Developing Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of and Pedagogical Content Knowledge for History of Science–Integrated Science Instruction

Abstract

Despite its positive impact on students’ understanding of the nature of science and science content knowledge, few secondary science teachers incorporate the history of science into their instruction. This article describes the effects of an online history of science course on preservice teachers’ perceptions of and content and pedagogical knowledge for history of science–integrated science instruction. Eleven secondary preservice science teachers participated in a semester-long history of science course focused on developing their conceptual understanding of and pedagogical knowledge for incorporating history of science into their science instruction. Data were collected from preservice teachers’ discussions, reflections, assignments, and surveys. Results indicate that participation in the online history of science course led to preservice teachers’ understanding of history of science content and pedagogy and to positive perceptions about history of science–integrated science instruction. Preservice teachers also demonstrated skills for developing history of science instructional materials using recurrent, storyline, and argumentation approaches. Implications of the findings for secondary science teacher preparation are discussed.

Appendices

Appendix A Example Storyline Approach

Appendix B Example Argumentation Approach

Teacher: Erin

Topic: Spontaneous Generation and Cell Theory

Grade level: 7^th grade;

Subject: Life Science;

Duration: 2- 66 minute class periods

Learning objectives:Students will understand that scientific research does not follow a linear progression and scientists often have competing theories about natural phenomena

Students will understand that available technology and societal beliefs may limit and drive our understanding of the world.

Students will understand that all life originates from cells and cannot exist without them

Students will know the three tenets of Cell TheoryStudents will be able to defend a scientist’s position using period-appropriate findings and technology.

Scientific controversy: Origin of Life (Cells)

Historical context: In the mid 1800s, theological reasoning often outweighed scientific reasoning due to the prevalence of religion at the time. Those who believed in spontaneous generation were often considered anti-religious and even atheistic. Spontaneous generation was often lumped together with the beliefs of Lamarck that species transformed into other species in a linear fashion over time (“transformism”). Spontaneous generation and transformism believers were seen as opposing the widely accepted belief in divine creation as held by the Catholic church. Felix Pouchet believed he had experimental proof of spontaneous generation, even though he was Christian and struggled with arguing a view that contrasted common theological beliefs. Pouchet ultimately believed in divine creation as the original creation but held on to his belief that living organisms could arise from nonliving matter. At the same time, Louis Pasteur was skeptical of both creationism and spontaneous generation. He defiantly spoke out against the two after he conducted research that ultimately disproved the theory of spontaneous generation that Pouchet supported. In either case, the Catholic church was a very large presence and influenced scientists’ willingness to share their findings.

Brief summary of each day’s activities:

Day 1:

Overview & Investigation

The teacher will introduce the controversy for the activity which has to do with the origins of life. Students will be organized into heterogeneous groups. Students will read and take notes on two brief articles about Felix Pouchet and Louis Pasteur, respectively, and their research concerning spontaneous generation. Students are encouraged to conduct their own research outside of the provided reading to supplement their arguments for either position. Students will be required to write two brief (1-2 paragraphs) summary arguments both in favor of or against spontaneous generation, supported by their readings and additional findings.

Day 2:

Argumentation

The teacher will rearrange the class into new groups. Each group will be assigned a position to defend (i.e., in favor or against spontaneous generation) and must use their collective research to develop an argument in favor of their assigned position. Once arguments have been decided, the class will engage in a debate. Students will be required to use evidence to support their argument and will be encouraged to question the findings of others is evidence seems to be lacking.

Resolution

After the arguments have been settled, the teacher will lead a class-wide discussion about the development of belief in spontaneous generation, what experiments have led to what we currently believe, as well as an explanation of the current understanding and three main components of cell theory. During the Resolution phase, students will also learn about the current understanding of cell theory and the observations that led up to that understanding through the use of compound microscopes. Students will rotate through the following microscope stations:

• 1. Robert Hooke (1665): Cork sample (cells = “small rooms”) at low (40x) magnification

• 2. Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1674): Algae (“animalcules”) at low (40x) magnification

• 3. Matthias Schleiden (1838): Tilia root (plants are made of cells) at medium (100x) magnification

• 4. Theodor Schwann (1839): Frog skin (animals are made of cells) at medium (100x) magnification)

• 5. Animal cell and Plant cell (How are they the same? How are they different?) at high (400x) magnification

At each station, students will record the information about the scientist, year, magnification, and distinguishing contributions to cell theory. Students will sketch what they viewed under the microscope and may follow more specific directions based on the station.