To those of us who are sold on history, it may seem non-controversial to suggest that the learning and teaching of chemistry should give cognisance to the historical development of the subject. However, this suggestion is proving controversial amongst some in the chemistry profession. For example, in the October 2010 edition of Chemistry in Australia, Rami Ibo takes issue with the emphasis on the history of science in the HSC chemistry curriculum (Year 12) in New South Wales. He studied chemistry, (...) physics and biology for his HSC in NSW and concluded that, because the primary focus of these three sciences was History of Science, ‘There was hardly any content that challenged our minds, and calculations barely involved plugging in numbers into an equation…. We were required to recall Antoine Lavoisier’s experiments that led to the theories of acids and bases… while my friends in Lebanon were studying ideal gas laws, chemical kinetics, acids and bases, organic chemistry, soaps and detergents, medicinal chemistry and new materials’ (Ibo, Chemistry in Australia 77(9): 5, 2010). What does the literature have to say in response to such arguments? Does the presence of the history of chemistry in a curriculum necessarily reduce important content and problem-solving skills? -/- A study of the literature suggests at least three reasons for persisting with aspects of the history of chemistry in the learning and teaching of chemistry. -/- The fact that student conceptions sometimes recapitulate early ideas found in the history of chemistry is seen as offering teachers a means of a deeper understanding of student ideas with the potential for more positive learning outcomes. -/- Conceptual clarity is more easily achieved within an historical context. Often conceptual usefulness is pursued at the expense of conceptual depth (de Berg, Conceptual Depth and Conceptual Usefulness in Chemistry: Issues and Challenges for Chemistry Educators. In I. V. Eriksson (Ed.), Science Education in the 21st Century (pp. 165–182). New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008a). -/- The history of chemistry directly gives us some idea of the epistemological status of chemistry within science and knowledge in general and therefore gives a student access to aspects of the Nature of Science. -/- This review chapter also examines different ways the history of chemistry has been incorporated into chemistry curricula and looks at the purported advantages, disadvantages and limitations of such attempts. Some directions for future research in this area are included in the chapter. (shrink)

This inaugural handbook documents the distinctive research field that utilizes history and philosophy in investigation of theoretical, curricular and pedagogical issues in the teaching of science and mathematics. It is contributed to by 130 researchers from 30 countries; it provides a logically structured, fully referenced guide to the ways in which science and mathematics education is, informed by the history and philosophy of these disciplines, as well as by the philosophy of education more generally. The first handbook to cover the (...) field, it lays down a much-needed marker of progress to date and provides a platform for informed and coherent future analysis and research of the subject. -/- The publication comes at a time of heightened worldwide concern over the standard of science and mathematics education, attended by fierce debate over how best to reform curricula and enliven student engagement in the subjects There is a growing recognition among educators and policy makers that the learning of science must dovetail with learning about science; this handbook is uniquely positioned as a locus for the discussion. -/- The handbook features sections on pedagogical, theoretical, national, and biographical research, setting the literature of each tradition in its historical context. Each chapter engages in an assessment of the strengths and weakness of the research addressed, and suggests potentially fruitful avenues of future research. A key element of the handbook’s broader analytical framework is its identification and examination of unnoticed philosophical assumptions in science and mathematics research. It reminds readers at a crucial juncture that there has been a long and rich tradition of historical and philosophical engagements with science and mathematics teaching, and that lessons can be learnt from these engagements for the resolution of current theoretical, curricular and pedagogical questions that face teachers and administrators. (shrink)

The relationship between teaching and argumentation is becoming a crucial issue in the field of education and, in particular, science education. Teaching has been analyzed as a dialogue aimed at persuading the interlocutors, introducing a conceptual change that needs to be grounded on the audience’s background knowledge. This paper addresses this issue from a perspective of argumentation studies. Our claim is that argumentation schemes, namely abstract patterns of argument, can be an instrument for reconstructing the tacit premises in students’ argumentative (...) reasoning and retrieving the background beliefs that are the basis of their arguments. On this perspective, the process of premise reconstruction is followed by a heuristic reasoning process aimed at discovering the students’ previous intuitions that can explain the premises and concepts that are left unexpressed in their arguments. The theoretical insights advanced in this paper are illustrated through selected examples taken from activities concerning predictive claims on scientific issues. (shrink)

