JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 29, NO. 4, PP. 327-329 (1992)

Teaching About the History and Nature of Science and Technology: An Introduction

Rodger W. Bybee, James D. Ellis, and Michael R. Matthews, Editors

Teaching about the history and nature of science and technology has long been a goal of science education. For an equally long period, science educators have done little to educate students about science and technology. Comprehending the nature of science is equated with specific steps in the scientific method, and understanding the nature of technology is synonymous with the definition “technology is applied science .” History of science is merely the presentation of summaries of famous scientists, and there is little or no recognition of technology as a significant force shaping human society. We suggest that all of these examples are inappropriate and inadequate.

This period of reform is an opportunity to introduce students (and teachers) to the history and nature of science and technology. We see support for this change in demands for improved scientific and technological literacy. Unless these calls for reform are mere rhetoric, scientific and technological literacy must include an understanding and appreciation of science and technology in social and historical contexts.

This special issue of JRST focuses primarily on curriculum and instruction and is a complement to the November 1991 special issue of JRST on Students’ Models and Epistemologies. To establish the context for this special issue, we begin with Norman Lederman’s review of the research on students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Lederman reviews research from the past 40 years, contrasts the results from qualitative and quantitative research, makes recommendations about research methods, and suggests avenues for future research on teaching about the history and nature of science. Lederman concludes from his review that science educators have taken a balanced approach to the research, that they remain concerned with students’ conceptions, teachers’ conceptions, and classroom variables related to changes in students’ conceptions, and that they clearly recognize that each line of research is but a piece of a much larger puzzle.

The second article, by Zoubeida Dagher and George Cossman, explores the nature of explanations used by science teachers in junior high school classrooms. The discourse of 20 science teachers is analyzed, resulting in 10 types of explanations: analogical, anthropomorphic, functional, genetic, mechanical, metaphysical, practical, rational, tautological, and teleological. Dagher and Cossman focus our attention on an important and understudied part of science teaching that has implications for teaching the nature of science. The nature of teachers’ explanations (e.g., teleological) surely influences students’ interpretations of the nature of science.

6 1992 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/92/040327-03$04.00

328 BYBEE, ELLIS, AND MAlTHEWS

In the next article, Lawrence Scharmann and William Harris examine the effects of a three-week institute on participating teachers’ understanding and acceptance of the theory of evolution, and on their anxiety and concerns about teaching evolution. Scharmann and Harris found statistically significant increases for participants’ acceptance of the theory of evolution, understanding of both applied evolutionary principles and the applied nature of science, and reduced anxieties regarding the teaching of evolution. Eight months after the formal institute, the participants retained the positive effects of the institute as indicated on all measures.

The last article on teaching the nature of science, by Yvonne Meichtry, reports the effects of a first-year field test of the BSCS middle school program-Science & Technology: Investigating Human Dimensions-on students’ understanding of the nature of science. The study compared the results of the Modified Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (MNSKS) from a group that used the BSCS materials and a control group. Meichtry found that students in the control group possessed better understanding of the nature of science than students in the BSCS program. In the discussion, Meichtry cautioned that the mere use of a science program designed to develop student under- standings of the nature of science does not guarantee that these understandings will develop. She recommends that the teachers carefully plan and conduct instruction that places explicit emphasis on the nature of science.

The final two articles address research on teaching the history of science. Joan Solomon, Jonathan Duveen, Linda Scot, and Susan McCarthy report the results of action research that examined the effectiveness of using the history of science to promote British students’ understanding of the nature of science. Their research was influenced by a publication of the National Curriculum for England and Wales that contained a section on the nature of science and the history of science. The study found certain areas of substantial progress in the students’ understanding of the nature of science and other areas where there was little change.

We complete the issue with an article by James Wandersee on the influence of past understandings of science on current understandjngs. Wandersee builds a convincing case for teaching science through the history of science and particularly through the use of story lines that develop scientific ideas. He recommends seeding science courses with historical vignettes-brief, accurate narratives about relevant incidents from the history of science that illuminate the science content being studied.

Research on the nature of science is developing. On the other hand, our understanding of students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of technology is weak and undeveloped. Likewise, the educational opportunities that lie within the history of science and technology are only beginning to be recognized. We believe that teaching about the history and nature of science and technology has a place in school programs and we know that science educators have the ways, means, and understanding to enhance these dimensions of scientific and technologic literacy.

This special issue of the JRST is a smaU but important step toward greater recognition of the history and nature of science and technology in school science programs. We believe that any innovation in curriculum and instruction must be built on a research foundation. Although the current foundation is small, it is not weak. This special issue of JRST combined with the November 1991 Special Issue on Students’ Models and Epistemologies of Science, edited by Marcia Linn and her colleagues Nancy Songer and Eileen Lewis, indicates that we have a firmer foundation for teaching about the historical and philosophical aspects of science and technology.

INTRODUCFION 329

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the science educators who participated in the development of this Special Issue. In particular, we recognize Ron Good and Jim Wandersee for their support and contribution, the reviewers who returned manuscripts in a timely manner, and the authors who responded to reviewers' recommendations. We especially want to thank Byllee Simon who helped in the management and coordination of this Special Issue.

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

The following individuals served as reviewers for this Special Issue. We thank them also.

Sandra Abell Charles Anderson Rodger Bybee George Davis Richard Duschl James Ellis Kathleen Fisher Anton Lawson Marcia Linn Michael Matthews Steve Oliver Thomas Russell Elizabeth Stage