Science & Education

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 1233–1261 | Cite as

Implementing History and Philosophy in Science Teaching: Strategies, Methods, Results and Experiences from the European HIPST Project

Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper presents a rationale for utilizing HPS to teach physics and the NoS developed in the course of a project funded by the European Union. A core feature of this approach is formed by the development of historical case studies for the use in lessons. Furthermore, the learners’ perspectives are explicitly taken into account. Teaching methods comprise student-centered activities as creative writing for understanding science and scientists and role-play activities. Emphasis is laid on experimental work which is performed with the help of true-to-the-original replications of historical apparatus, especially built for this purpose. A new characteristic for NoS learning is introduced, namely the reflection corner giving the opportunity to explicitly discussing the relationship between history, knowledge acquisition, and the application of scientific findings. In order to make use of the special skills, creative potentials and experiences of teachers a symbiotic strategy for the development and evaluation process of the teaching material was adopted where a close and long-standing cooperation between science teachers and science educators could be established. On this basis the German partners were able to complete numerous case studies from the fields of mechanics, electricity, magnetism and heat.

Keywords

Professional Development Science Teacher Social Enterprise Scientific Content Epistemological Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the 7th Framework Program of the European Commission. We are also thankfully indebted to the teachers and collaborators in the German thematic working group namely Ulf Drüding, Wolfgang Engels, Olaf Kramer, Anna Launus, Veronika Maiseyenka, Christina Mocha, Michael Nienhausen, Harald Schütt, Roland Steiner, Till Stephan and many others. They all have contributed a lot to the development of case studies and the success of the HIPST project in general. Intensive discussion among the HIPST partners on national as well as on international level has contributed to this paper.

