Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching the Conceptual History of Physics to Physics Teachers

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For nearly a decade we have taught the history and philosophy of science as part of courses aimed at the professional development of physics teachers. The focus of the history of science instruction is on the stages in the development of the concepts and theories of physics. For this instruction, we designed activities to help the teachers organize their understanding of this historical development. The activities include scientific modeling using archaic theories. We conducted surveys to gauge the impact on the teachers of including the conceptual history of physics in the professional development courses. The teachers report greater confidence in their knowledge of the history of physics, that they reflect on this history for their teaching, and that they use of the history of physics for their classroom instruction. In this paper, we provide examples of our activities, the rationale for their design, and discuss the outcomes for the teachers of the instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, Allchin (2011, 2013), Clough (2011), Conant and Nash (1957), Fowler (2003), Klopfer (1969), Stinner et al. (2003).

  2. For example, Clough et al. (2010), Galili and Hazan (2000), HIPST (2013), Matthews (1994), Morse (2004), Rudge and Howe (2009), Seroglou et al. (1998).

  3. For example, Arons (1965), College of the University of Chicago (1949, 1950), Conant and Nash (1957), Hobson (2003), Holton (1952), Holton (2003), Holton and Brush (1985), Holton and Roller (1958), and Rutherford et al. (1981).

  4. For example, Clement (1982); Driver et al. (1994), Halloun and Hestenes (1985), and Wandersee (1986).

  5. For example, Carey (2009), Nersessian (1992, 2008), Posner et al. (1982), and Strike and Posner (1992).

  6. This selection of readings is similar to the case history approach provided at the History and Philosophy in Science Teaching website (HIPST 2013; Höttecke et al. 2012).

  7. While the degree of detail displayed in the maps is in-part due to the investment of the students, the complexity of the concept map for Descartes’ theory of gravity, as compared to the other theories, is a fair reflection of the fact that this mechanical theory of gravity requires intricate reasoning.

  8. Specifically, we use readings from the following: Aristotle (Bostock 1996), Archimedes (Heath 2002), Galileo (1638/2002), Huygens, Newton (1687/1934), Franklin (Cohen 1941), Faraday, Maxwell (1996), many now available free on the web (e.g., Franklin (Morse, 2004), Galileo (1638/1914), Huygens (1690/2005), or in compilations such as Matthews (1989) and Shamos (1987).

  9. Examples of secondary sources used are Holton (1978a, b), Matthews (1994), Rhodes (1986), and Toulmin and Goodfield (1961, 1962).

References

  • AAAS. (1990). Science for all Americans. Project 2061 American Association for the Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamson, S. L., Banks, D., Burtch, M., Cox, F., Judson, E., Turley, J. B., & Lawson, A. E. (2003). Reformed undergraduate instruction and its subsequent impact on secondary school teaching practice and student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlgren, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1973). Changing attitudes towards science among adolescents. Nature, 245, 187–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (1992). Millikan, mendel and the fringes of integrity. http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/fraud.htm. Retrieved August 8, 2013.

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (Whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science. Saint Paul: SHiPS Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: A view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arons, A. B. (1965). Development of concepts of physics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostock, D. (1996). Introduction: Aristotle’s cosmology. In Aristotle. Physics. (pp. xv, xvii) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., Herman, B. C., & Smith, J. A. R. (2010). Seamlessly teaching science content and the nature of science: Impact of historical short stories on post-secondary biology students. In Association for Science Teacher Education National Conference, Sacramento, CA, January 14–16. http://www.storybehindthescience.org/research.html. Accessed 31 May 2014.

  • Cohen, I. B. (1941). Benjamin Franklin’s experiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • College of the University of Chicago. (1949). Introductory general course in the physical sciences, Vol. 1, 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • College of the University of Chicago. (1950). Introductory general course in the physical sciences (Vol. 3). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. B. (1947). On understanding science; an historical approach. American Scientist, 35(1), 33–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. B., & Nash, L. K. (eds.) (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Fay, M. (1733). A letter from Mons. Du Fay, FRS and of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris, to His Grace Charles Duke of Richmond and Lenox, concerning Electricity. Translated from the French by TS M D. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions Series I, 38, 258–266.

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, M. (2003). Galileo and Einstein: Using history to teach basic physics to nonscientists. Science & Education, 12, 229–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Models in science. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/. Accessed 1 June 2014.

  • Galileo, G. (1638/2002). Dialogues concerning two new sciences. In S. Hawking (Ed.). Philadelphia: Running Press Book Publishers.

  • Galileo, G. (1638/1914). https://archive.org/details/dialoguesconcern00galiuoft. Accessed 16 November 2014.

  • Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of an historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets-schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics, 68, S3–S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). The effect of a history-based course in optics on students’ views about science. Science & Education, 10, 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S. (1731). A letter to Cromwell Mortimer, MD Secr. RS containing several experiments concerning electricity; By Mr. Stephen Gray. Philosophical Transactions, 37(417–426), 18–44.

  • Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, T. L. (Ed.). (2002). The works of archimedes. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • HIPST. (2013). http://hipstwiki.wetpaint.com/page/hipst+developed+cases. Accessed 4 August 2013.

  • Hobson, A. (2003). Physics concepts and connections (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1952). Introduction to concepts and theories in physical science (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1978a). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161–224.

