Abstract
This chapter focuses on the centrality of imagination in the thinking process in general and its role in science and science education in particular. More specifically, it discusses the role that imagination plays in induction, deduction, and reflective thinking and the idea that science is an imaginative activity, which should also be reflected in the way students, at all levels of education, learn science. This discussion helps one understand that imagination is needed not only because students may deal with unobservable entities (e.g. atoms, electrons, photons), phenomena that cannot be directly observed (e.g. change in intermolecular distances), and even entirely imaginary constructions (e.g. lines of force) but also because they have to solve various problems, to design experiments, to interpret both observational and experimental data, and to propose theories that explain phenomena. With regard to the process of teaching and learning science, there is a discussion of the role of thought experiments as teaching/learning tools (on the grounds that thought experiments can stretch the students’ imagination to the utmost) as well as a discussion of two elements that play a crucial role in students’ engagement with science, namely, their emotional imagination and what they perceive as unfamiliar, strange, and mysterious. A number of teaching/learning possibilities are also given at the end of the chapter.
I believe in intuition and inspiration […] At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the [solar] eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
Albert Einstein, in Cosmic Religion with Other Opinions and Aphorisms, p. 97
Knowledge is an island. The larger we make the island the longer becomes the shore where knowledge is lapped by mystery. It is the most common of all misconceptions about science that it is somehow inimical to mystery, that it grows at the expense of mystery […] The extension of knowledge is an extension of mystery.
Chet Raymo, in Honey from Stone, p. 6
The cultivation of the imagination […] should be the chief aim of education […] we have a duty to educate the imagination above all else.
Mary Warnock, in Imagination, p. 9, p. 10
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The fundamental idea in Johnson’s (1987) book ‘The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason’ is that almost all of our knowledge derives from bodily experiences through metaphorical projections into abstract domains. According to Johnson, bodily motion and forces give meaning both to our physical experiences at a preconceptual level and to many abstract concepts of our language through the use of metaphors (see Hadzigeorgiou, 2000a and Hadzigeorgiou et al., 2009 for empirical evidence of Johnson’s claim). Johnson argues that schemata, as structures for organizing and understanding the world, ‘fall between abstract propositional structures … and particular concrete images’ (p. 29). However, these schemata can also ‘constrain our meaning and understanding’ (p. 138).
- 2.
The image schema of fluid substance corresponds to the concept of quantity, the verticality image schema corresponds to the concept of potential, and the image schema of force corresponds to the concept of energy (see Fuchs, 2015).
- 3.
The thought experiment he performed involved a ball going down an incline. He reasoned that if he placed another incline facing the first one, the ball will first accelerate, as it goes down the first incline and will then move up the second incline and finally stop to approximately the same height from which it was released on the first incline. This conclusion was reached because Galileo had mentally removed all friction. He then started to decrease the angle of the second incline until to the point that it became zero, that is, level with the ground. It was then apparent that, without any frictional forces acting on the ball, as it was released from a point on the first incline, the ball would continue forever on the now level ground.
- 4.
It is the strangeness of nature that makes science engrossing. That ought to be the centre of science teaching. There are more than seven-times-seven types of ambiguity in science awaiting analysis […] I suggest that the introductory course in science, at all levels from grade school through college be radically revised. Leave the fundamentals. The so-called basics, aside for a while, and concentrate the attention of the student on the things that are not known. You can possibly teach quantum mechanics without mathematics, to be sure, but you can describe the strangeness of the world opened up by quantum theory. Let it be known, early on, that there are deep mysteries and profound paradoxes, revealed in their distant outlines, by the quantum. Let it be known that these can be approached more closely, and puzzled over, once the language of mathematics has been sufficiently mastered […] Teach at the outset, before any of the fundamentals, still imponderable puzzles of cosmology. Let it be known, by the youngest minds, that there are some things going on in the universe that lay beyond comprehension, and make it plain how little is known […] The worst thing that has happened to science education is that the great fun has gone out of it (Thomas, 1995, pp 150–155).
References
Allday, J. (2003). Science in science fiction. Physics Education, 38, 27–30.
