Revisitando Gil-Pérez e colaboradores (2001): uma análise sobre a visão consensual da natureza da ciência
Data
2022-11-25
Autores
Roda, Rodolfo Moreno Guidil [UNIFESP]
Orientadores
Martins, Roberto de Andrade
Tipo
Dissertação de mestrado
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Resumo
Ao final do último século, a Natureza da Ciência recebeu um papel de destaque dentro da área de Ensino de Ciências. Sua inserção no ensino é frequentemente justificada por sua relação com a alfabetização científica. É defendido por diversos autores que uma compreensão adequada da Natureza da Ciência contribui não apenas à alfabetização científica do indivíduo como também para sua formação como cidadão. Existem um grande número de vertentes e concepções da Natureza da Ciência e, dentre elas, destaca-se a chamada “visão consensual”, defendida por autores como Norman Lederman, William McComas e Daniel Gil-Pérez. No contexto brasileiro, popularizou-se no começo do século XXI um trabalho publicado pelo professor Gil-Pérez e seus colaboradores, contendo um levantamento de visões deformadas do trabalho científico e aspectos considerados consensuais da Natureza da Ciência. O objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar produções a respeito da Natureza da Ciência e os aspectos aparentemente consensuais que foram apresentados em trabalhos que são considerados fundamentais nessa área, em especial aqueles apresentados em Gil-Pérez et al. (2001) e, ao compará-los entre si e a trabalhos mais recentes, compreender a relevância da discussão de uma visão consensual da Natureza da Ciência para a área do Ensino de Ciências. Para este fim, foi realizada uma revisão bibliográfica sobre o assunto, assim como um levantamento dos artigos que utilizam Gil-Pérez et al. (2001) como referência através da plataforma Google Scholar. Os trabalhos foram divididos em 2 períodos para facilitar sua análise e após a organização e análise dos dados, através da Análise de Conteúdo, foi possível identificar pelo menos 4 categorias de trabalhos relacionados à Natureza da Ciência, com base nas citações à Gil-Pérez et al. (2001): 1) Investigação de Visões a respeito da Natureza da Ciência; 2) Críticas ou Propostas alternativas à Visão Consensual; 3) Relação entre a Natureza da Ciência e a História da Ciência; 4) Natureza da Ciência através de uma abordagem CTS. Concluímos afirmando que escolher a visão consensual ou outra abordagem depende do educador e um problema mais urgente a ser enfrentado seria o combate às visões inadequadas de Ciência.
By the end of the last century, the Nature of Science was given a prominent role within Science Teaching. Its inclusion in this area is frequently justified by its relation to Scientific Literacy. It is advocated by several authors that an adequate comprehension of the Nature of Science not only contributes to the development of one’s scientific literacy as well as its development as a citizen. There are several strands and conceptions regarding the Nature of Science and, among them, the so called “consensus view” can be highlighted. This view is supported by authors such as Norman Lederman, William McComas and Daniel Gil-Pérez. In the brazilian context, a work published by the professor Daniel Gil-Pérez and his group got very popular in the beginning of the 21st century. It contained a survey of deformed views of the scientifical work and aspects considered consensual of the Nature of Science. The goal of this work was to analyze works regarding the Nature of Science and the apparently consensual aspects presented on works that are considered fundamental in this field, in special those presented in Gil-Pérez et al. (2001) and, when comparing them among themselves and to more recent works, to understand the relevance of discussing a “consensus view” of the Nature of Science to the field of Science Teaching. To this end, a literature review about the subject was made, as well as a research on the articles that use Gil-Pérez et al. (2001) as a reference, through the platform Google Scholar. The works were divided in 2 periods to favour its analysis and after the organization and analysis of the data, through the Content Analysis, we were able to identify 4 categories of works related to the Nature of Science, based on the references to Gil-Pérez et al. (2001): 1) Investigation of views on Nature of Science; 2) Criticism or Alternatives to the Consensus Views; 3) Relations between Nature of Science and History of Science; 4) Nature of Science through an STS approach. We conclude affirming that choosing between the consensus view or another approach depends on the educator and a more urgent problem to be faced would be to combat inadequate views of Science.
By the end of the last century, the Nature of Science was given a prominent role within Science Teaching. Its inclusion in this area is frequently justified by its relation to Scientific Literacy. It is advocated by several authors that an adequate comprehension of the Nature of Science not only contributes to the development of one’s scientific literacy as well as its development as a citizen. There are several strands and conceptions regarding the Nature of Science and, among them, the so called “consensus view” can be highlighted. This view is supported by authors such as Norman Lederman, William McComas and Daniel Gil-Pérez. In the brazilian context, a work published by the professor Daniel Gil-Pérez and his group got very popular in the beginning of the 21st century. It contained a survey of deformed views of the scientifical work and aspects considered consensual of the Nature of Science. The goal of this work was to analyze works regarding the Nature of Science and the apparently consensual aspects presented on works that are considered fundamental in this field, in special those presented in Gil-Pérez et al. (2001) and, when comparing them among themselves and to more recent works, to understand the relevance of discussing a “consensus view” of the Nature of Science to the field of Science Teaching. To this end, a literature review about the subject was made, as well as a research on the articles that use Gil-Pérez et al. (2001) as a reference, through the platform Google Scholar. The works were divided in 2 periods to favour its analysis and after the organization and analysis of the data, through the Content Analysis, we were able to identify 4 categories of works related to the Nature of Science, based on the references to Gil-Pérez et al. (2001): 1) Investigation of views on Nature of Science; 2) Criticism or Alternatives to the Consensus Views; 3) Relations between Nature of Science and History of Science; 4) Nature of Science through an STS approach. We conclude affirming that choosing between the consensus view or another approach depends on the educator and a more urgent problem to be faced would be to combat inadequate views of Science.