Advertisement

Learning Science through a Historical Approach: Does It Affect the Attitudes of Non-Science-Oriented Students towards Science?

  • Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
  • Ruth Ben-Zvi
  • Avi Hofstein
  • Joseph Menis
  • Sibel Erduran
Article

Keywords

A historical approach to learning science a variety of teaching methods science for all students' attitudes towards science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Rutherford's enlarged: A content-embedded activity to teach about the nature of science. Physics Education, 37, 64–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education – international perspective on reform. New York: Teacher's College Press. Google Scholar
  4. Arons, A.B. (1984). Education through science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13, 210–220. Google Scholar
  5. Barila, L. & Beeth, M.E. (1999, March). High school students' motivation to engage in conceptual change learning in science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Zvi, R. (1999). Non-science oriented students and the second law of thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12), 1251–1267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld, P.C., Fishman, B.J., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W. & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology – embedded project-based science in urban schools. Education Psychologist, 35, 149–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodzin, A.M. & Mamlok, R. (2000). STS simulations: Engaging students with issues-based approach. The Science Teacher, 67(9), 36–39. Google Scholar
  9. Brush, S.G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated? Science, 184, 1164–1172. Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R.W. & Trowbridge, L.W. (1996). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, R.W. (1997, May). Meeting the challenges of achieving scientific literacy. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science Education: Globalization of Science Education, Seoul, Korea. Google Scholar
  12. Bybee, R.W. & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: Transforming goals to practices. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 487–498). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  13. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291–315. Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, D., Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A. & Rahamimoff, R. (2004). On brain, medicines, and drugs: A module for “Science for All” program. The American Biology Teacher, 66, 9–19. Google Scholar
  15. Conant, J.B. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental sciences (Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Cramer, F. (1979). Fundemental complexity. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 4, 132–139. Google Scholar
  17. Duschl, R.A. (1993). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 443–465). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  18. Elkana, Y. (2000). Science, philosophy of science and science teaching. Science & Education, 9, 463–485. Google Scholar
  19. Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10, 581–593. Google Scholar
  20. Fensham, P. (1992). Science and technology. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: MacMillan. Google Scholar
  21. Fairbrother, R.W. (2000). Strategies for learning. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching (pp. 7–24). Philadelphia: Open University. Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawhorne, NY: Aldine. Google Scholar
  23. Hall, D., Lowe, L., McKavanagh, C., McKenzie, S. & Martin, H. (1983). Teaching science, technology and society in junior high school. Brisbane, Australia: Brisbane College of Advanced Education. Google Scholar
  24. Harms, N.C. & Yager, R.E. (Eds.) (1981). What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science Teacher Association. Google Scholar
  25. Hayes, J.M. & Perez, P.L. (1997). Project inclusion: Native American plant dyes. Chemical Heritage, 15(1), 38–40. Google Scholar
  26. Hofstein, A., Aikenhead, G. & Riquarts, K. (1988). Discussion over S.T.S at the 4th IOSTE Symposium. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 357–366. Google Scholar
  27. Hofstein, A. & Walberg, H.J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 70–89). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Google Scholar
  28. Hofstein, A. & Mamlok, R. (2001). From petroleum to tomatoes: Attaining some of the content standards using an interdisciplinary approach. The Science Teacher, 68(2), 46–48. Google Scholar
  29. Ihde, A.J. (1984). The development of modern chemistry. New York: Dover. Google Scholar
  30. Irwin, J. (1996). A survey of the historical aspects of sciences in school textbooks. School Science Review, 78(282), 101–107. Google Scholar
  31. Irwin, J. (1997). Theories of burning: A case study using a historical perspective. School Science Review, 78(285), 31–37. Google Scholar
  32. Jungwirth, J. (1987). The intellectual skill of suspending judgement – do pupils possess it? Gifted Education International, 6, 71–77. Google Scholar
  33. Koballa Jr., T.R., Crawley, F.E. & Shrigley, R.L. (1990). A summary of science education 1988. Science Education, 74, 369–381. Google Scholar
  34. Klopfer, L.E. & Cooley, W. (1961). Use of case histories in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. Google Scholar
  36. 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, 497–521. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindahl, B. (2003). Changing the subject and teaching to get more students to science and technology? Paper presented at the GASAT 11 conference, Mauritius. Google Scholar
  38. Mamlok, R. (1995). Science: An ever-developing entity. Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science (in Hebrew). Google Scholar
  39. Mamlok, R., Ben-Zvi, R., Menis, J. & Penick, J.E. (2000). Can simple metals be transmuted into gold? Teaching science through a historical approach. Science Education International, 11(3), 33–37. Google Scholar
  40. Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  41. Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students' conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science & Education, 6, 397–416. Google Scholar
  42. Milner, N., Ben-Zvi, R. & Hofstein, A. (1987). Variables that affect students' enrollment in science courses. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5, 201–208. Google Scholar
  43. 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, 405–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  45. Niaz, M. & Rodriguez, M.A. (2002). Improving learning by discussing controversies in the 20th century physics. Physics Education, 37(1), 59–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nussbaum, J. (1989). Classroom conceptual change: Philosophical perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 530–540. Google Scholar
  47. O'Neill, D.K. & Polman, J.L. (2004). Why educate “Little Scientists?” Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, (OECD/PISA/SFEG) (2004). The PISA framework for science assessment. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/science
  49. Pintrich, P.A., Marx, R.W. & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199. Google Scholar
  50. Roach, E.L. & Wandersee, H.J. (1995). Putting people back into science: Using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 365–370. Google Scholar
  51. Simpson, R.D. & Troost, K.M. (1982). Influences on commitment to and learning of science among adolescent students. Science Education, 66, 763–781. Google Scholar
  52. Sjøberg, S. (1996, November). Scientific literacy and school science – arguments and second thoughts. Paper presented at the Seminar on Science, Technology and Citizenship. Oslo, Norway. Google Scholar
  53. Snow, C.P. (1988). The two cultures and a second look. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  54. Sparberg, E.B. (1996). Hindsight and the history of chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 73, 199–202. Google Scholar
  55. Stigler, J.W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  56. Tomorrow 98: Report of the superior committee on science mathematics and technology in Israel (1992). Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture (English Edition: 1994). Google Scholar
  57. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  58. Tobin, K. (1995, April). Issues of commensurability in the use of qualitative and quantitative measures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. Google Scholar
  59. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J. & Gallard, A.J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 62–63). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  60. Watson, J.R., Prieto, T. & Dillon, J.S. (1997). Students' explanations about combustion. Science Education, 8, 425–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yager, R.E. (1992). What we did not learn from the 60s about science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 905–910. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Mamlok-Naaman
    • 1
  • Ruth Ben-Zvi
    • 1
  • Avi Hofstein
    • 1
  • Joseph Menis
    • 2
  • Sibel Erduran
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of Social SciencesBar IIan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  3. 3.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations