Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monk and Osborne (Sci Educ 81:405–424, 1997) provide a rigorous justification for why history and philosophy of science should be incorporated as an integral component of instruction and a model for how history of science should be used to promote learning of and about science. In the following essay we critique how history of science is used on this model, and in particular, their advocacy of a direct comparison of students’ conceptions of scientific phenomena with those of past scientists. We propose instead an alternative approach that promotes a more active engagement by inviting students to engage in the sort of reasoning that led past scientists to reach insights about scientific phenomena. As an example we describe in detail two lesson plans taken from an eight-class unit developed with reference to the history of research on sickle-cell anemia. These lessons demonstrate how an open-ended, problem-solving approach can be used to help students deepen their understanding of science. Throughout the unit students are invited to explicitly and reflectively consider the implications of their reasoning about the disease for their understanding of nature of science issues. The essay draws attention to how this alternative approach actually more closely aligns with the constructivist rationale Monk and Osborne have articulated. It concludes with a brief summary of empirical research demonstrating the efficacy of this approach.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “The epistemological focus has additional value in introducing the nature of science in an implicit, rather than an explicit, manner. For it is difficult to consider issues of evidence, justification, and belief in science without considering and discussing what it is that scientists do...“ (Monk and Osborne 1997 p. 420).

  2. In discussing phase 3, Historical Study, Monk and Osborne draw attention to the role of the teacher in “introduc[ing]” the view of a past scientist for the purpose of “build[ing] a pluralism of viewpoints” (Monk and Osborne 1997, p. 416).

  3. Monk and Osborne (1997) clearly acknowledge this point when discussing their new rationale (p. 413). However their description of how to introduce the modern view on their model not only leaves out how it should be motivated by previous class discussions of the historical episode, but also actually refers to the modern view as “one more viewpoint” (p. 419).

  4. As Allchin perceptively concludes in his discussion of the advantages of a historical approach to science “[b]ut we may also creatively adapt or ‘corrupt’ the history to suit our aims...” (Allchin 1993, p. 33).

  5. For another example developed from the history of research on industrial melanism, see Rudge (2004). A third example developed with reference to Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood, (c.f. Allchin 1993) is available on request from the authors. Both of these examples are three day instructional sequences.

  6. The entire unit, including the objectives, lessons, and nature of science probes is available for review from Howe (2004) or in the form of a 100-page Microsoft Word formatted document that can be provided upon request to the author.

  7. Allison certainly knew the disease as “sickle-cell anemia”, however for the purpose of maintaining the mystery of the class, it is referred to as “mystery disease”.

  8. The instructor may wish to share with students that Allison designed and conducted an experiment similar in nature to that described above to test his theory of heterozygote protection. The group of participants characterized beforehand as heterozygotes for the mystery disease exhibited markedly less severe malarial infection several days after being inoculated with the malarial parasite. Allison carefully monitored the participants for a set duration and administered to both groups the anti-malarial drug Quinine (chloroquinine) at the conclusion of the study.

  9. It should be noted that one possible reason why there have been few qualitative studies (e.g. using open-ended surveys) done is likely owing to the inherent complexity involved with data analysis. As such, there have been more quantitative empirical studies (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale) completed.

  10. A fundamental concern with this pedagogy is that the instructor of the course relied upon more didactic techniques and as such often drew the nature of science conclusions for the students. Howe and Rudge (2005) argue why this pedagogy is flawed and draws attention to the importance of structuring lessons so that students explicitly and reflectively (on their own) make connections with the history of science to the nature of science so that they will gain a greater ownership of the more contemporary conceptions.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman N (2000) The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 37:1057–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson VL, Abd-El-Khalick F, Lederman N (2000) Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 37:295–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin D (1993) Of squid hearts and William Harvey. Sci Teach 60(7):26–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin D (2000) How not to teach historical cases in science. J Coll Sci Teach 30:33–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison AC (1954) Protection afforded by sickle-cell trait against subtertian malarial infection. Br Med J 1:290–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers AF (1999) What is this thing called science? Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Land and Surveys (1962) Uganda: 1962. Atlas of Uganda

