The inclusion of the history and philosophy of science (HPS) in science teaching is widely accepted, but the actual state of implementation in schools is still poor. This article investigates possible reasons for this discrepancy. The demands science teachers associate with HPS-based teaching play an important role, since these determine teachers’ decisions towards implementing its practices and ideas. We therefore investigate the perceptions of 8 HPS-experienced German middle school physics teachers within and beyond an HPS implementation project. Within focused interviews these teachers describe and evaluate the challenges of planning and conducting HPS-based physics lessons using collaboratively developed HPS teaching materials. The teachers highlight a number of obstacles to the implementation of HPS specific to this approach: finding and adapting HPS teaching material, knowing and using instructional design principles for HPS lessons, presenting history in a motivating way, dealing with students’ problematic ideas about the history of science, conducting open-ended historical classroom investigations in the light of known historical outcomes, using historical investigations to teach modern science concepts, designing assessments to target HPS-specific learning outcomes, and justifying the HPS-approach against curriculum and colleagues. Teachers' perceived demands point out critical aspects of pedagogical content knowledge necessary for confident, comfortable and effective teaching of HPS-based science. They also indicate how HPS teacher education and the design of curricular materials can be improved to make implementing HPS into everyday teaching less demanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Compiled from studies which indicate connections between practitioners’ thinking and their teaching with and about HPS and NOS; among others: Lederman and Zeidler (1987), Brickhouse (1990), Wineburg (1996), Lumpe et al. (2000), Galili and Hazan (2001), Wang and Marsh (2002), Olafson and Schraw (2010).
It is therefore not fruitful to focus on separating “perceived” from “objective” demands, since teachers generally believe their perceptions to be true and act accordingly.
Each teacher was sent a table of HPS-related challenges extracted from the data. For each challenge the connections to influencing factors and implicit HPS teaching assumptions as inferred from their own statements were displayed. The teachers had 1 month to comment and/or modify this document. All teachers responded in time, four were contacted again to clarify some of their comments.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22, 2087–2107.
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.
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 201–216.
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2004). Methodology and politics: A proposal to teach the structuring ideas of the philosophy of science through the pendulum. Science & Education, 13(7–8), 717–731.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665–683.
Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
Allchin, D. (2012). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281.
Allchin, D. (2013). Problem- and case-based learning in science: Distinctions, values, and outcomes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 364–372.
Altrichter, H., & Wiesinger, S. (2004). Der Beitrag der Innovationsforschung im Bildungswesen zum Implementierungsproblem [The contribution of innovation research in education to the implementation issue]. In G. Reinmann & H. Mandl (Eds.), Psychologie des Wissensmanagements [Psychology of knowledge management] (pp. 220–233). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331–367.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is: or might be: the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational researcher, 25(9), 6–14.
Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454–467.
Barnes, D. R. (1973). Language in the classroom. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.
Barton, Keith C. (2008). Research on students’ ideas about history. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research on social studies education (pp. 239–258). New York: Routledge.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [Keyword: Teachers’ professional competence]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520.
Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 323–343.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2006). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347–370.
Betz, D. E., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2012). My fair physicist? Feminine math and science role models demotivate young girls. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 738–746.
Bevilacqua, F., & Giannetto, E. (1998). The history of physics and European physics education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1015–1026). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Binnie, A. (2001). Using the history of electricity and magnetism to enhance teaching. Science & Education, 10(4), 379–389.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.
Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–488.
Brooks, S. (2009). Historical empathy in the social studies classroom: A review of the literature. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 33(2), 213–234.
Brush, S. G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated X? Science, 183(4130), 1164–1172.
Carré, C., & Carter, D. (1993). Primary teachers’ self-perceptions concerning implementation of the national curriculum for science in the UK-revisited. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 457–470.
Cheung, D. (2002). Refining a stage model for studying teacher concerns about educational innovations. Australian Journal of Education, 46(3), 305–322.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.
Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717.
Conant, J. B. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 235–250.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348–375.
Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73–90.
Duit, R., Schecker, H., Höttecke, D., & Niedderer, H. (2014). Teaching physics. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Vol. II (pp. 434–456). New York: Routledge.
Egan, K. (1989). Layers of historical understanding. Theory & Research in Social Education, 17(4), 280–294.
Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto: OISE Press.
Fuller, E. F. (1969). Concerns of teaching: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.
Galili, I. (2012). Promotion of cultural content knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). Experts’ views on using history and philosophy of science in the practice of physics instruction. Science & Education, 10(4), 345–367.
Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 21–133.
Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(5), 487–496.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458.
Goldenbaum, A. (2013). Implementation von Schulinnovationen [Implementing school innovations]. In M. Rürup & I. Bormann (Eds.), Innovationen im Bildungswesen (Vol. 21, pp. 149–172). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Gräsel, C., & Parchmann, I. (2004). Implementationsforschung—oder: der steinige Weg, Unterricht zu verändern [Implementation research: Problems of changing teaching and learning]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32(3), 196–214.
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–23.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69.
Haney, J., Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171–187.
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.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
Heering, P. (2009). The role of historical experiments in science teacher training: experiences and perspectives. Actes d’història de la ciència i la tècnica, 2(1), 389–399.
Heering, P., & Höttecke, D. (2014). Historical-investigative approaches in science teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1473–1502). Dordrecht: Springer.
Henke, A., Höttecke, D., & Riess, F. (2009). Case studies for teaching and learning with history and philosophy of science—Exemplary results of the HIPST project in Germany. Paper presented at the Tenth International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, June 24–28, 2009, South Bend, USA.
Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99–122.
Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.
Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 189–207). Dordrecht: Springer.
Höttecke, D. (2000). How and what can we learn from replicating historical experiments? A Case Study. Science & Education, 9(4), 343–362.
Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2012). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education, 21(9), 1233–1261.
Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3), 293–316.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.
Justi, R. S. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 209–226). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. (1999). A cause of ahistorical science teaching: Use of hybrid models. Science Education, 83(2), 163–177.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–169.
Kindi, V. (2005). Should science teaching involve the history of science? An assessment of Kuhn’s view. Science & Education, 14(7–8), 721–731.
King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 135–141.
Kipnis, N. (1996). The ‘historical-investigative’ approach to teaching science. Science & Education, 5(3), 277–292.
Kipnis, N. (1998). Theories as models in teaching physics. Science & Education, 7(3), 245–260.
Klassen, S. (2009a). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 401–423.
Klassen, S. (2009b). Identifying and addressing student difficulties with the Millikan oil drop experiment. Science & Education, 18(5), 593–607.
Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87–95.
Kovács, L. (1996). Great experiments and old apparatus in education. Science & Education, 5(3), 305–308.
Kubli, F. (1999). Historical aspects in physics teaching: Using Galileo’s work in a new Swiss project. Science & Education, 8(2), 137–150.
Kyle, W. C., Bonnstetter, R. J., & Gadsden, T. (1988). An implementation study: An analysis of elementary students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward science in process-approach vs. traditional science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 103–120.
Lam, S.-F., Cheng, R. W.-Y., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 487–497.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. (1987). Science teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science. Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721–734.
Limón, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 259–289). Netherlands: Springer.
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301–1320.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.
Mandl, H., & Huber, G. L. (1983). Subjektive Theorien von Lehrern/On teachers’ subjective theories. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 30(2), 98–112.
Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25–48.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Maurines, L., & Beaufils, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science in physics courses: The contribution of classroom historical inquiries. Science & Education, 22(6), 1443–1465.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266–296). London: Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2001). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.
Moreland, J., Jones, A., & Cowie, B. (2006). Developing pedagogical content knowledge for the new sciences: the example of biotechnology. Teaching Education, 17(2), 143–155.
Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: the developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399–416.
(NRC) National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academy Press.
Neumann, K., Fischer, Hans E., Labudde, P., & Viiri, J. (2009). Physikunterricht im Vergleich: Unterrichtsqualität in Deutschland, Finnland und der Schweiz [Comparing physics teaching quality in Germany, Finland, and Switzerland]. In D. Höttecke (Ed.), Chemie-und Physikdidaktik für die Lehramtsausbildung (pp. 357–359). Münster: Lit Verlag.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). When the black box springs open: practical work in schools and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 807–818.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84.
Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education, 37(2), 142.
Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2010). Beyond epistemology: Assesing teachers’ epistemological and ontological worldviews. In L. Bendixen & F. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 516–552). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pedersen, S., & Liu, M. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57–76.