References

  1. 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(10), 1057–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allchin, D. (1992). History as a tool in science education. In: 2nd International history and philosophy of science and science teaching conference, Kingston, ON (Reprint of Conspicuous history, clandestine history: A spectrum of simulation strategies). Minneapolis, MN: SHiPS Resource Center. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from www.ships.umn.edu/tool.htm.
  4. Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education, 13, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aubusson, P. J., & Fogwill, S. (2006). Role play as analogical modelling in science. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (Vol. 30), Series Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Aubusson, P. J., Fogwill, S., Barr, R., & Perkovic, L. (1997). What happens when students do simulation-role-play in science? Research in Science Education, 27(4), 565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bannerman, M. D. (2008). Continuum—selecting inquiry-based experiences to promote a deeper understanding of the nature of science. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 35(2), 10–14.Google Scholar
  8. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J. F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ideas-about-science: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. BouJaoude, S., Sowwan, S., & Abd-El-Khalick. F. (2003). The effect of using drama in science teaching on students’ conceptions of nature of science. Paper presented on The ESERA 2003 Conference Research and the Quality of Science Education. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www1.phys.uu.nl/esera2003/programme/pdf%5C039S.pdf.
  11. Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. London: Bell.Google Scholar
  12. Chang, H. (2009). We have never been Whiggish (about phlogiston). Centaurus, 51(4), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danby, M., & Upitis, R. (1988). School theatre: A question of ownership. Speech and Drama, 37(2), 5–8.Google Scholar
  15. Dennen, P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/31.pdf.
  16. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education. The ESERA Summer School 2004 (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  17. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role-play in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). Comments and criticism. The nature of science: a perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eilks, I., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., & Ralle, B. (2004). Changing teachers’ attitudes and professional skills by involving teachers into projects of curriculum innovation in Germany. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice oriented research in science education (pp. 29–40). Aachen: Shaker.Google Scholar
  21. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). The effect of a history-based course in optics on students’ views about science. Science & Education, 10, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gräsel, C., & Parchmann, I. (2004). Implementationsforschung—oder: der steinige Weg, Unterricht zu verändern (Research on implementation: The problems of changing teaching and learning). Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32(3), 196–214.Google Scholar
  23. Guericke, O. V. (1672/1968). Neue (sogenannte) Magdeburger Versuche über den leeren Raum : nebst Briefen, Urkunden und anderen Zeugnissen seiner Lebens- und Schaffensgeschichte (trans. & edited by H. Schimak). Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heering, P. (2000). Getting shocks: Teaching secondary school physics through history. Science & Education, 9(4), 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heering, P. (2003a). History–science–epistemology: On the use of historical experiments in physics teacher training. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th IHPST conference Denver 2001. Avaible from the IHPST Group, IHPST.ORG.Google Scholar
  27. Heering, P. (2003b). Rejected historical experiments and their use for science teacher training. In D. Metz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th IHPST conference Winnipeg 2003.Google Scholar
  28. Heering, P. (2007). Public experiments and their analysis with the replication method. Science & Education, 16, 637–645.Google Scholar
  29. Heering, P., & Müller, F. (2002). Cultures of experimental practice—an approach in a museum. Science & Education, 11, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hochadel, O. (2006). The business of experimental physics: Instrument makers and itinerant lecturers in the German enlightenment. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9017-y.Google Scholar
  31. Hodge, R. (2006). What Europeans really think (and know) about science and technology. Science in School, issue 3, Winter 2006: 71–77, Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://www.scienceinschool.org/2006/issue3/eurobarometer/.
  32. Hoffman, L., Häußler, P., & Lehrke, M. (1998). Die IPN-Interessenstudie Physik. Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  33. Höttecke, D. (2000). How and what can we learn from replicating historical experiments? A case study. Science & Education, 9(4), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Höttecke, D. (2001). Die Natur der Naturwissenschaften historisch verstehen. Fachdidaktische und wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen (Understanding the nature of science historically. Didactical and historical investigations). Berlin: Logos-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Höttecke, D. (2007). Historisch orientierter Physikunterricht (Teaching physics with history). In S. Mikelskis-Seifert & T. Rabe (Eds.), Physikmethodik. Handbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor.Google Scholar
  36. Höttecke, D., & Rieß, F. (2009). Developing and implementing case studies for teaching science with the help of history and philosophy. Framework and critical perspectives on “HIPST”—a European approach for the inclusion of history and philosophy in science teaching. Paper presented at the Tenth International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference (IHPST), South Bend, USA 2009, June 24–88, 2009, Retrieved January 04, 2010, from http://www.nd.edu/~ihpst09/papers/Hoettecke_Paper_IHPST09.pdf.
  37. Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2010). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge—an analysis of obstacles. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-010-9285-4.Google Scholar
  38. Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2010). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4.Google Scholar
  41. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kubli, F. (1999). Historical aspects in physics teaching: Using Galileo’s work in a new swiss project. Science & Education, 8(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick (Ed.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht [u.a.]: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lin, H.-S., Hung, J.-Y., & Hung, S.-C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students’ problem-solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindner, M. (2008). Lehrerfortbildung heute—Sind Lehrkräfte fortbildungsresistent? Erfahrungen aus den Programmen SINUS und CHiK als Modelle der Lehrerfortbildung (Professional development today—Are teachers resistant to change? Experiences based on the SINUS and CHIK programs as models for professional development). MNU, 61(3), 164–168.Google Scholar
  51. Loughran, J., Berry, A., Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, D. (2003). Teaching and testing about the nature of science: Problems in attempting to determine students’ perceptions 4 (1). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  52. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Menis, J., & Erduran, S. (2005). Learning science through a historical approach: Does it affect the attitudes of non-science-oriented students towards science? International Journal of Science & Math Education, 3(3), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  55. McKernan, J. (2006). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. McSharry, G., & Jones, S. (2000). Role-play in science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82(298), 73–82.Google Scholar
  57. Merzyn, G. (2008). Naturwissenschaften, Mathematik, Technik—immer unbeliebter? Die Konkurrenz von Schulfächern um das Interesse der Jugend im Spiegel vielfältiger Untersuchungen. Baltmannsweilter: Schneider-Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model of development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85, 684–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Niaz, M., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2002). Improving learning by discussing controversies in 20th century physics. Physics Education, 37(1), 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ødegaard, M. (2003). Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Studies in Science Education, 39, 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Olson, J. K., Clough, M. P., Bruxvoort, C. N., & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2005). Improving students’ nature of science understanding through historical short stories in an introductory geology course. Paper prepared for the 8th international history, philosophy, sociology & science teaching conference (IHPST), Leeds, UK 2005, July 15–18, 2005, Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Olson_Clough_Bruxvoort_Vanderlinden.pdf.
  63. Osborne, J. (2003). Attitude toward science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ view of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group-study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., & Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics instruction: The SINUS project as an example for reform as teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Petty, G. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: A practical approach (2nd ed.). London: Nelson Thornes Ltd.Google Scholar
  68. Pickering, A. (1989). Living in the material world: On realism and experimental practice. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The uses of experiment (pp. 275–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Priestley, J. (1775/1966). History and present state of electricity (Vol. 2). New York, London: Johnson Reprint Corporation.Google Scholar
  70. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rieß, F. (2000). History of physics in science teacher training in Oldenburg. Science & Education, 9, 399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scheller, I. (1998). Szenisches Spiel: Handbuch für die pädagogische Praxis. Berlin: Cornelsen-Scriptor.Google Scholar
  74. Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331–355). Dordrecht [u.a.]: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  75. Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sibum, H. O. (1995). Reworking the mechanical value of heat: Instruments of precision and gestures of accuracy in early Victorian England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sichau, C. (2000a). Die Replikationsmethode: Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Experimente. In P. Heering, F. Rieß, & C. Sichau (Eds.), Im Labor der Physikgeschichte—Zur Untersuchung historischer Experimentalpraxis. Oldenburg: BIS der Carl von Ossietzky Universität.Google Scholar
  78. Sichau, C. (2000b). Practicing helps: Thermodynamics, history, and experiment. Science & Education, 9, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith, M., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmantic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Jungmann, A. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jachson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402–435). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  81. Solbes, J., & Traver, M. (2003). Against a negative image of science: History of science and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science & Education, 12, 703–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Solomon, J., Scot, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steinle, F. (2004). Exploratives experimentieren. Charles Dufay und die zwei Elektrizitäten. Physik Journal, 3(6), 47–52.Google Scholar
  85. Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12, 617–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Taylor, C. A. (1987). Introduction. In C. A. Taylor (Ed.), Science education and information transfer. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  87. Tsai, C.-C. (1999). Scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. International Journal of Science Education, 83, 654–674.Google Scholar
  88. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zemplén, G. Á. (2009). Putting sociology first—reconsidering the role of the social in ‘nature of science’ education. Science & Education, 18(5), 525–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zemplén, G. Á. (2010). A 6-week nature of science module incorporating social and epistemic elements. Case study developed within the project HIPST, Retrieved October 05, 2010, from http://hipstwiki.wetpaint.com/page/hipst+developed+cases.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Physics EducationUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Science EducationUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  3. 3.Working Group on History of Science and Science EducationUniversity of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations