Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Historical material



While science teaching is not a history lesson, there is evidence that a
historical approach can be used to greatly improve the student understanding
of the concepts. There is a very interesting paper which showed that using
a historical approach produced much greater understanding of concepts (in
electricity I think). This approach also underlies the middle school book
by Haber-Scheim. This approach works because it develops the concepts in a
fashion which challenges the misconceptions that students generally have.
It acknowledges that students think like Aristotle, and then proceeds to
demonstrate how these misconceptions do not conform to reality. In the
paper the students actually read a selection of historical material, and
debated the historical ideas. The effect on understanding was dramatically
greater than a conventional course with no historical content. Indeed as I
recall, the effect was roughly comparable to that obtained by research based
teaching methods that did not use historical material.

As a result, I believe that a historical approach could be used
productively, but only by carefully targeting the relevant ideas. Anyone
contemplating doing this needs to be aware of both the history, and the
relevant education research. This particular approach was used by the
Harvard Project Physics, but fell into disfavor partially because of the
expense of the books.

I would say that the average physics teacher could not profitably use
historical material, or research based material without some added training.
Whether the current research based methods are superior to a research based
historical approach is not known. I suspect that the various methods could
be combined to yield potentially greater results than either alone. Sorry,
I can not recall the paper at this moment, but I believe the research was in
Australia.

The average teacher either HS or College needs training and experience in
research based methods, whether they use historical material, or other
methods. Based on the research that Hake has done, I would say that
probably 99% of all physics teachers at all levels need training in research
based pedagogy.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Carl Gaither wrote:

I came across some very interesting words written by Sir
Archibald Geikie
nearly 100 years ago in 1905. In the introductory paragraph to
Chapter I of
"The Founders of Geology" he wrote:

"In science, as in all other departments of inquiry, no
thorough grasp of a
subject can be gained unless the history of its development is clearly
appreciated. Nevertheless, students of Nature, while eagerly pressing
forward in the search after her secrets, are apt to keep the eye too
constantly fixed on the way that has to be travelled, and to
lose sight and
remembrance of the paths already trodden. It is eminently
useful, however,
if they will now and then pause in the race, in order to look
backward over
the ground that has been traversed, to mark the errors as well as the
successes of the journey, to note the hindrances and the helps
which they
and their predecessors have encountered, and to realise what
have been the
influences that have more especially tended to retard or quicken the
progress of research."

I am wondering if in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology and
mathematics there isn't a failure on the part of the teachers
to impart into
the student the value and benefit of reading the historical material
pertaining to a discipline.

IMHO, calling this a "failure" would be a hideous overstatement.

I find my daughter, who is in high school,
always reading some classical novel for English, but I have yet
to see her
reading any of the classical works from chemistry, biology, physics or
mathematics.

There's a very good reason for that! The history of science is an
_advanced_ subject, to be studied only _after_ one has a decent
grasp of the principles of science and the principles of history.
It is completely unsuitable as a method (let alone a substitute)
for teaching high-school physics/biology/chemistry.

I think Geikie understood this; he called attention to the errors
and hindrances that are a very very big part of the real history
of science. The student who is struggling with the basic concepts
cannot reasonably be expected to cope with these unnecessary
impediments.

I do however, see her working innumerable problems from these
disciplines and always asking, "Why do I have to learn to do this?"

That's a good question, but the answer is not rooted in history.
If the HS teacher is doing a poor job of motivating the subject,
do not jump to the conclusion that the remedy comes from history.
A much better motivation comes from the _future_ applications of
the subject.

or "Who
thought this stuff up?" Is it possible that the teachers don't tell the
students where the thoughts and ideas that they are presenting
in class came
from.

Yes, it is possible. Indeed it is highly desirable that HS
teachers don't cover the history of science.

Is it even possible that the teachers don't even know the history of
their specific discipline and are only trained in how to "work
problems"?

Of course it is possible. I say again, the history of science
is an advanced subject. Most HS teachers don't have this particular
advanced training. And they don't need it.