Return to Research Interests Index Page
|
|
Matthews, Michael. Science Teaching - The Role of History and Philosophy of Science (1994)
Tobin, K., Kahle, J., Fraser, B..Windows Into the Science Classroom (1990)
Rationale - Flight from science classroom:
US mid-1980s estimates indicated that each year 600 sci. grads entered the teaching profession while 8000 left (Mayer 1987)
In 1987 7100 US high schools had no physics courses, 4200 had no course in chemistry (Mayer 1987)
In 1990 only four states required the 3 years of basic science recommended by the 1983 report A Nation ar Risk (the rest required only 2 years) (Beardsley 1992, p.80)
Irrespective of years required, 70% of all students drop science at the first available opportunity (Matthews 1994)
Science Teachers:
There are complex economic, social, cultural, and systemic reasons for rejections of science. These are beyond the scope of teachers to rectify. But there are also educational reasons for the rejection of science that are within the power of teachers and administrators to change. (Matthews 1994)
In 1989 a disturbing number of the very top Australian school science students gave "too boring" as the reason for not pursuing university science.(Matthews 1994)
Unconnected, irrelevant topicsScience often taught as a "rhetoric of conclusions" (Schwab)
Courses in the sciences are too often, as one student remarked, "forced marches through unknown country without time to look sideways."
HPS movement
Conviction that the learning OF science needs to be accompanied by learning ABOUT science.
Proponents: Ernesst Mach, James Conant, Gerald Holton Joseph Schwab, Martin Wagenschein
Prior to 1957:
HPS one of three competing views -
1) A practical, technical, applied view.2) A specialist, theoretical, disciplinary emphasis.
3) A liberal, contextual, humanistic emphasis. (HPS)
After October 4th, 1957 (Sputnik) and 1957 National Defense Education Act
$94 million for science education from 1958 to 1961
$600 million from 1961 to 1975
National Science Foundation (NSF) put scientists firmly in the saddle of curriculum reform, teachers were at best stable-hands, and education faculty rarely got as far as the stable door.(Matthews 1994)
1950 -1960 NSF supported the explosion of "alphabet curricula:"
MIT's Jerrold Zacharias' Physical Sciences Study Committee (PSSC)Chemical Bond Approach (CBA)
Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS)
Chemical Education Materials (CHEMS)
Earth Science Curriculum Project (ESCP)
Previous attempts to teach science in an HPS-informed manner:
1960s Harvard Project Physics, Gerald Holton, James Rutherford, Fletcher Watson-outstanding example. Over 60 studies of the effectiveness published (Welch 1973) and these were positive and encouraging. Measures such as retention in science, participation of women, improvement on critical thinking tests and understanding of subject matter all showed improvement where Project Physics curriculum was adopted.
Another example of a widely adopted HPS-influenced course was the Yellow-version of the BSCS biology course developed by John Moore and Joseph Schwab.
By mid-1970s
After 20 years and $1.5 billion in support, the NSF withdrew from school curriculum development. In 1975 federal funding for the NSF's curriculum development was below what it had been in 1959. (Matthews 1994)
Numerous studies were done on the effectiveness of the massive federal intervention (Helgeson et al. 1977, Weiss 1978, Stake and Easley 1978, Harms & Yager 1981).
They found that the curricular reforms were only partially successful in meeting their own objectives, and in fulfilling the hopes that government and society held for them.
After 1975,
Adoption of NSF curricula was widespread but patchy. In 1976 only 50% of school districts were using any NSF-sponsored secondary curriculum, and only 30% of districts were using them in elementary school.
