Experts’ Views on Using
History and Philosophy of Science in the Practice of Physics Instruction
Igal Galili AND amnon hazan
Science Teaching
Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel;
E-mail: igal@vms.huji.ac.il
ABSTRACT. This study
examined the views of a representative sample of experts in physics, physics
education and history and philosophy of science (HPS) on the incorporation of
HPS based materials in physics instruction.
The obtained spectrum of views addressed three areas: the rational to
include HPS, the most appropriate ways of doing so, and anticipated
difficulties in the new educational approach.
The elicited views, interpreted and categorized, reflect expertise
accumulated by theoreticians and practitioners in both Israeli high schools and
universities. The product can guide
efforts in constructing learning materials utilizing HPS contents within this
specific approach to physics education.
INTRODUCTION
The question of whether or not today's
instruction of scientific disciplines should include contents of history and
philosophy of science (HPS), is dependent on one's chosen educational
philosophy and values, and therefore has instigated never ending debates
(Matthews, 1994). Despite the intensive
discussions that have been conducted over more than a hundred years since this
idea was first articulated, HPS has seldom been implemented. This indicates the
complexity and controversial nature of the issue, and the necessity to invest
theoretical efforts to its comprehensive analysis.
To
fulfill such a goal, we elicited and analyzed the views of experts, relating to
science teaching. Our study was
intended to provide much needed knowledge, and thus assist the efforts of
curricula designers, theoreticians and practitioners in producing appropriate
HPS materials for science education.
Although it was performed in Israel, a small country with no rich
tradition in the considered trend of educational activity, we believe that it
possesses a wider than local interest and validity.
As
we perceive it, our subject of study is nourished from three areas of
knowledge. Accordingly, we focused on a
representation of pertinent viewpoints of experts in the following areas:
* physicists - who are involved in teaching introductory
physics courses at the
college-university level, science education or history and philosophy of
science;
* scientists - experts in science
education who are involved in empirical research in science teaching in
schools and in teacher training;
* scientists - experts in the area of history
and philosophy of science for whom science education presents a second
subject of professional interest.
While diversity, and even controversy,
within the accumulated views can be easily anticipated, it still may be
considered valid to construct an inclusive view of the subject. Even so, it is clear that we cannot find a
unique, appropriate way to implement HPS to meet all goals within the educational
process. Likewise, the implementation
of any HPS program cannot be considered
universally helpful or harmful for every individual or group of learners.
A brief history
of the rational
Edgar Jenkins (1991), in tracing the
arguments in favor of inclusion of HPS in regular teaching, began with the Duke
of Argyle's call to the British Association for Advancement of Science (BAAS),
in the middle of the 19th century, to teach the processes of science as
well as its products, by means of history of science. In 1917, the same association released a claim to attain an
integrity of education, again, by using history of science:
History
of science supplies the solvent of that artificial barrier between
literary studies and science, which the school timetable sets up (BAAS, 1917, p. 140).
Ernst Mach, in advocating HPS in physics
education, suggested a "genetic" approach to teaching, incorporating
an explicit exposure of the historical evolution of understanding the
particular scientific subject in the regular instruction (Matthews, 1990). Mach praised history of science as a
vehicle, in his opinion unique, to reach genuine understanding of modern
scientific contents, to appropriately face current problems in science, and
even to make further progress in science.
Lecturing to school teachers, he said:
A
person who has read and understand the Greek and Roman authors has felt
and experienced more than one who is restricted to the impression
of the present. He sees how men, placed
in different circumstances, judge quiet differently of the same things from
what we do today. His own judgments
will be rendered thus more independent
(Mach, 1886/1986, p. 347).
At about the same time, Pierre Duhem, a
prominent philosopher of science, developed his argument in favor of using HPS
materials in physics teaching. He
claimed an analogy between the development of scientific knowledge and
the growth of individual understanding of nature. As in the contemporary debate regarding the role of common sense
in science education, Duhem wrote:
The
legitimate, sure and fruitful method of preparing a student to receive a
physical hypothesis is the historical method. To retrace the transformations through which the empirical matter
accrued while the theoretical form was first sketched; to describe the long collaboration
by means of which common sense and deductive logic analyzed this matter and
modeled that form until one was exactly adapted to the other: that is the best
way, surely even the only way, to give to those studying physics a
correct and clear view of the very complex and living organization of this
science [emphasis added] (Duhem, 1954, p. 268).
Sherratt (1982), reviewing British
science curriculum in the first half of the 20th century, mentioned the
following benefits of using HPS materials: (a) demonstration of humanistic
and cultural aspects of science, (b) teaching about the nature
and methods of science and (c) prevention of over-specialization
by a sterilized, focused solely on the latest products, instruction. In addition, a great benefit was specified,
especially for teachers, for intellectual enrichment through their awareness of
the legitimacy of alternative views and interpretations in science, whether
occurring in science's historical past, or developed by students.
The
eminent pioneer of the inclusion of history of science in education was James
Conant, who advocated for a case study approach. His two volumes "Harvard Case Histories in Experimental
Science (Conant, 1957) became popular.
Cultural, historical and philosophical contexts of science can reduce,
in his view, the barrier of abstractness and hostile formalism:
Only
such broader perspective can give point and lasting value to scientific
information and experience for the general student (Conant, 1945, p. 155).
Conant's case-study materials encouraged
a similar approach, regarding secondary school science. Klopfer led the project "History of
Science Cases for Schools" (1964-66).
Despite its initial success, Klopfer considered it to be one of those
which: "rarely persist for very long time and left little trace on the
science education landscape" (Matthews, 1994, p. 56).
Harvard
Project Physics Course (HPPC), developed under Rutherford, Holton and Watson
(1970), is perhaps the best known project heavily loaded with HPS contents. This feature was justified by a need to
produce a physics course with a humanistic orientation, attracting and
motivating students who do not intend to specialize in physics, to study it as
others study history or literature (Brush, 1989). Assessments showed that in response to such instruction, students
significantly improved their attitudes to physics (Welch and Walberg,
1972). Many were surprised to find historical-philosophical
contents, contrasting the traditional image of physics being saturated with
mathematical formalism. Yet, there was
no solid evidence of benefits regarding content knowledge in the subject matter
(Ahlgren and Walberg, 1973).
Schwab’s
idea of teaching science as an inquiry ,inspired Connely et al. (1977)
in their "Patterns of Inquiry Project", which focused on the
historical examples of inquiry. This
approach touched on the philosophy of science (scientific method), students'
acquisition of inquiry skills, a crucial habit of mind "to be able to
assess the status of knowledge claims", illustration of "legitimate
doubts ordinarily attached to scientific knowledge claims" (Connely et
al., 1977, pp. 6, 18). However, in practice, the new approach,
which took a lot from scientific epistemology, appeared to be not too compatible
with real instruction. In fact, the
inquiry, that became a subject of learning, ceased to be real (Duschl, 1994).
DeBoer
(1991, p. 229-230) mentions the role of teaching the history of scientific discovery
in providing a realistic view of science and its method, "the role played
by intuition, luck, and hard work, and they see that there is no simple
formula that guarantees a discovery in science". At the same time, DeBoer reflected on teachers refraining from
teaching historical contents, considering it time consuming, taking away from
the "study of scientific knowledge as it is now organized", learning
to "comprehend what is no longer thought to be true". It causes reluctance and speculation of
whether it is worth the effort.
The
revived concern of scientific literacy in the Eighties-Ninetieth caused
a renewed interest in using HPS. The
new society, requiring from its citizens to function in a technologically
saturated environment and to decide on issues related to science which affect
people both personally and collectively, presumes a wider perspective of
science. Such orientation addresses the
widest audience of students, not only those specializing in sciences. "Project 2061. Science for All Americans" illustrates
such a program. It sees itself
providing a range of para-scientific knowledge, besides specific contents. In philosophical perspective, the course has
to elucidate the nature of scientific method and enterprise. As to the history, two perspectives are
mentioned - illustration of the accumulative nature of scientific knowledge,
and presentation of major scientific achievements as historical events,
important ingredients of human culture, "milestones of the development of
all thought in Western civilization" (AAAS, 1990).
"Science
for All" project reflects the values of the movement
Science-Technology-Society - STS (e.g. DeBoer, 1991, 178-184). A number of scholars asserted the
appropriateness of HPS materials for the program, which aimed at literacy and
demonstrating the unity of science, technology and society (Duschl, 1990;
Matthews, 1994; McComas et al., 1998).
A
new philosophical support for the use of HPS came from the latest cognitive
development learning theories, and the philosophy of constructivism (e.g.
Staver, 1998; von Glaserfeld, 1989).
The already old idea, launched as a merely cultural claim about human
understanding of the world being molded by the already possessed knowledge at
each stage of its progress (e.g. Hanson, 1958), received theoretical
elaboration within a sound theory. It
revived the idea of Duhem, about certain similarity of ontogenesis and
philogenesis in the development of scientific thought. The new vision of education made valid, and
essential, alternative conceptions ("misconceptions"), as well as
their ideas, beliefs, and epistemological commitments prior and during the
learning of sciences (e.g. Nussbaum, 1983, 1998; Nersessian, 1989; Thagard,
1990, 1992). Educational importance was
asserted to present science as the exchange of competing models of description,
not as a unique product discovered and accepted with finality. It was understood that presentation of only
the "end of line" knowledge in the instruction could be the way to
educate (program) a computer, but not so with regard to a human. What was a "mere" cultural and
intuitive claim for Mach, has become a solid theoretical thesis.
