Implementing History and Philosophy in Science Teaching: Strategies, Methods, Results and Experiences from the European HIPST Project

Science and Education

Volumn 21, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1233-1261

  Höttecke, Dietmar ^a   Henke, Andreas ^b   Riess, Falk ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864569010     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-010-9330-3     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
2. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025-1049.
3. Allchin, D. (1992). History as a tool in science education. In: 2nd International history and philosophy of science and science teaching conference, Kingston, ON (Reprint of Conspicuous history, clandestine history: A spectrum of simulation strategies). Minneapolis, MN: SHiPS Resource Center. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from www. ships. umn. edu/tool. htm.
4. Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education, 13, 179-195.
5. Aubusson, P. J., & Fogwill, S. (2006). Role play as analogical modelling in science. In P. J. Aubusson, A. G. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (Vol. 30), Series Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. Springer.
6. Aubusson, P. J., Fogwill, S., Barr, R., & Perkovic, L. (1997). What happens when students do simulation-role-play in science? Research in Science Education, 27(4), 565-579.
7. Bannerman, M. D. (2008). Continuum-selecting inquiry-based experiences to promote a deeper understanding of the nature of science. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 35(2), 10-14.
8. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J. F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ideas-about-science: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.
9. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. BouJaoude, S., Sowwan, S., & Abd-El-Khalick. F. (2003). The effect of using drama in science teaching on students' conceptions of nature of science. Paper presented on The ESERA 2003 Conference Research and the Quality of Science Education. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www1. phys. uu. nl/esera2003/programme/pdf%5C039S. pdf.
11. Butterfield, H. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history. London: Bell.
12. Chang, H. (2009). We have never been Whiggish (about phlogiston). Centaurus, 51(4), 239-264.
13. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners' responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463-494.
14. Danby, M., & Upitis, R. (1988). School theatre: A question of ownership. Speech and Drama, 37(2), 5-8.
15. Dennen, P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www. aect. org/edtech/ed1/31. pdf.
16. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education. The ESERA Summer School 2004 (pp. 1-9). London: Taylor & Francis.
17. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role-play in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575-582.
19. Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). Comments and criticism. The nature of science: a perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107-116.
20. Eilks, I., Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., & Ralle, B. (2004). Changing teachers' attitudes and professional skills by involving teachers into projects of curriculum innovation in Germany. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Quality in practice oriented research in science education (pp. 29-40). Aachen: Shaker.
21. Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). The effect of a history-based course in optics on students' views about science. Science & Education, 10, 7-32.
22. Gräsel, C., & Parchmann, I. (2004). Implementationsforschung-oder: der steinige Weg, Unterricht zu verändern (Research on implementation: The problems of changing teaching and learning). Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32(3), 196-214.
23. Guericke, O. V. (1672/1968). Neue (sogenannte) Magdeburger Versuche über den leeren Raum: nebst Briefen, Urkunden und anderen Zeugnissen seiner Lebens- und Schaffensgeschichte (trans. & edited by H. Schimak). Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.
24. Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655-675.
25. Heering, P. (2000). Getting shocks: Teaching secondary school physics through history. Science & Education, 9(4), 363-373.
26. Heering, P. (2003a). History-science-epistemology: On the use of historical experiments in physics teacher training. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th IHPST conference Denver 2001. Avaible from the IHPST Group, IHPST. ORG.
27. Heering, P. (2003b). Rejected historical experiments and their use for science teacher training. In D. Metz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th IHPST conference Winnipeg 2003.
28. Heering, P. (2007). Public experiments and their analysis with the replication method. Science & Education, 16, 637-645.
29. Heering, P., & Müller, F. (2002). Cultures of experimental practice-an approach in a museum. Science & Education, 11, 203-214.
30. Hochadel, O. (2006). The business of experimental physics: Instrument makers and itinerant lecturers in the German enlightenment. Science & Education. doi: 10. 1007/s11191-006-9017-y.
31. Hodge, R. (2006). What Europeans really think (and know) about science and technology. Science in School, issue 3, Winter 2006: 71-77, Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://www. scienceinschool. org/2006/issue3/eurobarometer/.
32. Hoffman, L., Häußler, P., & Lehrke, M. (1998). Die IPN-Interessenstudie Physik. Kiel: IPN.
33. Höttecke, D. (2000). How and what can we learn from replicating historical experiments? A case study. Science & Education, 9(4), 343-362.
34. Höttecke, D. (2001). Die Natur der Naturwissenschaften historisch verstehen. Fachdidaktische und wissenschaftshistorische Untersuchungen (Understanding the nature of science historically. Didactical and historical investigations). Berlin: Logos-Verlag.
35. Höttecke, D. (2007). Historisch orientierter Physikunterricht (Teaching physics with history). In S. Mikelskis-Seifert & T. Rabe (Eds.), Physikmethodik. Handbuch für die Sekundarstufe I und II. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor.
36. Höttecke, D., & Rieß, F. (2009). Developing and implementing case studies for teaching science with the help of history and philosophy. Framework and critical perspectives on "HIPST"-a European approach for the inclusion of history and philosophy in science teaching. Paper presented at the Tenth International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference (IHPST), South Bend, USA 2009, June 24-88, 2009, Retrieved January 04, 2010, from http://www. nd. edu/~ihpst09/papers/Hoettecke_Paper_IHPST09. pdf.
37. Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2010). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge-an analysis of obstacles. Science & Education. doi: 10. 1007/s11191-010-9285-4.
38. Huberman, M. (1993). Linking the practitioner and researcher communities for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 1-16.
39. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5-26.
40. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2010). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education. doi: 10. 1007/s11191-010-9293-4.
41. 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
42. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
43. Kubli, F. (1999). Historical aspects in physics teaching: Using Galileo's work in a new swiss project. Science & Education, 8(2), 137-150.
44. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
45. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick (Ed.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301-317). Dordrecht [u. a.]: Kluwer.
46. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
48. Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers' understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773-792.
49. Lin, H.-S., Hung, J.-Y., & Hung, S.-C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students' problem-solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453-464.
50. Lindner, M. (2008). Lehrerfortbildung heute-Sind Lehrkräfte fortbildungsresistent? Erfahrungen aus den Programmen SINUS und CHiK als Modelle der Lehrerfortbildung (Professional development today-Are teachers resistant to change? Experiences based on the SINUS and CHIK programs as models for professional development). MNU, 61(3), 164-168.
51. Loughran, J., Berry, A., Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, D. (2003). Teaching and testing about the nature of science: Problems in attempting to determine students' perceptions 4 (1). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 1-16.
52. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Menis, J., & Erduran, S. (2005). Learning science through a historical approach: Does it affect the attitudes of non-science-oriented students towards science? International Journal of Science & Math Education, 3(3), 485-507.
53. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, London: Routledge.
54. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). 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. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.
55. McKernan, J. (2006). Curriculum action research. A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London, New York: Routledge.
56. McSharry, G., & Jones, S. (2000). Role-play in science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82(298), 73-82.
57. Merzyn, G. (2008). Naturwissenschaften, Mathematik, Technik-immer unbeliebter? Die Konkurrenz von Schulfächern um das Interesse der Jugend im Spiegel vielfältiger Untersuchungen. Baltmannsweilter: Schneider-Verlag.
58. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model of development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405-425.
59. Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85, 684-690.
60. Niaz, M., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2002). Improving learning by discussing controversies in 20th century physics. Physics Education, 37(1), 59-63.
61. Ødegaard, M. (2003). Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Studies in Science Education, 39, 75-102.
62. Olson, J. K., Clough, M. P., Bruxvoort, C. N., & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2005). Improving students' nature of science understanding through historical short stories in an introductory geology course. Paper prepared for the 8th international history, philosophy, sociology & science teaching conference (IHPST), Leeds, UK 2005, July 15-18, 2005, Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www. ihpst2005. leeds. ac. uk/papers/Olson_Clough_Bruxvoort_Vanderlinden. pdf.
63. Osborne, J. (2003). Attitude toward science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
64. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' view of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group-study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
65. 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.
66. Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., & Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics instruction: The SINUS project as an example for reform as teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 303-327.
67. Petty, G. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: A practical approach (2nd ed.). London: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
68. Pickering, A. (1989). Living in the material world: On realism and experimental practice. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The uses of experiment (pp. 275-297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Priestley, J. (1775/1966). History and present state of electricity (Vol. 2). New York, London: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
70. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago.
71. Rieß, F. (2000). History of physics in science teacher training in Oldenburg. Science & Education, 9, 399-402.
72. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561-580.
73. Scheller, I. (1998). Szenisches Spiel: Handbuch für die pädagogische Praxis. Berlin: Cornelsen-Scriptor.
74. Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331-355). Dordrecht [u. a.]: Kluwer.
75. Shavelson, R. J. (1983). Review of research on teachers' pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 392-413.
76. Sibum, H. O. (1995). Reworking the mechanical value of heat: Instruments of precision and gestures of accuracy in early Victorian England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 73-106.
77. Sichau, C. (2000a). Die Replikationsmethode: Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Experimente. In P. Heering, F. Rieß, & C. Sichau (Eds.), Im Labor der Physikgeschichte-Zur Untersuchung historischer Experimentalpraxis. Oldenburg: BIS der Carl von Ossietzky Universität.
78. Sichau, C. (2000b). Practicing helps: Thermodynamics, history, and experiment. Science & Education, 9, 389-398.
79. Smith, M., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmantic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493-509.
80. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Jungmann, A. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jachson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.
81. Solbes, J., & Traver, M. (2003). Against a negative image of science: History of science and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science & Education, 12, 703-717.
82. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421.
83. Solomon, J., Scot, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils' understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493-508.
84. Steinle, F. (2004). Exploratives experimentieren. Charles Dufay und die zwei Elektrizitäten. Physik Journal, 3(6), 47-52.
85. Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12, 617-643.
86. Taylor, C. A. (1987). Introduction. In C. A. Taylor (Ed.), Science education and information transfer. Oxford: Pergamon.
87. Tsai, C.-C. (1999). Scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. International Journal of Science Education, 83, 654-674.
88. van der Valk, T., & de Jong, O. (2009). Scaffolding science teachers in open-inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 829-850.
89. Zemplén, G. Á. (2009). Putting sociology first-reconsidering the role of the social in 'nature of science' education. Science & Education, 18(5), 525-559.
90. Zemplén, G. Á. (2010). A 6-week nature of science module incorporating social and epistemic elements. Case study developed within the project HIPST, Retrieved October 05, 2010, from http://hipstwiki. wetpaint. com/page/hipst+developed+cases.