Alsop, S. (Ed.). (2005). Beyond Cartesian dualism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Andrée, Μ., & Lager-Nyqvist, Λ. (2013). Spontaneous play and imagination in everyday science classroom practice. Research in Science Education, 43, 1735–1750.
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Brake, M., & Thornton, R. (2003). Science fiction in the classroom. Physics Education, 38, 31–34.
Bronowski, J. (1978). The origins of knowledge and imagination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, J. (1991). The laboratory of the mind. Thought experiments in the natural sciences. London: Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R., & Landes, N. (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science program from biological science curriculum study. The American Biology Teacher, 52, 92–98.
Cabe Trundle, K., & Sackes, M. (Eds.). (2015). Research in early childhood science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Caine, G., & Caine, R. (2001). The brain, education, and the competitive edge. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Caine, R., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimic, K. (2005). Brain/mind learning principles in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Morgan Press.
Calandra, A. (1968, December 21). Angels on a pin: A modern parable. Saturday Review, 235.
Ceci, S., Ginther, D., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science, 15, 75–141.
Chalmers, A. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Chalmers, A. (1999). What is this thing called science? Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cobern, W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80, 579–610.
Cobern, W. W. (2000). Everyday thoughts about nature: An interpretive study of 16 ninth graders’ conceptualizations of nature. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Craft, A. (2001). Little C’ creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education. New York: Continuum International.
Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion, and the appetite for wonder. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigee/Penguin Group.
Dewey, J. (1998). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published 1933)
Dirac, P. (1963). The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American, 208(5), 45–53.
Di Trocchio, F. (1997). Il genio incompresso. Milan: Mondadori.
Driver, R. (1991). Culture clash: Children and science. The New Scientist, 29, 46–48.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 7–12.
Duschl, R. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 443–465). New York: McMillan.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Egan, K. (1988). Primary understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1990). Romantic understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind. How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1999). Children’s minds, talking rabbits and clockwork oranges.
Egan, K. (2003). Start with what the student knows or with what the student can imagine? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 443–445.
Egan, K. (2005). An imaginative approach to teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Egan, K. (2010). The future of education. Reimagining our schools from ground-up. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Einstein, A. (1931). Cosmic religion with other opinions and aphorisms. New York: Covici-Friede.
Einstein, A. (1949). The world as I see it. New York: Philosophical Library.
Einstein, A. (1961). Relativity: The special and the general theory. A popular exposition. New York: Grown Publishers.
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1966). The evolution of physics: From early concepts to realitivity and quanta. New York: Simon and Schuster. (Original work published 1938)
Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. London: Verso.
Feynman, R. (1995). Six easy pieces. Reading, MA: Helix Books.
Fleer, M. (2009). Understanding the dialectical relations between everyday concepts and scientific concepts within play-based programs. Research in Science Education, 39, 281–306.
Fleer, M. (2012). Imagination, emotions and scientific thinking: What matters in the being and becoming of a teacher of elementary science? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 31–39.
Fleer, M. (2013). Affective imagination. in science education: Determining the emotional nature of scientific and technological learning of young children. Research in Science Education, 43, 2085–2106.
Fuchs, H. (2015). From stories to scientific models and back: Narrative framing in modern macroscopic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 934–957.
Galili, I. (2009). Thought experiments: Determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18, 1–23.
Gaut, B. (2003). Creativity and imagination. In B. Gaut & P. Livingston (Eds.), The creation of art (pp. 268–293). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, J., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: Potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 265–283.
Gilbert, J., & Reiner, M. (2004). The symbiotic roles of empirical experimentation and thought experimentation in the learning of physics. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1819–1834. 26.
Gilbert, J., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Girod, M. (2007a). A conceptual overview of the role of beauty and aesthetics in science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 43, 38–61.
Girod, M. (2007b). Sublime science. Science and Children, 44, 26–29.
Goodenough, U. (1997). The sacred depths nature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (1999). On problem situations and science learning. School Science Review, 81, 43–49.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2001). The role of wonder and «romance» in early childhood science education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9, 63–69.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2002a). The utilization of sensorimotor experiences for introducing young children to molecular motion: A report of a pilot study. Physics Education, 37, 239–244.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2002b). From concepts to the great ideas of physics. Science Education: Theory and Practice, 3, 9–14 (in Greek).