*
Matthews (1994, p. 50) summarized the reasons for the inclusion of history of
science in instruction as:
* better understanding of scientific
concepts and methods;
* connection between development of
individual thinking with development of scientific ideas;
* cultural-intellectual validity;
* understanding of nature of science;
* counteracting scientism and dogmatism
(common in science education);
* humanizing scientific contents, reduction
of formalism;
* presenting integrative and interdependent
nature of human achievements.
He disdained the arguments of the
incompatibility of science education and history, which he felt could at best
serve as a warning of inadequate use, rather than a barrier to the approach
itself.
Matthews
also reiterated the vision of Mach, regarding philosophical issues related to
sciences (ibid., p. 98), as still relevant and deserving inclusion in science
instruction:
science presents an intellectual
construction of economizing thought and experience with regard to the nature;
science is fallible and does not provide
absolute truth;
science is
historically conditioned intellectual activity;
scientific theory can be understood if its
historical development is understood.
Seemingly, both lists (of historical and
philosophical reasons) could be further extended as the community of proponents
of HPS materials in education has greatly increased in size and variety. At the same time, in reality, HPS
incorporation in actual instruction of physics is very rare, at least in
Israeli schools. Observing experts'
views we might find reasons for that, and reveal differences of expectations between
experts in different areas of knowledge.
The knowledge accumulated in such a study might facilitate the
construction of alternative trends in using HPS in science education, matching
variety of goals, cultural orientations and educational levels.
Data collection
Twelve experts were interviewed with
regard to their views on the practical utilization of the HPS material in
physics teaching. They represented
three areas of knowledge: Subject matter - Physics (P); History and Philosophy
of Science (HPS), Physics Education (PE).
Each of the subjects were invited to express his or her views on the
following issues:
* Rationale to use HPS materials in regular
instruction;
* The best ways of doing so;
* Difficulties anticipated in such
implementation.
Each subject was interviewed with a non structured
agenda for about 40-60 minutes.
Data processing
Our evaluation of the collected data
comprised four stages. First, the
protocols of the performed interviews were transcribed. Then, propositions addressing the mentioned
issues of inquiry were elicited to facilitate construction of a conceptual
profile of the experts. At the third
stage, the arguments were categorized.
Finally, interpretation of the
results was performed independently by both researchers in order to reach a
higher reliability of analysis and inference.
Findings
The analysis of the collected data
enabled us to construct a complex rationale for using HPS materials in science
instruction, as viewed from our subjects' varying perspectives. These profiles constitute our major
empirical finding.
Arguments with Regard to
the Main Goals of Using HPS Materials
These arguments were of several types:
fostering the learning process; concern for the image of science; pragmatic
(related to everyday use); addressing relevance and general interest; necessity
for genuine understanding; and finally, those rejecting the use of HPS
materials.
Arguments of fostering
the learning process
Such arguments (by PE-2, PE-5, HPS-2)
assert that presenting science as a story of conceptual revolutions creating
radical conceptual changes of knowledge about the world, positively affects the
learner. Personal experience of
individuals is often compatible with the historical evolution of scientific
views. History of science reveals that
science progress could not be reduced to formal-logical development, but
required conceptual breakthrough changes.
One may experience personal solidarity with such changes, as if they're
happening in his/her mind. This
emotional perspective may be helpful when formal-logical understanding of the
subject fails, and intuition becomes the leading factor. The arguments used by scientists in the
past, for or against specific theories, may remain valid and persuasive for the
contemporary learner, as they often appeal to common sense rather than formal
deductive logic. This thesis, in accord
with the constructivist perception of learning, can justify the considered
parallelism and the anchoring role of historical materials in the construction
of individual knowledge.
HPS
materials are of special value for teachers in revealing the nature of
difficulties in understanding
particular subjects in science.
Such knowledge, in view of P-2, is equally helpful for students' better
understanding of the subject matter, and teachers' pedagogical expertise and
awareness of students' problems.
HPS
materials may bare a fictional form (FF) of stories or anecdotes (P-1). Their contents are often far from
scientifically formal ones, including social ecology, human passions,
struggles, feelings, thoughts, hesitations, mistakes, and problems. The emerging general intellectual interest
to the discipline might awake an interest in the scientific contents.
Arguments concerning the
image of science
PE-4
argued for the necessity to address the nature of science, and support the
creation of its more realistic image in students. As is known (Driver et al., 1996), many
students perceive scientific products as totally objective, representing an
absolute truth about nature and technology.
HPS materials can help show the non-dogmatic character of scientific
knowledge, which, although addressing nature as it is observed, still presents
a sequence of models which claim, with varying success, to adequately reflect
nature, but never mirror it.
Another
argument, by P-2, PE-4, HPS-3, addressed the cultural merit of HPS
materials, in a broad sense, including their humanistic value together with the
scientific one. Education may reveal
the real, not sterilized, history of science, which includes humanistic aspects
of the scientific enterprise. This can
be a bridge between science and humanities, which is useful in the general
educational perspective.
Expert
PE-1 mentioned that very often science is perceived as a collection of formal
dogmatism, possessing formal
mathematical forms, stored in the temple of science. Such image lacks any dynamic nature, other than pure
accumulation with years. History of
science shows that, in fact, science presents a permanently changing
system. People construct knowledge
though studies and discoveries, a variety of views replacing each other in a
mosaic of theoretical and practical contents.
Discovery of science as
a profession
Some experts (PE-3, HPS-1) brought up the
importance of introducing science as a
humanistic profession, beyond the need for technical mastery. Exposure of specific conceptual contents of
science could help students decide whether being a scientist fits their future life interest. HPS materials in high-school contain
relevant and realistic information which can facilitate such an important
decision. In fact, HPS materials
enculturate the learner into the community of scientists. The noble nature of scientific knowledge,
its true values, the high passion and devotion of humans occupied with science, inherent democracy of
science - all clearly emerge from the history of science. High-school is the last opportunity to
provide future physicists with such knowledge.
Arguments of relevance
and general interest
HPS materials, in the view of PE-2 and
HPS-2, has a high potential for conveying to the learners a broad picture
combining aspects of scientific, technological and social (STS) nature. HPS naturally bridges between these three
areas, creating an integrative picture. The social and technological relevance
of scientific subjects, presented in a historical background, highly increase
motivation in many learners who otherwise do not show interest in science. This STS-HPS combined approach, in the view
of PE-2 and HPS-2, may promote deeper understanding of many pure scientific
contents, which being considered in their historical contexts, become clear to
many students, especially those with a lower ability of abstraction. Importantly, "relevance" should
not be understood as restricted to an actual sense experience, but including a
much wider area-of-content which attracts the curiosity of students, such as
space exploration, warfare, economical competition, ecological threat etc.
Arguments of necessity
for understanding of science
This argument was brought by the expert
in science history (HPS-4), and advocates incorporation of HPS materials on the
basis of the claim that such materials are not only important in physics
instruction, but present a completely necessary condition for understanding
science. This argument was given
originally by Ernst Mach with regard to the education of future
physicists. According to it, any
meaningful understanding of scientific contents presumes knowledge of their
historical evolution, of which contemporary knowledge serves only as the
currently final page. The currently
accepted knowledge of physics is inconceivable in isolation from its whole,
like a branch cannot be understood in isolation from the tree. This claim may sound today too categorical,
and could be debated. Mentioned as an
example, were the concepts of space, motion, or life, which cannot be
meaningfully taught and learned, except in historical and philosophical discussions
guided by HPS materials. Those cement
the whole content to be learned in one structure, which is necessary to
comprehend the subject. For the same
reason, most scientific papers start from a more or less comprehensive survey
of the background in the considered area.
Arguments of rejection
HPS in regular instruction
Physicists only, presented arguments for
rejecting HPS materials in regular instruction. Three kinds of arguments were mentioned. P-2 mentioned that much
of the historical scenery (e.g. names of the scientists, their sex, race,
social origin and status), commonly interwoven in such materials, have to
appear as strange and even foreign to the eye and ear of a contemporary
student. Thus, a strong religious
motivation of many prominent scientists in the past, rather than helping, may
impede the modern understanding of the subject. Repelling influence may not only impede understanding, but
strongly decrease student interest toward the subject.
Another
reason to refrain from using HPS materials, given by P-3, was the additional
time required to cover more material (regular + HPS) in the instruction. This time is not available in the
contemporary science curriculum, which is usually already overloaded with a
variety of contents.
Finally,
the argument of vagueness and inaccuracy of the knowledge from the past was
also mentioned (P-1 and P-3). In their
view, much of the old scientific knowledge, though contributing to the course
of historical progress of science, clearly does not match contemporary
scientific views. It is primitive, and often simply mistaken. Inclusion of such in the instruction of
novice learners, presents a risky game.
Although it might amuse the expert, the scientifically obsolete knowledge
may cause serious confusion for the learner who cannot discriminate between the
scientifically right and wrong theoretical claims. To distinguish between such, requires scientific maturity not
available by students at this stage.
Views Regarding the Ways
to Implement HPS Materials
We classified these views in the
following categories:
-
Reproduction of historical experiments;
-
Acquaintance with original texts (as amendments in teaching materials);
-
Incorporation of HPS contents, embedded in the form of stories and anecdotes
possessing instructive value and appearing episodically;
-
Incorporation of HPS contents as an integrative part of the instruction and
learning materials, built in to the whole course.
-
History should appear in form of references to inventors and discoverers, which
have a value of cultural literacy ("Dates and Names" approach).
Reproduction of
historical experiments
This view (provided by P-1, PE-4, HPS-1)
discusses reproduction of famous and important experiments with modern
apparatus, or the schematic descriptions of such experiments and their results.
One of the subjects stated:
The
historical experiment should be presented, not as an interesting historic
event, but as a scientific solution given in the past to a real problem which
students should respect and consider worthwhile. The science laboratory, basically, should not be used to confirm
already known laws, but to test hypothesis and facilitate explanations of
problems under consideration. An experiment may either support the
explanation or discover its falseness.
Historical experiments can be used to illustrate such an approach.
Acquaintance with
original texts
Another
way (described by HPS-2) to utilize HPS materials in science instruction, is to
expose students to authentic scientific texts, original publications presenting
the results of scientific research:
Original
scientific texts will represent authentic research in real science, and
demonstrate conceptual changes as described in these texts. To attain such effect, instructors should
carefully chose documents which will illustrate the relevant changes in the
considered scientific conception, and which can be appreciated by students.
Incorporation of HPS contents, embedded
in the form of stories and anecdotes possessing instructive value and appearing
episodically;
In this view, which was the most popular in our sample (P-2,
PE-1, PE-2, PE-5, HPS-3), the use of HPS materials is advocated in a form of an
interesting story or anecdote, with a relevant content from the history of
science that addresses the content of the specific instruction, in the view of
the instructor. Such use does not
presume systematic integration of HPS materials, but their occasional use in
cases when the chosen piece fits the idea promoted by the teacher, illustrates
the principle under discussion, and so on.
Incorporation of
HPS contents as an integrative part of the instruction and learning materials,
built in to the whole course
Finally,
a systematic infusion of the HPS materials in teaching science was suggested by
PE-3 and PE-5. Such integration obviously
presumes an extensive preliminary work, invested in serious study of historical
materials by the designers preparing a new kind of learning materials:
The
incorporated HPS materials should be relevant, and match the goals of
instruction at each of its stages. They
should be integrated in a way appearing natural to the student, and reducing to
the minimum the impression of an artificial addition. Only then, we may expect the required outcomes of using HPS.
An extreme version of this approach to
teaching subject matter in its historical continuum, was given only by one
subject, experienced in teaching astronomy.
"Dates and
Names" approach
P-3 expressed the approach, quite common
in many textbooks, to pay a "tax" of politeness to history, in the form
of making references to inventors of technical contrivances and discoverers of
laws. This policy is seen as a form of
cultural tribute, and literacy. No
other significance is given to historical contents, and philosophical ones are
perceived as foreign in science classes.
Difficulties Anticipated
in Attempting the Incorporation of HPS Materials
In the view of many, the implementation
of HPS implies an essential qualitative change in teaching. As such, numerous difficulties are expected
and seemingly unavoidable. To reduce
them, adequate research efforts should be invested. Our subjects anticipated difficulties with the following:
- the required change to a more
appropriate teaching style and method of assessment;
- the required new content knowledge and
pedagogical content knowledge of teachers;
- the new learning materials;
- keeping HPS contents relevant to the
students;
- institutional traditions and
established standards of teaching sciences.
Teaching style and
method of assessment
The introduction of HPS materials in
regular physics instruction appears to present a challenge to the teacher. Beyond extending personal knowledge, usually
not provided in the standard instruction of pre-service teachers, such a change
is inevitably related to a change in that teaching style commonly identified as
required in a science class. HPS
contents presume changing to new sort of assignments, and a new kind of
assessment. It was not surprising that
experts in science education were those who raised this issue (PE-2, PE-3,
PE-4). PE-3 said, for example:
Science
teachers will need to change their teaching style as well as the methods of
assessment they usually deploy and are comfortable with. As I see it, the new ways of evaluation of
students' knowledge will be reminiscent of those in use in humanistic
disciplines.
Content and pedagogical
content knowledge
Most of our sample, and especially
experts in science history and philosophy, emphasized the fact that regular
programs of pre-service teachers in physics seldom provide a solid enough basis
of knowledge in history and philosophy of science. Although such a deficiency can be fixed by individual learning,
teachers need to be encouraged and supported in their efforts, especially
initially. A realistic perspective
believes gaining new knowledge, albeit beneficial and enjoyable, may present a
barrier for a variety of reasons.
Quoting one of our HPS subjects:
Within the new
approach, teachers may find their knowledge and expertise, accumulated over
many years of learning and practice, insufficient again... Many were never
formally instructed in HPS. This is
especially true with regard to the philosophy of science. In such cases, teachers need to learn on
their own, and then apply it as novices in their classes. This is not at all simple.