  • Driver R, Oldham V (1985) A constructivist approach to curriculum development. Stud Sci Educ 13:105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher JJ (1991) Prospective and practicing secondary school science teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Sci Educ 75:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrick A (1968) Area handbook for Uganda. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 79–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrick JE (1910) Peculiar elongated and sickle-shaped red-blood corpuscles in a case of severe anemia. Arch Intern Med 6:517–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson D (1993) Philosophical stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science. Interchange 24:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe E (2004) Using the history of research on sickle-cell anemia to affect preservice teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan

  • Howe EM (2007) Untangling sickle-cell anemia and the teaching of heterozygote protection. Sci & Educ 16:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe EM, Rudge DW (2005) Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research: improving students’ NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Sci & Educ 14:423–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins E (1996) The ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. J Curriculum Stud 28:137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe R, Abd-El-Khalick F (2002) Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39:551–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman N, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell R, Schwartz R (2002) Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39:497–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann H (1953) Distribution of the sickle-cell gene. Eugen Rev 46:101–121

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas W (1996) Ten myths of science: reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. Sch Sci Math 96:10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk M, Osborne J (1997) Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Sci Educ 81:405–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian N (1989) Conceptual change in science and science education. Synthese 80:163–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raper A (1959) Further observations on sickling and malaria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 53:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudge DW (2004) Using the history of research on industrial melanism to help students better appreciate the nature of science; The mystery phenomenon: lesson plans. In: Metz D (ed) Proceedings of the seventh international history, philosophy science teaching group meeting. Winnipeg, Canada

  • Rudge DW, Howe EM (2004) Incorporating history into the science classroom. Sci Teach 71:52–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz R, Lederman N (2002) ‘It’s the nature of the beast’: the influences of knowledge and intentions on learning and the nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 39:205–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon J, Duveen J, Scot L, McCarthy S (1992) Teaching about the nature of science through history: action research in the classroom. J Res Sci Teach 29:409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee JH (1986) Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions? J Res Sci Teach 23:581–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues Uric C. Geer, Charles Henderson, David Schuster, Renée Schwartz, Aletta Zietsman-Thomas, and R. Paul Vellom for their constructive criticism of an earlier draft of this paper. We also acknowledge advice on the lesson plans and empirical study mentioned above from the members of Eric Howe’s dissertation committee: Fouad Abd-El-Khalick, Anthony C. Allison, William Cobern, and Robert Poel. We especially thank Uric C. Geer for his invaluable assistance in conducting the interviews associated with the empirical study mentioned above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Western Michigan University, 3134 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008-5410, USA

    David W. Rudge

  2. Department of Education, Assumption College, 159 Kennedy Hall, 500 Salisbury Street, Worcester, MA, 01612, USA

    Eric M. Howe

Authors
  1. David W. Rudge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric M. Howe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Rudge.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Modified VNOS survey used as pre- and post-assessment of students’ NOS views in the sickle-cell unit

  1. 1.

    Often in science, we hear words like ‘theories’ used to describe scientific knowledge.

    1. (a)

      What is a theory?

    2. (b)

      How are theories developed?

    3. (c)

      Can you give an example of a scientific theory?

  1. 2.

    After scientists have developed a theory (e.g., atomic theory. theory of evolution), does the theory ever change?

    • If you believe that scientific theories do not change:

      1. (a)

        Explain why theories do not change.

      2. (b)

        Defend your answer with examples.

    • If you believe that scientific theories do change:

      1. (a)

        Explain why (and how) you think theories change?

      2. (b)

        Give an example from your experience in which a theory has changed.

  1. 3.

    Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Illustrate your answer with an example.

  2. 4.

    Scientists often conduct experiments to gather data. In general, an experiment is a controlled intervention that involves manipulating something of interest by holding certain things constant and varying others.

    • Does the development of scientific knowledge require scientists to do experiments?

      1. (a)

        If yes, explain why, and give an example to defend your position.

      2. (b)

        If no, explain why, and give an example to defend your position.

  1. 5.

    It is believed that about 65 million years ago the dinosaurs became extinct. Of the reasons formulated by scientists to explain the extinction, two enjoy wide support. The first, formulated by one group of scientists, suggests that a huge meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago and led to a series of events that caused the extinction. The second explanation, formulated by another group of scientists, suggests that massive and violent volcanic eruption were responsible for the extinction.

    1. (a)

      How are these different conclusions possible if all of these scientists have access to and use the same set of data to derive their conclusions? Defend your answer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudge, D.W., Howe, E.M. An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Sci & Educ 18, 561–580 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9088-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9088-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation