721-734. Ledreman, N ., Wade, P. & Bell, R. (in press) Assessing understanding of the nature of science : A historical perspective. In W. F. McComas (Eds.), The nature of science in science education : Rationales and strategies (pp. 352-372).Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers. Loving, C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 28 (9). 823-838. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 Lucas, A. M. (1975) Hidden assumptions in measures of knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education. 59 (4). 481-485. MacKay, L. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 8 ( 1). 57-66. Manuel, D. E. (1981). Reflections on the role of history and philosophy o f science in school science education. School Science Review. 62. (221), 769-771. Martin, M. (1972). Concepts of Science Education : A philosophical analysis. Greenview, IL: Scott, Fotesman. Matthews, M. (1989). A role of history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange.20 (2), 3-15. Matthews, M. (1990). History, philosophy and science teaching: What can be done in an undergraduate course? Studies in Philosonhv and Education. 10.93-97. Matthews, M. (1991). Historv. Philosophy, and Science Teaching: Selected readings. New York: Teachers College Press. Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of historv and philosophv of science. New York : Routledge. McComas. W. F. (in press). The principal elements of the nature of science : Dispelling the myths of science, hi W. F. McComas (Eds.), The nature of science in science education : Rationales and strategies (pp. 56-74). Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers McComas, W. F., Clough, M. B. & Almazroa, H. (in press). The role and character of the nature of science in science education, hi W. F. McComas (Eds.), The nature of science in science education : Rationales and strategies (pp. 1-43). Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers. McComas, W. F. & Olson, J. (in press). The nature of science as expressed in intemational science standards documents: A qualitative consensus analysis, hi W. F. McComas (Eds.), The nature of science in science education : Rationales and strategies (pp.44-55). Boston : Kluwer Academic Publishers. Meichtry,Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on students views about the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 30 (5). 429-443. Michael, R. A (1986). Analysis of the prospective secondarv school science teachers' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Universi^, hidiana. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Ministry of Education. (1992). Development of education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: National report. Riyadh : Center for Statistical Data and Educational Documentation. Ministry of PIanning.(1990). Rfth Development Plan 1990-1995. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia : Ministry of Planning). Miller, P. E. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students of biology to understand science. Iowa Academv of Science Proceedings. 70.510-513. Mosa, A. A. (1994). Teacher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New York. Munby, A. H. (1976). Some implications of language in science education. Science Education. 60 (1). 115-124. Nadeau, R. & Desautels, J. (1984). Epistemoloev and the teaching of science. Ottawa: Science Council of Canaria National Science Teacher Association (1989). Science-technologv-societv : Science education of the 1980* s. Washington, D. C : Author. Nielsen, H. & Pual, T. (1990). History and philosophy of science in physics education. hitemational Joumal of Science Eduction. 12 (31308-316. Nunan, E. (1977). History and philosophy of science and science teaching: A revisit. The Australian science teachers’ ioumal. 23 (2). 65-71. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1982). An analysis of prospective science teacher’s understanding of the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 19 (1). 25-32. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1983).Relative effects of a History/Philosophy of science course on students teachers’ performance on two models of science. Research in Science &Technological Education. 1 . (2), 193-199. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Duplications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science : Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Teacher Education. 77 (3), 261-278. Robert, B f . , Klarrie, B ., Sue, G. B. & Alan, C. (1995). The enigma of girls’ concepts of the nature of science. Australian Science Teachers ioumal. 41 (3), 74-77. Robinson, J. T. (1965). Science teaching and the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 3 .37-50. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 Robinson, J. T. (1969). Philosophy of science: Implications for teacher education. Joumal of Research in Science T eaching. 6.99-104. Rowell, J. A. & Cawthron, E. R.(1982). Images of science: an empirical study. European Joumal of Science Education. 4 (1) 79-94. Rubba, A. & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education. 62 (4). 449- 458. Ryan, A. G. & Aikenhead, G. 8.(1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education. 76 (6), 559-580 Rymonda, M. A. (1986). Analysis of the prospective secondarv school science teacher’s understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Salmon, P.(1988). Psychology for teachers. An altemative approach. London : Hutchinson. Scharmann, L. (1985). The effects of sequenced instmctional strategies and locus of control on preservice elementary teachers understanding of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University. Schibeci, R. & Riley, J. (1986). Influence of students’ background and perceptions on science attitudes and achievement Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 2 3 .177-187. Schmidt, D. J. (1967). Test on understanding science: A comparison among school groups. Joumal of Research in Science T each in g. 4. 365-366. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as inquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shavelson, R. J. & Stem, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research. 51(4). 455-498. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher. 15.4-14. Smith, ET^. and Anderson, C.W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science teaching. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 21. (T > . 685-698. Solomon, J. (1991). Teaching about the nature of science in the British National Curriculum. Science Education. 75 (1),95-103. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 Songer, N. & Linn, M. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Joumal of Research in Science Teachinp.2R (9),761-784. Summer, M. (1982). Philosophy of science in ± e science teacher education curriculum. European Joumal of Science Education. 4 (1), 19-27. Tashkandi, O. M. (1981). Effects o f instmction and personal traits of Saudi preservice science teachers on the use of higher cognitive questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, hidiana University. Thompson, A. G. (1982). Teacher’s conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching: Three case studies. [CD ROM]. Abstract fix > m proC^est Rle: Dissertation abstracts item: ADD82-28729. TIMSS hitemational Study Center (1996). Science Achievement in the Middle School Years, lEAs. Ma : Boston College Chesmut Hill Tobin, K-, & Gamett, P. (1987). Gender related differences in science activities. Science Education. 71. 91-103. Tuana, H. (1991). The influence of preservice secondarv science teacher beliefs about science on pedagogy on their planning and teaching. Paper presented at the armual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Visavateeranon, S. (1992). Effect of research experiences on teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science [CD-ROM]. Abstract fiom: proQuest File zDissertation Abstracts Item: 9239162 Welch, W. (1979). Twenty years of science education. Review of Research in Education.7. 282-306. Welch, W., and Pella, M. (1968). The development of an instrument for inventorying knowledge of the processes of science. Joumal of Research in Science T each ing. S. 64-68. Yager, R. E.(1989) Ignorance and inquiry: The raw materials of science. Science Scope. 12 (6), 32-34. Yager, R. E. (1991). Teacher effects upon the outcomes of science instmction. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 4 . 236-242. Zeidler, D. & Lederman, N. (1989). The effects of teachers’ language on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching. 26 i'9’ > . 771-783. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Appendix A Nature of Science Scale Item Model Response 1. The most important scientific ideas have been the result of a systematic process of logical thought 2. Classification schemes are imposed upon nature by the scientists; they are not inherent in the materials classified 3. Thanks to the discovery of the scientific method, new discoveries in science have begun to come faster 4. The primary objective of the working scientist is to improve human welfare 5. While a scientific hypothesis may have to be altered on the basis of newly discovered data, a physical law is permanent 6. The scientific investigation of human behavior is useless because it is subject to unconscious bias of the investigator 7. Science is constantly working toward more detailed and complex knowledge 8. A fundamental principle of science is that discoveries and research should have some practical applications 9. While biologists use the deductive approach to a problem, physicists always work inductively 10. The ultimate goal of all science is to reduce observations and phenomena to a collection of mathematical relationships 11. The best definition of science would be “an organized body of knowledge 12. Science tries mainly to develop new machines and processes for the betterment of mankind 13. Any scientific research broader than a single specialty can only be carried out through the use of a team of researchers fiom various relevant fields 14. Investigation of the possibilities of creating life in the laboratory is an invasion of science into areas where it does not belong 15. Team research is more productive than individual research 16. Many scientific models are man-made and do not pretend to represent reality D A D D D D D D D A D D D D D A Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 17. Scientific investigations follow definite approved procedures D 18. Most scientists are reluctant to share their findings with foreigners, D being mindful of the problem of national securiQr 19. The essential test of a scientific theory is its ability to correctly A predict future events 20. When a large number of observations have shown results consistent D with a general rule, this generalization is considered to be a universal law of nature 21. The scientific method follows the five regular steps of defining the D problem, gathering data, forming a hypothesis, testing it, and drawing conclusions from it 22. One of the distinguishing traits of science is that it recognizes its A own limitations 23. The steam engine was one of the earliest and most important D developments of modem science 24. Scientific research should be given credit for producing such things D as modem refrigerators, television, and home air-conditioning 25. If at some future date it is found that electricity does not consist of D electrons, today’s practices in designing electrical apparatus will have to be discarded 26. By application of the scientific method, step by step, man can solve D almost any problem or answer almost any question in the realm of nature 27. Scientific method is a myth which is usually read into the story after A it has been completed 28. Scientific work requires a dedication that excludes many aspects of D the lives of people in other fields of work 29. An important characteristic of the scientific enterprise is its emphasis D on the practical_____________________________________________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 APPENDIX B THE ARABIC VERSION OF NOSS f UÎ Uli JU ij jvw a j (y/) ^ f » jii dlL ai ^ . û W -y i tJU V Jiljl ^ ^ fioi* ^ s-Wi (t (J i.> ,.* c » U J L a ii 4 < i.J a J l « ,i^ '.< i* !l kkiLl ÿ (T Jl J.I ^ ^ j J p iO iJ L * . oliLi^l (T .^L-'V» * 1 » y ll Û&-^ ^ *lut J-Ul (1 U U ^oAl (1 ijXSj «U jU » ^Lw ô L î^l 4 ^ 0 ,1 ,m i l 4j^jâJl J jJ jl ^ (O .Jo* V < ^'b Jfe j_yW l (^Jiji!>üi ( 2 ^ y - ^L^yi d > JJ ,^JU» (i . ^ U i . « J Ü Û mj 4 * yw JLwl) g J U ll ^ y » -w (V sSrfIjj^ jl ^.«l.«l ! > < U « ^ » 1 « U (A j-iJi tUlp cSlSC iil JJ~ ^l= -V I wyl-VI « - W » - V l tUJp .•, ^*|^V ' s^^Sli ^ Jl ytjJiSfj ,_ ,4 u li; y» fyLüi J53 s--uVi iUil (A . .wtijJl oV PX .il .«•ybJi (U ei* jV^ V Â Î y ig a g g S m it ^jWi > _ « ty u J-«*l jl (\ \ NyUl jy-jt J^i ^ iJltjJ-l OÜÿl y > î ^ ' j J ^ jJU II (V T Ô Î -u»lJ (_^La:^l JU ^ JL^ ÿ , y i ^ « ^ 1 ( ' T düô UlcU jj^aUj ^ Jt> J t> i y V jkL. Jl ^ fUUI >Ju J — il J ilyU l jLy Ü l^ l J j ^ l (\ t •W Jl -iyidl ,yJ.il < 1 i T W i i l 4^V 6l J ^ ,y ^ l '- *"AkXÿ (> ® 0-U Û I Jl ^U>M ^ JlüV » Jt> j*- w > l-V l * ^u>* Jl ^ u ^ i j oUûi Juav JH> ,j S * ^v=ï-vi ->-Vi » Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 V ■ > S j U i l Jùf Ul Vj O l— 'V l ^ j - jo J ^ O iO-il (> 1 .I4-I» 4-JU Jl oLLâmJI V je ^ g p -jj jJUâj ^ ( e 4*eîti iS ^ jLL# tW m jl 4 — lfl (A A > d i ^ lijjjU. Ju^i I tJkU (\^ a J u k Û Ü tJk P U ^ 4-JU jl oüâ^^l ^ 4 P (J,U aw U -L P (T • .4K g>]> ^IP J>tj >W 44UI iUPUil (2^ O iO ai iijU»V» ,^-^1 0 1 ^ ,^JUI ^ 1 (T \ . i ^ \ i à L ^ j t4g^>Ji J J c ; c JÎLÜ-I ■Jjjül 4Jljgf iop-lj ^ JjJjp. *SljJi ,JL p jJU ll îjOÎ (T T jJ L a il lOlpmPlj ^ jLa^l jO w (T IT W _x>»i=i> cSi.Ai-1 4 » ^ l J t. *L^i Ax.lS'ÿ JJUJI j M t (T t .Jj^l U ug^lj üii c U j ^ l ^ V jU l Ü Î Jgii-il lil (T O Ô Î U L ^ I i) fjJt *i*UjUf Jié üi ÜlP ôi—V ' ùU î>>- g*iU j - i ; (T1 .« * y i (ilP ^ ^ ;i üSLt- ;^î .»jl^tj ^Uül -U j i-aJiS' \ j i i «jIp 4Îb viUij 5il^ (TV ^ iU-t ^ ÎU ^ O P ^ÿl-J J i ._Jki , ^ 1 v l^ t (TA .S iL w J.1 J — It à j i p ^ ^ ^Ul U t) êjg0 ji^iat ;.i.;lt7ll î-».Ü I ^ (T 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 6 APPENDIX C A L e c c e r from cite S a u d lE d u c a c lo a a l Ac cache CO Che S a u d i E d u c a c ib n a l A u ch o ri'cies a/ S m a t d i Mmiitry tf S d a a m tm m C m i im m l M i m m m ft rw Ul--a i,>i U IL I ^U l i/;; i a m à t ■ M .'tA iJ lim Saj-a k * I i-uJ siijV jl- V j-J U i2 3 ■ > J - U , Jf-Y i ..f& U .—J au- iiU ( 1 . V . r*.vot ) V . - 4 J — ,> '‘ v - * ^ S i 3 v j f c j J C s ' ^ Cs-j-iJ fua — zu, uu c - * — - ' • J : w .>-U .- ■ ; .ÿa.- ^ I,:-'. - •Ijjaj ^ dr— aij • a J j - cu. :a a i v ^ tm a .x.w. & » « j o b • « « w w r n p * . oc. auiT • C k laa j i t - um • Ac laa ur.Tm Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. W 7 APPENDIX D A Leccer to Science Teach#?", fjU\ iiU / ^jja ^ ^jjl * .i* J * iUrjU ü a-î i^ î ^ j î . Â j^ jA nJI Â^yJl ÎÛ*LL ^jWI Ijm ^jJU J J f si.w j l IJüi J V * ^ ^ iJLf ùLi.*-*'il 1 xa ûL_ - ^ { ^ « J l *iû W f 4#-l--U il:— S« J # Î.>^1 ^ J^rU l fcUrjJl J l jl <iLwl sjL# w J& w ji-XijWjp-Û «jTU i 4^UI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 APPENDIX E A leccer from Che General Presidency of Girls Education Co Female Science Teachers . . . y « V - : _ /!.jiv ijHV ' j-i-* f : J kS ^ J ÛI '-is-i-s . \ v / ‘ /.M T _ ÎJ ;yj_JLw Î—i - > i ‘ ^ ------------ ------- J t \ ' / ' . / \ V - i / ' v \ . _ — Î J j _ ^ l ;l y_L^L_J . . : • ' ^U’ v la - j i j , U _ _ J _______ . —--j-ii'j J-Ü O '— L t L . V j - ' ' * l t I • _>U Jl î_ïkiS f Ji-i-* / \ / y" Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IG9 -APPENDIX F A L e c c e r from ehe NAnxsery o f E d u c a e io n to Mala T eacher» :--- sJ— 2 ' j — » ' t\~l ‘ .f\y J — « - ~l~ ' - ,— ‘J . - « . ' s- v , # - ^ t\v(\l\ . w l—1 > > . iJkïr .u jij- r-i* / \ / y I p — w ..p e — o n .e c o p .,.o w n e . P ..P e„ep — n P— . w .o u , pe— ^

