Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching the Nature of Science Through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents the results of a research project that investigated the extent to which the use of the historical episode of the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute over the existence of the elementary electric charge can improve students’ conceptions of specific aspects of the Nature of Science (NOS). A teaching programme containing seven hourly teaching units was designed and implemented. The teaching intervention was designed on the basis of an explicit form of teaching that was integrated into the scientific content and through the use of short stories. Students’ conceptions of specific aspects of NOS were documented in a questionnaire distributed before and after the class. The results showed that there was a significant statistical improvement in students’ conceptions of the aspects of NOS that had been selected for teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlbom, A., & Feycting, M. (2003). Electromagnetic radiation. British Medical Bulletin, 68, 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2003). Explicit but insufficient: Additional considerations for successful NOS Instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers, St. Louis, MO.

  • Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2004). The nature of science: Always part of the science story. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo, Μ., Vallvendu, J., & Merino, C. (2006). Relación entre la historia y la filosofía de las ciencias II. Alambique, 48, 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry- oriented instruction on sixth grades’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, N. (2001). Scientific controversies in teaching science: The case of Volta. Science & Education, 10, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, H. (2009). Identifying and addressing student difficulties with the Millikan oil drop experiment. Science & Education, 18, 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 6, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koliopoulos, D., Dossis, S., & Stamoulis, E. (2007). The use of history of science texts in teaching science: Two cases of an innovative, constructivist approach. The Science Education Review, 6(2), 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 977–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinand, J.-L. (1993). Histoire et didactique de la physique et de la chimie: Quelles relations? Didaskalia, 2, 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). A review of 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 (pp. 3–39). Los Angeles: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. A. (1910). A new modification of the cloud method of determining the elementary electrical charge and the most probable value of that charge. Philosophical Magazine, 19, 209–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. A. (1913). On the elementary electrical charge and the Avogadro constant. Physical Review, 2(ser. 2), 109–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. A. (1947). Electrons (+ and −), protons, photons, neutrons, mesotrons, and Cosmic rays (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935).

  • Millikan, R. A., & Begeman, L. (1908). On the charge carried by the negative ion of an ionized gas. Physical Review, 26, 197–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development for pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2000). The oil drop experiment: A rational reconstruction of the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 480–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, L. E. (1993). Use of the history of science in a nonscience majors course: Does it affect students understanding of the nature of science? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

  • Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2004). Incorporating history into the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. S. (1897). On electricity in gases and the formation of clouds in charged gases. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 9, 244–258.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geitonas Schools, 16672, Athens, Greece

    Eleni Paraskevopoulou

  2. University of Patras, Patras, Greece

    Dimitris Koliopoulos

Authors
  1. Eleni Paraskevopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitris Koliopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleni Paraskevopoulou.

Appendices

Appendix 1

1.1 Worksheet 3

1.1.1 Short Story

In his autobiography Millikan wrote that when the small oil drop was “moving upward [in the electric field, against the gravitational pull] with the smallest speed it could take on, I could be certain that just one isolated electron was sitting on its back. The whole apparatus then represented a device for catching and essentially seeing an individual electron riding on a drop of oil.”

And when the drop he was observing suddenly changed direction, he noted:

“I had seen a balanced drop suddenly catch an ion” from the air around.

Question: Which of the words that Millikan uses above could be characterised as indicating ‘observation’ and which ‘inference’?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Appendix 2

2.1 The Questionnaire

  1. 1.

    Scientists produce scientific knowledge (theories, laws). A part of this knowledge is to be found in the school physics textbook, which you yourself use. Do you believe that this knowledge (theories, laws) can change in the future? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Explain why and give an example.

  2. 2.

    The diagram below shows that the atom is comprised of a nucleus at its centre surrounded by electrons that move around it.

    1. (a)

      Do you believe that scientists are certain about this structure of the atom? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

      Explain why and give an example.

    2. (b)

      How do you believe that scientists determined this atomic structure?

  3. 3.

    Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

    1. (a)

      How do scientists kno§w that dinosaurs truly existed?

    2. (b)

      How were scientists able to determine what dinosaurs looked like?

    3. (c)

      Do you believe that scientists are certain about what dinosaurs looked like? Explain what makes them certain or uncertain.

    4. (d)

      Scientists agree that dinosaurs disappeared approximately 65 million years ago. Even so, scientists disagree as to the reason why. One group of scientists argues that a giant meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago and led to a series of events which caused this extinction. One other group of scientists argues that a violent volcanic eruption is responsible for this extinction. How is it possible for scientists to reach different conclusions when they are all using the same data?

  4. 4.

    Scientists conduct experiments and research when they attempt to find answers to the questions they pose. Do scientists use their imagination and creativity during their research? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

    1. (a)

      If no, explain why. Give an example.

    2. (b)

      If yes, explain why. Give an example.

  5. 5.

    In the early twentieth century two physicists, R. Millikan, professor at the University of Chicago and F. Ehrenhaft, professor at the University of Vienna, disagreed over the nature of the electric charge. Millikan argued that there is an elementary electric charge that is transmitted by a particle, the electron, and any other quantity of electric charge is an integral multiple. Ehrenhaft on the other hand argued that there are fractional electrical charges (‘sub-electrons’) and that a quantity of an electric charge can have any value whatsoever. In order to test their initial hypotheses the two scientists used similar experimental equipment and had the same experimental results, although each one believed that the experiment validated his initial hypothesis.

    1. (a)

      How was it possible for these two scientists to reach different conclusions when they were looking at the same data?

    2. (b)

      Is it possible to determine which of the two scientists was right? Explain your response.

Appendix 3

See Table 1.

Table 1 The aspects of the NOS evaluated by each of the items in the questionnaire
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paraskevopoulou, E., Koliopoulos, D. Teaching the Nature of Science Through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute. Sci & Educ 20, 943–960 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9308-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9308-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation