Abstract:
Purpose The purpose of this research was to study the understanding of the upper school students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge. Procedure The sample were 808 male and female students who were studying in mathayom suksa six in science program in the academic year of 1984 from twenty-four secondary schools in Bangkok Metropolis. The research instrument was a Model of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge constructed by Peter A. Rubba and Hans O. Anderson. It was divided into six parts : amoral, creative, developmental, parsimonious, testable and unified. The obtained data were analyzed by means of arithmetic mean and standard deviation. Findings (1) Considering as a whole, it was found that the understanding of the students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge about amoral was at the average level. Considering in detail, it was found that the students understood at the high level : moral judgement can be passed on scientific knowledge; and if the applications of a piece of scientific knowledge are generally considered bad, then the piece of knowledge is also considered to be bad. (2) Considering as a whole, it was found that the understanding of the students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge about creative was at the high level. Considering in detail, it was found that the students understood at the high level : scientific knowledge expresses the creativity of scientists; scientific laws, theories, and concepts express creativity ; scientific knowledge is not a product of human imagination; a scientific theory is similar to a work of art in that they both express creativity; and scientific knowledge does not express the creativity of scientists. (3) Considering as a whole, it was found that the understanding of the students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge about developmental was at the average level. Considering in detail, it was found that the students understood at the high level : todays scientific laws, theories and concepts may have to be changed in the face of new evidence; and scientific knowledge is unchanging. (4) Considering e as a whole, it was found that the understanding of the students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge about parsimonious was at the average level. Considering in detail, it was found that the students understood at the high level : if two scientific theories explain a scientists observations equally well, the more complex theory is chosen. (5) Considering as a whole, it was found that the understanding of the students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge about testable was at the high level. Considering in detail, it was found that the students understood at the high level :scientific knowledge need not be capable of experimental test; consistency among test results is not a requirement for the acceptance of scientific knowledge; the evidence for scientific knowledge need not be open to public examination; the evidence for scientific knowledge must be repeatable; and the evidence for a piece of scientific knowledge does not have to be repeatable. (6) Considering as a whole, it was found that the understanding of the students concerning the nature of scientific knowledge unified was at the high level. Considering in detail, it was found that the students understood at the high level : the laws, theories, and concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics are related; the laws, theories, and concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics are related; the laws, theories, and concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics are not linked; the laws, theories and concepts of biology, chemistry and physics are not related; relationships among the laws, theories and concepts of science do not contribute to the explanatory; and predictive power of science and biology, chemistry, and physics are different kinds of knowledge.