PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2016, Vol. 12(2) 34-46

An Examination of the Documentary Film “Einstein and Eddington” in terms of Nature of Science Themes, Philosophical Movements, and Concepts

Munise Seçkin Kapucu

pp. 34 - 46   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2016.003

Published online: June 01, 2016  |   Number of Views: 336  |  Number of Download: 327


Abstract

This study aims to examine nature of science themes, philosophical movements, and overall concepts covered in the documentary film, “Einstein and Eddington”. A qualitative research method was used. In this study, the documentary film "Einstein and Eddington," the viewing time of which is 1 hour and 28 minutes, was used as the data source. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. As a result of the research, it has been found that the documentary put emphasis on the philosophical movements of positivism, rationalism, and relativism. It has been identified that five nature of science themes have been addressed in the documentary, namely that scientific knowledge is tentative; that it includes logical, mathematical, and empirical inferences; that it is subjective; that it is partly the product of human imagination and creativity; and that it is influenced by social and cultural factors. The documentary included concepts related to Einstein's Theories (General and Special Relativity), light deflection in the gravitational field and solar eclipse. As a result, this study showed that "Einstein and Eddington" is a documentary film that could be used in the instruction of some nature of science themes, philosophical movements, and concepts.

Keywords: Einstein and Eddington, nature of science, philosophical movements, teaching concepts, content analysis


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Kapucu, M.S. (2016). An Examination of the Documentary Film “Einstein and Eddington” in terms of Nature of Science Themes, Philosophical Movements, and Concepts. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(2), 34-46.

Harvard
Kapucu, M. (2016). An Examination of the Documentary Film “Einstein and Eddington” in terms of Nature of Science Themes, Philosophical Movements, and Concepts. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(2), pp. 34-46.

Chicago 16th edition
Kapucu, Munise Seckin (2016). "An Examination of the Documentary Film “Einstein and Eddington” in terms of Nature of Science Themes, Philosophical Movements, and Concepts". International Journal of Progressive Education 12 (2):34-46.

References
  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students‟ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057-1095. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnett, L. (1980). Evren ve Einstein. N. Yalçın. (Çev.). İstanbul: Varlık Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: Introduction and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge Publication. [Google Scholar]
  6. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Bilican, K. & Çavuş, S. (2009). Bilimin Doğası ve Öğretimi, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık. Eichinger, D. C., Abell, S. K., & Dagher, Z. R. (1997). Developing a graduate level science education course on the nature of science. Science & Education, 6(4), 417-429. [Google Scholar]
  8. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996) Creating conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261-295. [Google Scholar]
  9. Feyerabend, P. K. (1995). Akla Veda. Çev. E. Başer. İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. Fidan, N. & Erden, M. (1994). Eğitime Giriş. Meteksan Anonim Şirketi. [Google Scholar]
  10. Forster, N. (1995). The Analysis of Company Documentation. C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gezer, K., Köse, S. & Sürücü, A., (1998). Fen Bilgisi Eğitim-Öğretimin Durumu ve Bu Süreçte Laboratuvarın Yeri, III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, 23-25 Eylül, Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher‘s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933-956. [Google Scholar]
  13. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84, 5-26. [Google Scholar]
  14. Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 33-47. [Google Scholar]
  15. Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H., & Budak, E. (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigma değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 221-237. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F. Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lin H., & Chen C. (2002) Promoting preservice chemistry teachers‟ understanding about the nature of science through history. J Res Sci Teach., 39(9), 773-792. [Google Scholar]
  19. Matthews M. R. (1994) Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge, New York. [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin, P. (Director). (2008). Einstein and Eddington. UK: BBC. [Google Scholar]
  21. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. W.F. Mccomas (Eds.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and Strategies, (pp.3-39). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  23. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2013). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  24. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Özden, Y. (2013). Eğitimde Yeni Değerler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Özden, Y. (2014). Öğrenme ve Öğretme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  25. Priwer, S., & Philips, C.(2009). Her Yönüyle Einstein. H. Yalçın (Çev.). Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  26. Russell, T. L. (1981). What history of science, how much, and why? Science Education, 65(1), 51-64. [Google Scholar]
  27. Schwartz, R. E. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practice: A crossdiscipline comparison scientist’s views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University. [Google Scholar]
  28. Seçkin Kapucu, M. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde belgesel kullanımının 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin hücre ile kuvvet konularındaki başarılarına ve bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  29. Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103. [Google Scholar]
  30. Smith, U. M., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493-509. [Google Scholar]
  31. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sönmez, V. (2008). Bilim Felsefesi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sönmez, V. (2009). Eğitim Felsefesi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  34. Şeker, H., & Welsh, L. C. (2006). The effects of class contexts provided by history of science on student interest in learning science, Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  35. Topdemir, H. G. (2011). Felsefe. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  36. Türkmen, L. & Yalçın, M. (2001). Bilimin doğası ve eğitimdeki yeri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 189-195. Yalaki, Y., & Çakmakcı, G. (2010). A conversation with Michael R. Matthews: The contribution of history and philosophy of science to science teaching and research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(4), 287-309. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]