This study sought to discover what aspects of the nature of science (NOS) should be emphasized to nurture great scientists. To this end, educational practices in the Sommerfeld school, regarded as highly successful in scientist education, were analyzed and compared with past and present educational practices. Sommerfeld school’s educational practices include lecture, seminar, colloquium, seminary, and out-of-class education. Common features of the educational practices include (1) open-mindedness based on pleasant relationships, (2) challenging and specific problem-centered learning, (3) intellectual coherence of various topics, and (4) pursuit of shared opinions about problems. Furthermore, explicitly or implicitly, several aspects of NOS—tentativeness, empirical nature, theory-ladenness, creativity, and social dimension—relate to these features. Comparison with other scientist education reveals that the culture of social consensus based on criticism might have contributed significantly to Sommerfeld school’s educational success. Study results imply that science professors should work to improve an understanding of social consensus based on criticism.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In Munich, his predecessor was Ludwig Boltzmann who laid the foundation for statistical mechanics. Since Boltzmann had left Munich in 1894, the position was still vacant (Eckert 2013). Coincidentally, Boltzmann committed suicide in 1906, when Sommerfeld took the position.
In this paper, we use the expression “problem-centered” rather than “problem-based” because “problem-based” suggests “problem-based learning (PBL),” which refers to an instructional approach. The Sommerfeld school’s approach differed from PBL, especially in the teacher’s role. Sommerfeld was sometimes a facilitator, an information provider, a problem solver, or whatever other role seemed needful. In contrast, a teacher in PBL can play only a limited role, i.e., supporting the process and not providing information (Savery 2006). If a teacher is just a facilitator, the dilemma “to tell or not to tell?” (Wallace et al. 2002) might occur.
We chose scientist education in microbiology because few studies have demonstrated successful cases of scientist education in detail, particularly in theoretical physics (Feldman et al. 2013; Warwick and Kaiser 2005). Although some studies assert that scientists’ NOS depends on personal characteristics rather than on discipline (Bayir et al. 2014; Schwartz 2012; Schwartz and Lederman 2008), nevertheless, the context of another discipline might limit our study.
Herein, “the terms ‘loosely’ and ‘tightly’ refer to the possibility for interactions among members” (Feldman et al. 2013, p. 225).
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.
Altschuld, R. A. (2003). US science education: The view from a practicing scientist. Review of Policy Research, 20(4), 635–646.
Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2014). What do scientists know about the nature of science? A case study of novice scientists’ views of NOS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1083–1115.
Barrentine, C. D. (1986). Science education: Education in, or about science? Science Education, 70(5), 497–499.
Bayir, E., Cakici, Y., & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1286–1312.
Born, M. (1952). Arnold Johannes Wilhelm Sommerfeld 1868–1951. Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, 8(21), 274–296.
Campbell, R. A. (2003). Preparing the next generation of scientists: The social process of managing students. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 897–927.
Chang, H. (2007). Scientific progress: Beyond foundationalism and coherentism 1. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 61, 1–20.
Cornwell, J. (2003). Hitler’s scientists: Science, war, and the devil’s pact. Penguin Books.
Davies, M. (2003). Peter Joseph Wilhelm Debye (1884–1966). In J. A. Gonzalo & C. A. López (Eds.), Great solid state physicists of the 20th century (pp. 148–224). World Scientific Publishing Co.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Eckert, M. (1999). Mathematics, experiments, and theoretical physics: The early days of the Sommerfeld school. Physics in Perspective, 1(3), 238–252.
Eckert, M. (2001). The emergence of quantum schools: Munich, Göttingen and Copenhagen as new centers of atomic theory. Annalen der Physik, 10(1–2), 151–162.
Eckert, M. (2013). Arnold Sommerfeld: Science, life and turbulent times 1868–1951. Springer. Science and Business Media.
Estrin, H. A. (Ed.). (1963). Higher education in engineering and science. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Feldman, A., Divoll, K., & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2009). Research education of new scientists: Implications for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 442–459.
Feldman, A., Divoll, K. A., & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Education, 97(2), 218–243.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.) Vintage.
García-Carmona, A. (2020). From inquiry-based science education to the approach based on scientific practices. Science & Education, 29, 443–463.
González, C. (2001). Undergraduate research, graduate mentoring, and the university’s mission. Science, 293(5535), 1624–1626.
Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 225–236.
Heisenberg, W. (1989). Theory, criticism and a philosophy. In A. Salam, H. A. Bethe, P. A. M. Dirac, W. Heisenberg, E. P. Wigner, O. Klein, & E. M. Lifshitz (Eds.), From a life of physics (pp. 31–55). World Scientific.
