A teoria celular em livros didáticos de biologia: uma análise sobre as concepções acerca da natureza da ciência

Abstract

The historical-philosophical approach applied to science education has been gaining space, over the years, in studies, analyses and proposals on the possible contributions from this approach to address many of the science education problems (PEDUZZI, 2001; MARTINS, L., 2005; FORATO, 2009; PRESTES, 2012). In general, the inclusion history and philosophy of science in science education basically occurs through textbooks. In the case of biology education, a key context reproduced in these books is the Cell Theory, since this theory has, among other aspects, to recognize the microscopic similarity among all living beings due to a common structure: the cell. The research in question has had as object high school and higher education textbooks, considering that there is a tendency in those books to follow the biology history shown in them. Thus, the general aim of this paper was to learn and reflect on what conceptions about the nature of science are presented in the biology textbooks approved by PNLD/2012 and in university books used as reference for these, when the Cell Theory is approached. We adopted as methodology the qualitative and quantitative approach of the documentary/bibliographical type and we developed it through the content analysis methodology proposed by Moraes (1999). The analysis categories defined a priori were built from the reflections on the possible deformation that may be transmitted through science teaching, in a veiled or explicit way, about the views on science (GIL PÉREZ et al., 2001; CACHAPUZ et al., 2005). Regarding the PNLD/2012 books, the results show a predominance of categories related to deformed views about science, with 65.2% of the analysis units, highlighting the category “observation/neutral description and in search of scientific discovery”. During the analysis, there was the emergence of two categories. In the sample of university books we found very close frequencies between the categories that express deformed views about science (51,9%) and categories related to coping with these views (48,1%). We consider that the LDI university book contributed significantly to this result, since this is the only one in which the confrontation analysis units appear in greater number than those that reaffirm the distorted views about science. However, this influence has not been found in the same proportion as in the books that use the LDI as reference. As a contribution to our research, we suggest that the authors of textbooks extend their education with historical and philosophical studies on science/biology or establish partnerships with science historians specialized in various issues in the area in order for science history and philosophy be presented in a different perspective from the one that has prevailed in biology textbooks. In other words, that this approach be used as a confrontation way from many of the science teaching problems, which are repeatedly pointed out in research such as this. Key-words: Science education. History and philosophy of science. Nature of science. Textbooks. Biology. Cell Theory.