Abstract
History of mechanics can contribute to the teaching of mechanics in two major ways. It can help students to learn about the nature of science and it can provide illustrations, stories and experiments which assist the teacher in overcoming some of the misconceptions students appear to share with scientists of the past. In this chapter a brief overview of the history of mechanics is presented in which emphasis is placed on the different types of motion which have been of interest during this history. This is followed by a discussion of issues which arise from this history and are relevant to teaching. Some of the ways history of mechanics can be used to address problems which students have with mechanics are then presented followed by a brief consideration of the science education literature relating to the teaching of mechanics. To conclude recommendations are made about future directions for research and development in this area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
I thank the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments led to significant improvements in the content and the structure of this chapter.
- 2.
For Aristotle “motion” was a term that covered all types of change and what we call “motion” was a change of place – movement from one position to another – called by him “local motion” or “locomotion”.
- 3.
- 4.
If the void were thought of as space with zero density, Aristotle’s relationship would imply that bodies would move through it with infinite speed which Aristotle considered to be impossible.
- 5.
See Aristotle, Physics, 5.6; 6.7; 8.9 and Heavens, 1.8; 2.6.
- 6.
- 7.
See Dijksterhuis (1961, pp. 190–1). This relationship means, in our terms, the following: when the speed, S, doubles, the ratio, motive force (F)/resistance (R), is squared or, more generally, when K = S 1 /S 2 ,
\( \frac{F_2}{R_2}={\left(\frac{F_1}{R_1}\right)}^k \). In modern terms this means \( S\kern0.36em \propto \log \kern0.36em \left(\;\frac{F}{R}\right) \).
- 8.
In days 3 and 4 of his Discourses (pp. 158–9), Galileo indicated a lack of interest in extrinsic, efficient causes such as forces (Machamer 1978) and sought firstly to describe the motion of a falling body. For Descartes and Newton the search for such causes was much more central to their investigations.
- 9.
A younger contemporary of Galileo, Marcus Marci, also developed a theory of impact (Aiton 1970).
- 10.
- 11.
Further details about the pendulum in history and teaching can be found in Matthews et al. (2005).
- 12.
- 13.
Time does not appear in Newton’s second law because in a collision the duration of the forces on the two bodies involved is the same.
- 14.
See Gauld (2010, equation (3)), Pourciau (2011), and Westfall (1971, pp. 481–91). In Book 1 of the Principia, Newton developed the implications of his three laws for the action of central forces on bodies which experience no resistance (other than that of the “force of inertia”). It is in this book that he derived Kepler’s laws of planetary motion from an inverse square of force. In Book 3 Newton applied the insights of Book 1 to observation made on the motion of planets, the moon and comets. In Book 2 his Laws are applied to a variety of other situations including the motion of bodies through resisting mediums, fluid flow and waves. Densmore (1995) is an excellent guide to the Principia. Pourciau (2011) presents a different view of the nature of Newton’s second law than that presented here.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
Coelho (2012) provides a detailed analysis of conceptual issues in mechanics.
- 20.
- 21.
Gabbey (1980) argues that, in Newton’s Principia, there are two concepts of vis inertiae that associated with the persistence of motion and measured by mv and that associated with the change of velocity and measured by mΔv.
- 22.
Following his definition of naturally accelerated motion, Galileo’s postulate in his Discourses related to motion down inclined planes: I assume that the degrees of speed acquired by the same moveable over different inclinations of planes are equal whenever the heights of those planes are equal (Discourses, p. 162). This postulate would not have been self-evident to Galileo’s contemporaries and later in the Discourses he deduced it as a theorem!
- 23.
Galileo’s notion of inertial motion was expressed in similar terms (see Discourses, p. 197), but for him the path was not a straight line but a circle around the earth (Dialogue, pp. 147–8). On the status of Newton’s first law among physicists over the last two centuries, see Whitrow (1950).
- 24.
Hanson (1963) pointed out that it is impossible to consider the motion of an isolated body without a fixed reference frame and, for this, one needs the existence of at least one other body. However, as soon as this second body is introduced, the first is no longer isolated so that it appears that Newton’s first law refers to an impossible state of affairs.
- 25.
- 26.
Matthews (1994, pp. 163–74) has given a number of examples of contemporaries who were on opposite sides of this divide.
- 27.
It is interesting to note that in the discussion which took place on day 4 of Discourses, Galileo dealt with two-dimensional trajectory motion but presented no experimental data although it was evident from his working papers that he had carried out a series of experiments to show the parabolic nature of these trajectories. While he tried as far as possible to reduce impediments, he was not aware of the effect of rotation on the acceleration of a rolling ball and no doubt noticed the rather significant discrepancies between his results in his unpublished working papers and what he expected to find (see Sect. 3.5.3.2).
- 28.
Galileo’s working papers can be viewed at the website: http://mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Galileo_Prototype/index.htm.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
See, for example, Brown (1989), Clement (1982), Doménech et al. (1993), Galili and Bar (1992), Gunstone (1984), Halloun and Hestenes (1985), Ioannides and Vosniadou (2002), Lythcott (1985), McCloskey (1983), Montanero et al. (1995), Steinberg et al. (1990), Twigger et al. (1994), Viennot (1979), and Whitaker (1983).
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
Other thought experiments not discussed here include Galileo’s use of two inclined planes to show that an unimpeded moving body would continue to move with undiminished speed on a “horizontal plane” around the earth (see Dialogue, pp. 145–8) and Archimedes’, Galileo’s and Mach’s thought experiment to establish the principle of the lever (Galileo, Discourses, pp. 109–12; Goe 1972; Mach 1893/1960, pp. 13–8).
- 37.
Another possibility for Stevin’s arrangement is that the chain moves from one state to another identical state and so keeps moving forever. Stevin ruled this out because he denied that perpetual motion was possible. Of course, perpetual motion is impossible because energy is dissipated through friction, but in Stevin’s arrangement friction is necessarily absent.
- 38.
These include the investigation of the motion of the simple pendulum (MacLachlan 1976; Matthews 2000, pp. 245–8), the use of Escriche’s inclined pendulum to vary the effective value of the acceleration due to gravity (Vaquero and Gallego 2000; Mach 1893/1960, pp. 207–9) and experiments based on Newton’s investigation of the resistance to motion of air and water (Gauld 2009, 2010). Blair (2001) and O’Connell (2001) encourage the use of ancient technological devices as aids in teaching about motion in the classroom.
- 39.
- 40.
Use of this method in a classroom is shown on the website http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUgYcbBi46w.
- 41.
- 42.
The problem Galileo apparently encountered with this experiment was that when H was equal to the height of the table on which the inclined plane was situated, he expected that D would equal 2H. Instead, his value for D was only 80% of what he expected. Today we can account for this discrepancy by appealing to the rotational kinetic energy of the ball which reduces D to 5/7 (or 85%) of Galileo’s expected value.
- 43.
Nersessian (1992, p. 71) suggested that one of the reasons for the success of thought experiments is that they are set in an attractive narrative context.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
A re-enactment of this story can be seen at the website http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY. The discussion by Erlichson (1993) is also helpful in considering the truth of this story.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
Journals included in the analysis were American Journal of Physics (17), International Journal of Science Education (4), Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1), Physics Education (16), Research in Science Education (3), Science & Education (41), Science Education (0), The Physics Teacher (20) and The Science Teacher (2). The period covered was 1992–2011 and the number of articles in each journal is shown in parentheses.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
There are, of course, more sophisticated contexts in which the history of mechanics can be used such as in tertiary courses on the history of science, but the greatest exposure to mechanics occurs in the secondary school whether for future specialists of physics or for science for non-specialists.
- 56.
References
Adler, C.G & Coulter, B.L. (1978). Galileo and the Tower of Pisa experiment. American Journal of Physics, 46(3), 199–201
Aiton, E.J. (1970). Ionnes Marcus Marci. Annals of Science, 26, 153–164.
Ariotti, P. (1968). Galileo on the isochrony of the pendulum. Isis, 59(4), 414–426.
Aristotle (no date a). Physics (translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye). Available at http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/physics.html. Accessed 27 March 2011.
Aristotle, (no date b). On the Heavens (translated by J. L. Stocks). Available at: http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/heavens.html. Accessed 15 April 2011.
Arons, A.B. (1988). Historical and philosophical perspectives attainable in introductory physics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 13–23.
Arons, A.B. & Bork, A.M. (1964). Newton’s laws of motion and the 17th century laws of impact. American Journal of Physics, 32, 313–317.
Biener, Z. & Smeenk, C. (2004). Pendulums. pedagogy, and matter: Lessons from the editing of Newton’s Principia. Science & Education, 13(4–5), 309–320.
Blackwell, R.J. (1966). Descartes’ laws of motion. Isis, 57(2), 220–234.
Blair, M. (2001). Applying age-old physics. The Science Teacher; 68(9); 32–37.
Boudri, J.C. (2002). What was Mechanical about Mechanics? (translated by S. McGlinn). Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Brown, D.E. (1989). Students’ concept of force: The importance of understanding Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 24, 353–358.
Bunge, M. (1966). Mach’s critique of Newton’s mechanics, American Journal of Physics, 34, 585–596.
Cassidy, D., Holton, G. & Rutherford, J. (2002). Understanding Physics. Springer, New York.
Clagett, M. (1959). The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.
Coelho, L. (2010). On the concept of force: How the understanding of history can improve physics teaching. Science & Education, 19(1), 91–113.
Coelho, R.L. (2012). Conceptual problems in the foundations of mechanics. Science & Education, 21, 1337–1356.
Cohen, M.R. & Drabkin, I.E. (1958) A Source Book in Greek Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cooper, L. (1935). Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Densmore, D. (1995). Newton’s Principia: The Central Argument. Green Lion Press, Santa Fe.
Descartes, R. (1966). Philosophical Writings. Translated and edited by E. Anscombe & P. Geach, Nelson, Melbourne.
Dijksterhuis, E.J. (1961). The Mechanization of the World Picture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Doménech, A., Casasús, E. Doménech, M.T. & Buñol, I.B. (1993). The classical concept of mass: Theoretical difficulties and students’ definitions. International Journal of Science Education, 15(2), 163–173.
Drake, S. (1973). Galileo’s discovery of the law of free fall. Scientific American, 228:85–92
Drake, S. (1974). Mathematics and discovery in Galileo’s physics. Historia Mathematica, 1(2), 129–150.
Drake, S. (1975a). Galileo’s discovery of the parabolic trajectory. Scientific American, 232(3), 102–110
Drake, S. (1975b). The role of music in Galileo’s experiments. Scientific American, 232(6), 98–104.
Drake, S. (1975c). Impetus theory reappraised. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(1), 27–46.
Drake, S. (1978). Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Drake, S. (1990). Galileo: Pioneer Scientist. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Durand, D.B. (1941). Nicole Oresme and the mediaeval origins of modern science. Speculum, 16(2) 167–185.
Eckstein, S.G. (1997). Parallelism in the development of children’s ideas and the historical development of projectile motion theories. International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1057–1073.
Erlichson, H. (1991). Motive force and centripetal force in Newton’s mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 59(9), 842–849.
Erlichson, H. (1993). Galileo and high tower experiments. Centaurus, 36, 33–45.
Erlichson, H. (1994). Galileo’s pendulums and planes. Annals of Science, 51(3), 263–272.
Erlichson, H. (1995). Newton’s strange collisions. Physics Teacher, 33(3), 169–171.
Erlichson, H. (1997a). Galileo to Newton – A liberal-arts physics course. The Physics Teacher, 35, 532–535.
Erlichson, H. (1997b). The young Huygens solves the problem of elastic collisions. American Journal of Physics, 65(2), 149–154.
Erlichson, H. (1999a). Science for generalists. American Journal of Physics, 67(2), 103.
Erlichson, H. (1999b). Galileo’s pendulum. The Physics Teacher, 378: 478–479.
Erlichson, H. (2001). A proposition well known to geometers. The Physics Teacher, 39, 152–153.
Espinoza, F. (2005). An analysis of the historical development of ideas about motion and its implications for teaching. Physics Education, 40, 139–146.
Fowler, M. (2003). Galileo and Einstein: Using history to teach basic physics to nonscientists. Science & Education, 12(2), 229–231.
Franco, A.B. (2004). Avempace, projectile motion, and impetus theory. Journal of the History of Ideas. 64, 521–546.
Franklin, A. (1976). Principle of inertia in the Middle Ages. American Journal of Physics, 44(6), 529–545.
Franklin, A. (1979). Galileo and the leaning tower: An Aristotelian interpretation. Physics Education, 14(1), 60–63.
Gabbey, A. (1980). Force and inertia in the seventeenth century: Descartes and Newton. In S. Gaukroger (ed.) Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, Harvester: Brighton, 230–320.
Gale, G. (1973). Leibniz’s dynamical metaphysics and the origins of the vis viva controversy. Systematics, 11, 184–207.
Galilei, Galileo (1590/1960). On Motion (translated by I.E. Drabkin). In S. Drake & I.E. Drabkin (eds), Galileo Galilei On Motion and On Mechanics, pp. 13–131, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Galilei, Galileo (1632/1967). [Dialogue] Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. (Translated by S. Drake) University of California Press, Berkeley.
Galilei, Galileo (1638/1974). [Discourses] Discourses on the Two New Sciences. (Translated by S. Drake) University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Galili, I. (2009). Thought experiments: Determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18(1), 1–23.
Galili (2012). Promotion of cultural content knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21, 1233–1316.
Galili, I. & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 63–81.
Galili, I. & Tzeitlin, M. (2003). Newton’s first law: Text, translations, interpretations and physics education. Science & Education, 12(1), 45–73.
Garber, D. (1995). Leibniz: Physics and philosophy. In N. Jolley (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 271–352.
Gauld, C.F. (1977). The role of history in the teaching of science, Australian Science Teachers Journal, 23(3), 47–52.
Gauld, C.F. (1991). History of science, individual development and science teaching, Research in Science Education, 21, 133–140.
Gauld, C.F. (1998a). Solutions to the problem of impact in the 17th and 18th centuries and teaching Newton’s third law today, Science & Education, 7(1), 49–67.
Gauld, C.F. (1998b). Making more plausible what is hard to believe. Historical justifications and illustrations of Newton’s third law. Science & Education, 7(2), 159–172.
Gauld, C.F. (1999). Using colliding pendulums to teach Newton’s third law. The Physics Teacher, 37(2), 116–119.
Gauld, C.F. (2004). The treatment of cycloidal pendulum motion in Newton’s Principia. Science & Education, 13(7–8), 663–673.
Gauld, C. F. (2006). Newton’s cradle in physics education, Science & Education, 15(6), 597–617.
Gauld, C.F. (2009). Newton’s use of the pendulum to investigate fluid resistance: A case study and some implications for teaching about the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 383–400.
Gauld, C.F. (2010). Newton’s investigation of the resistance to moving bodies in continuous fluids and the nature of ‘frontier science’. Science & Education, 19(10), 939–961.
Gendler, T.S. (1998). Galileo and the indispensability of scientific thought experiments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49, 397–424.
Goe, G. (1972). Archimedes’ theory of the lever and Mach’s critique. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2, 329–345.
Grant, E. (1964). Motion in the void and the principle of inertia in the Middle Ages. Isis, 55(3), 265–292.
Grant, E. (1965). Aristotle, Philoponus, Avempace, and Galileo’s Pisan dynamics. Centaurus, 11(2), 79–95.
Gregory, A. (1999). Ancient science and the vacuum. Physics Education, 34(4), 209–213.