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005a). Romantic understanding and science education. Teaching Education, 16, 23–32.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2005b). On humanistic science education. Fulbright project – part I: Theoretical framework. Unpublished paper, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Northern Iowa, summer 2005. (ED 506504).
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2010). What activities and questions are really challenging for preschool, elementary, and high school students? A study of student engagement in science with implications for curriculum and teaching. Unpublished paper, University of the Aegean.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2014). Reclaiming the value of wonder in science education. In K. Egan, A. Cant, & G. Judson (Eds.), Wonder-full education: The centrality of wonder in teaching and learning across the curriculum (pp. 40–66). New York: Routledge.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Konsolas, M. (2001). Global problems in the curriculum: Toward a humanistic and constructivist science education. Curriculum & Teaching, 16, 29–39.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Fotinos, N. (2007). Imaginative thinking and the learning of science. Science Education Review, 6, 15–22.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Klassen, S., & Froese-Klassen, C. (2012). Encouraging a ‘romantic understanding’ of science: The effect of the Nikola Tesla story. Science & Education, 21, 1111–1138.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Anastasiou, L., Prevezanou, B., & Konsolas, M. (2009). A study of the effect of preschool children’s participation in sensorimotor activities on their understanding of the mechanical equilibrium of a balance beam. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 39–55.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Prevezanou, B., Kabouropoulou, M., & Konsolas, M. (2010). Teaching about the importance of trees. A study with young children. Environmental Education Research, 17, 519–536.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Schulz, R. (2014). Romanticism and romantic science: Their contribution to science education. Science & Education, 23, 1963–2006.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Stefanich, G. (2001). Imagination in science education. Contemporary Education, 71, 23–28.
Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 401–430.
Helm, H., Gilbert, J., & Watts, D. M. (1985). Thought experiments and physics education, Part II. Physics Education, 20, 211–217.
Hempel, K. (1945). Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind, 54, 1–26.
Hempel, K. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Cambridge, UK: Pearson.
Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination. Case studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, history, and other passions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Jenkins, E. (1996). The “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 137–150.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kind, P., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43, 1–37.
Klassen, S. (2006a). A theoretical framework for contextual science teaching. Interchange, 37, 31–61.
Klassen, S. (2006b). The science thought experiment: How might it be used profitably in the classroom? Interchange, 37, 77–96.
Klassen, S., & Froese-Klassen, C. (2014b). Science teaching with historically based stories: Theoretical and practical perspectives. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 1503–1529). Berlin: Springer.
Konicek-Morran, R. (2008). Everyday science mysteries. Stories for inquiry-based science teaching. Washington, DC: NSTA Press.
Konicek-Morran, R. (2010). More everyday science mysteries. Stories for inquiry-based science teaching. Washington, DC: NSTA Press.
Konicek-Morran, R. (2013). Everyday physical science mysteries. Stories for inquiry-based science teaching. Washington, DC: NSTA Press.
Kösem, S. D., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2014). The nature and role of thought experiments in solving conceptual physics problems. Science & Education, 23, 865–895.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 613–623.
Love, A. (2010). Darwin’s “imaginary illustrations”: Creatively teaching evolutionary concepts and the nature of science. American Biology Teacher, 72, 82–89.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Franklin, T., Gerlovich, J., & McElroy, D. (2008). Teaching science for all children (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Marzano, R. (2007). Art and science of teaching. Though experiment in the classroom. Alexandria, Egypt: ASCD.
Mathewson, J. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.
Matthews, B. (2005). Emotional development, science and co-education. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 173–185). Berlin: Springer.
Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
McAllister, J. (1996). Beauty and revolution in science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
McComas, W. (1998a). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas, W. (1998b). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Medawar, P. (1984a). Pluto’s republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Medawar, P. (1984b). The limits of science. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mellou, E. (1995). Creativity: The imagination condition. Early Child Development and Care, 114, 97–106.
Monk, M., & Dillon, J. (2000). The nature of scientific knowledge. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 72–87). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Morton, A. (2013). Emotion and imagination. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Nikolic, H. (2012). EPR before EPR: A 1930 Einstein-Bohr thought experiment revisited. European Journal of Physics, 33, 1089–1097.