One of our science educators defined the
problem:
The main
problem is teachers' training. The
teacher should have knowledge in HPS, and he/she must recognize the importance
of its use in his/her class. There are
no problems with students: the historical subjects are adequate regardless of
the students' age or level.
Learning materials
The problem of adequate learning
materials incorporating HPS materials is not new in English speaking
countries. In Israel, which presently
has no textbook supporting such an approach to teaching science, the problem is
even greater. This problem was
emphasized more than once (P-1, P-2, PE-2, HPS-3) as an obstacle, even for
positively motivated teachers. The
materials of historical or philosophical content are often not appropriate for
use in the education of such a young and unprepared audience. Original historical and philosophical texts
often belong to a different culture, written in an old fashion style and
language, and are difficult to understand by a contemporary reader unprepared
for such an activity. Teachers
complain:
There
are no adequate historical materials which would fit the school audience. Preparation of such learning materials would
surely demand great efforts, for they must equally match the demands of the
discipline, and be clear enough for students.
Books written by historians, or original texts of scientists, are
likewise not good enough. As they are,
they can only be supplementary to specially prepared materials.
Relevance of the
materials
The relevance of learning materials
encourages students, and prompts their learning. This old and widely excepted claim may conflict, in the view of some
teachers, with the nature of HPS materials.
Formal ground for this claim is related to significant, and sometimes
huge, cultural, scientific, social and technological gaps between the scenery
and heroes of HPS texts, and the reality of contemporary students. Perhaps this fact motivated designers of
science curriculums to mention such contents on the margins of major
texts. This policy may have lead to the
following (P-1, PE-1, PE-2, PE-3):
HPS
materials are not perceived as mandatory content in a science course. Students, as well as teachers, might not see
their relevance or importance in teaching/learning the major contents of the
course, but as a sort of "decorative", supplementary part. This attitude might later lead to totally
omitting of the HPS topics, even if they are directly related to the considered
subject of the course.
This view implies a challenge to
designers of learning materials incorporating
HP to prevent this perception.
Firstly of teachers, by showing the essential and multifaceted
relationship between these materials and the true agenda of the course. Thus, they will also restore, to the
student, the perception of relevance in HPS based materials .
Institutional
difficulties
Two kinds of social, or
"institutional", difficulties of teachers were mentioned by HPS-2 and
HPS-3. The ecology in the teaching
community of the institution (school or college) obviously plays an important
role:
Adequate
atmosphere in the "teachers' room" is likewise a necessary condition
for success. HPS leaning should be a
part of a wider concern, which integrates sciences and humanities, and blunts
their differences. This may cause a
problem for colleagues' competent interaction,
which must be encouraged rather than hindered. If the atmosphere in the "teachers' room" is
separatist, and teachers are interested solely in their own narrow discipline,
the implementation of HPS in the science class will fail.
No less important is the role of the
administration:
As long
as school administrations encourage instruction of each discipline isolated
from the others, it will be very difficult to introduce any interdisciplinary
activity in science courses, since that will be considered a deviation from the
curriculum. The ordained policy of
education within strictly defined, non-overlapping, areas of classical
disciplines, might hinder any innovative instruction which combines areas of
human activity.
Discussion
Although our study was purely
qualitative, and involved a limited number of interviewed experts, the
accumulated spectrum of their views presents a reliable profile of opinions on
the subject of utilizing HPS materials in physics (science) instruction. This is due to the fact that our sample was
representative, including a significant share of the PE and HPS experts in
Israel. Those are not only experts with
a recognized competency on the subject, but in one way or another, active in
the implementation of HPS materials in physics instruction, and/or the
development of adequate materials.
Regarding
the rational of including HPS based materials in physics (science) instruction,
in general, Israeli PE and HPS (not P) experts adopted the opinions of their
colleagues in other countries (see above):
*
fostering meaningful learning,
*
discovery of science as a profession,
*
improving the image of science,
*
inclusion of relevant and interesting contents (STS ideas),
*
necessity of HPS for construction of a holistic view on science,
(the last three are related to the aspect
of general culture). Fostering
meaningful learning and improving the image of science were mentioned by
experts in all three areas. Three of
them used the argument of encouraging conceptual change in learners, a
cognitive justification for using history in education. Discovery of science as a profession and the
relevance and interest were raised by PE and HPS experts by using similar
arguments. However, the necessity of HPS
for understanding science was mentioned by only a single subject, who was a philosopher
of science.
Importantly,
the interviewed P experts showed a great deal of disdain for the discussed
curricula change, and their arguments need be seriously considered. After all, physics professors possess the
greatest expertise in the subject matter being taught, and it behooves them to
sponsor any changes in physics curricula.
One must study in depth any objections that may arise, and try to
address the rational of their worry. An
appropriate step could be the development of high quality materials with
built-in HPS contents, in close cooperation with experts in the areas of
subject matter, education, and history and philosophy of science. An absence of contribution of any one of
these, may cause an unbalanced product, suffering some deficiency which may
cause dissatisfaction in that area of knowledge.
What
are the best ways to incorporate HPS materials in physics instruction? In the view of our subjects, they
incorporate the following:
*
reproduction of historical experiments,
*
presentation of original historical texts,
*
infusion of stories during regular instruction,
*
systematic incorporation of historical materials,
*
historical references ("dates and names") where required.
The infusion of relevant stories and
anecdotes during regular instruction was seen as the most important. Though this modest incorporation of HPS may
disappoint some, this opinion was shared by experts in our subjects' three
areas of competence. Such acceptance
also occurred, though less intensively, only with regard to reproduction of
historical experiments. Only some
physics educators emphasized as desirable, a systematic incorporation of
historical materials in regular instruction, and nobody suggested to construct a
course based on the historical developments within the subject matter. This type of construction was recently
performed by us, and analyzed elsewhere (Galili and Hazan, 1999a, b). All but one subject perceived the inclusion
of original texts as not appropriate, as tried by some educators in the
past. The "Dates and Names"
approach, a custom adopted in many textbooks, was not perceived as essentially
important, which again indicates for us that experts expect from HPS materials
much more than a simple awareness of the great past.
Although
not mentioned by even one of this study's subjects, one may believe that a major effect anticipated from HPS, is the
cognitive resonance perceived by the learners, between the learned historically
practiced views and their own. This
should lead to a more effective and meaningful learning. of this subject
matter.
An
important part of our results was the taxonomy of difficulties anticipated
during implementation of HPS materials.
Included, were problems regarding:
*
necessity of special teaching style and type assessment,
*
possible need to gain additional knowledge by teachers,
*
need of specially designed learning materials
*
difficulty to preserve the materials' relevance as viewed by the students,
*
institutional difficulties which might arise from lack of support within the
educational community and institutions.
Almost
unanimously, our subjects claimed that knowledge of HPS might be a problem for
teachers. This implies the need for
special effort to be invested in the training of pre-service teachers and
administrating special forms of training and programs for in-service teachers
(e.g. Eylon and Bagno, 1997). Similar
attention was given to the learning materials.
The few specially arranged resources (e.g. Conant, 1957; Connelley et
al., 1977; Holton and Brush, 1985) do not provide sufficient coverage of the
topics, are seldom available at present, and in some points, are obsolete in
their interpretations.
It
is understandable that each time the contents of instruction change, the issue
of teaching style and assessment requires special treatment. This bothers, first of all, physics
educators. There is still no appropriate
answer to this problem, and without an appropriate solution it may, for obvious
reasons, truly impede the implementation of HPS.
Mainly
educators emphasized making HPS materials relevant to students, as a
multifaceted problem. Indeed, such a
task is incumbent upon the educator, who must bridge between the learner and
the "other world", which is sometimes very distant and awkward,
brought to the classroom for specific reasons, but entered as a whole cultural
reality, much different from the world around us. Making an historical episode relevant to the subject matter under
discussion, requires a well prepared, and perhaps unusual strategy of
teaching,, so as to preserve the motivation of both the learner and the
teacher. It is especially true with
regard to high school students, less mature than university ones. To not degenerate the history into a
primitive support of a scientific claim (the concern of historians), and at the
same time, not to lose the scientific validity of the historical episode by
introducing skepticism and relativism in respect to science (the concern of scientists),
is a real challenge for the physics teacher.
Conclusion
We conclude that with the emerging in our
study perception that implementation of the HPS materials can be soundly
reasoned and performed in a variety of ways, depending on the goals of
instruction, that are perceived differently by experts in different areas of
knowledge, and the type of audience, different in skills and level of
preparation. Still such an approach to
physics education is perceived as feasible and desirable, worthy of investing
expanded effort and resources. While a
team of experts in complimentary areas may be desirable in constructing the new
learning materials, the problem has no "one" solution, and we should
not expect a product universally fitting for every individual or classroom
situation. The spectrum of views on the
subject presented here, though not exhaustive, can be useful in the
construction of a variety of HPS base materials, thus leading to higher
quality in physics instruction, and greater appeal to a wider audience.
References
AAAS
(American Association for the Advancement of Science) Science for All Americans. Project 2061. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990), p.
145.
Ahlgren,
A. & Walberg, H.: 1973, ‘Changing Attitudes Towards Science Among Adolescents’,
Nature, 245, 187-190.
BAAS
- British Association for the Advancement of Science: 1917, Report of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science. London, Murray.
Brush, S.: 1989, ‘History of Science and Science
Education’, Interchange, 20 (2), 60-70.
Conant, J.: 1945, (Ed.). ‘General
Education in a free Society: Report of the Harvard Committee’, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Conant, J.: 1957, (Ed.). ‘Harvard Case
Histories in Experimental Science’, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Connelley,
F., Finegold, M., Clipsham, J., & Whalstrom, M.: 1977, ‘Science Enquiry
and the Teaching of Science: Patterns of Enquiry Project’, Toronto: OSIE
Press.
DeBoer,
G.: 1991, ‘A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implication for Practices’, Teachers' College Press, New York.
Driver R., Leach J., Miller R., & Scott P.:
1996, ‘Young people's images of science’, Open University Press,
Backingheur, UK.
Duhem,
P.: 1905/1954, ‘The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory’, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, p. 268-269.
Duschl,
R.: 1990, ‘Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and
Their Development’, New York: Teachers College Press.
Duschl,
R.: 1994, ‘Research in History and Philosophy of Science’, In: D. Gabel (ed.), ‘Handbook of Research
on Science Teaching and Learning’, 443-465. New York MacMillan.
Eylon,
B.-S. & Bagno, E.: 1997, ‘Professional Development of Physics Teachers
Through a Long-Term In-Service Programs: The Israeli Experience’, in E. Redish
and J. S. Rigden (eds.) ‘The
changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities’, Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, College Park, MD, USA, American
Institute of Physics, Woodbury, New York, 1997, pp. 299-326.
Galili,
I. & Hazan, A.: 1999a, ‘The Influence of Historically Oriented Course on
the Content Knowledge of Students in Optics’,
Paper presented at the meeting of the European Science Education
Research Association in Kiel, Germany.
Galili,
I. & Hazan, A.: 1999b, ‘The Effect of a History-Based Course in Optics on
Students’ Views about Science’, Paper
presented at the Fourth International History, Philosophy & Science
Teaching Conference, the Pavia University, Italy.
Glaserfeld, E.
von,: 1989, ‘Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching’, Synthesis
80(1), 121-140.
Holton,
G. & Brush, S. G.: 1985, ‘Introduction to Concepts and Theories in
Physical Science’, Prinston University Press, Prinston, NJ.
Hanson,
H.: 1958, ‘Patterns of Discovery’, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Jenkins,
E.: 1991, ‘History of Science in Schools: Retrospect and Prospect in the U.K.’,
In: M. Matthews (ed.), ‘History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: Selected
Readings’, OISE Press, Toronto, (pp. 33-42).
Klopfer,
L.: 1964-1966, ‘History of Science Cases’, Chicago: Science Research
Associates.
Mach,
E.: 1886/1986, ‘On instruction the Classics and the Sciences’, In: ‘Popular
Scientific Lectures’, Open Court
Publishing Company, La Sale, IL.
Matthews,
M.: 1990, ‘Ernst Mach and Contemporary Science Education Reform’, International
Journal of Science Education 12(3) 317-325.
Matthews,
M.: 1994, ‘Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science’,
Routledge, New-York.
McComas,
W., Almazora, H. & Clough, M.: 1998, ‘The Nature of Science in Science
Education: An Introduction’, Science and Education, 7, 511-532.
Nersessian,
N.: 1989, ‘Conceptual Change in Science and in Science Education’, Synthesis
80, 163-183.
Nussbaum,
J.: 1983, ‘Classroom Conceptual Change: The Lesson to be Learned from the
History of Science’, In: Helm, H. & Novak, J. (Eds.), ‘Proceeding of The
International Seminar on Misconception in Science and Mathematics’, Ithaca,
NY. Dep. of Education, Cornell University.
Nussbaum,
J.: 1998, ‘History and Philosophy of Science and the preparation for
constructivist Teaching: The case of Particle Theory’, In ‘Teaching Science
for understanding: A Human Constructivist view’, Academic Press, pp.
165-194.
Rutherford,
F., Holton, G. & Watson, F.: 1970, ‘The Project Physics Course: Text’,
New-York: Holt, Rienhart and Wintson.
Sherratt, W.: 1982, ‘History of Science
in the Science Curriculum: a Historical Perspective Part I: Early Interest and
Roles Advocated’, School Science Review, 64, 225-236.
Staver,
J. R.: 1998, ‘Constructivism: Sound Theory of Explicating the Practice of
Science and Science Teaching’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,
501-520 ().
Thagard,
P.: 1990, ‘The conceptual Structure of the Chemical Revolution’, Philosophy of
Science, 57 (2), 183-209.
Thagard,
P.: 1992, ‘Conceptual Revolutions’, Ewing, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Welch,
W. & Walberg, H.: 1972, ‘A National Experiment in Curriculum Evaluation’, American
Educational Research Journal, 9, 373-383.