Antes de Fermat y Descartes

The analysis of Natural Sciences textbooks for their representation of the NOS followed a deductive category application procedure. The units of analysis are analysed for their representation, if any, of pre-formulated categories. In this case the categories are the tenets of the NOS as explicated in chapter 2. This study does not design the categories or an analysis matrix as is suggested by figure 3.2 above, instead using a pre-existing framework by Abd-El-Khalick (2013). The framework, based on the tenets of the NOS explicitly provides coding instructions for each deductive category. The procedure below is followed:

3.5.2.1 Coding and Scoring Instructions

1. As you read the textbook, highlight the units of analysis (i.e., statements, figures, activities, captions, charts, boxes, etc.) with a yellow highlighter

2. Label the highlighted textual materials with the target NOS aspect(s) and assess the treatment of the NOS aspect(s) by specifying whether the treatment is:

a. Explicit or implicit

b. Informed, partially informed, or naïve

For example: “Tentative, implicit, informed”; “Scientific Method, explicit, naïve”; “Theory-driven, implicit, partially informed”

3. Enter the page number or numbers for the coded text in the appropriate box of the “Textbook Scoring Sheet” appearing below.

36

Table 3.1: Textbook scoring sheet

NOS aspect Page and Code

Space allocated Explicit, implicit, informed / partially informed, naïve.

Quotes to substantiate

Number of pages Overall score

4. If you find a particularly representative quotation (or figure, or chart, etc.) to support your assessment, underline or circle it using a red pen. Enter the page number or numbers in the appropriate box of the “Textbook Scoring Sheet”

5. Keep track of the “space” dedicated to NOS as follows:

a. If the textbook has a whole chapter or a section dedicated to NOS, then record the number of all the pages in this chapter or section

b. If the textbook has references to aspects of NOS in other chapters or sections: After you finish coding a certain page, eyeball the page and decide “how much” of the pages is dedicated to NOS and record this as a fraction of page (1/10 page, ¼ page, ½ page, etc.) and record the fraction at the bottom of the page

c. When done analyzing the textbook, add all the pages and page fractions that were dedicated to NOS. Report the number in the appropriate line of the “Textbook Scoring Sheet”

6. After you code the whole textbook

a. Examine all references to the same NOS aspect throughout the analyzed materials side by side

b. Refer to the “Scoring Rubric” explained below to assign a score for this NOS aspect

c. Remember, assigning scores for some NOS aspects necessitates examining other related NOS aspects. Refer to the “Targeted NOS Aspects” table below for details on which aspects to examine

d. Enter the overall score for each NOS aspect in the appropriate box of the “textbook Scoring Sheet”

37 Whilst assigning scores the coders should be aware of some NOS aspects that are interconnected and affect corresponding scores.

3.5.2.2 Interconnected NOS aspects

Important to note during the scoring process is the fact that certain tenets of the NOS cannot be viewed in isolation but in relation to other tenets. For instance, the ‘Empirical NOS’ cannot obtain a full score if it remains silent on either the ‘Inferential NOS’ or the ‘Theory-driven NOS’. One cannot provide empirical evidence based on observations and conclude those observations to be “scientific” if a theory cannot be inferred from them. For instance, from the observation of an object falling when released from a height, one can infer that the cause of the object falling is gravity.

Secondly, if a textbook proposes the existence of the ‘Myth of the scientific method’, this will affect the score of the ‘Creative NOS’. The ‘Myth of the scientific method’ suggests a stepwise approach to obtaining scientific data and making observations. If this is true about the NOS, whilst simultaneously the NOS comprises creativity whereby scientists are allowed to use their imagination in deriving scientific claims, then there is a contradiction: the ‘Myth of the scientific method’ has no room for imagination and therefore, neither tenet can obtain a full score.

Abd-El-Khalick (2013) further explains the crucial importance of differentiating between scientific laws and scientific theories as some textbooks erroneously suggest that theories change into law. Of equal importance is the distinction between observations and inferences.

The table below provides a list of interconnected NOS aspects which are crucial for a coder to be aware of before assigning a score.

38

Table 3.2: Targeted NOS aspects and connectedness of the aspects when scoring textbook materials

NOS aspect Essential dimensions of the target NOS aspect needed to consider the treatment of this NOS aspect by the relevant textbook materials as (fully) “informed”

A textbook cannot be assigned a full score for this NOS aspect if textbook materials convey naïve (explicit or implicit) messages or remain silent on the following aspects:

Empirical Scientific claims are derived from, and/or consistent with, observations of natural phenomena.

Scientists, however, do not have “direct” access to most natural phenomena: Their observations are almost always filtered through the human perceptual apparatus, mediated by the assumptions underlying the functioning of “scientific” instruments, and/or interpreted from within elaborate theoretical frameworks.

Inferential NOS Theory-driven NOS

Inferential There is a crucial distinction between observations and inferences:

Observations are descriptive statements about natural phenomena that are accessible to the senses (or extensions of the senses) and about which observers can reach consensus with relative ease (e.g., objects released above ground level tend to fall to the ground).

Inferences, on the other hand, are statements about phenomena that are not directly accessible to the senses (e.g., objects tend to fall to the ground because of “gravity”).

Scientific constructs, such as gravity, are inferential in the sense that they can only be accessed and/or measured through their manifestations or effects.

[Black-box activities are usually very effective in helping students develop an understanding of the distinction between observation and inference.]

Creative Science is not an entirely rational or systematic activity. Generating scientific knowledge involves human creativity in the sense of scientists inventing explanations and theoretical entities. The creative NOS, coupled with its inferential

Myth of the “Scientific Method”: If textbook materials suggest the existence of this method, it cannot get a full score for the creative NOS

39

nature, entail that scientific entities (atoms, force fields, species, etc.) are functional theoretical models rather than faithful copies of “reality.”

The same applies if textbook materials suggest that entities, such as atoms or force-fields, are copies of reality

Tentative Scientific knowledge is reliable and durable, but never absolute or certain.

All categories of knowledge (“facts,” theories, laws, etc.) are subject to change.

Scientific claims change:

As new evidence, made possible through conceptual and technological advances, is brought to bear;

As extant evidence is reinterpreted in light of new or revised theoretical ideas; and/or

Due to changes in the cultural and social spheres or shifts in the directions of established research programs.

Scientific laws: If textbook materials indicate that laws are “proven” through repeated testing, or that laws are privileged with some level of “absoluteness” or “certainty”

Relationship between theories & laws: Some textbooks note that theories change, which is “informed,” but then note that theories are hierarchically related to laws. That is, theories change into laws when “proven” correct or true. Such a message also entail that the textbook cannot get a full score on tentative NOS

Scientific laws In general, laws are descriptive statements of relationships among observable phenomena. Theories, by contrast, are inferred explanations for observable phenomena or regularities in those phenomena.

Contrary to common belief, theories and laws are not hierarchically related (the naïve view that theories become laws when “enough” supporting evidence is garnered, or that laws have a higher status than theories). Theories and laws are different kinds of knowledge and one does not become the other.

Laws do not have a “higher” status than theories. Theories are as legitimate a product of science as laws.

Laws are not “certain” or “proven” true. Philosophical and logical arguments, as well as history of science support the notion that laws are tentative.

Inferential NOS: Note that the distinction between laws and theories is closely associated with the distinction between observation and inference

Social dimensions

Scientific knowledge is socially negotiated. This should not be confused with relativistic notions of

[Note that textbook statements to the effect that scientists share

40

of science science.

This dimension specifically refers to the constitutive values associated with established venues for communication and criticism within the scientific enterprise, which serve to enhance the objectivity of collectively scrutinized scientific knowledge through decreasing the impact of individual scientists’ idiosyncrasies and subjectivities.

The double-blind peer-review process used by scientific journals is one aspect of the enactment of the NOS dimensions under this aspect.

their results with others could be a step in the right direction, but is surely not enough. To address this NOS aspect, the textbook needs to convey the message that (a) scientists scrutinize and critique each other’s work (minimal message), and (b) as a result, scientists end up changing their claims. The final product of this collective and critical is dubbed as “scientific knowledge.”] Social

and cultural

embeddedness of science

Science is a human enterprise embedded and practiced in the context of a larger cultural milieu. Thus, science affects and is affected by various cultural elements and spheres, including social fabric, worldview, power structures, philosophy, religion, and political and economic factors. Such effects are manifested, among other things, through public funding for scientific research and, in some cases, in the very nature of “acceptable” explanations of natural phenomena (e.g., differing stories of hominid evolution have resulted from the advent of feminist perspectives brought about by increased access, participation, and leadership of females in the biosocial sciences).

[It is not enough to convey the message that science is done by individuals from different nations, institutions, backgrounds, etc. The message should convey how the funding of science, acceptable scientific research (e.g., human cloning), etc., are directly impacted by the other spheres (religion, culture, economy, etc.)]

Science

vs.

pseudoscience

[Statements trying to distinguish science from other disciplines of inquiry (e.g., religion, philosophy)]

Particularly look at the empirical and tentative NOS

Source: (Abd-El-Khalick, 2013, 1)