Hermann, A. (1997). Heisenberg (P. Lee, Trans.) Seoul, Korea: Hangilsa. (Original work published 1976).
Hermann, A. (1973). Max Planck. Rowohlt.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the horse’s mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639–2665.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Michael Polanyi on the education and knowledge of scientists. Science & Education, 9(3), 309–320.
Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1–37.
Kirkpatrick, P. (1949). Recipient of the 1948 Oersted Medal for notable contributions to the teaching of physics. American Journal of Physics, 17, 312–314.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leshner, A. I. (2015). Rethinking graduate education. Science, 349(6246), 349.
Mehra, J. (1976). The birth of quantum mechanics (No. CERN-76–10). European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge.
Medawar, P. B. (2008). Advice to a young scientist. Basic Books.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Mohan, A., & Kelly, G. J. (2020). Nature of science and nature of scientists. Science & Education, 29(5), 1097–1116.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
Niss, M. (2018). What is physics problem-solving competency? The views of Arnold Sommerfeld and Enrico Fermi. Science & Education, 27, 357–369.
Ogle, R. (2007). Smart world: Breakthrough creativity and the new science of ideas. Harvard Business School Press.
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.
Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. John Wiley & Sons.
Pauli, W. (1946). Exclusion principle and quantum mechanics. Nobel Lecture in English, delivered at Stockholm on December 13, 1946 (Reprinted In C. P. Enz, & K. von Meyenn (Eds.), Wolfgang Pauli: Writings on physics and philosophy (pp. 165–181). Springer-Verlag, 1994.
Pauli, W. (1951). In Memoriam: Arnold Sommerfeld. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A, 6(8), 468. (Reprinted In C. P. Enz, & K. von Meyenn (Eds.), Wolfgang Pauli: Writings on physics and philosophy (pp. 69–71) (R. Schlapp Trans.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
Pauling, L. (1951). Arnold Sommerfeld: 1868–1951. Science, 114(2963), 383–384.
Perillán, J. G. (2011). A reexamination of early debates on the interpretation of quantum theory: Louis de Broglie to David Bohm. Doctoral dissertation. University of Rochester.
Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. The University of Chicago Press.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.
Ramón y Cajal, S. (1999). Advice for a young investigator (N. Swanson, & L. W. Swanson, Trans.) Cambridge: MIT Press.
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering. Harvard University Press.
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Academic Press.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definition and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). Oxford University Press.
Schiff, L. I. (1966). Some thoughts on classroom teaching. The Physics Teacher, 4(5), 233–235.
Schwartz, R. (2012). The nature of scientists’ nature of science views. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 153–188). Springer.
Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771.
Schweber, S. S. (2009). Weimar physics: Sommerfeld’s seminar and the causality principle. Physics in Perspective, 11(3), 261–301.
Seth, S. (2010). Crafting the quantum: Arnold Sommerfeld and the practice of theory, 1890–1926. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Slater, J. C. (1975). Solid-state and molecular theory: A scientific biography. John Wiley and Sons.
Sommerfeld, A. (1949). Some reminiscences of my teaching career. American Journal of Physics, 17(5), 315–316.
Sommerfeld, A. (with Ewald, P. P.). (1952). Mechanics: Lectures on theoretical physics, Vol. 1 (M. O. Stern, Trans.). NY: Academic Press. (Original work published 1942).
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.
Tala, S. (2011). Enculturation into technoscience: Analysis of the views of novices and experts on modelling and learning in nanophysics. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 733–760.
Tala, S. (2013). Knowledge building expertise: Nanomodellers’ education as an example. Science & Education, 22(6), 1323–1346.
Tala, S., & Vesterinen, V. M. (2015). Nature of science contextualized: Studying nature of science with scientists. Science & Education, 24(4), 435–457.
Thagard, P. (2005). How to be a successful scientist. In M. E. Gorman, R. D. Tweney, D. C. Gooding, & A. P. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 159–171). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wallace, J., Louden, W., Krueger, B., Loughran, J. J., & Duit, R. (2002). Constructivism. In J. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 191–204). RoutledgeFalmer.
Warwick, A., & Kaiser, D. (2005). Kuhn, Foucault, and the Power of Pedagogy. In D. Kaiser (Ed.), Pedagogy and the practice of science: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 393–409). The MIT Press.
White, W. B. (1996). Arnold Sommerfeld. In A. Lakhtakia (Ed.), Models and modelers of hydrogen (pp. 84–97). World Scientific Publishing Company.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.
The authors wish to thank Gyoungho Lee and Jinwoong Song for their insightful comments on an initial version of this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Park, C., Hong, HG. Educational Practices in Sommerfeld School. Sci & Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00212-3