Ormrod, J. (1999). Human learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Ortony, A., Clore, G., & Collins, A. (1989). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Phenix, P. (1964). Realms of meaning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Phenix, P. (1982). Promoting personal development through learning. Teachers College Record, 84, 301–317.
Piaget, J. (1954). The child’s construction of reality. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. Ripple & V. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered. A report of the conference on cognitive studies and curriculum development (pp. 38–46). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University School of Education.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Norton.
Planck, M. (1933). Where is science going? (J. Murphy, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.
Polanyi, N. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, MA: Clarendon Press.
Pugh, K., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 9–27.
Raymo, C. (1998). Honey from stone. Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications.
Reiner, M. (1998). Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1043–1058.
Reiner, M., & Burko, L. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education. Science & Education, 12, 365–385.
Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 489–506.
Ross, S. (1981). Philosophical mysteries. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Schmidt, S. (1980). Science fiction and the science teacher. In J. Williamson (Ed.), Teaching science fiction: Education for tomorrow (pp. 110–120). Philadelphia: Owlswick Press.
Schulz, R. (2009). Reforming science education: Part II. Utilizing Kieran Egan’s educational metatheory. Science & Education, 18, 251–273.
Schulz, R. (2014). Philosophy of education and science education: A vital but underdeveloped relationship. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Handbook of research on history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1259–1315). Berlin: Springer.
Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2012). Research in brain function and learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Shavinina, L., & Seeratan, K. (2004). Extracognitive phenomena in the intellectual functioning of gifted, creative, and talented individuals. In L. Shavinina & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 73–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Shepard, R. (1988). The imagination of the scientists. In K. Egan & D. Nadaner (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 153–185). New York: Teachers College Press.
Siry, C., & Kremer, I. (2011). Children explain the rainbow: Using young children’s idea to guide curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 643–655.
Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.
Statham, M. (2014). Using visualisation to enhance learning. Primary Science, 132, 31–34.
Stefanich, G., & Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2001). Models and applications. In G. Stefanich (Ed.), Science teaching in inclusive classrooms (pp. 61–90). Cedar Falls, IA: Wolverton.
Stinner, A., & Williams, H. (1993). Conceptual change, history, and science stories. Interchange, 24, 87–103.
Stutler, S. (2011). From “The Twilight Zone” to “Avatar”: Science fiction engages the intellect, touches the emotions, and fuels the imagination of gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 45–49.
Taylor, J. (2003). Probing the limits of reality: The metaphysics in science fiction. Physics Education, 38, 20–26.
Thomas, L. (1995). Late night thoughts on listening to Mahler’s ninth symphony. New York: Penguin.
Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297–328.
Trefil, J. (2003). The nature of science: An A-Z guide to the laws and principles governing the universe. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Van’t Hoff, J. (1967). Imagination in science. New York: Springer.
Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2011). The ‘Heisenberg’s microscope’ as an example of using thought experiments in teaching physics theories to students of the upper secondary school. Research in Science Education, 41, 525–539.
Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2013). From Earth to Heaven: Using “Newton’s cannon” thought experiment for teaching satellite physics. Science & Education, 22, 2621–2640.
Velentzas, A., Halkia, K., & Skordoulis, C. (2007). Thought experiments in the theory of relativity and in quantum mechanics: Their presence in textbooks and in popular science books. Science & Education, 16, 353–370.
Vosniadou, S. (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Imagination and creativity. Soviet Psychology, 29, 73–89. (Original work published 1930)
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. (Original work published 1930)
Wang, M., Eccles, J., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of abilities but lack of choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 14, 1–6.
Warnock, M. (1976). Imagination. London: Faber.
Weaver, G. (1998). Strategies in K-12 science instruction to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 82, 455–472.
Whitehead, A. (1957). The aims of education. New York: The Free Press. (Original work published 1929)
Zembylas, M. (2002). Emotions in teaching science: A case study of a teacher’s views. Research in Science Education, 34, 342–354.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Emotions and science teaching: Present research and future agenda. In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 123–132). Berlin: Springer.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2016). Imaginative Thinking in Science and Science Education. In: Imaginative Science Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29526-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29526-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29524-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29526-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)