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A cross-site analysis of the extent of implementation of the California mathematics and science frameworks.

PDF

An evaluation of the secondary biological science curriculum in Nigeria with reference to Imo State

PDF

The Effects Of Selected Variables On The Transitioning Of Low-Achieving Special Education Adolescents From High School

PDF

An analysis of program planning in schools with emerging excellence in science instructional design

PDF

The relationship between attending science and math academies and students' college course taking patterns

PDF

A study of the relationship between student achievement and mathematics program congruence in select secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

PDF

An evaluation of the use of microcomputer-based laboratory instruction on middle school students' concept attainment and attitudes towards computer -based instruction

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' and administrators' identification of diverse students for gifted programs in Title I schools

PDF

A comparison of analogical and quantitative methods for teaching mechanical functions in science education

PDF

A comparative case study of accreditation/program quality review in two policy contexts: An international perspective

PDF

A history of the development of the California Science Content Standards: 1990--2005

PDF

Early career teachers' views of their elementary science teaching methods courses: The relationship between preservice preparation and the realities of the first years of teaching

PDF

Attitudes of honors and non-honors high school students about weighted grading, grade point averaging, class ranking, and access to honors courses

PDF

A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs

PDF

A structural model of problem-solving ability, self-efficacy, effort, worry, and achievement in calculus

PDF

Factors contributing to the academic achievements of Hispanic gifted children

PDF

Assessment of the quality of institutes of higher education: Correlational analysis of U.S. News and World Report's university and college rankings and institution size, age, selectivity, graduat...

PDF

An investigation of the impact of selected prereading activities on student content learning through laboratory activities

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

A "stacked for success" sustained silent reading program for high school English language development (ELD) students: its impact on reading comprehension, attitudes toward reading, frequency of o...

Asset Metadata

Creator Almazroa, Hiya Mohammed (author)

Core Title Analysis of Saudi Arabian middle and high school science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, administration,education, curriculum and instruction,education, sciences,Education, Secondary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor McComas, William F. (committee chair), Arntzenius, Frank (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-284570

Unique identifier UC11350010

Identifier 9816006.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-284570 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9816006.pdf

Dmrecord 284570

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Almazroa, Hiya Mohammed

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA