The Use of History of Mechanics in Teac PDF

Science & Education (2006) 15:55–89 Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11191-005-5987-4
The Use of History of Mechanics in Teaching

Motion and Force Units
HAYATI SEKER,1 and LAURA C. WELSH2

1
College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA(E-mail:
sekerhayati@yahoo.com); 2Pleasant View Middle School, South-Western City Schools, Grove
City, OH, 43123 (E-mail: lauracwelsh@yahoo.com)
Abstract. This paper reports a 4-month study that investigated the effectiveness of curriculum
materials incorporating the history of science (HOS) on learning science, understanding the
nature of science (NOS), and students’ interest in science. With regards to these objectives,
three different class contexts were developed with three main types of information in history of
science. In the first class context, the similarities between students’ alternative ideas and
scientific concepts from the HOS were considered in developing teaching materials. In the
second class context, the teacher developed discussion sessions on the ways scientists produce
scientific knowledge. In the third class context, short stories about scientists’ personal lives
were used without connection to the concepts of science or NOS. Ninety-one eighth-grade
students were randomly assigned to four classes taught by the same science teacher. The
concepts in the motion unit and in the force unit were taught. Three of the four classrooms
were taught using the contexts provided by the HOS while the fourth class was taught in the
same way that the teacher had used in previous years. The effects on student meaningful
learning, perceptions of the NOS, and interest in science were evaluated at the beginning, at
the middle, and at the end of the study to compare differences between historical class contexts
and the Traditional Class. Results of analysis showed that the changes in meaningful learning
scores for the first class context were higher than other classes but the differences between
classes were not significant. The HOS affected student perceptions of the scientific methods
and the role of inference in the process of science. Stories from scientists’ personal lives
consistently stimulated student interest in science, while discussions of scientific methods
without these stories decreased student interest. The positive effects of stories relating scientist’
personal life on student interest in science has major importance for the teaching of science.
This research also helps to clarify different class contexts which can be provided with different
types and uses of historical information.
1. Introduction
Studies prior to the 1970s on the use of history of science (HOS) in science
teaching reported both successes and failures (Welch 1973; Russell 1981).
The initial endeavors put sociology and the philosophy of science under
the rhetoric of the HOS to promote the integration of history, philosophy,
and sociology of science in the science curriculum. Most of the earlier
efforts targeted college-level courses. As historical materials are used for the
high school or the middle school level, different instructional methods are
56 HAYATI SEKER AND LAURA C. WELSH
required. The classroom difficulties, such as limited period of time and

student reluctance to become involved in science classes, were not considered
when these curricular materials were prepared. Moreover, teachers were
reluctant to use these materials because they did not know, or were not even
familiar with the concepts in the philosophy and sociology of science. The
concepts were not taught in either the teacher education programs or in the
departments of science. The teachers are persistent in using the traditional
curriculum and do not want to change it (Rutherford 2001).
Early initiatives; such as, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science
(Conant 1957), the Harvard Project Physics Course (Holton et al. 1970)
centered on the construction of curriculum for college-level science education
and teacher education programs instead of developing instructional practices
for high school and elementary school science courses (Duschl 1994). Only
Klopfer and Cooley (1961) drew upon the HOS to prepare materials for high
school science education in order to ‘provide high school teachers a means for
attaining the objectives concerning students’ understanding of science and
scientists’ (p. 5). Even though these HOS cases were considered as effective,
there are no follow-up studies developing HOS cases.
Since the initial efforts, some problems have continued to be a barrier to
the use of HOS in science teaching. Wandersee (1992) suggested story form
for the use of HOS as a reasonable way to overcome these problems.
Carefully crafted science stories have been proposed because they can be
incorporated readily into science lessons (Roach and Wandersee 1995;
Stinner 1995; Wandersee and Roach 1998). Egan’s story form was used to
fit historical information into a class period. Egan stated that teachers
could think of a science unit as a story to be told. Egan (1985) emphasized
the effect of story form on student affective learning, which is important to
science educators concerned about increasing student attention and interest
in science lessons. He emphasized the importance of ‘binary opposites’ in
learning because students learn meaning with opposites. Roach and
Wandersee (1985) also used binary opposites in Egan’s story form to cre-
ate conflicts for students. They crafted interactive historical vignettes that
took 10–15 min of class time, and enabled science teachers to use science
stories within the current curriculum. They can propose that science teach-
ers create their own vignettes (short stories). In this approach, there can be
two impetuses in using the HOS: the human appeal of the lives and inven-
tions of scientists and the power of using stories. The story form for using
historical information in a science lesson can provide context to help stu-
dents organize their cognitive structure (Egan 1989; Lauritzen and Jaeger
1992, 1997) and connects ideas in the learning material (Carson 1997).
Roach and Wandersee focused more on ‘binary opposites’ in their for-
mat, while Stinner and Williams focused more on the ‘story line.’ Stinner
THE USE OF HISTORY OF MECHANICS 57
(1989, 1994, 1995, 1996) and his colleagues (Stinner et al.; Stinner and
Williams 1993) suggest using the story-line approach to attract student
attention and engage their imagination. Stinner (1994) explains the story of
force from Aristotle to Einstein in a story-line. In the development of a sci-
entific concept, scientists sometimes reject the ideas of previous scientists
and develop new ones. Sometimes scientists interpret phenomena differ-
ently and extend or modify previous theories. This scientific process goes
on as concepts develop throughout history. Stages in the development of
scientific knowledge throughout history can be constructed as a story line.
Stinner and Williams asserted that the substance of discussions between
scientists could help science teachers engage in similar discussions with
their students. In Stinnner’s papers (1989, 1994, 1995, 1996), he emphasized
the importance of context in learning science and then he discussed the
teaching context provided by historical information related to the content.
Stinner (1995) emphasized the importance of the grade level of students
in the use of HOS. In the elementary school, science stories should be
based on student imagination, in middle school science stories they should
be based on history, and in high school years popular science literature re-
lated to the content should be used to create a teaching context. Stories of
science should be developed for students in the early years and middle
years. It can be difficult to use the historical context for science teachers at
the high school level because the students already know the ‘right’ answer
(Kuhn 1962; Stinner 1995; Irwin 2000).
2. The Effects of Using the HOS in Science Teaching

A desirable effect of the use of the HOS in the science classroom is to help
students learn science content. In some studies on the use of the HOS as a
means to shape student views of the nature of science (views of the NOS,
Solomon et al. 1992; Irwin 2000), the learning of science content has been
secondary. These studies did not observe a substantial effect from the use
of HOS on student learning of scientific concepts. Contrary to the results
of these studies, others (Wandersee 1985; Seroglou et al. 1998) show poten-
tial effects of using HOS on student learning.
Wandersee (1985) conducted a study to investigate the relationship
between student conceptual development and the development of photosyn-
thesis concepts through history. Participants in his study included pupils in
elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, and college. The
conclusions from these findings were that the HOS could be used to antici-
pate students’ misconceptions because of the similarity between scientists’
ideas from the past and student alternative ideas. Younger students’ concep-
tions of photosynthesis are more similar to that of the earlier scientists’
concepts as reported in historical accounts. Wandersee points out that

‘students’ conceptual structures that are limited or inappropriate for further
learning of modern science content often contain propositions that arose
earlier in the HOS’ (p. 594).
Seroglou et al. (1998) investigated the similarity between student alterna-
tive ideas and ideas of early scientists. The findings of the first part of the
study showed a similarity between participants’ alternative ideas and scien-
tists’ ideas from the past related to electricity and magnetism. In the second
part, the HOS was used to help students to overcome their alternative ideas.
In the third part, they investigated the effectiveness of historical treatment
on student learning of concepts. They used the similarity between previous
participants’ alternative ideas and scientists ideas to encourage student con-
ceptual change. Students first did tasks with no historical context and then
they did tasks from Faraday’s experiment. An open-ended instrument was
used for measuring student understanding of scientific concepts before and
after the historical treatment. Their results claim that the use of the history
of science may help students overcome their alternative ideas.
Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000b) assessed the influence of HOS
courses on college students’ NOS views. Their sample consisted of under-
graduate students, graduate students, and prospective science teachers
enrolled in HOS classes. The courses covered the HOS with no science
content being discussed. Professors sometimes informed students explicitly
about aspects of the NOS during lectures. They assessed students’ views of
the NOS with the views of the NOS instrument and conducted follow-up
interviews with students and professors. In contrast to many science
educators’ beliefs that HOS is the best way to change views of the NOS,
the findings showed that the HOS had little influence on students’ views of
the NOS. The change was attributed to the explicit information about the
NOS provided by the professor during the lectures rather than the history
of science in the course.
Irwin (1997) used the history of combustion theory to provide students
with an insight into the NOS. He introduced secondary school students to
the early ideas of burning, informed students about the history of combus-
tion theory, conducted original experiments, and did an experiment on
burning. He suggested that his instructional use of the history of burning
helped to develop better views of the NOS and a more positive image of sci-
ence by his students. Irwin (2000) used the history of science and measured
student learning of science and understanding of the NOS. He developed
two different curriculum lines in two classes: one was a ‘historical theme
group’ and the other was a ‘final form group’. Based on interviews and qual-
itative analysis, he concluded that students in the historical theme group (a)
gained some understanding of the way in which scientific knowledge grows,
(b) appreciated the power of scientists’ imagination and creativity, and

(c) appreciated that scientific knowledge was not a static body of facts and
principles. He observed that student attitude was affected positively by
the use of the historical perspective. However, there was no substantial dif-
ference in the understanding of science content between his two groups of
students. ‘The results show that there is no difference in understanding of
contemporary science content between two groups despite my hope that
historical perspective would lead to a firmer grasp of concepts’ (p. 5).
Klopfer and Cooley (1961) developed HOS cases as teaching tools for
high school science classes. This was a significant study because other studies
on the use of HOS were at the college level or for prospective science teach-
ers in the 1970’s. Their projects enriched instructional materials with histori-
cal information such as biographical information, inventions of scientists,
and the philosophy of some of the scientists. Eight case studies using the
HOS were developed for different topics in different fields of science.
The experimental groups used these cases while the control groups followed
the traditional curriculum. The results show that the use of HOS cases had a
significant effect on student understanding of the scientific enterprise and the
methods and the aims of science. However, student achievement related to
content knowledge did not show significant change. Even though these his-
tory of science cases were considered as effective, there were no follow-up
studies developing HOS cases. Russell (1981) emphasized significance of
Klopfer’s study in his review of the studies between the 1950s and the 1970s.
‘Klopfer’s excellent HOS cases did not become incorporated into a conven-
tional format, and are now out of print’ (Russell p. 62).
Solomon et al. (1992) conducted an action research study. Participants
in their study were students in three schools in different areas in the Uni-
ted Kingdom. The National Curriculum was followed including the use of
historical contexts. Their results suggest that teaching the history of science
within the normal school curriculum helps students’ understanding of the
NOS. The researchers suggest that ‘There is a significant move away from
serendipitous empiricism and toward an appreciation of the interactive nat-
ure of experiment and theory’ (p. 418). The teachers involved in the study,
pointed out that improvement in student learning of school science did not
appear to be related to the use of HOS but that HOS may make the
process of conceptual change easier.
Becker (email to author, 18 May 2001) and her study group worked
with a television company and developed 10-min video dramatizations.
The activities in modules include ‘(a) open-ended, hands- and minds-on
student investigations; (b) creative and reflective reading and writing pro-
jects; (c) in-class simulations, debates, and discussions; and (d) carefully
articulated out-of-class activities’ (Becker). These materials were tested
with Training Teachers who were provided with all the MindWorks mate-
rials as well as 2 weeks of training in their use; Non-Training Teachers
who received all MindWorks materials without training; Comparison
Teachers taught as they usually did with no MindWorks materials. Overall
performances for the treatment groups were also significantly higher than
for the Comparision Teacher students. However for the concepts related to
falling bodies, which is more related to the concepts taught in the current
study, no significant differences were observed between historical treatment
groups and control groups. MindWorks materials were tested to investi-
gate their effectiveness related to student attitude toward science. Becker
(email to author, 18 May 2001) reported that there was little difference
between classes that used MindWorks and those that did not before the
treatment began. Comparison groups’ attitude toward science lessons and
career interest in science decreased significantly from pretest to posttest.
There were no significant attitudinal changes for the two treatment groups
in which teachers received MindWorks with training and without training.
Becker and her study group prepared teaching modules including video-
tapes related to the HOS. After the project, teacher attitude was ranked
with a Likert scale survey with open-ended items. It was reported that
teachers’ attitudes toward using MindWorks were positive.
3. Theoretical Framework
Recently, the HOS has been viewed as more important in science teaching
because of its potential effects on understanding the NOS; however, its
effect on student learning is still under debate. To explain the effects of the
use of HOS on student learning, science educators debate the parallel
between student learning of concepts and the development of scientific
knowledge throughout history. Even though the parallelism is still obscure,
the similarity between scientists’ ideas and students’ alternative ideas can
help students to learn science (Wandersee 1985; Stinner and Williams 1993;
Seroglou et al. 1998; Galili and Hazan 2001). The HOS may help organize
student ideas and strengthen the relationship between concepts because of
the similarity between the context of learning material and their knowledge
structure. As the lesson progresses, students may be able to recognize the
similarity between scientists’ ideas and their own alternative conceptions,
this may help students generate propositions and develop new cognitive
structures. In this study, it is expected that the similarity between scientists’
ideas and student alternative ideas will help students develop their cogni-
tive structure, which is composed of concepts and propositions.
The meaningful learning theory (Ausubel 1968; Ausubel et al. 1978) is
based on the assimilation of new knowledge into the existing knowledge
structure, which consists of concepts and propositions in a semantic
network form. Concepts are defined as regularities of events or objects with

distinctive characteristics (Novak 1995). Propositions are statements that
explain the relatedness of concepts or relatedness between two or more
concepts. Meaningful Learning theory explains learning as the growth of
cognitive structure. Cognitive structure gradually grows and assimilates
new concepts linked with propositions. In the assimilation process, student
prior knowledge is important for learning new concepts and propositions.
Therefore, learning material and teaching strategies should be developed
by considering what students have experienced related to the content being
taught in the lesson. ‘When students lack the relevant concepts necessary to
link new knowledge they encounter in classroom science lessons to their
existing cognitive structure, meaningful learning cannot occur’ (Wandersee
1985, p. 584). Instructional materials should provide a potentially mean-
ingful context, psychologically and logically. Psychologically, students
should see the relationship between their own cognitive structure and the
subject matter. Logically, meaningful context interrelates the propositions
concerning the learning materials with student existing cognitive structures.
Therefore, learning materials should be related to what students bring with
them to the science class and students should be aware of the relationship
between their own cognitive structures and the learning context.
Concept mapping is one of the ways to assess student Meaningful
Learning (Novak 1995). Novak and his research group developed the con-
cept mapping technique to represent student knowledge structure in the
form of a network connecting concepts with propositions. ‘Concept maps
are tools for organizing and representing knowledge. They include con-
cepts, usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type, and relationships
between concepts or propositions indicated by a connecting line (cross-
links) between two concepts’ (Novak 1995, p. 229).
As an assessment technique, basically a concept map measures whether
students understand the relationships between the concepts, or proposi-
tions, and can put them in correct hierarchical format. Novak (1998) states
that the valid propositions students produce reveals student levels of
understanding, and the best way to assess student propositional knowledge
is to have them write their own propositions. Other assessment techniques
of learning and understanding, such as multiple-choice tests, are used to
confirm propositional statements rather than assess students’ generation of
propositions.
There are two main ways of constructing concept maps: hierarchical and
non-hierarchical. Ruiz-Primo et al. (1997) compared these two concept
map techniques. The findings of the study showed that there were no sig-
nificant differences between students’ scores from hierarchical and non-
hierarchical concept mapping. Inter-rater reliability coefficients are
encouraging; the correlation between concept map scores and multiple –

choice scores were moderate. In another study, Ruiz-Primo et al. (1998)
compared fill-in-the-map and construct-a-map techniques. The fill-in-the-
map technique provides students with a map where nodes (concepts) or
links (propositions) have been left out. The construct-a-map technique
provides some information and asks students to draw to the concept
map. The fill-in-the-map mapping technique is categorized in two ways:
fill-in-nodes and fill-in-links. The correlations between the fill-in-the-link
scores and multiple choice test scores were higher than other concept
mapping techniques. Three types of scoring methods were used: proposi-
tion accuracy score, convergence score, and salience score. Proposition
accuracy and convergence scores better reflect the differences in students’
knowledge than salience scores since the percent of variability among stu-
dents is higher for proposition accuracy and convergence scores than for
salience scores. Schau et al. (1997) reviewed different types of concept
mapping techniques and chose the fill-in-the-map technique to measure
seventh and eighth grade students’ knowledge structure. They conducted
their study to explore the validity of the fill-in-concept map format as an
assessment tool. Initially they developed map assessment tools. Then they
chose the most promising ones and interviewed participants using the
maps. In the current study, considering the time given to develop a con-
cept map and difficulty level, students were asked to complete fill-in-the-
link concept maps.
The use of the HOS in science teaching has a potential effect on stu-
dents’ understanding of the NOS. However, science educators have various
commentaries about the effectiveness of the history of science on students’
views of the NOS (Duschl 1990; Boujaoude 1995; Irwin 1997, 2000; Abd-El-
Khalick and Lederman 2000a; Bentley 2000; Matthews 2000; Quale 2001).
Abd-El-Khalick (1998) investigated the effect of use of HOS on preservice
teachers’ views of the NOS. In contrast to many science educators’ beliefs
that HOS is the best way to change views of the NOS, his study did not
provide enough evidence to support this change in view.
Lederman and Abd-El Khalick, have conducted extended reviews (Bell
et al. 2001), and qualitative and quantitative studies for the following pur-
poses (a) to reach consensus on the tenets of the NOS (Lederman et al.
2001), (b) to determine the effect of the use of HOS on students’ under-
standing of the NOS (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000b); and (c) to
help science teachers and undergraduate students change their views of the
NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998; Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000a).
Also, they proposed tenets of the NOS on which science educators have
consensus: (a) empirical, (b) subjectivity (theory laden), (c) tentativeness,
(d) partially based on human inference, imagination and creativity,
(e) socially and culturally embedded, and (f) no single scientific method.
Lederman et al. provided examples from students’ answers to show how
students’ views of the NOS were assessed. These instruments were used to
assess preservice science teachers, undergraduate students, and K-12 stu-
dents’ views of the NOS. They validated the instrument with follow-up
interviews. Because the science curriculum depends on the content of the
science lesson, grade level of students, and the context of the science
class, science teachers should consider modifying the items before a
study is conducted.
Studies have discussed the potential dangers of presenting the nature of
science as if there were only one scientific method, ‘the scientific method’
(Lederman et al. 2001). In science classrooms, the inductive approach has
been emphasized more than the deductive approaches (Lederman et al.
2002). However, scientists follow various types of scientific methods. This
can be seen in the comparison of scientific methods in the HOS.
Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton followed different paths while developing
their ideas.
Scientific knowledge is tentative. There are two ways of changing scien-
tific knowledge: accumulative and substitutive. Students are more aware of
accumulative change, in which new knowledge, new technology, and new
discoveries add to old ones (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). The other
way is substitutive in which new ideas contradict older ones and then
replace them. Duschl (1990, 1994) suggests that the historical development of
conceptual scientific knowledge should be placed in the science curriculum.
Scientists’ contributions to the development of a scientific idea may help
students learn about the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. In the
HOS, it can be seen that current scientific ideas replace older ones. Duschl
(1990, 1994) describes the growth of scientific knowledge as cumulative
and always changing. He used ‘final form science’ to describe traditional
science instruction, which presents current scientific theories without the
development process. Science teachers should explain how scientific knowl-
edge has been developed throughout history (Duschl 1990). Scientific
research often starts with questions based on observations. Observation is
one way of explaining phenomena in nature that is based on senses,
directly or indirectly. Scientists use these observations to make logical
statements that should be consistent with others. But science is not only
based on observation. Scientists make inferences when they cannot access
phenomena directly with their senses. Students should be aware of the
differences between observation and inference.
One of the goals in science education is to stimulate student interest in
science. Early endeavors, such as the Harvard Project Physics course, also
observed that student attitudes toward science had been changed
positively, but enrollment in these classes declined (Welch 1973). Student

interest stimulated by historical information should be maintained to
change students’ attitudes toward science. Some studies (Solomon et al.
1992; Irwin 2000) observed an increase in student interest in science, but not
student learning of science content. Interesting curriculum materials should
also be effective in the cognitive domain as well as in the affective domain.
Student interest is defined as the interaction between a person and an
object. In this definition, object does not refer only to objects in the class-
room environment but also to ideas and activities. Students may engage in
activities and ideas because (a) they might already be interested in the sub-
ject domain or (b) their interests are triggered by the learning activities
during class sessions. These two potential reasons for student interest in
the classroom refer to the definitions of two types of interest: Individual
and Situational Interest (Krapp et al. 1992). Individual Interest is described
as stable interest, enduring over time and characterized by high levels of
stored knowledge and stored value (Renninger 1990), as a characteristic of
the person, or a part of that person’s disposition (Krapp et al. 1992). Stu-
dent prior interest before involvement in class activities can be considered
as student Individual Interest, which develops with human growth, and it
is difficult to influence student Individual Interest in one class period. If
students have Individual Interest they are intentionally pre-occupied with
the subject matter. Situational Interest ‘is generated primarily by certain
conditions and/or concrete objects (e.g., texts, film) in the environment’
(Krapp et al. 1992, p. 8). Since Situational Interest is initiated by environ-
mental factors such as learning materials, it is possible for a group of peo-
ple (e.g., a class) to all experience Situational Interest simultaneously.
However, this experience tends to be short-lived, lasting only as long as the
situation provides interest. If learning materials stimulating Situational
Interest are used for extended periods of time, they may affect Individual
Interest. Student prior interest plays an important role in developing
student Situational Interest. Student prior interest, which may arise from
student Individual Interest or Situational Interest due to the previous
learning activities, is comprised of two types of beliefs: value-related beliefs
and emotional beliefs. Value-related beliefs relate to the importance and
relevance of the subject matter for student self-identity. Value-related be-
liefs are students’ expectations for the class. If learning activities meet the
positive expectations of students, their interest will increase and they will
engage in the activity. For low-interest students, those with negative expec-
tations, the subject matter should be introduced as worthwhile to learn.
The student should see that the content is important and relevant to their
current status and to their future. The change in value-related beliefs is
called the ‘hold’ component of interest (Hidi and Baird 1986; Mitchell
1993). According to Mitchell’s model of interest, the hold component has

two sub-components, ‘Meaningful’ and ‘Involvement’. Learning materials
that students think are meaningful and result in their involvement in class
sessions can stimulate the Involvement Component of Interest, and the
Meaningful Component of Interest. The second type of belief, emotional
belief, occurs when students enjoy their engagement with learning activi-
ties. This component is called the ‘catch’ component of interest (Hidi and
Baird; Mitchell). He described the catch component as student interest in
activities such as puzzles and games. In this study, the ‘Story’ component
is an example of a catch component, as stories were not developed consid-
ering their relationship to the subject matter. The use of the history of
science may be more influential than materials that only stimulate student
Situational Interest. If the HOS only helps enhance student Situational
Interest, interest may not be sustained. However, if it contributes to stu-
dent Individual Interest, it may be retained and may affect student interest
in learning science.
4. Class contexts
Historical information can be seen in journals, newspapers, TV programs
and other media. The problem is bringing this historical information into
the science classroom. First, the science teacher should recognize the differ-
ences in information from HOS. There are distinctions that emphasize sci-
entific concepts, NOS, or interest in science. This differentiation is
important in meeting curriculum objectives and goals. Some historical
sources present the development of scientific concepts throughout history.
For example, the history of electrical charge involves more than one scien-
tist. Scientists’ contributions to the development of the concept throughout
history were given rather than other types of personal information. Other
type of historical information focuses on how scientists produce scientific
knowledge. This type of historical information may emphasize aspects of
the NOS implicitly or explicitly. Sometimes HOS provides information
about the important events in scientists’ lives, and may or may not be con-
nected to specific content knowledge. This type of historical information
focuses student attention on a scientist’s experience as a person rather than
as a scientist.
Stinner et al. (2001) and Duschl (1990) discussed the importance of char-
acteristics of class context developed with historical information. Irwin
(2000) and Solomon et al. (1992) observed that the use of HOS affects stu-
dents’ views of the NOS, but does not affect student learning of scientific
concepts. However, there are other studies that have emphasized that the
use of HOS can affect student learning of science (Wandersee 1985; Stinner
and Williams 1993; Seroglou et al. 1998). In terms of their purposes, there
are two different contexts which can be considered by science educators in
the use of history of science in science classrooms: (a) to help students
understand the nature of science, and (b) to help students understand scien-
tific concepts. Studies on student learning of science via the use of historical
materials are expected to affect student understanding of the NOS. There is
a need to observe the effect of HOS on the views of the NOS when it is used
to help students understand scientific concepts. Besides the purpose of learn-
ing science and understanding the NOS, the purpose of interest in science
requires a class context, which could be provided by the HOS.
Three different class contexts that were developed using the history of
science and the differentiation of these class contexts is important to
explain the relationship between types of information and their effects on
student learning, interest, and views of the NOS. The Meaningful Class is
the class context in which the science teacher uses learning materials re-
lated to students’ existing ideas. For example, there are similarities between
the alternative ideas of students and the ideas advanced by scientists in the
development of theories throughout history (Wandersee 1985; Stinner and
Williams 1993; Seroglou et al. 1998). For example, students’ preconcepts of
photosynthesis are similar to the scientists’ ideas from the HOS (Wandersee).
Such similar ideas are a source of learning materials to provide the
class context for the Meaningful Class. Historical materials suggest that
students’ conflicts are also similar to scientists’ conflicts (Bar and Zinn
1998). The history of science includes debates between scientists to resolve
their conflicts. The answers of the scientists raise other questions for future
scientists. As scientists are forced by ambiguities in their experiences and
other scientists’ studies to develop new theories, similarly, students can be
more likely to learn new concepts when they are dissatisfied with current
conceptions. Teachers can use discussion sessions similar to previous scien-
tists’ debates to encourage students to be involved in the lesson. Moreover,
appreciation for discussing scientists’ ideas may stimulate student interest.
Doubt about scientific knowledge may affect students’ view of the NOS.
The NOS Class is the class environment in which the teacher gives
science content along with methodologies of scientists from the past with
the aim of helping students become more aware of the aspects of the NOS.
For example, Aristotle, and Galileo used different scientific ways in pro-
ducing scientific knowledge. Aristotle’ conclusions were generally based on
observation. Galileo conducted an experiment to explain the acceleration
concept. A science teacher can present these ways of doing science as illus-
trations in relation to the content being taught.
The class environment in which students are told short stories during
class sessions is defined as the Interest Class for this research. The stories
are based on scientists’ personal lives from the HOS and told without con-
nection to the historical development of specific concepts of science. For
example, stories about Newton’s childhood told in the class are not related
to the concepts of force, mass, or acceleration and they are short enough
to incorporate into the science class.
This study was conducted to answer following research questions.
1. Is there significant evidence that using historical information related
to student alternative ideas affects eighth-grade student (a) learning of
science, (b) views of the NOS, (c) interest in science?
2. Is there significant evidence that the discussion of methods followed
by scientists throughout history changes eighth-grade student (a)
learning of science, (b) views of the NOS, (c) interest in science?
3. Is there significant evidence that telling scientists’ life stories affects
eighth-grade student (a) learning of science, (b) views of the NOS, (c)
interest in science?
5. Methodology
Ninety-one students in grade 8 from a Central Ohio school district were
the subjects of this study. While the school district was classified as an ur-
ban school district by the state, the students reflected a greater diversity,
with the majority coming from suburban and urban homes representing
the mid- to low-socioeconomic status. Students were randomly assigned to
four classes and treatments were randomly assigned to the classes to con-
trol potential confounding variables: homoscedasticity, student background
differences, testing effect, instrumentation, regression, and selection.
The science teacher had no specific experience related to the use of his-
tory of science, curriculum materials for NOS, or student interest in sci-
ence. She had conducted a master’s degree on the comparison between
student proficiency test results and their achievement scores in class. Before
the study began, she read studies on the use of HOS to use as resources
for teaching science. Because this study was conducted with one teacher,
the effect of the teacher perspective could not be controlled.
In the study, the teaching strategy for the use of HOS is the manipulated
independent variable. This variable has four levels, including three
treatments and the control group. The first level of the manipulated inde-
pendent variable is the use of historical information for Meaningful
Learning. The use of HOS for changing students’ views of the NOS is the
second level of the manipulated independent variable. The third level of
the manipulated independent variable is the use of HOS for stimulating stu-
dent interest in science. The fourth and final level of the manipulated
independent variable is the regular or traditional approach to the science

curriculum.
There are three main categories of dependent variables: student Mean-
ingful Learning, student views of the NOS, and student interest in sci-
ence. The valid propositions generated in the concept mapping activity
represents student Meaningful Learning. Student views of the NOS are
measured by the Perspectives on Scientific Epistemology (POSE) survey
that has four components: Scientific Method, Inference, Tentativeness,
and Subjectivity. Student interest in learning is measured by the Interest
Survey, which has five factors: Individual Interest, Situational
Interest, Involvement Component of Interest, Meaningful Component of
Interest, and Story Component of Interest.
In the study, four different science curriculums were developed to help
the science teacher incorporate historical information into science lessons.
Lesson plans were developed based on these curricula. Also, classroom dif-
ficulties; such as, overloaded curriculum, and the appropriateness of dis-
cussion sessions to the grade level were anticipated based on the prior
experience of the science teacher with eighth-grade students.
The effectiveness of these curriculums on student Meaningful Learning,
understanding of NOS, and interest in science were explored. Before the
study, instruments (e.g., concept maps, Perspective on Student Epistemol-
ogy (POSE) Instrument, and Interest Survey) were used to explore stu-
dents’ background in and perceptions of science. At the end of the study,
the same instruments and interviews were used to determine differences
between classes that resulted from these curriculums.
5.1. TREATMENT
Before developing HOS cases for the four different teaching strategies, four
science curricula was developed based on the course of study in the school
district. Considering the objectives of the lessons, appropriate historical
information was found. The science teacher who had experience teaching
the concepts of motion and force for eighth-grade students verified the
appropriateness of all materials.
The concepts in free fall and momentum were added to the curriculum
for the Meaningful Class and NOS Class. For the force unit, free fall was
put into the curriculum, because students’ preconcepts are often similar to
the ideas of ancient scientists. The concept of impetus was incorporated
into the current curriculum because of the similarity between the students’
preconcepts of force and the medieval idea of impetus. After the impetus
concept, the momentum concept was introduced, then the force concept.
The momentum concept was included because Isaac Newton described
force with reference to change in momentum.
For example, to develop the motion unit for the Meaningful Class, stu-
dents’ preconcepts of velocity and acceleration were explored along with
their responses to the concept map and discussions in the classroom.
Responses showed how they thought acceleration is ‘going fast’ or ‘is a big
force’ rather than ‘change in velocity.’ Historical ideas of free fall were
given to students and they were encouraged to discuss their ideas. Initially
students were introduced to the idea ‘objects fall with a constant speed’.
This sparked a discussion of whether the velocity of a falling objects chan-
ges or not. Aristotle’s ideas and Strato’s sand experiments were discussed.
Once students understood the difference between constant and changing
velocity, Galileo’s inclined-plane experiment was conducted to demonstrate
the acceleration concept. In the inclined-plane experiment, simulated from
Galileo’s original experiment, the students experienced the change in veloc-
ity of falling objects which was referred to as acceleration. The teacher
used opposing ideas of Galileo and Aristotle for discussion sessions.
Galileo is one of the first experimenters and he developed theories
about motion that were opposite to the accepted ideas of Aristotle.
Using this opposition, the teacher purported to help students understand
the empirical and tentative nature of scientific knowledge in the NOS
Class. The difference in discussion sessions between the Meaningful Class
and the NOS Class were questions asked by the teacher during the ses-
sions. In the Meaningful Class after explaining Aristotle’s and Galileo’s
ideas, the teacher asked whether heavier objects fall faster. Alternately, in
the NOS Class, the teacher compared Aristotle and Galileo’s scientific
methods in explaining the behavior of falling bodies, and then the tea-
cher asked why Aristotle’s theory failed to explain the behavior of falling
body. This was intended to emphasize the tentative nature of scientific
knowledge.
Stories from famous scientists’ lives were used to help the science teacher
provide the context for the Interest Class. Galileo’s relationships with his
family and church leaders served as a humanizing factor. Galileo’s father
was an artist and musician, and wanted his son to become a medical stu-
dent. While at the University in Pisa, Galileo attended a philosophy class
that discussed Aristotle’s ideas and led him to change his focus on
mechanics. With such stories, the HOS can play a humanizing role in the
interest context of science teaching.
6. Results
Even though students were randomly assigned to the four classes, there
were some deviations from this random assignment process, which may
have had some undetermined influences on the results of this study. Dur-
ing the study some students withdrew from school while other new
students were enrolled in the classes. Therefore, student background variables:

IQ scores; pregrades; and pretest scores for Meaningful Learning scores,
perceptions of the nature of science, interest, and interest component
scores were used to investigate preexisting differences among the four clas-
ses. Students who did not complete every component of the study were not
included in the analysis. Deleting these students’ scores from the analysis
did not significantly affect the equality between classrooms.
Sources of data included students’ demographic characteristics (i.e., gen-
der, age IQ level, pregrades) and students’ responses to the concept map-
ping tasks, POSE, and the interest survey. An alpha level of 0.05 was used to
test for significant differences. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was used to investigate differences among four treatment groups of students
at the beginning of the study.
Substantial differences among the four classes were observed in student
IQ scores. Students in the Interest Class appear to have somewhat lower
IQ scores than students in the other classes. Wilk’s K (1.45) for the class
effect (p = 0.065), indicated no significant difference at p £ 0.05 between
classes. The univariate ANOVA, used as a follow up, indicated that there
were no significant univariate differences between classes for the variables
observed.
In this study, the non-hierarchical fill-in-the link concept-mapping tech-
nique was used to measure student Meaningful Learning. In this study,
propositions were focused on more than other aspects of concept mapping.
As such, the concepts and the hierarchical order of concepts were not
scored. Only propositional knowledge was assessed in this study to repre-
sent Meaningful Learning. Validity of propositions was assessed with a
system to rate the quality or validity of proposition categories as devel-
oped by Ruiz-Primo (2000). Students’ responses to concept mapping were
scored from 0, ‘invalid proposition’ to 4, ‘valid proposition’. Their scores
for each proposition in the concept map were added, and each student’s
cumulative score was computed as their total Meaningful Learning score.
The content included concepts related to the motion and force units. The
study was divided into two parts because these concepts and related histor-
ical information have different nature. The motion unit covered concepts
of motion, observer, force, distance, displacement, speed, average speed,
instantaneous speed, velocity, average velocity, and acceleration. The first
concept map task asked students to write the relationships among these
concepts. The force unit covered concepts of motion, force, friction, iner-
tia, gravity, weight, mass, acceleration, and action and reaction forces. The
second concept map task asked students to write the relationships (links)
among these concepts. Results are presented in two different sections to
reflect the data collected before and after each unit.
Students’ responses to the concept mapping for the motion unit were
independently scored by the researcher and the science teacher using the
quality of proposition categories. The Pearson correlation coefficients for
the ranking of the items were calculated. The inter-rater reliability of 0.71
was derived from the average correlation of the raters’ results. Pearson
correlation values for inter-rater reliability varied from r = 0.54, to 0.85.
The changes of class means from pretest to posttest were compared
using ANOVA with repeated measures followed by appropriate post hoc
analyses. The ANOVA with repeated measures shows that student Mean-
ingful Learning scores across all classes changed significantly by the end of
the motion unit, F(1,71) = 141.99; p = 0.000 . Students in all classes had
higher Meaningful Learning scores at the end of the motion unit. There
were no differential changes by Class in the change of Meaningful Learn-
ing scores, F(3,71),= 1.28, p = 0.288. Historical learning materials related
to students’ alternative ideas did not reveal a significantly different effect
on student learning than the other approaches for the motion unit.
The ANOVA with repeated measures showed that student Meaningful
Learning scores across all classes changed significantly by the end of the
force unit, F (1,71) = 201.86, p = 0.000. Changes from pretest to posttest
were near significant by Class, F(3,71) = 2.22, p = 0.093. Meaningful
Learning pretest scores of the Meaningful Class were nearly identical to or
lower than that of the Traditional Class. The posttest Meaningful Learning
scores of the Meaningful Class were somewhat better than those of the
other classes for the force unit. It should be noted that the greatest differ-
ence in increased Meaningful Learning scores is between the Meaningful
Class (MDiff = 23.0) and Traditional Class (MDiff = 14.4).
Students’ views of the NOS were measured using POSE, an instrument
developed by Abd-El-Khalick (2002), which was derived from the views of
the NOS Questionnaire (Lederman et al. 2001). POSE was administered
both before and after the treatment. After the postadministration, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with six students randomly chosen
from each class to clarify students’ responses to the open response items in
the POSE. Interviews took at most one hour for each student.
Students’ responses to the survey were scored as Naı̈ve, Intermediate,
and Informed for four aspects of NOS: (a) Scientific Method, (b) Tenta-
tiveness, (c) Inference, and (d) Subjectivity. Students who changed their
views positively (from Naı̈ve to Intermediate, from Naı̈ve to Informed, or
from Intermediate to Informed) were categorized as ‘positive’. Students
who didn’t change their views were categorized as ‘no change’. Students
who changed their views negatively (from Informed to Intermediate, from
Informed to Naı̈ve, or from Intermediate to Naı̈ve) were categorized as
‘negative’.
Students’ responses to the POSE instrument were scored by the re-

searcher and the science teacher. Kendall’s Tau coefficients were computed
to determine the consistency of the rankings from these scores. Significant
correlation coefficients between the rankings were obtained for students’
views on Scientific Method, Kendall’s Tau = 0.50, p = 0.000; Tentative-
ness, Kendall’s Tau = 0.67, p = 0.000), and Inference (Kendall’s
Tau = 0.58, p = 0.000). The agreement between the two raters was low.
Further examination of these differences revealed that the science teacher
ranked students’ responses lower than the author. The researcher tended to
expect higher perceptions of scientific method than did the teacher. The
correlation between the two rankings of students’ views on the Subjectivity
was not significant and unacceptably low (Kendall’s Tau = 0.07,
p > 0.05). For this scale, raters evaluated whether students were aware
that different results for scientific research was potentially due to the differ-
ent minds of scientists. Students responded as ‘They are people, they think
different,’, or ‘Scientists think differently.’ Often students did not support
their answers with further explanation. Ranking such responses was very
subjective therefore inter-rater reliability is low.
The pretest was given before the motion unit. The midtest was given after
the motion unit and before the force unit. The posttest was given after the
force unit. Since students’ views of the NOS need a long time to change (Ir-
win 2000; Schwartz and Lederman 2000), the changes of students’ views of
the NOS between the pretest and posttest scores were analyzed across both
phases of the study (motion unit and force unit) instead of considering
them separately.
The students who were ranked Naı̈ve and Intermediate were included in
the number who could change positively and those students who were
ranked Intermediate and Informed were included in the number who could
change negatively. The proportion of the number of students who changed
their perceptions of the NOS positively (from Naı̈ve to Intermediate, from
Naı̈ve to Informed, or from Intermediate to Informed) and negatively (from
Informed to Intermediate, from Informed to Naı̈ve, or from Intermediate to
Naı̈ve) to the number of students who could change their views positively
and negatively as identified at the beginning of the study were computed.
The significant differences between class proportions of positive and neg-
ative changes in the perspectives of the NOS were computed (Ferguson
1966). The proportion of students who changed their views of Scientific
Method positively was not significantly different between classes. The pro-
portion of students who changed their views of Scientific Method
negatively in the Traditional Class was greater than each of the other clas-
ses; the Meaningful Class (z = )3.06, p = 0.002), the NOS Class
(z=)2.54, p=0.011), and Interest Class (z=)2.02, p=0.043).
The proportion of students who changed their views of Inference