Pospiech, G. (2003). Philosophy and quantum mechanics in science teaching. Science & Education, 12(5–6), 559–571.
Powel, J. C., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37(2), 107–135.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212–224.
Reinmann-Rothmeier, G., & Mandl, H. (1998). Wenn kreative Ansätze versanden: Implementation als verkannte Aufgabe [When creative approaches peter out: Implementation as an underestimated task]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 4, 292–311.
Riess, F. (2000). History of physics in science teacher training in Oldenburg. Science & Education, 9(4), 399–402.
Roehrig, G. H., & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a reform-based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412–422.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907.
Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.
Rudge, D., & Howe, E. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.
Ruhrig, J., & Höttecke, D. (2013). Science teachers’ practical epistemologies. Reconstructions of science teachers’ perspectives on uncertain evidence. Paper presented at the twelth international history, philosophy, sociology & science teaching conference (IHPST), June 19–22, Pittsburgh, USA. http://conference.ihpst.net/Procs-2013/Ruhrig-Hottecke%20symposium.pdf (11.04.2014).
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students’ expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309–323.
Schaumburg, H., Prasse, D., & Blömeke, S. (2009). Implementation von Innovationen in der Schule [Implementing innovations in schools]. In S. Blömeke et al. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Schule. Theorie—Organisation—Entwicklung [Handbook of schooling: Theory—Organization—Development] (pp. 596–600). Stuttgart: UTB.
Schellenbach-Zell, J., & Graesel, C. (2010). Teacher motivation for participating in school innovations—Supporting factors. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(2), 34–54.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Teachers College Press.
Seker, H. (2007). Levels of connecting pedagogical content knowledge with pedagogical knowledge of history of science. Paper presented at the ninth history, philosophy and science teaching conference (IHPST), June 24–28, Calgary, Canada. http://www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/Others/ihpst07/proceedings/IHPST07%20papers/404%20SEKER.pdf (11.04.2014).
Solbes, J., & Traver, M. (2003). Against a negative image of science: History of science and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science & Education, 12(7), 703–717.
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 Education, 29(4), 409–421.
Spiliotopoulou-Papantoniou, V., & Agelopoulos, K. (2009). Enhancement of pre-service teachers’ teaching interventions with the aid of historical examples. Science & Education, 18(9), 1153–1175.
Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12(7), 617–643.
Taylor, A. R., Jones, M. G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry, or accountability? Scientists’ and teachers’ perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 1058–1075.
Teixeira, E., Greca, I., & Freire, O. (2012). The history and philosophy of science in physics teaching: A research synthesis of didactic interventions. Science & Education, 21(6), 771–796.
Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46(3), 259–274.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223–241.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, Anita W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.
van den Berg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educational innovation: A concerns-based approach. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 879–906.
VanSledright, B., & Brophy, J. (1992). Storytelling, imagination, and fanciful elaboration in children’s historical reconstructions. American Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 837–859.
von Heyking, A. (2004). Historical thinking in the elementary years: A review of current research. Canadian Social Studies, 39(1). Retrieved from http://www2.education.ualberta.ca/css/Css_39_1/ARheyking_historical_thinking_current_research.html.
Wang, H. A., & Cox-Petersen, A. M. (2002). A comparison of elementary, secondary, and student teachers’ perceptions and practices related to history of science instruction. Science & Education, 11(1), 69–81.
Wang, H. A., & Marsh, D. D. (2002). Science instruction with a humanistic twist: Teachers’ perception and practice in using the history of science in their classrooms. Science & Education, 11(2), 169–189.
Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University.
Whitely, S. E., & Doyle, K. O. (1976). Implicit theories in student ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 13(4), 241–253.
Wineburg, S. S. (1996). The psychology of learning and teaching history. In D. C. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), The handbook of educational psychology (pp. 423–437). New York: Macmillan.
About this article
Cite this article
Henke, A., Höttecke, D. Physics Teachers’ Challenges in Using History and Philosophy of Science in Teaching. Sci & Educ 24, 349–385 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9737-3
- Science Teaching
- Science Teacher
- Pedagogical Content Knowledge
- Professional Knowledge
- Curricular Material