Teaching Science from a Historical Perspective

http://kvo27.com/

Teaching Science From A Historical Perspective:

Methodology and Justification

Faculty Mentor: Tim Bennett                 _________________________________________

Faculty Mentor: Sister Alice Wittenbach _____________________________________

Master Teaching Project

Submitted to the School of Education at Aquinas College

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master in Science Education

August 1, 2003

Table of Contents

Chapter 1         Purpose of Study……………………………………  Page 3

Chapter 2         Literature……...…………………………….………    Page 6

Chapter 3         Methodology………………………………………..    Page 15

                            Teaching Nature and Process of Science

                            Teaching the Humanistic Side of Science

                            Student-led Instruction

Chapter 4        Implementation……………………………………..  Page 23

                           Content

                           Research

                           Reading Packets

                           Activities and Assignments

                           Assessments

                           Example: Teaching Forces and Motion

Chapter 5       Analysis of Data……………………………………………       Page 33

Chapter 6       Summary………………………………………………………      Page 36

Bibliography………………………………………………………….………….       Page 38

Appendix A      Example of a reading packet……………………………..      Page 43

Appendix B      MEAP test results using historical perspective……….   Page 53

Appendix C      MEAP test results using traditional method………….      Page 60

Appendix D      Summary of MEAP test results…………………………….     Page 67

Chapter 1: Study Purpose

Science curricula across the United States have gone through a wide variety of modifications during the past 50 years. These changes have been brought on for many reasons. In the past 12 years, Kentwood Public School District has changed its curriculum to match up with state standards, to address student needs, and to help prepare students for standardized tests.

Preparing students for standardized tests, in this case…the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) test was the reason for the latest curriculum switch five years ago. Prior to this change, 6^th graders were taught a General Science curriculum with an emphasis on Earth Science. Seventh graders were taught a Life Science curriculum, while 8^th graders were taught a Physical Science and Chemistry curriculum. Students would take the MEAP test in the early part of their 8^th grade year. To the surprise of very few, students did extremely well on the Life Science component, poorly on the Earth Science component and had almost no success on the Physical Science and Chemistry parts of the test. These results should have been forecast, as students would best remember what they had most recently studied. In the case of Physical Science and Chemistry, students had not even been taught much of this material. Kentwood Public School District then modified its curriculum so each grade was taught more of a General Science format. This would allow students to have a better-rounded education prior to taking the MEAP and should improve student results on this test. In 7^th Grade, the curriculum changed from a Life Science format to a curriculum where content included Ecosystems and Food Webs, Forces and Motion, Geology and Mapping, Plants and Flower Parts, Pollution, Sound and Light Waves and Astronomy.   

            It took only one year to realize that this method was not going to work. While a slight increase was seen in MEAP scores, students really struggled in the everyday classroom setting. It was discovered that the students had a very difficult time relating the material they had just finished learning (e.g. Ecosystems) to what they were currently learning (Forces and Motion). Teachers had just as difficult a time jumping from topic to topic during instruction. Personal experiences ranged from teaching science in a segmented manner to instruction that started and stopped over and over throughout the year.

            It was also obvious that students were struggling with the processes of science. This was largely due to the fact that there was a failure to teach that science is constantly changing. Instead, the process of teaching has shown that science is "taught from the end". Carl Sagan wrote,

“…the history of science—by far the most successful claim we have to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes…, but with the understanding that absolute certainty will always elude us” (Sagan, 1996).

In current science classes, however, the here and now is taught, rather than how scientists got to this point or where they may go in the future. It was observed that students had very little understanding of the struggles and perseverance that were necessary to bring the scientific ideas of the past to fruition. Most educators have often heard questions from the students such as, “How does this happen?” or “Why does this happen?” Yet, teachers often fail to take the time to explore these “forks in the road”. It was these difficulties that led to the decision that it was time to modify the way that this curriculum was presented.

Through research and insights received from graduate classes, it was decided that it would be valuable to create a method of instruction where a historical timeline would be used as the basis for organizing instructional methods while concentrating on the standards that were supposed to be taught according to Kentwood Public School District's guidelines. While the idea of adding historical context to a scientific curriculum was not a new one, since references go back to the 1960s’, the idea of using history as the foundation and organization for instruction with the incorporation of scientific achievements during those time periods was a method that did not appear to have been attempted. Using traditional methods, a concept of science, such as electricity, would be taught and then the historical context of Michael Faraday and Thomas Edison could be added. In comparison, instruction using the historical perspective would center on the science during the Newtonian Era and teach about Newton's Laws of Motion, Cassini's astronomical discoveries, and Anton van Leeuwenhoek's use of the microscope. It was believed that this would be trying something completely different. Two questions need to be answered. First, "How to create and implement a program of Teaching Science From a Historical Perspective?; Also, Would Teaching Science From a Historical Perspective improve student achievement and positive attitudes toward science?”

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

            As stated earlier, the idea of incorporating history into a science curriculum is not entirely new. In fact, it could be said that every society has struggled with the problem of "How do we prepare our students for the next generation?"    The idea of using history to help with this preparation was, and still is, a well-respected one. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1993 and the National Research Council (NRC) in 1996 both proposed the inclusion of the history of science as an important curriculum element. In truth, the inclusion of historical concepts has been a part of most proposals for science education reform for the past 50 years (Yager, 2000).

Educational Reform

In the 1960s’, America reacted to the launching of Sputnik by prescribing science curriculum reform. It was felt that there was an immediate need to inform and teach the public what scientists knew and practice the skills that those scientists were using. The hope was to allow American students to “catch up” with the Soviet Union and their technological advances. This caused a need to link a technology component to science. Science educators also turned to teaching science through inquiry. Sadly, even though educators were using "open-ended laboratories", they were still teaching with direct instruction that was prescribed by textbooks. Students were still performing what is often referred to as "recipe science", in which they were instructed to follow a series of prescribed steps to get the desired end result. Duschl (1990) called this type of traditional science instruction “final form science”. However, the idea of including historical components in science was gaining steam. In 1962, the Harvard Project Physics (HPP) was created. This program was designed as a way to teach high school physics through history, and the program gained nation-wide acceptance. HPP stressed learning that was cultural and humanistic for each of its students (Wang and Marsh, 1998). An evaluation of HPP showed positive gains in student attitude towards science and the student understanding of the nature of science (Welch, 1973).

In the 1970s’ and 80s’ there was a push to get away from technology and get back to basics. The main impetus for this was the poor performances of some students on standardized tests when compared with students from other countries. The designs for science education were to return to traditional science education, which centered on content rather than the humanistic side. There was even talk of creating a "teacher-proof" curriculum. Then, in the early 1980’s science education followed a decree by Project Synthesis in 1978. This project proposed 4 major goals for science education:

1.      Personal Needs. Prepare individuals to utilize science to improve their own lives and for coping with an increasingly technological world.

2.      Societal Issues. Produce informed citizens prepared to deal responsibly with the science-related societal issues.

3.      Career Awareness. Give all students awareness of the nature and scope of a wide variety of science and technology related careers.

4.      Academic Preparation. Allow students who are likely to pursue science academically as well as professionally to acquire the academic knowledge appropriate to their needs (Yager, 2000).

Recently, there have been additional calls for science education reform (AAAS, 1989, Council of Ministers of Education, 1997, Curriculum Corporation, 1994, NRC, 1996) to emphasize the need for science to be accessible for all students and for all students to be able to achieve a high level of scientific literacy (Goodnough, 2001). These reforms have stressed the inclusion of the nature of science and its interaction with society. One suggestion of how to do this is with the inclusion of the historical perspective in science education as well as other varied approaches. Wang and Marsh reviewed the curriculum ideologies in three educational standards documents, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAS, 1993), National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and Performance Standards (New Standrards, 1997) and found that the humanistic approach in the science curriculum had been revived again (Wang and Marsh, 1998). A program entitled MindWorks, which was supported by the National Science Foundation, attempted to try to use the historical method in teaching high school physics. MindWorks was found to be a “promising physical science curriculum module that can effectively help students achieve scientific literacy through learning the science history” (Becker, 1999). Other reasons for the inclusion of the history of science range from providing a meaningful context for scientific information, to understanding the processes of science, to gaining an appreciation of one's own cultural heritage. Many would consider these to be a "humanization of science". Sadly, with all these calls for reform, educators still walk into various science classrooms and find outdated teaching strategies and assessments (Sunal, 2001). A science classroom should simulate what happens in the scientific community. Inquiry, questioning and uncovering the mysteries of the natural world should be at the forefront. Often, science classrooms are the opposite (MacKenzie, 2001).

Today, the teaching of science needs to be directed more towards shared problem solving. Students need to question, investigate, and, most importantly, discuss natural phenomena. The traditional content-driven curriculum should be a thing of the past, because it was not producing thinkers and learners, but rather those that can repeat what they have been taught. Weld tells us:

The instructional shift in science teaching has been a natural extension of our focus on a process-centered curriculum, and that is to become facilitators of ideas to which students have ownership (Weld, 1997).

It is proposed that the teaching science from a historical perspective gives students that ownership. This method centers itself on the idea of process and nature of science and how we know what we know. It also allows them to generate their own "need to know" (Goodnough, 2001).

The Human Side of Science

            Teaching science from a historical perspective has gained merit for its inclusion into the contemporary curriculum by exposing the human side of science. “Some scientific episodes are considered milestones of human civilization that can add to the appreciation of one’s own cultural heritage” (Wang and Marsh 1998). Students will make connections to the wide variety of backgrounds of many scientists because they are arriving in the typical classroom with those same backgrounds. Scientists who are from all cultural, socio-economic, and gender backgrounds have shaped our world. Many lived enriched lives while many were motivated by the life they wished to leave. Those same backgrounds are present in the student population in the modern classroom.

Using the historical perspective method, teachers can stress that science not only involves concepts, but also concerns man and the events of his era (Hurd, 2000). ; Many educators would argue that true science is believed to have started with the Greeks. The Greeks were one of the first navigating people and this allowed for trade to begin. Trading allowed for the exchange of more than just materials; it also involved the exchange of ideas and information. This is also at the root of science. Science has continued to pursue that desire for information and the value of passing new information along. With every new discovery that was made, a new question was in turn asked. Man was able to address various concerns or problems that his society was facing by receiving the materials and information he needed from another culture. This point is obvious in the variety of uses for spices and peppers that were discovered by various cultures.

            By teaching science from a historical perspective, the lives and times of individual scientists have been explored. Scientists are no longer being viewed as “lab rats” that stare down a microscope for days on end (Settlage, 1997). For example, many students are intrigued by the fact that Charles Darwin was a seminary student before choosing to go on the Beagle to the Galapagos Islands. Too often, Darwin is associated with being an atheist. While it is true that Darwin rejected religion later in his life, especially after the death of his daughter, he never made any attempt to show or use evolution as a bludgeon against religion (Gould, 1999). ; When examining the life of Einstein, it is relatively easy to make the connection between a young boy, who grew up Jewish in Germany during the time prior to World War II, to the man that he would later become. Einstein understood that force may be necessary to elicit change, but only after every other avenue was explored. This was why he was involved in the idea of the nuclear bomb, but felt that one should never be made, nor used. Students will see that it is the lives of the scientists that made them the people they were to become.

            Students will also see that science is often a collaborative event. Today, one scientist rarely does science by him or herself. Instead, a group or corporation often does science over a period of many years (Hurd, 2000). It must be pointed out this was also the case in the past. Johannes Kepler would not have been able to make his discoveries without the help or observations of Tycho Brahe (Ferguson, 2002). Again, the investigations of Rosalind Franklin’s evaluation of x-rays of the DNA molecule allowed Watson and Crick to make their model of DNA. With so many people involved in a discovery, it then becomes easy to link that scientific discovery to its societal impact. It can be shown how many scientists of the past struggled with their ideas and findings, or them going against the entrenched views of society. Teaching can also explore, the moral and ethical issues tied to scientific pursuits. (Norris, 2001) Such considerations have become a “hot topic”, especially when such issues as cloning or stem cell research are discussed.

Student-Driven Learning

            By teaching the human side of science, numerous connections will have been provided for students to personalize their learning. Most educators have agreed that if a student is allowed to personalize his/her learning, this learning is retained. In the book Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote, “When you make a finding yourself—even if you are the last person on Earth to see the light—you will remember it” (Sagan, 1996). It is fair to argue that this learning would in turn add a wonder and curiosity about science. What is it that has caused science to be interesting? Many people became interested when they first saw a bug, or when they looked up at the stars, or when they wondered how birds could fly and why they couldn’t. Students all have that natural curiosity within them. Sadly, this curiosity gets lost as students progress through school. It could be argued that this is due to the piling on of content. Science no longer is fun, but instead has become a myriad of facts and figures to be learned. Teaching science from a historical perspective fosters the type of learning where curiosity is rewarded. The beliefs, attitudes, morals, values, and personal experiences of the students can be explored and expressed as various standards are discussed in their historical context (Weld, 1997). For example, consider the debate of whether the Earth orbits the Sun, or whether the opposite is true. Simple observation suggests that the Sun orbits the Earth and that, in fact, the Sun must go around the Earth. Yet, most believe the Earth to orbit the Sun. Why?; Can students explain why it is known that the Earth goes around the Sun? They could if they were to be taught science from a historical perspective and to explore the discoveries of Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. They would gain an understanding of how it is now known that the Earth orbits the Sun. Instead of exploring this, many educators simply teach that the Earth goes around the Sun; every one knows that this is true, and the teaching is finished. By learning the scientific history behind this discovery, students are able to strengthen their beliefs and solidify their learning as well. Students are allowed to construct meaning around what they have learned and this allows for conceptual changes in their thinking. By allowing for learning to be personalized, teachers can account for the students’ learning needs including their own learning style, language and culture (Rutherford, 2001).

            A student that can make the personal connections will have a positive attitude toward science. Teaching science from a historical perspective has fostered this type of attitude (Tillotson, 2000). Using this method, students have been shown the motivation behind the great scientists and their discoveries. Galileo was first intrigued with science by watching hanging lanterns swing in a church. A toy he was given as a child compelled Albert Einstein to see how it functioned. This would later be followed by a job in a patent office where new inventions were crossing his desk everyday. Stephen Hawking decided he had better do something with his life when he was told he had ALS at the age of 21. It would be a mistake to think that these events were not connected and played an impact on the path that these scientists would follow.

Higher Levels of Thinking

            Traditional science classrooms that center on science “facts” rarely have supplied the opportunity for students to integrate and synthesize their own learning. Educators have created reproductive thinkers instead of productive ones (Michalko, 1998). Students can regurgitate the “facts” that teachers have told them, but the students lack the ability to synthesize new material and knowledge from those “facts”. Teaching science from a historical perspective, on the other hand, has allowed students to create their own understanding. Instead of regurgitating the information that has been force fed them throughout the year, students have been able to make their own connections to the real world. In order to make these connections, they needed to interpret, justify and apply the scientific content they have learned (Goodnough, 2001).

            One might think this would lead to a mass of misconceptions about the scientific world. To steal a line from the movie Dead Poets’ Society, “(We)…don’t really want to create a student body of free-thinkers, do we?” This is exactly what educators should wish to create. By showing students the common misconceptions that have been made by some of the smartest people in the world as well as the development of those concepts, teachers have provided students with their own methods for recognizing their own misconceptions (Norris, 2001). Even more importantly, using the historical perspective, educators have been able to provide them with a framework for correcting those misconceptions. An example is the idea of a flat earth, which is a concept, based on bad science and a lack of understanding of how scientists know the world is round. The concept of the world being round was formulated during the era of the ancient Greeks and has gone through the scientific process since that time. The use of the misconception that gravity pulls objects down can show that people living in the southern hemisphere or living on the side of sphere would be pulled off the earth. Teaching proper science that gravity pulls objects towards the center of whatever is providing the gravity will dispel this misconception. Also, by teaching the process of science through the historical perspective, students will be able to make the connections to the orbits of planets as well as how gravity works on other planets. This will allow students to be creative instead of just gaining knowledge or intelligence. When used in the laboratory setting, historical experiments enable experiences that are not only intellectual, but sensual in nature as well (Hottecke, 2000).

It is believed that teachers must research their teaching methods and improve the teaching of the processes of science rather than continue to stress concepts. Educators should attempt to produce students who can think, solve problems and make decisions based on evidence and reasoning. Teaching science from a historical perspective allows educators to produce those types of students (Yager, 2000).

Chapter 3: Methodology

            The review of literature on science education shows that science education seems to be lacking in three main areas. First, students are not instructed in the process or nature of science. ;Second, students are not taught the humanistic side of science. Finally, teachers do not let students’ needs and curiosities drive their instruction, but instead they push on, driving through the content as required by school districts.

            Personal experience, on the other hand, suggests that the teaching of science from a historical perspective addresses the previously mentioned shortcomings, while allowing for all required content to be covered.

Teaching the Nature and Process of Science

Teaching science from a historical perspective allows the teacher to approach his or her current students at the level of understanding with which they arrive in the class and allows a teacher to reveal how current concepts have replaced previous ones. Students can jokingly be told at the beginning of the year that they all have the intelligence of a caveman, so that is where instruction will begin. The sequence of this instruction is explained in the following text.

Instruction is begun with “caveman science” which includes simple observation with some recording of data through cave paintings. “Cave painting maps” of the student’s school are created so they can show classmates how to get from room to room. Symbols can be used in place of words to simulate the knowledge of the cavemen. This type of learning is fun for the students and most educators would argue that the closer learning is to play, the more likely the students are to retain the learning. Following this, early civilizations and scientist gave the world simple measurement systems, agriculture and writing systems. During this unit, simple scales can be built and used for measurement. Students then engage in trade with one another, where the accuracy of their scales comes into play. Teachers could also explore the faults in measurement systems such as those based on body parts. Students could be asked if they would rather buy a foot of licorice from Shaquille O’Neal or one of their classmates. The next unit would involve the Greeks and how they tried to arrive at explanations for their observations of the natural world. One activity that could be used to encompass this idea is “Explanatory Stories”. Students would be given pictures of an unknown object or situation. Often these pictures are close-ups or only part of an object. Students would then write a story explaining what they are seeing in the picture. This activity can be used as a guide towards the differences between observations and inferences and a stepping-stone towards the formulation of hypotheses. This would continue throughout the year, allowing the students to build on knowledge they possess.

Presenting the information at the student’s level enables them to make the connections to learning. Teachers can see the proverbial light bulbs go on above their heads, because the students are building upon a foundation that they have already established. What students have now constructed is authentic learning. For true learning to take place, it must take place in the appropriate context, which has now been provided. The students have experienced the trial and error of learning. Finally, by approaching learning at their level, they believe that they can learn the material and content.

Students will also see how two concepts conflict with one another, yet both can be viewed as accurate when viewed within their time frame. For example, Aristotle believed that there were four realms of matter. Earth was at the center, water was outside Earth, air was outside water and fire was outside air. He believed that motion occurred due to objects “wanting” to return to their realm. If a solid object were raised into the air realm, it would fall back to the earth realm when released. This viewed remained “true” for almost 2000 years. ; If a high school physics student were asked to prove this wrong with natural examples, not derived experiments, he/she would have a difficult time.

It can be argued that the students have often remembered the “fact”, but have little understanding of the reasoning behind the “fact”. They have missed out on the idea of scientific discovery that drives many scientists to be scientists. So, by teaching the means to the end, educators can show how this is more important than reaching the end. For example, Newton realized that his discoveries were only possible because of the discoveries of the scientists that came before him. He has said, “If I have seen further, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants” (Simon, 2001). Showing students the struggle that scientists have gone through to make their discoveries will make them feel more comfortable with their own struggles. Einstein once said, “Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you that mine are still greater” (Calaprice, 2000). Discovering that scientists were frustrated, but kept plugging along will aid the students in their frustrations with learning.

Teaching science from a historical perspective has also allowed students to see the magnificence of the process of a particular discovery and the wonder of what it may become. Michael Faraday constructed an experiment where he wrapped copper wire around a compass and then extended that wire over a distance. He then took a magnet and moved it across the far ends of the wire away from the compass. This movement caused the needle of the compass to move back and forth. When asked of the experiment’s importance, Faraday replied, “You might as well ask the importance of a newborn child” (Simon, 2001). Faraday had little idea of the importance of his experiment that would later become the basis for electrical currents. However, he did know that he had done something that could later lead to future discoveries and that was enough for him. History is full of such ground breaking developments: Leonardo da Vinci’s attempts to fly, Galileo’s experiments with telescopes or falling bodies, and Thomas Edison’s multiple attempts at creating an incandescent light bulb are good examples. It is these processes that need to be the driving forces behind curriculums.

Teaching the Humanistic Side of Science

Teaching science from a historical perspective allows science to be viewed as a human endeavor, with communication, cooperation and input from a wide range of backgrounds. Students will see the collaborative side of science. They will witness the impact that a scientist’s upbringing and personal life had on his or her professional life.

Too often, scientists have been viewed as being “white, wealthy, European, and male”. This is far from the case and is easily explored using this method. Female scientists played a major part in countless discoveries though the eras. It was mentioned earlier that Rosalind Franklin was largely responsible for the foundation of experiments that led to the discovery of DNA. Yet, she is rarely mentioned in the same context as James Watson and Francis Crick, who are given credit for this discovery. Lewis Latimer, an African-American scientist, has rarely been mentioned in the materials relating to the invention of the light bulb. Many would argue that his work with Edison was essential to Edison’s final product. Latimer was also responsible for the drawings and patent work that went into Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone. By teaching about scientists from various backgrounds, more of your students are kept interested on a daily basis. The students will make their own connections with scientists of their gender, race, or socio-economic background. This changes multicultural education from just the month of February, which is when multi-cultural learning is stressed, to a weekly event. It also shows that everyone can be involved in scientific discoveries if they are only willing to try.

When using the historical perspective, it is important that educators be prepared to ask and field difficult questions, which often center on belief systems. As they go through the various eras, educators will find that religion and science often had very different views of what was "true". Teachers would have to decide on how much they wish to explore these “forks in the road”. These topics will range from the Earth revolving around the Sun to the ideas of Evolution. For example, the ideas and beliefs of Aristotle lasted for so long for three main reasons. First, for a time of 1000 years after Aristotle, science was placed into the background due to the Church telling the people that sacred knowledge was more important than secular knowledge. Second, the views of Aristotle were then incorporated into the doctrine of the Church. Finally, Aristotle’s views were tough to disprove without the benefit of experimentation. So, while religion played a part in Aristotle’s views continuing, the absence of science played a part as well. However, the struggles that scientists faced play a very important part of teaching science from a historical perspective. When dealing with conflicting beliefs, it is important to make sure that no view is hindered. Students should be told that, “no matter what your beliefs are, you are to take in the information that is presented here and use it to strengthen, change or discard your own beliefs.”; It should also be mentioned that disagreeing with others is okay, but not acceptable say someone else’s views are “stupid” or “wrong” just because others’ views differ. When this is done properly, discussions in class become very lively. It is this communication that allows students to form their own beliefs about the world around them. When presented with new information, the learners are called to challenge their own beliefs, and the beliefs of others. These challenges then become the necessary first step in modifying their own interpretations of their world. This enables teachers to prepare all students to grapple successfully with science in their own world as well as participate knowledgably with the science-related decisions our country will have to make in the future. Not all science students are going to lead “science-driven” lives, but by teaching science from a historical perspective, teachers can provide one perspective on science that may help them deal with socially related issues and become scientifically literate.

Finally, the lives of scientists can be related to the students in the classroom. One central theme that runs through the great scientists is the “time to sit around and think” connection. For example, Aristotle was an orphan, spoke with a lisp, and lived in the school he attended. Knowing how teenagers are today, it is easy to say that Aristotle may not have had too many friends. ;This would give Aristotle “time to sit around and think”. Galileo was often shunned by some of his contemporaries and was placed under house arrest for the last 9 years of his life. This gave Galileo “time to sit around and think”. The Great Plague, which closed down Cambridge for two years, affected Isaac Newton, during which he retired to his parents’ (or his uncle’s, depending on the account) farm. It was during this time he came up with the Laws of Motion and Gravitation. He had “time to sit around and think”. Einstein worked in a patent office in Berlin with nothing much to do. Currently, Stephen Hawking has ALS and is confined to a wheelchair. They both had or have “time to sit around and think”. It was the scientist’s own individual backgrounds that shaped the lives they would eventually lead. Based on their life experiences, students can be asked to think about their lives with question such as “How much time do you sit around and think?” Are your lives consumed with video games, television, or other activities that make “thinking time” scarce?; Teachers will find that their students will actually “sit around and think” about that question for a while.

Student-led Instruction

Students will naturally be curious about topics discussed. Too often, educators have tended to stress just the concepts or standards that need to be taught, and have discouraged the exploration of the tangents because they lacked the class time. However, students will take more of an interest in classroom teaching if they are allowed to explore these tangents. An example from is the discussion that could arise between the two schools of thought prominent during the Industrial Revolution: Empiricism, knowledge through experience was espoused, and Rationalism, knowledge through reasoning was argued. The debate would center on which was more important, did different schools of thought play a more important role depending on the situation, and which school of thought was most often followed? The students would have so much interest in exploring these two ideas that it could take a majority of the hour. Most students would immediately choose Empiricism as the best way to learn. This would have been expected in a classroom of 7^th graders who feel that they have to experience everything. To dispel this idea, students could be asked if they would be willing to stick a pair of scissors in an electrical socket, or drop a sledgehammer on their foot. They most likely would express that doing these activities was not necessary because they knew that they would be hurt. Students would then reminded that this was using reasoning to come to a conclusion. Many of them could be expected to quickly change to Rationalism as the best way to learn. So, it could then be suggested that they all just follow what their parents tell them. Parents have been around longer, experienced more and their reasoning would be sound. The looks on their faces should clearly show that they were perplexed. It is important to note that the role of the teacher in these discussions should often be “Devil’s Advocate”. Use of class time for the debate and discussion may easily cause the class time assignment to become homework, but students would often not care, because they had enjoyed what they learned in class that day and were looking forward to exploring more at home. In turn, the teacher will now know that this discussion is likely to be a lively one and can incorporate this discussion into lesson plans and modify them accordingly. As mentioned earlier, the inclusion of student-driven topics gives those students ownership of their learning and make the learning more meaningful. After the discussion on Empiricism and Rationalism, the students would feel like they had a complete understanding of these concepts and the learning was meaningful to them, because the students had directed the learning.

Chapter 4: Implementation of teaching science from a historical perspective

Content

            When preparing to teach with this or any other method, the content that is to be covered cannot be ignored. So, the district or state standards need to be known. What are the content areas that need to be covered?    Research will be done next, so it is important to know what areas to concentrate the research in. If educators enjoy the research process at all, they will find so much information that it will become difficult to focus on the standards. However, by focusing on particular standards, teachers will find that they have plenty of time to go into detail for each of the standards, plus allow for time to explore the tangents that are provided by students. If possible, try to include some possible tangents in the reading packet under the category of “Fun Facts”. For Kentwood’s 7^th grade science curriculum, there are twenty-two standards that are to be taught. With thirty-six weeks of time to teach them, each of them could be explored for the equivalent of more than a week. This gives ample time to go into detail. Since each of the standards are being covered multiple times though out the school year, this attention to detail happens naturally.

Research

Using the standards as an outline to follow, the next step is to move onto research. It is highly suggested that a teacher use a text entitled, Timetables of Science by Alexander Hellemans. This text can be used as a framework for a yearly plan. The text is divided into nine eras, which allows for about four weeks on each unit. While performing research, teachers are advised not to get discouraged by conflicting facts. Teachers will often find multiple birth dates and death dates for scientists. Teachers will also find information about discoveries that conflict with what they may have been previously taught during their school days. Fortunately, dispelling myths is a strength of teaching science from a historical perspective (Hurd, 2000). ; As a teacher, these inaccuracies can be turned into teachable moments. When conflicting dates are to be covered, teachers can emphasize the importance of correctly recording data during an experiment. When a "myth" that many students were taught and no longer is true is discussed the teacher could emphasize how science is a constantly changing adventure. Mistakenly, educators often teach science as "cold, hard facts" that are unchanging. This has never been the case with science, and most likely never will be. Teachers often try to teach “science from the end”. Educators teach that what is known today is what we should be teaching students. However, science has rarely been at an end. Instead, science should be viewed as a means to the end, for science is constantly changing. A majority of the scientific information presented at the Scopes Trial on Evolution is no longer considered to be accurate. At the time this information was presented, it was believed to be true, based on the knowledge, discovery techniques, and interpretation of the data. This information could be related to today’s crime scene investigations. Now, DNA testing is used to help us in determining who committed a crime. Prior to this, law enforcement relied on fingerprints and witness testimony. This is not to say that fingerprints or witnesses are inaccurate. It simply states that law enforcement now has new techniques, which are more accurate, or at least what are believed to be more accurate. It is important to teach that the unexplainable does not mean inexplicable. Three hundred years ago, scientists could not explain lightning, or gravity, or even flight. Now these concepts can readily be explained.

Reading packets

Since there is not a textbook that can be used to present this method, educators will have to create it themselves (Appendix A). However, the reading packets will be tailored to the standards that are taught and the information that the educator wants to be presented. Think about how many times a teacher has said, “They never make a textbook that covers all the material I need to cover.”; Now is the chance for individual teachers to create one. These packets should be on individual time periods and the science of that era. It should also be suggested dividing the packet into the various standards or types of science. The packets should begin with a general overview of the era. This is followed by a short biography of the most influential scientist of a particular era. Then, the various topics such as Geology, Astronomy, Forces and Motion, and Life Science are covered chronologically within the sections. Each section should then be followed by a series of questions. It is suggested that the teachers try to ask various types of questions. Some should be able to be answered just from reading the text; they should have to research some outside of the text and some should be centered on their thought process. These questions should be centered on the science of the time, not the history. For example, knowing that Hans Lippershey invented the telescope is a “fun fact”, but the process of how the telescope was made and how the telescope works should be stressed within the questions. This information can then largely be used as a background for the science investigations students have been performing in the classroom. The reading of the packet can often be assigned outside the classroom, which will allow more in-class time to perform experiments and activities or have classroom discussions. Physicist Paul Feynman once lifted up a high school physics textbook and claimed that there wasn’t any science in it, only information. This seems to be true in most cases. So why spend thousands of dollars on these texts, when teachers can make one for them and modify it every year. In addition, no mainline textbooks in middle school science were found to be satisfactory by the Association for the Advancement of Science in 1999. The examination of high school texts is currently underway, but the situation does not look any better at that level (Yager, 2000). By not having a particular “textbook”, teachers can spend a majority of their class time actually “doing” science.

Activities and Assignments

Research shows that science is to be performed and not read, so teachers should be sure that the class is structured to do this. Teachers are going to have to spend some time helping students acquire background information (lecturing and discussion), but also the need to create, design, and find assignments that fit the knowledge of the various eras. Using the historical perspective, students would get to see and perform the actual experiments as the scientists themselves did them. Using this method, students acquire their own knowledge, instead of the knowledge being given to them. During the school year, students can roll balls down an inclined plane as Galileo did. The fact that Galileo did this to “slow down” falling motion and that he timed the fall by singing a song with a known cadence can also be discussed. This type of experiment can then repeated with toy cars. By using this method, teachers will have solved the “age old problem” of students making the links between lecture and lab (Duschl, 2000). Students would read about Galileo and his experiments, participate in classroom discussions and then actually perform experiments similar to the investigations Galileo conducted. The students can also perform the same calculations that Johannes Kepler did when he was calculating the relationship between a planet’s distance from the Sun and its orbital period around the Sun. Depending on the age, students could be allowed to use calculators to arrive at their answers, but the teacher should emphasize how Kepler did these calculations without a calculator. Again, this would allow students to see the struggles various scientists went through to make their discoveries. However, students should also be able to make the connection between what Kepler did and what scientists are attempting today. During Kepler’s time, scientists only knew about six planets. So, Kepler could only perform calculations for those six planets. Amazingly, his calculations work for the other three planets as well. The calculations also work for the moon, and the moons of the other planets. Today, when scientists look at other planets in other solar systems, they use Kepler’s calculations to discover the distance from their star and the orbital periods around it. All of this allows students to see that knowledge acquisition is a matter of means to an end, rather than the end goal itself.

Assessments   

When writing assessments for this method, it is important to structure assessments to test knowledge and skills contained in the standards. If teachers are going to use a written test, they should not write a history test full of names and dates. As alternatives to a written test, teachers could use laboratory settings, projects and written explanations for assessments using this method. It is relatively easy to create a lab that ties into the knowledge of the times. The same applies for written essays. These essays can later be used in classroom debates. For example, students can write essays on the orbits of celestial bodies. One group can argue the side of Plato and Brahe by describing a geocentric solar system. Another group will have to argue the side of Galileo and Copernicus and describe a heliocentric solar system. Although the students may not agree with the side that they are arguing, they will gain an understanding of why this was believed to be correct. This will also deepen their thinking on why the other side is valid, and they will learn to be more accommodating of others views. ; The students will be assessed on the correctness and completeness of their information and how well they defended their point of view.

This enables the students to use not only the knowledge of the content, but also the skills located within the standards. Too often, teachers instruct their students at a higher thinking level, yet assess their learning at a knowledge level. Many assessments only consist of vocabulary terms, multiple-choice questions, and a few short answer questions. Sadly, some students are weak when it comes to these intelligences. Instead, the teaching of science from a historical perspective can allow the teacher to put the scientific method into direct use and approach the learning of students with other intelligences.

Teaching Forces and Motion Through the Historical Perspective

Below are listed the two standards that are part of Kentwood Public School

District’s curriculum for a 7^th grade classroom that deal with the content of forces and motion. Those two standards are:

7.2.11    TLW describe and compare motion in two dimensions.

7.2.12    TLW relate changes and speed or direction to unbalanced forces in two

If these standards were taught without using the historical perspective, they would be covered in a 2-3 week period and then most likely not be discussed for the remainder of the school year. The students would be expected to retain that information for the rest of the school year, during the summer and for part of their 8^th grade year prior to taking the MEAP test.

            By using the historical perspective, the first time these standards would be discussed is during the Greek Era. The teacher could explore the questions Aristotle probably asked as he observed nature. He would wonder why fire rose?, or rain fell, but formed puddles above the earth? The teacher would cover Aristotle’s Four Realms of Matter, as previously discussed in this paper. Aristotle’s idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones would be contemplated as well. Again, natural observation seems to support this view and teachers would be amazed how many of their students (and adults) still believe this to be true. As an activity, teachers could go outside and try to find natural examples where Aristotle’s ideas did not hold true. Students may suggest ideas such as a log floating on water. Again, the teacher should play “Devil’s Advocate” and suggest that the log will eventually sink.

            The second time the teacher would discuss these standards is during the Renaissance and the time of Galileo. The teacher could examine Simon Stevinus’ experiment of dropping two cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, an experiment that was later done by Galileo off his church’s balconies. These experiments were done to test Aristotle’s ideas about heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones. The teacher could also discuss how many scientists stayed with Aristotle’s explanation because “it had always been true” or “because the Church had said that it was so”. ; A simple demonstration such as taking two pieces of paper and crinkling one into a ball, then dropping them will quickly get the idea across that Aristotle was wrong, yet the debate continued. A “fork in the road” may occur, if the teacher discusses the idea of Aristotle believing the heavens as being perfect and unchanging, and then Galileo, Brahe and Kepler proving this false. However, this provides a link from forces and motion to astronomy.

            These standards may then be covered a third time when the Newtonian Era is taught. Sadly, the story of Newton getting hit in the head with an apple most likely never happened, but it is a fun story, nevertheless. However, the connection to apples falling toward Earth and the Earth “falling” toward the Sun is a legitimate one, a connection that wasn’t made until Newton came along. Again, there are many “forks” that can be explored and connections to other disciplines that students themselves will make.

Students will be learning Newton’s Three Laws of Motion as well as the Inverse-Square Law as well as the Law of Gravitation. A question would consider whether 7^th Graders are ready for this depth of information or even for Kepler’s calculations. With the foundation they should have already established, they are willing to try, and that is half the process of discovery. As soon as the initial connection is made, the learning takes place for them. Students can also calculate F=ma for force, mass and acceleration. After doing these calculations, students should be able to make the connection between shooting a cannonball and shooting a bullet and the forces needed to do each. Students could also participate in an activity called “Arrows of Forces”. During this assignment, students are to set up various apparatus, place various sized arrows on the apparatus in the direction of the force and label those arrows with the name of the force. For example, one of the apparatus could be a person riding a skateboard and propelling the skateboard with his foot. The student will then be expected to place arrows where forces are being applied and the direction they are being applied. By changing the size of the arrow, they can show that the size of the force is different. They would also label the arrows with such forces as momentum, friction, gravity and electromagnetism. This activity would help them understand the concept of Newton’s 2^nd Law of Motion.

            As a time frame, teachers would now probably be half way through the school year and have covered the standards for forces three times. The concepts of forces are still fresh in the students’ minds, as they have just covered them. More important is the fact that the students have seen the process of how scientists have arrived at this era’s knowledge of forces.

            Near the end of the year, teachers would be discussing the Great Space Race. Students could investigate the race to the moon by the Soviet Union and the United States. Students could also be making model rockets to launch. This would provide another opportunity to discuss forces, especially Newton’s 3^rd Law of Motion. The teacher could also use this as an opportunity to include the parents with a Parent/Student Rocket Night. Parents would be invited to arrive at school with their child to learn about rocketry, start building rockets and begin work on a poster. The teacher could prepare a PowerPoint Presentation reflecting back on rocketry since the time of the Chinese around the year 1000. While building their rockets, students would be contemplating the purpose of fins, how the engine works, and what forces the rocket needs to overcome in order to fly. The students would then make posters showing their understanding of the forces applied and those opposing during rocket flight.

            By the end of the year, the standards for forces would have been explored in depth at least four times. Countless references would have been made to forces throughout the year as various “forks in the road” from other content areas point back to the forces standards. Also, forces would still be discussed at the end of the year, so these concepts have remained fresh in their minds. Finally, students would understand the process of how scientists went from the knowledge of Aristotle to the knowledge they have today.

Chapter 5: MEAP test data

            A teacher in Kentwood Public Schools has implemented this method for the last four years. Like anything new, it took some time to be comfortable with this method of instruction and to make the program run smoothly. However, it soon was time to see if teaching science from a historical perspective improved the learning of students. While standardized tests may not be the best method for measuring a students learning, they are often a measuring stick on which our effectiveness as a teacher is measured.

            The following results have been recorded from the MEAP scores over the last two years. The sample groups were made of 382 eighth grade students from Pinewood Middle School in the Kentwood School District. Scores were compared between 192 students (Appendix B) that taught using the historical perspective in 7^th grade and 190 students (Appendix C) that were taught using a content-based instructional method in 7^th grade. The demographics of the two groups were very similar. Each section was comprised of 51% female students and 49% male students. Six percent of each group was made up of minorities. Each section also had 12 resource room students. The socio-economic backgrounds of each were also varied within the particular group.

            For reporting purposes, the raw scores of the MEAP test have not been included in the summary. The reasoning for this is that the raw scores over these two years were reported in two different fashions. The Level Score represents the students’ level of proficiency. Level 1 is considered Proficient, Level 2 is considered Not Yet Proficient, Level 3 is considered Novice, and Level 4 is Not Yet Novice. So, the students who did better on the test will have a Level Score closer to 1. The content categories for the MEAP test are Constructing New Science Knowledge, Reflecting on Science Knowledge, Life Science, Earth Science, and Physical Science. Each of these areas is to be covered to some extent in the 7^th grade curriculum. For this data, the higher the score, the better a student performed on this section.   

            The results of the MEAP test show the students that were taught using the historical perspective scored better on the MEAP test than those being taught using the content-based unit instruction. Students learning through the historical perspective had a Level Score of 1.90, while students that were not exposed to the historical perspective had a Level Score of 2.13. So, students learning through the historical perspective performed slightly better than those who were not. When comparing Level Scores, the average of the students learning through the historical perspective would be considered Proficient, while those learning through the traditional method would be considered Not Yet Proficient. It is important to note that students learning science through the historical perspective scored higher in every section of the test.

On a test that averaged 61.5 questions over two years, students learning through the historical perspective answered 4.322 more questions correctly than those not being taught with the historical perspective. This value was calculated by adding the differences in scores for each section when comparing the historical method to the traditional method. By answering 4.322 more questions correctly, students who were taught using the historical perspective scored 7.027 percent better on the MEAP test. This value was calculated by taking an average of the percent improvements for each section of the MEAP test. Overall, this percentage is viewed as being slightly significant. The summarized results for the test can be found in Appendix D. On the following page is a graph showing a summary of the MEAP test results over the last two years.

Chapter 6: Summary

            When teaching science from a historical perspective was implemented, it was hypothesized that students would perform better on the MEAP tests. Based on comparing the results from the MEAP test between those students that were taught using the historical perspective and those that were not, it can only be said that MEAP scores have improved and that students seem to perform better after learning science through this method. However, many other variables such as teacher personality, other instructional variables and the prior knowledge of students have not been controlled.   

            Informally, it can be said that students liked being taught using the historical perspective. Using a free-writing survey, students were asked at the end of the year if they liked being taught using this method and to explain the reasoning behind their response. Out of 111 students, 97 said they liked being taught with the historical perspective. The most common responses were that this way was easier to understand and remember (47 students); and that this method was more interesting than how they had previously been taught science (44 students). Just as important, students who learned science through the historical perspective also claimed they felt they had a better understanding of the process of science. Thirty-nine of the students wrote that they felt this method helped them learn the process of science. Of the 14 students that said they did not like using this method, seven said it was boring, five said that they didn’t like history and two wondered if this put them a year behind. Other informal conclusions include an improved attitude towards science, students seemed more involved in the daily activities, and their desire to listen and participate in class discussions has been greatly enhanced. It has truly been a pleasure to see the proverbial “light bulbs” above the students' heads turn on when they have understood and implemented the nature and process of science.

            After witnessing how effective this type of science instruction has been, this method has been presented at the Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA) convention for two of the past three years. The interest and enthusiasm shown by other teachers for using this method has been overwhelming.

Teaching science from a historical perspective is a fun and exciting way to get students involved and to aid in their learning of science. What has been promoted as being useful in theory has been translated into practice.          

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bandlow, Raymond J. (2001) The misdirection of middle school reform: is child-centered

approach incompatible with achievement in math and science.

The Clearing House, 75, 69-73.

Retrieved April 19, 2003 from the OCLC First Search database.

Becker, B.J. (1999). Mindworks: Making Scientific Concepts Come Alive.

            Science & Education, 9, 269-278.

Retrieved April 6, 2003, from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Calaprice, Alice. (2000). The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Dieker, Lisa A. Berg, Craig. (2002) Collaborative program development between

secondary science, mathematics, and special educators.

            Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 92-99.

Retrieved April 19, 2003 from the OCLC First Search database.

Duschl, Richard A. (2000) Using History of Science for Learning and Teaching Science.

            Science communication, education and the history of science.

            A conference presented at the Royal Society, July 12-13, 2000.

Ferguson, Kitty. (2002). Tycho & Kepler. New York, NY: Walker & Company.

Goodnough, Karen. (Apr. 2001) Multiple intelligences theory: a framework for personalizing science curricula.

School Science and Mathematics, 101, 180-93.

Retrieved April 6, 2003, from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Gould, Stephen Jay. (1999) Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.

New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Hellemans, Alexander & Bunch, Bryan (eds.) (1988). Timetables of Science. New York,

NY: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Hottecke, Dietmar. (2000). How and What Can We Learn from Replicating Historical

Experiments? A Case Study.

Science and Education, 9, 343-62.

Retrieved August 21, 2002 from the OCLC First Search database.

Hurd, Paul DeHart. (2000). Science Education for the 21^st century.

School Science and Mathematics, 100, 282-8.

Retrieved October 17, 2002, from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Jemison, Mae C. (2000) Science: the 3 C’s and the big D.

            Science Activities, 36, 3-5.

            Retrieved April 19, 2003 from the OCLC First Search database.

Laws, Priscilla W. Hastings, Nancy Baxter. (2002) Reforming Science and Mathematics

Teaching.

Change, 34, 28-35.

Retrieved April 19, 2003 from the OCLC First Search database.

MacKenzie, Ann Haley. (2001). The role of teacher stance when infusing inquiry

questioning into middle school science classrooms.

School Science and Mathematics, 101, 143-153.

Retrieved October 27, 2003 from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Matthews, Michael R. (2001). Learning about scientific methodology and the “big

picture” of science: the contribution of pendulum motion studies.

Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 2001, 204-13.

           Retrieved March 31, 2003 from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Michalko, Michael. (1998). Thinking like a genius: eight strategies used by the

supercreative, from Aristotle and Leonardo to Einstein and Edison.

The Futurist, 32, 21-25.

Retrieved October 27, 2003 from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Norris, Stephen P. Korpan, Connie A. (2001). Philosophy of Science?

Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 2001, 214-216.

Retrieved March 31, 2003 from the OCLC First Search Text database.

Pessoa de Carvalho, Anna Maria: Vannucchi, Andrea Infantosi. (2000). History,

Philosophy and Science Teaching: Some Answers to “How?”

Science and Education, 9, 427-48.

Retrieved August 21, 2002 from the OCLC First Search database.

Rutherford, F. James. (2001). Fostering the History of Science in American Science

Education.

Science and Education, 10, 569-80.

Retrieved August 21, 2002 from the OCLC First Search database.

Sagan, Carl. (1996) A Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New

York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Settlage, John, Sabik, Cindy Meyer. (1997). Harnessing the positive energy of conflict in

science teaching.

Theory into Practice, 36, 39-45.

Retrieved October 17, 2002, from the OCLC First Search database.

Simon, Herbert A. (2001). Creativity in the Arts and Sciences.

The Kenyon Review, 2, 203-20.

Retrieved October 27,2002, from the OCLC First Search Full Text      database.

Singleton, Laurel R. (1997) Out of the laboratory: teaching about the history and nature

of science and technology.

The Social Studies, 88, 127-133.

Retrieved October 17, 2002, from the OCLC First Search database.

Sunal, Dennis W. Hodges, Jeanelle. Sunal, Cynthia S. (2001). Teaching science in

higher education: faculty professional development and barriers to change.

School Science and Mathematics, 101, 246-57.

Retrieved April 6, 2003, from the OCLC First Search database.

Tillotson, John W. (2000) Studying the game: action research in science education.

The Clearing House, 74, 31-4.

Retrieved April 6, 2003, from the OCLC First Search Full Text database.

Varrella, Gary. (2000) Science teachers at the top of their game: what is teacher

expertise?

The Clearing House, 74, 43-45.

Retrieved April 19, 2003 from the OCLC First Search database.

Wang, Hsingchi A. Cox-Peterson, Anne M. A Comparison of Elementary, Secondary,

and Student Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices Related to History of Science

Instruction.

Science and Education, 11, 69-81.

Retrieved August 21, 2002 from the OCLC First Search database.

Wang, HsingChi A., Marsh, David D. (1998) Science Teachers' Perceptions and

Practices in Teaching the History of Science.

Warrick, Jill. (2000). Bringing Science History to Life.

Science Scope, 23, 23-25.

Retrieved August 21, 2002 from the OCLC First Search database.

Welch, W. (1973). Review of the Research and Evaluation Program of Harvard Project

Physics.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 365-378.

Retrieved August 16, 2002 from the OCLC First Search database.

Weld, Jeffrey D. (1997) Teaching and Learning in Science.

Educational Horizons, 76, 14-16.

Retrieved March 20, 2003, from the OCLC First Search database.

Yager, Robert E., (2000) The history and future of science education reform.

The Clearing House, 74, 51-54.

Retrieved March 18, 2003, from the OCLC First Search database.

Appendix D

Summary of MEAP results