  • Holton, G. (1978b). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan–Ehrenhaft dispute. In G. Holton (Ed.), The scientific imagination (pp. 25–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Holton, G. (2003). The project physics course, then and now. Science & Education, 12(8), 779–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (2014). The neglected mandate: Teaching science as part of our culture. Science & Education, 23(9), 1875–1877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G., & Brush, S. G. (1985). Introduction to concepts and theories in physical science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G., & Roller, D. H. D. (1958). Foundations of modern physical science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

  • Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2012). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Stategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education, 21(9), 1233–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huygens, C. (1690/2005). Treatise on light [1690]. The Project Gutenberg eBook, Treatise on Light, by Christiaan Huygens, Translated by Silvanus P. Thompson. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14725. Accessed 16 November 2014.

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(1), 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists: A report on the HOSC instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E., Benford, R., Bloom, I., Carlson, M. P., Falconer, K., Hestenes, D., et al. (2002). Evaluating college science and mathematics instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching., 31, 388–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, L. (2001). Physics First, APS Forum on Education Newsletter. Spring 2001. http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/spring2001/lederman.html. Accessed 1 June 2014.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1989). The scientific background to modern philosophy: Selected readings. USA: Hackett Pub Co.

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. C. (1996). Document 16: Molecules. In E. Garber, S. G. Brush, & C. W. F. Everitt (Eds.), Maxwell on molecules. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, R. A. (Ed.) (2004). Benjamin Franklin: Papers on electricity. http://www.compadre.org/psrc/franklin/. Accessed 3 August 2013.

  • Moss, C., & Brookhart, S. (2009). The lay of the land: Essential elements of the formative assessment process. In Advancing Formative (Ed.), Assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council (NRC) (Ed.). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. Cognitive Models of Science, 15, 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. A. Duschl, & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

  • Newton, I. (1687/1934). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy, Vol. I “The Motion of Bodies” (trans by A. Motte, revised F. Cajori). Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Niaz, M. (2000). The oil drop experiment: A rational reconstruction of the Millikan–Ehrenhaft controversy and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 480–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science based on historical controversies. Science & Education, 18(1), 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan–Ehrenhaft dispute. Science & Education, 20(10), 943–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (1986). The making of the atomic bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

  • Ross, D. (2012). Game theory. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/game-theory/. Accessed 4 June 2014.

  • Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J., Holton, G., & Watson, F. G. (1981). Project physics. Project physics collection, on archive.org. http://archive.org/details/projectphysicscollection. Accessed 3 August 2013.

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P. (2001). The contribution of the history of physics in physics education: A review. In Science education and culture (pp. 327–346). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Seroglou, F., Koumaras, P., & Tselfes, V. (1998). History of science and instructional design: The case of electromagnetism. Science & Education, 7, 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M. H. (1987). Great experiments in physics, Firsthand accounts from Galileo to Einstein. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12, 617–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl, & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). State University of New York Press.

  • Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

  • Suppes, P. C. (1967). What is a scientific theory? In Sidney Morgenbesser (Ed.), Philosophy of science today (pp. 55–67). New York: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S., & Goodfield, J. (1961). The fabric of the heavens. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S., & Goodfield, J. (1962). The architecture of matter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Toulmin, S., & Goodfield, J. (1965). The discovery of time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(7), 581–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W. (1973). Review of the research and evaluation program of Harvard Project Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10(4), 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 373–383.

  • Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. A. (2005). Understanding by design. USA: ASCD.

  • Winrich, C. (2013). Physics teacher use of the history of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University, Boston MA.

  • Winrich, C., Garik, P., Duffy, A., Gross, N. & Jariwala, M. (2013a). The Impact of Conceptual History on Teachers’ PCK. In Presented at the 12th Biennial conference of the international history and philosophy in science teaching group, June 20, 2013. Pittsburgh, PA. http://archive.ihpst.net/2013-pittsburgh/conference-proceedings/. Accessed 1 June 2014.

  • Winrich, C., Garik, P., Garbayo, L., Benétreau-Dupin, Y., Duffy, A., Gross, N. & Jariwala, M. (2013b). Physics teacher use of the history of Science. In Conference proceedings of the 2013 annual international conference of the national association for research in science teaching, April 9, 2013. Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.

  • Wiser, M., & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In A. L. Stevens & D. Gentner (Eds.), Mental models. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, R. (2003). Simply Einstein: Relativity demystified. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for the Improving Teaching of Physics project was provided from 2005 to 2010 by the Commonwealth of the State of Massachusetts (Grant CTRGT5NCLBBU200000000000) and the Massachusetts Regents (Grant CTRGTFY08BOSTONUNIVITQ08).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Boston University, Two Silber Way, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Peter Garik

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA

    Luciana Garbayo

  3. Department of Philosophy, Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, N6A 3K7, Canada

    Yann Benétreau-Dupin

  4. Mathematics and Sciences Division, Babson College, Babson Park, MA, 02457, USA

    Charles Winrich

  5. Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Andrew Duffy & Manher Jariwala

  6. Department of Astronomy, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Nicholas Gross

Authors
  1. Peter Garik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luciana Garbayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yann Benétreau-Dupin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles Winrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicholas Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manher Jariwala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Garik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garik, P., Garbayo, L., Benétreau-Dupin, Y. et al. Teaching the Conceptual History of Physics to Physics Teachers. Sci & Educ 24, 387–408 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9731-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9731-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation