2015 개정 교육과정에 따른 ‘과학사 교과서’의 과학의 본성(NOS) 반영 정도 분석

Abstract

Objectives In the current situation where the existing science textbooks do not fully reflect the nature of science, it is necessary to examine the nature of science shown in textbooks on the history of science and effective use of it. For this purpose, in this study, the ratio of reflection of the nature of science reflected in the 2015 revised curriculum high school science history textbook was analyzed. Methods The subject of analysis was two types of high school history of science textbooks that have been tested, and the analysis frame that adequately reflects the nature of science from the viewpoint of cultivating students' scientific literacy was comparatively reviewed and selected. The selected analysis framework consisted of four areas: the nature of scientific knowledge (area I), the nature of scientific inquiry (area II), the nature of scientific thinking (area III), and the nature of interactions among science, technology and society (area IV). And each area was again composed of detailed sub-areas. Then, the analysis of the history of science textbooks was carried out in the stages of ‘analysis training in the nature of science’, ‘determining analysis units and sampling’, ‘preliminary analysis and reliability measurement’, and ‘main analysis’. Results As a result of the analysis, first, the textbooks on the history of science showed some differences in the reflection ratio for each area, but the four areas of the nature of science were evenly reflected. In particular, the nature of interaction among science, technology, and society (area IV) and the nature of scientific thinking (area III) showed high reflection rates in history of science textbooks. Second, as a result of analysis of each sub-area constituting each area of the nature of science, it was found that the detailed sub-contents were biased. Third, in the history of science textbooks, there was a difference in the reflection ratio for each area of the nature of science for each textbook unit, and finally, as a result of analysis by publisher, the two types of textbooks showed little difference in the reflection ratio by nature of science domain. Conclusions Based on the results of this analysis, we discussed the implications on the use of history of science textbook in terms of educating the nature of science and the direction of improvement of history of science textbook reflecting the social trends of the times.