The Case for Explicit Instruction of the Nature of Science in Secondary Science Education through the Incorporation of the History and Philosophy of Science

Abstract

Richard Feynman, the celebrated physicist, is frequently attributed as saying that “philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”  Professor Feynman taught at the California Institute of Technology for many years, but perhaps this experience did not afford him the best view of the general level scientific literacy of most people.  The inventive Feynman would likely be disappointed in the rigid nature of much pre-college science instruction, and he would definitely be disappointed in the lack of student understanding of the nature of science.  The Next Generation Science Standards emphasize the nature of science as one of their standards, but currently most pre-college science instructors do not address this learning target or only do so through the indirect approach of using inquiry lessons.  There is strong evidential support for including the explicit instruction of the philosophy of science and the history of science in pre-college science classrooms as a way of augmenting scientific literacy and enhancing student views on the nature of science.  This article discusses some of the potential benefits of this instruction and some of the obstacles that must be overcome to implement it.

Keywords

STEM

Full Text:

PDF

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Sci & Educ Science & Education, 2087-2107.

Chen, X. & Soldner, M. (2013). Stem Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and Out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. Nces 2014-001 (pp. 11-15). National Center for Education Statistics.

Gooday, G., Lynch, J., Wilson, K., & Barsky, C. (2008). Does science education need the history of science? ISIS, 322-330.

Hume, D., & Beauchamp, T. (1999). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (p. 117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 497-521.

Matthews, M. (1998). The Nature of Science and Science Teaching. In B. Fraser & T. Kenneth (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 981-999). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405-424.

NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2013. Appendix H. 3.

Niaz, M. (2015). Review of Matthews, M.R. (2015). Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of a science (20th Anniversary Revised and Expanded Edition). New York: Routledge1,2. Educación Química, 174-176.

Sandoval, W., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. J. Res. Sci. Teach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 369-392.

Wang, H., & Schmidt, W. (2001). History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science in Science Education: Results from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Science Education and Culture, 83-102.

Yalcin, Y., & Cakmakci, G. (n.d.). A conversation with Michael R. Matthews: The contribution of history and philosophy of science to science teaching and research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, (6), 287-309.