ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280702

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractAccording to Piaget, a fundamental epistemological distinction must be made between the psychological and the epistemic subject. The epistemic subject is studied by the genetic epistemologist who charts development through a “common universal rationality, which develops,” whereas the psychological subject is studied by the developmental/cognitive psychologist by focusing on accidental contingencies surrounding particular people and their individual differences. The epistemic subject as compared to the psychological subject is an idealized abstraction, viz., that set of underlying epistemic structures common to everyone at the same level of development. The objective of this study is to investigate the degree to which investigators in science education conceptualize the difference between the epistemic and the psychological subjects. It is argued that just as the ideal gas law (based on the theoretical formulation of Maxwell and Boltzmann) provides a “general model” to which the real gases approximate under different experimental conditions, so we can consider (by abduction) the epistemic subject to be an “ideal knower” to which the real (psychological) subjects approximate to varying degrees. The difference between the epistemic and the psychological subjects, however, cannot be used as an “epistemological shield” in defense of Piagetian theory. Any test of the Piagetian theory must involve psychological or real subjects. Empirical testability, however, need not be equated to being scientific. An analogy is drawn between Galileo's idealization, which led to the discovery of the law of free‐fall, and Piaget's epistemic subject. Research conducted in science education shows that at least for some critics the wide variations in the age at which individuals acquire the different Piagetian stages is crucial for rejecting the theory. It is argued that the real issue is not the “proportion of heterogeneity” but the understanding that Piaget, by neglecting individual differences, attempts to build a general model applicable across types of situations/subjects. The distinction between the epistemic and the psychological subjects is important not for defending Piaget's theory (which has serious theoretical flaws) but to understandepistemic transitions, for example, the one betweenPiaget's epistemic subjectandPascual‐Leone's metasubject.It is concluded that failure to understand the distinction between the epistemic and the psychological subjects would lead to misconstruing the significance of our research findings and, what is more serious, to a lack of a

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280703

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractNiaz (1990) presents arguments in favor of the retention of Piaget's epistemic subject as a theoretical construct to guide research and practice in science education and psychology. The intent of this article is to point out the weaknesses of those arguments and to suggest that the weight of evidence argues against the existence of the logical thinker postulated by Piaget. Therefore, contrary to Niaz's conclusion that the acceptance of Piaget's epistemic subject will facilitate the development of cognitive theories with greater explanatory power, the conclusion is reached that Piaget's epistemic subject is dead and that continued acceptance of this aspect of Piagetian theory would be counterproductive.

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280704

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractIn response to the new needs for S/T/E/S‐literate science teachers, an S/T/E/S‐oriented ISMMC‐IEE combination model of instruction was implemented in two specially designed undergraduate courses and one graduate course within college science teacher training programs. These three courses served as case studies for class‐based, quasiquantitative pilot investigation aimed at gaining a deeper insight into some of the issues involved in the implementation in college of nontraditional, open‐ended, problem‐solving‐oriented teaching strategies which arein dissonancewith the cognitive or affective styles and functional paradigms of most students. This probe into the dissonance issue revealed that prospective teachers are capable of handling the new instructional model and do gain in their higher‐level cognitive learning. However, undergraduates perceive these courses to be either difficult or not in accord with their needs, and their appreciation of the instructional techniques and style employed is different from that of graduate students accordingly. The current study suggests that although the ISMMC‐IEE model is useful in S/T/E/S‐oriented courses in science teacher training programs, special attention to the implementation stage is required to close the gap between students' and S/T/E/S educators' f

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280705

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractDuring recent decades there has been little research on social or cultural factors affecting science education. Recent literature reviews have indicated that of the studies addressing such factors, most focus on broad sociodemographic variables such as socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, and region. There is a need for research that depicts better‐differentiated social contexts for science education in their full complexity. Social scientists from several other fields have recently developed a promising model for research in context. Three critical conceptual and methodological strands of the model are discussed, along with their implications for science education researc

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280706

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe use of content validity as the primary assurance of the measurement accuracy for science assessment examinations is questioned. An alternative accuracy measure, item validity, is proposed. Item validity is based on research using qualitative comparisons between (a) student answers to objective items on the examination, (b) clinical interviews with examinees designed to ascertain their knowledge and understanding of the objective examination items, and (c) student answers to essay examination items prepared as an equivalent to the objective examination items. Calculations of item validity are used to show that selected objective items from the science assessment examination overestimated the actual student understanding of science content. Overestimation occurs when a student correctly answers an examination item, but for a reason other than that needed for an understanding of the content in question. There was little evidence that students incorrectly answered the items studied for the wrong reason, resulting in underestimation of the students' knowledge. The equivalent essay items were found to limit the amount of mismeasurement of the students' knowledge. Specific examples are cited and general suggestions are made on how to improve the measurement accuracy of objective examinations.

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280707

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe study described in this article examined the factors in the development of reasoning on the balance beam. The results of this and other investigations by the author led to the development of a model of problem solving and of the transition between levels of performance, that is, from novice to expert behaviors in a specific problem domain. The sample for this study consisted of 34 nonscience majors enrolled in Physical Science I at the University of Southern Mississippi. The results of this study showed (a) significant correlations between the predictor variables of numerical inductive reasoning ability and ratio span and the dependent measure of amount of practice until mastery of balance beam problems, (b) that there existed significant differences on the predictors between subjects who used the ratio scheme versus those who used the product‐moment rule to do balance beam problems, (c) that the sequence of behaviors until mastery of the balance beam was not invariant, and (d) that there existed significant negative correlations between individuals' tendencies to avoid unsuccessful algorithms and the frequency of incidences of monitoring the learning process on one side and the amount of practice and the construct of short‐term storage space on the other side. The results of this and other studies by the author are used to develop a model of problem solving and of the development of problem‐solving behaviors. This model also includes recent findings in short‐term memory and problem‐solving research. The implications of this model for instruction are

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280708

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0022-4308    

DOI:10.1002/tea.3660280701

出版商:Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company    

年代:1991

数据来源: WILEY