Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science Based on the LDA Model

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Manman Wang, Shoubao Gao, Weiling Gui, Jianqiang Ye, Shuaishuai Mi
{"title":"Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science Based on the LDA Model","authors":"Manman Wang,&nbsp;Shoubao Gao,&nbsp;Weiling Gui,&nbsp;Jianqiang Ye,&nbsp;Shuaishuai Mi","doi":"10.1007/s11191-022-00332-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h2>Abstract\n</h2><div><p>This study used the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic model to analyze pre-service teachers’ views on the nature of science (NOS). This approach can be used to automate the classification of documents, and at the same time, the researcher does not need to deduce with a NOS framework prior to evaluation. Participants were 155 pre-service teachers studying at the Shandong Normal University in China. To gather our data, we used an open questionnaire, namely, the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire—Form C (VNOS-C). LDA topic modeling was used to classify the document, which was divided into 12 topics. By comparing the LDA topic modeling results with the theoretical framework behind the VNOS-C questionnaire, we categorized these 12 topics into eight descriptive aspects of the NOS: The Empirical Nature of Scientific Knowledge, Observation, Inference, and Theoretical Entities in Science, Scientific Theories and Laws, The Theory-Laden Nature of Scientific Knowledge, The Social and Cultural Embeddedness of Scientific Knowledge, The Myth of The Scientific Method, The Tentative Nature of Scientific Knowledge, and The Nature of Scientific Theory. The results show that pre-service teachers usually hold naive or mixed views of the NOS. In addition, each aspect of NOS is not independent of each other but interrelated and influencing each other. In the future, more consideration can be given to the relationship between each aspect of NOS.</p></div></div>","PeriodicalId":56374,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"32 3","pages":"589 - 615"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-022-00332-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract

This study used the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic model to analyze pre-service teachers’ views on the nature of science (NOS). This approach can be used to automate the classification of documents, and at the same time, the researcher does not need to deduce with a NOS framework prior to evaluation. Participants were 155 pre-service teachers studying at the Shandong Normal University in China. To gather our data, we used an open questionnaire, namely, the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire—Form C (VNOS-C). LDA topic modeling was used to classify the document, which was divided into 12 topics. By comparing the LDA topic modeling results with the theoretical framework behind the VNOS-C questionnaire, we categorized these 12 topics into eight descriptive aspects of the NOS: The Empirical Nature of Scientific Knowledge, Observation, Inference, and Theoretical Entities in Science, Scientific Theories and Laws, The Theory-Laden Nature of Scientific Knowledge, The Social and Cultural Embeddedness of Scientific Knowledge, The Myth of The Scientific Method, The Tentative Nature of Scientific Knowledge, and The Nature of Scientific Theory. The results show that pre-service teachers usually hold naive or mixed views of the NOS. In addition, each aspect of NOS is not independent of each other but interrelated and influencing each other. In the future, more consideration can be given to the relationship between each aspect of NOS.

基于LDA模型的职前教师科学本质观调查
摘要本研究运用潜狄利克雷分配(Latent Dirichlet Allocation, LDA)主题模型,分析职前教师对科学本质的看法。这种方法可以用于文档的自动分类,同时,研究人员在评估之前不需要用NOS框架进行推断。研究对象为在中国山东师范大学学习的155名职前教师。为了收集我们的数据,我们使用了一份开放式问卷,即科学本质观点问卷-C (VNOS-C)。使用LDA主题建模对文档进行分类,将文档分为12个主题。通过将LDA主题建模结果与VNOS-C问卷背后的理论框架进行比较,我们将这12个主题划分为NOS的8个描述性方面:科学知识的经验性,科学中的观察、推理和理论实体,科学理论和规律,科学知识的理论承载性,科学知识的社会和文化嵌入性,科学方法的神话,科学知识的试探性,科学理论的本质。结果表明,职前教师对NOS的认识往往是幼稚的或混杂的。此外,NOS的各个方面并不是相互独立的,而是相互关联、相互影响的。在未来,可以更多地考虑NOS各个方面之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science & Education
Science & Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science & Education publishes research informed by the history, philosophy and sociology of science and mathematics that seeks to promote better teaching, learning, and curricula in science and mathematics. More particularly Science & Education promotes: The utilization of historical, philosophical and sociological scholarship to clarify and deal with the many intellectual issues facing contemporary science and mathematics education.  Collaboration between the communities of scientists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, science and mathematics educators, and school and college teachers. An understanding of the philosophical, cultural, economic, religious, psychological and ethical dimensions of modern science and the interplay of these factors in the history of science.  The inclusion of appropriate history and philosophy of science and mathematics courses in science and mathematics teacher-education programmes.  The dissemination of accounts of lessons, units of work, and programmes in science and mathematics, at all levels, that have successfully utilized history and philosophy.  Discussion of the philosophy and purposes of science and mathematics education, and their place in, and contribution to, the intellectual and ethical development of individuals and cultures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信