Gunstone, R. (1984). Circular motion: Some pre-instructional alternative frameworks. Research in Science Education, 14, 125–135.
Hahn, A.J. (2002). The pendulum swings again: A mathematical reassessment of Galileo’s experiments with inclined planes. Archive for History of the Exact Sciences. 56, 339–361.
Hall, A.R. (1960–1962). Cartesian dynamics, Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences, 1, 172–178.
Hall, A.R. & Tilling, L. (1975–1977) The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Volumes 5–7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065.
Hanc, J., Slavomir, T. & Hancova, M. (2003). Simple derivation of Newtonian mechanics from the principle of least action. American Journal of Physics, 71(4), 386–391.
Hankins, T.L. (1965). Eighteenth-century attempts to resolve the vis viva controversy. Isis, 56(3), 281–297.
Hanson, N. (1963). The Law of Inertia: A philosopher’s touchstone. Philosophy of Science, 30(2) 107–121.
Hecht, E. (2003). An historico-critical account of potential energy: Is PE really real? The Physics Teacher, 41, 486–493.
Helm, P. & Gilbert, J.K. (1985). Thought experiments in physics education – Part 1. Physics Education, 20(3), 124–131.
Herival, J. (1965). The Background to Newton’s Principia: A Study of Newton’s Dynamical Researches in the Years 1664–84. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hewitt, P.G. (2003). Overtime on Galilean physics. The Physics Teacher, 41, 444.
Hill, D.K. (1979). A note on a Galilean worksheet. Isis, 70(2) 269–271.
Hill, D.K. (1988). Dissecting trajectories: Galileo’s early experiments on projectile motion and the law of fall. Isis, 79(4) 646–668.
Holton, G. (1952). Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.
Holton, G. (2003). The Project Physics Course, Then and now. Science & Education, 12(8), 779–786.
Holton, G. & Brush, S.G (2001). Physics: The Human Adventure. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Holton, G. & Roller, D. (1958). Foundations of Modern Physical Science. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Holton, G., Rutherford, F.J. & Watson, F.G. (1970). Project Physics. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Hutzler, S., Delaney, G., Weaire, D. & MacLeod, F. (2004). Rocking Newton’s cradle, American Journal of Physics, 72(12), 1508–1516.
Iltis, C. (1970). D’Alembert and the vis viva controversy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 135–144.
Iltis, C. (1971). Leibniz and the vis viva controversy. Isis, 62, 21–35.
Iltis, C. (1973). The decline of Cartesianism in mechanics: The Leibnizian-Cartesian debates. Isis, 64, 356–373.
Ioannides, C. & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 5–61.
Kalman, C.S. & Aulls, M.W. (2003). Can an analysis of the contrast between pre-Galilean and Newtonian theoretical frameworks help students develop a scientific mindset? Science & Education, 12(8), 761–772.
Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 401–423
Koertge, N. (1977). Galileo and the problem of accidents. Journal of the History of Ideas, 38, 389–408.
Koestler, A. (1968). The Sleepwalkers. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Kokkotas, P., Piliouras, P., Malamitsa, K. & Stamoulis, E. (2009). Teaching physics to in-service primary school teachers in the context of history of science: The case of falling bodies. Science & Education, 18(5), 609–629.
Kubli, F. (1999). Historical aspects in physics teaching: Using Galileo’s work in a new Swiss project. Science & Education, 8(2), 137–150.
Laudan, L.L. (1968). The vis viva controversy, a post-mortem. Isis, 59, 131–143.
Leibniz, G.W. (1692/1969). Critical thoughts on the general part of the principles of Descartes. In L. Loemker (ed.) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 397–404.
Lindberg, D.C. (1965). Galileo’s experiments on falling bodies. Isis, 56(3) 352–354
Lythcott, J. (1985). “Aristotelian” was the answer, but what was the question? American Journal of Physics, 53(5), 428–432.
Mach, E. (1893/1960). The Science of Mechanics. Open Court, New York.