Further, adoption of curricula, of course, did not necessarily mean adoption of their spirit, or of their recommended teaching methods. It was often a case of "new wine in old bottles" (Stake & Easley 1978)
What happened? Failure attributed to two causes: (Arons 1983)
1st, inadequate logistic support for school teachers
2nd, and more importantly, the inadequate training of teachers
1983
British Association for Science Education (ASE) launched its "Science in the Social Context"
Formation of the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group and its staging of international conferences on HPS and science teaching.
the first at Florida State University in 1989
the second at Queen's University, Kingston Ontario in 1992
the third at the University of Minnesota in 1995
in the last few years there have been about 300 scholarly papers published on the subject of HPS
1995 Establishment of the journal Science & Education devoted to the subject.
Integration of HPS and science education has been proposed recently by numerous government and educational bodies:
American Association for the Advancement of Science in two of its very influential reports Project 2061 (AAS 1989) and The Liberal Art of Science (AAAS 1990)
the British National Curriculum Council (NCC 1988)
the Danish Science and Technology curriculum (1988)
the Science Council of Canada (SCC 1984)
and in The Netherlands, the PLON curriculum materials (1981)
"Science courses should place science in its historical perspective. Liberally educated students -- the science major and the non-major alike-- should complete their courses with an appreciation of science as part of an intellectual, social, and cultural tradition.... Science courses must convey these aspects of science by stressing its ethical, social, economic, and political dimensions." (AAAS 1989, p. 24)
"The vitality of the scientific tradition, and its positive impact on society, depends upon children being successful introduced to its achievements, methods and thought processes, by teachers who understand and value science. The history and philosophy of science contributes to this understanding and valuation."(Matthews 1994)
All students, whether science majors or others, should have some knowledge of the great episodes in the development of science and consequently of culture:
the ancient demythologizing of the world picture
the Copernican relocation of the earth from the center of the solar system
the development of experimental and mathematical science associated with Galileo and Newton
Newtons demonstration that the terrestrial laws of attraction operated in the celestial realms
Darwin's epochal theory of evolution and his claims for a naturalistic understanding of life
Pasteur's discovery of the microbial basis of infection
Einstein's theories of gravitation and relativitythe discovery of the DNA code and research on the genetic basis of life
Students should, depending on their age, have an appreciation of the intellectual, technical, social and personal factors that contributed to these monumental achievements.
Two different HPS camps discernible form the literature:
Those who appeal to HPS to support the teaching of science.
Those who appeal to HPS to puncture the perceived arrogance and authority of science. This second group stresses the human face of science, the fallibility of science, the impact of politics and special interests, including racial, class and sexual interests, on the pursuit of science; they argue for skepticism about scientific knowledge claims. For this group, HPS shows science is one among a number of equally valid ways of looking at the world, it has no epistemic privilege; its supposed privilege derives merely from social considerations and technological successes.
I stand with the first group, but I do agree with a number of the positions of the second group; science does have a human, cultural, and historical dimension, it is closely connected with philosophy, interests and values, and its knowledge claims are frequently tentative. Science is complex. But none of these admissions need to lead to skepticism about the cognitive claims of science.
Food for Thought:
One of the great drawbacks to the effectiveness of the contextual HPS approach was and still is inadequately prepared teachers.
The contextual HPS approach requires a great deal from teachers, this needs to be recognized and provided for by those who educate and employ teachers.
"Teachers have an important but burdensome social role. A scientist has to understand simply what he or she is doing in a narrow field, a teacher has to understand a broad field of science, and moreover understand it in a way that can be made intelligible and interesting to students -- without teachers there would be no scientists." (Matthews 1994)
Science teachers need 3 competencies: (Matthews 1994)
1st Knowledge and appreciation of science
2nd Some understanding of HPS in order to do justice to the subject and to teach it well, and in order to make intelligent appraisals of the many theoretical and educational debates that rage around the science curriculum
3rd Some educational theory or vision that can inform their classroom activities PURPOSES DICTATE METHODS.
Science has been one of the most significant contributions to the development of our culture and our understanding of the world. Food production, medicine, entertainment, war, industry, human reproduction, transportation, accommodation, religion, space exploration and people's self-understanding - their sense of place in the universe and in the world of nature- have all been profoundly affected by science. Of course science has not been without it critics ( even in the 17th century Giambattista Vico turned his back on the new science of Galileo and the new mathematics of Descartes) BUT if education is to be an initiation into the best and most important achievements of our culture, then science deserves its place in the curriculum alongside literature, music, art, technology, history, and social science. And all students should have some knowledge of, and hopefully appreciation and enthusiasm for, the subject. (Matthews 1994)
Of course there are legitimate and important questions concerned with WHO decides WHAT is best in WHOSE culture.