The ubiquitous goals of helping precollege students develop informed conceptions of nature of science and experience inquiry learning environments that progressively approximate authentic scientific practice have been long-standing and central aims of science education reforms around the globe. However, the realization of these goals continues to elude the science education community partly because of a persistent, albeit not empirically supported, coupling of the two goals in the form of ‘teaching about NOS with inquiry’. In this context, the present paper aims, (...) first, to introduce the notions of, and articulate the distinction between, teaching with and about NOS, which will allow for the meaningful coupling of the two desired goals. Second, the paper aims to explicate science teachers’ knowledge domains requisite for effective teaching with and about NOS. The paper argues that research and development efforts dedicated to helping science teachers develop deep, robust, and integrated NOS understandings would have the dual benefits of not only enabling teachers to convey to students images of science and scientific practice that are commensurate with historical, philosophical, sociological, and psychological scholarship, but also to structure robust inquiry learning environments that approximate authentic scientific practice, and implement effective pedagogical approaches that share a lot of the characteristics of best science teaching practices. (shrink)

This chapter briefly traces the history of nature of science (NOS) orientations in science education, notes some differences in the way NOS is defined and in arguments used to justify its inclusion in the school science curriculum and acknowledges the centrality of NOS to recent curriculum and research initiatives based on scientific argumentation, modelling and consideration of socioscientific issues (SSI). Some critical scrutiny is directed towards the so-called consensus view of NOS and whether it adequately and appropriately represents the diversity (...) of approach across the different subdisciplines of science. Of course, serious consideration of curriculum initiatives inevitably leads to questions concerning assessment policy and practice. Key issues relate to the philosophical adequacy and psychometric robustness of questionnaires, interviews, observation studies and approaches utilizing students’ drawings and stories and how best to record and report findings. After a brief discussion of some important pedagogical matters and consideration of some contemporary emphases in NOS-oriented curricula, including SSI-oriented teaching and efforts to shift attention towards a more authentic view of contemporary scientific practice (what Ziman (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. calls post-academic science), the chapter concludes with a piece of personal self-indulgence: advocacy of a move towards an action-oriented, SSI-based approach to science education at the school level, and beyond. (shrink)

A primary focus of the present chapter is the history and philosophy of science (HPS) and the ways that issues connected to HPS can inform genetics instruction. The chapter begins with an overview of the history of genetics which focuses on the scientific search for and the differing understandings of the gene concept. Thereafter the history of genetics is related to important philosophical issues of genetics such as reductionism, genetic determinism, and the relationship between biological function and structure. In the (...) second part of the chapter, genetic education research is reviewed, focusing on how it is informed by issues from HPS. We identify contributions of HPS-informed genetics education scholarship to the following: (1) teaching and learning genetics, (2) teaching about the nature of science, (3) humanizing science, and (4) enhancing reasoning, argumentation, and thinking skills. The primary conclusion of this review is that HPS is a much underutilized but potentially fruitful lens for approaching genetics instruction. (shrink)

This chapter aims to revisit the notion of argumentation that is currently used in science education. After acknowledging a consolidated tendency of linguistics-based approaches to the study of ‘school scientific argumentation’, the chapter proposes to shift the interest towards an examination of the epistemic aspects of argumentation, i.e. those that derive from its central participation in science as a process and as a product. The premise of the chapter is that the contributions of the philosophy and history of science and (...) of other science studies and metatheoretical perspectives –which are here collectively called ‘HPS’– constitute a fruitful theoretical background to understand scientific arguments and arguing in educational settings. Based on this premise, five possible ‘bridges’ between argumentation and HPS are proposed; such bridges are identified through a ‘theory-directed’ literature review. (shrink)