Machamer, P. (1978). Galileo and the causes. In R.E. Butts & J.C. Pitts (eds) New Perspectives on Galileo. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 161–180.
MacLachlan, J. (1976). Galileo’s experiments with pendulums: Real and imaginary. Annals of Science, 33, 173–185.
Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge, New York.
Matthews, M.R. (2000). Time for Science Education. Kluwer, New York.
Matthews, M.R. (2004). Idealisation and Galileo’s pendulum discoveries: Historical, philosophical and pedagogical considerations. Science & Education, 13(7–8), 689–715.
Matthews, M.R., Gauld C.F. & Stinner, A. (eds) (2005). The Pendulum: Scientific, Historical, Philosophical & Educational Perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114–122.
McKie, D. & de Beer, G.R. (1951–2a). Newton’s apple. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 9, 46–54.
McKie, D. & de Beer, G.R. (1951–2b). Newton’s apple: An addendum, Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 9, 333–335.
Meiners, H.F. (ed.) (1970). Physics Demonstration Experiments. Ronald Press, New York.
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.
Montanero, M., Perez, A.L. & Suero, M.I. (1995). A survey of students’ understanding of colliding bodies. Physics Education, 30, 277–283
Moody, E.A. (1951a). Galileo and Avempace: The dynamics of the Leaning Tower experiment 1. Journal for the History of Ideas, 12, 163–193.
Moody, E.A. (1951b). Galileo and Avempace: The dynamics of the Leaning Tower experiment 2. Journal for the History of Ideas, 12, 375–422.
Naylor, R.H. (1974a). Galileo and the problem of free fall. British Journal for the History of Science, 7, 105–134.
Naylor, R.H. (1974b). Galileo: Real experiment and didactic demonstration. Isis, 67, 398–419.
Naylor, R.H. (1976). Galileo: The search for the parabolic trajectory. Annals of Science, 33, 153–172.
Naylor, R.H. (1977). Galileo’s theory of motion: Processes of conceptual change in the period 1604–1610. Annals of Science, 34, 365–392.
Naylor, R.H. (1980). Galileo’s theory of projectile motion. Isis, 71, 550–570.
Naylor, R.H. (1983). Galileo’s early experiments on projectile trajectories. Annals of Science, 40, 391–396.
Naylor, R.H. (2003). Galileo, Copernicanism and the origins of the new science of motion. British Journal for the History of Science, 36(2), 151–181.
Nersessian, N. (1992). The procedural turn: or, why do thought experiments work? In R.N. Giere (ed.) Cognitive Models of Science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 45–76.
Nersessian, N.J. & Resnick, L.B. (1989). Comparing historical and intuitive explanations of motion: Does “naïve physics” have a structure? Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 11, 412–420.
Newburgh, R., Peidle, J. & Rueckner, W. (2004). When equal masses don’t balance. Physics Education, 39(3), 289–292.
Newton, I. (1729/1960). Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. (translated from the third edition by Andrew Motte, revised by Florian Cajori), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Newton, I. & Henry, R.C. (2000). Circular motion. American Journal of Physics, 68(7), 637–639.
O’Connell, J. (2001). Dynamics of a medieval missile launcher: The trebuchet. The Physics Teacher, 39, 471–473.
Papineau, D. (1977). The vis viva controversy: Do meanings matter? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 8(2), 111–142.
Piaget, J. & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the History of Science (trans. H. Feider). Columbia University Press, New York.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Pourciau, B. (2011). Is Newton’s second law really Newton’s. American Journal of Physics, 79(10), 1015–1022.
Price, R. & Cross, R. (1997). Conceptions of science and technology clarified: Improving the teaching of science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 285–293.
Rosenblatt, L. (2011). Rethinking the Way We Teach Science. Routledge, New York.
Scott, J.F. (1967). The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Volume 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Segré, M. (1980). The role of experiment in Galileo’s physics. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 23, 227–252.
Seker, H. & Welsh, L.C. (2006). The use of history of mechanics in teaching motion and force units. Science & Education, 15(1), 55–89.
Settle, T.B. (1961). An experiment in the history of science. Science, 133, 19–23.
Sherman, P.D. (1974). Galileo and the inclined plane controversy. The Physics Teacher, 12, 343–348.
Shrigley, R.L. & Koballa, T.R. (1989). Anecdotes: What research suggests about their use in the science classroom. School Science & Mathematics, 89(4), 293–298.
Smith, D.S. (1997). Newton’s apple. Physics Education, 32(2), 129–131.
Smith, G.E. (2001). The Newtonian style in Book II of the Principia. In I.B. Cohen & J. Buchwald (eds), Newton’s Natural Philosophy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 240–313.
Steinberg, M.S., Brown, D.E. & Clement, J. (1990). Genius is not immune to persistent misconceptions: Conceptual difficulties impeding Isaac Newton and contemporary physics students. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 265–273.
Stinner, A. (1989). The teaching of physics and the contexts of inquiry: From Aristotle to Einstein. Science Education, 73(5), 591–605.
Stinner, A. (1990). Philosophy, thought experiments and large context problems in secondary school physics courses. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 244–257.
Stinner, A. (1994). The story of force: From Aristotle to Einstein. Physics Education, 29(2), 77–86.
Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories, and large scale context problems: Toward a more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79(5), 555–581.
Stinner, A. (1996). Providing a contextual base and a theoretical structure to guide the teaching of science from early to senior years. Science & Education, 5(3), 247–266.
Stinner, A. (2001). Linking ‘The Book of Nature’ and ‘The Book of Science’: Using circular motion as an exemplar beyond the textbook. Science & Education, 10(4), 323–344.
Stinner, A. & Williams, H. (1993). Conceptual change, history, and science stories. Interchange, 24(1–2), 87–103.
Straulino, S. (2008). Reconstruction of Galileo Galilei’s experiment: The inclined plane. Physics Education, 43(3), 316–321.
Sutton, R.M. (1938). Demonstration Experiments in Physics. McGraw-Hill, New York. Now available on the internet from The Physical Instructional Resource Association at http://physicslearning.colorado.edu/PiraHome/Sutton/Sutton.htm.
Taylor, L.W. (1941). Physics: the Pioneer Science. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Teichmann, J. (1999). Studying Galileo at secondary school: A reconstruction of his ‘jumping hill’ experiment and the process of discovery. Science & Education, 8(2), 121–136.
Turnbull, H.W. (1959-61). The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Volumes 1–3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Twigger, D. et al. (1994). The conception of force and motion of students between 10 and 15 years: An interview study designed to guide instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 215–229.
Vaquero, J.M. & Gallego, M.C. (2000). An old apparatus for physics teaching: Escriche’s pendulum. The Physics Teacher, 38, 424–425.
Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous learning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221.
Wandersee, J.H. (1990). On the value and use of the history of science in teaching today’s science: Constructing historical vignettes. In D.E. Herget (ed.) More History and Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching. Florida State University, Talahassee, 278–283.
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.
Westfall, R.S. (1971). Force in Newton’s Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. McDonald, London.
Westfall, R.S. (1993). The Life of Isaac Newton. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Whitaker, M.A.B. (1979a). History and quasi-history in physics education – Part 1. Physics Education, 14(2), 108–112.
Whitaker, M.A.B. (1979b). History and quasi-history in physics education – Part 2. Physics Education, 14(3), 239–242.
Whitaker, R.J. (1983). Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 352–357.
Whiteside, D.T. (1967–1981). The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Whitrow, G.J. (1950). On the foundations of dynamics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 92–107.
Wolff, M. (1987). Philoponus and the rise of preclassical dynamics. In R. Sorabji (ed.) Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelianism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. (pp. 84–120).
Wörmer, C.H. (2007). Galileo’s method proves useful in today’s classroom. Physics Education, 47(5), 437–438.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gauld, C. (2014). Using History to Teach Mechanics. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7653-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7654-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)