.

Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 10, Issue 1
FOREWORD

History, philosophy, and science teaching: The new engagement

Michael R. MATTHEWS

Editor, 'Science & Education' journal
Past-President, International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Group
School of Education, University of New South Wales, AUSTRALIA

Email: m.matthews@unsw.edu.au

Contents

 Introduction

In 1986 a paper was published titled 'Science Education and Philosophy of Science: Twenty-five Years of Mutually Exclusive Development' (Duschl 1986). This was an account of the largely separate development of science education from the disciplines of history and philosophy of science. In the twenty years since the publication of Duschl’s paper there has been a significant new engagement between these fields. Both the theory, and importantly the curriculum and practice of science education, is becoming more informed by the history and philosophy of science (HPS).

This engagement of HPS and science teaching is repeating the calls of early European Enlightenment figures such as Isaac Newton, John Locke and Joseph Priestley. The 18th century Enlightenment philosophers and educators (often they were the same figures) believed that a widespread understanding and appreciation of science would not only promote science, it would have positive flow-on effects for society and culture; if people thought and reasoned scientifically about politics, religion, ethics, law, history, social and cultural practices then much of the discord, persecution, wars and upheaval in society would be minimized. This was the Enlightenment hope: The spread of scientific thinking, or ‘scientific habits of mind’ as the AAAS has labeled it (AAAS 1989, chap.12), or ‘scientific temper’ as Nehru wrote into the Indian Constitution, would not only lead to knowledge of nature, but would improve social and cultural life.

At the beginning of the 21 st century, as in the 18 th century, there are contemporary crises and discord in world affairs – as evidenced in the Middle-East wars; the economic crises; the clashes within Christianity and Islam between modernizers and fundamentalists; the clashes between religions in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Ireland; the political struggles about democracy and human rights in countries such as China, Zimbabwe and Egypt; struggles over women’s rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and until recently European countries such as Spain and Ireland ; and intense struggles over free-speech in countries such as China and Russia. Aspects of all these clashes were to be found in 18 th century Europe, and the Enlightenment philosophers, inspired by the achievements of the 17 th century Scientific Revolution, thought that the new scientific method and outlook could be applied outside the laboratory to make headway in identifying and resolving the problems. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers strove for an open, critical, democratic society as they thought this was the only social arrangement in which science and the search for truth was possible. Of special concern was the application of the scientific method to the interpretation of Scripture and to the study of Church and religious history – on this latter point religious fundamentalists and progressives are still divided.

Accompanying these current social crises there is a well documented contemporary crisis in science education. The 18 th century did not have a science education crisis because, basically, there was no science education. Arguably, the first ever school science class was taught by Joseph Priestley at Nantwich, England, in 1758 (Schofield 1997, p.78). The education crisis is evidenced in the flight from the science classroom of both teachers and students, and in the appallingly high figures for science illiteracy.

The inclusion of HPS in science programmes does not, of course, guarantee solutions to these social and educational crises, but it can go some way toward their resolution. Thinking clearly and logically, seeking evidence for and against opinions, weighing alternative interpretations, trying to control variables in limited experiments, seeing examples of how great steps forward in knowledge of the world were made, and so on, may not solve current social and educational problems, but such scientific approaches can at least illuminate the problems and give students some experience in appraising beliefs and opinions, and give them some enthusiasm for the scientific tradition.

The inclusion of HPS dimensions in curricula and classrooms it can humanise the sciences and make them more connected with personal, ethical, cultural, and political concerns; it can make classrooms more challenging and thoughtful and thus enhance critical thinking skills; it can contribute to the fuller understanding of scientific subject matter - it can contribute a little to overcoming the `sea of meaninglessness' which one commentator said has engulfed science classrooms, where formula and equations are recited but few people know what they mean; it can improve teacher training by assisting the development of a richer and more authentic epistemology of science, that is a greater understanding of the structure of science and its place in the intellectual scheme of things. This last matter is the beginning of the sort of discipline understanding that Lee Schulman (1987) and before him Israel Scheffler (1970) have been urging teacher education programmes to promote.

 

Copyright (C) 2009 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 10, Issue 1, Foreword (Jun., 2009). All Rights Reserved.