positively for the NOS Class in the perspective of Inference was greater
than that for the Meaningful Class (z=)3.01, p=0.003), and the
Traditional Class (z=3.27, p=0.001). The proportion of students who
changed their views of Inference positively for the Interest Class was
greater than that for the Meaningful Class (z=)2.26, p=0.024), and the
Traditional Class (z= 2.54, p=0.011). The proportion of students who
changed their views of Inference negatively for the Traditional Class
was greater than that for the Interest Class (z=)1.98, p=0.048). The
proportion of students who changed their views of Tentativeness and
Subjectivity positively or negatively was not significantly different between
classes.
The student interest instrument, developed by Mitchell (1992), was modi-
fied for use in this study. It was designed to measure high school students’
Individual and Situational Interest, and five components related to interest:
Meaningful, Involvement, Computers, Groups, and Puzzles. Meaningful
relates to whether students believe the content of a course is important or
related to their lives. Involvement Component of interest scales asks stu-
dent about their feelings related to their participation in class. Three com-
ponents of the instrument; Computers, Groups, and Puzzles, were not
included in the adapted instrument, since they were not deemed significant
for this study. Instead, a Story Component of Interest was added to the
survey. This assessment asked students about their feelings related to
stories told in the class.
It is important to note that students might have perceived ‘stories’ to
mean different things depending upon the context. Story may refer to the
teacher talk unrelated to the subject matter taught. In the Interest Class,
it is assumed that students interpreted this to mean stories about scien-
tists’ personal lives. For example Newton’s relationship with his friends
was not directly related to the subject matter taught. In the Meaningful
Class, it is assumed that students thought this meant stories about the
discovery stories of scientists. Even though discovery stories are related
to the subject matter they were not told as subject matter of the lesson.
The teacher did not ask students to learn them. In the NOS Class, it is
assumed that they saw stories as the description of the methods scientists
used. As it was in the meaningful class, students were not asked to learn
historical information about scientific methods. Also it is assumed that
the Traditional Class interpreted stories to mean the daily life examples
they were given. In the Traditional Class, the teacher told stories about
her experiences. Even though these stories can be related to the subject
matter, students were not asked to learn them as a part of the science
lesson.
There were four items to measure student Individual Interest (i.e.,

science is enjoyable to me), six items for Situational Interest (i.e., our class
is fun), six items for the Involvement Component of Interest of students in
the class (i.e., we learn the material ourselves instead of being lectured to),
three items for the Meaningful Component of Interest (i.e., The stuff we
learn in this class will never be used in real life), and five items for the
Story Component of Interest (i.e., stories are more interesting than text
materials). There were (total) 25 items on a six-point Likert scale from 1
(Strongly Agree) to 6 (Strongly Disagree). Based on pilot study findings,
one item in the Meaningful Component of Interest scale was removed in
order to increase the internal consistency of the measure. Chronbach’s al-
pha coefficients ranged from 0.72 to 0.91.
A Trial by Class ANOVA with repeated measures was followed up
using post hoc analysis to investigate differences in components of student
interest between and among groups. The main effects of Trial and Class
and the interaction effects of Trial by Class were observed. There were
significant differences between classes related to interest, primarily related
to the increase in the Interest Class scores for Situational Interest
(F3,71=2.70, p=0.052), and Story Component of Interest (F3,71=5.74,
p=0.001) for the motion unit and the decrease in the NOS Class scores
for Involvement Component of Interest (F3,71=3.00, p=0.036) for the
force unit. In addition, the changes of the Situational Interest scores for
the Interest Class and Traditional Class for the motion unit were signifi-
cantly different from the change of the Meaningful Class (mean differ-
ence = + 3.75, standard error=1.54, p=0.018 and mean
difference = + 3.77, standard error=1.56, p=0.018). This was partially
due to the increase in the Interest Class and the Traditional Class scores
while the Meaningful Class scores remained constant. Also, the change in
the Story Component of Interest scores for the Interest Class for the mo-
tion unit was significantly different from all other classes because of the
increase in the Interest Class scores while the others remained constant
(for the Meaningful Class, mean difference = 4.14, standard error=1.34,
p=0.003; for the NOS Class, mean difference = 3.83, standard er-
ror=1.42, p=0.009; and for the Traditional Class, mean differ-
ence = 5.24, standard error=1.34, p=0.000).
The correlation coefficients between student perceptions of the nature of
science and Meaningful Learning scores for both and motion and force
unit were not consistently significant, and did not show any meaningful
pattern to clarify relationships between perceptions of the NOS and
Meaningful Learning scores. There were no significant differences between
classes for the correlation coefficients between Meaningful Learning scores
and perceptions of the NOS while there were significant differences in
correlation coefficients between student Meaningful Learning scores and

interest scores (Individual Interest, Situational Interest, and Involvement
Component of Interest). The positive correlation coefficients between
Meaningful Learning scores for the motion unit and the Individual Interest
scores for the Meaningful Class, the NOS Class, and the Interest Class;
Situational Interest scores for the Meaningful Class; and Involvement
Component of Interest scores of the Interest Class were significantly higher
than the correlations for the Traditional Class.
7. Conclusions
The analysis of the data showed prevalence for significant differences in
the change of perceptions of the NOS (Scientific Method, Inference), and
in the change of interest scales (Situational Interest, Involvement Compo-
nent of Interest, and Story Component of Interest) related to class context
for the use of HOS in teaching science. However the changes between clas-
ses in the Meaningful Learning scores for either the motion or the force
unit did not show significant differences even though their scores increased
significantly from pretest to posttest for each of the classes.
7.1. THE EFFECTS ON STUDENT MEANINGFUL LEARNING
The design of this study was developed from a base of meaningful learning
theory, which defines learning as the extension of student cognitive struc-
ture by incorporation of new concepts and propositions. The similarity be-
tween student prior cognitive structure and knowledge structure of learning
material is the most essential aspect for Meaningful Learning. Previous
studies emphasized the similarity between students’ alternative ideas and
scientists’ past ideas and suggested taking advantage of this similarity for
student learning of science. Wandersee (1985) reported the similarity be-
tween student alternative concepts and scientists’ concepts of photosynthe-
sis and suggested using the similarity for student Meaningful Learning.
Seroglou et al. (1998) also reported the similarity between student alterna-
tive concepts and scientists’ concepts from the past related to electricity
and magnetism and used this similarity for student learning of science. In
the current study, the Meaningful Class context refers to the use of the
similarity between student alternative ideas and scientists’ ideas from the
past in the actual science class integrated with the related science curricu-
lum. The similarities between student alternative concepts for the motion
and force units and the development of scientific concepts related to
motion and force through the use of history were considered in the
development of curricular materials for the Meaningful Class.
The change in the mean of Meaningful Learning scores from the pretest
to the posttest for the Meaningful Class appeared to be higher than for
other classes. However, the results of statistical analysis did not reveal sig-
nificant differences in Meaningful Learning for either the motion or the
force units. Student Meaningful Learning scores significantly increased
across all classes for both the motion and force units. The results of the
current study revealed no specific positive or negative effects of historical
information on student Meaningful Learning. These results are similar to
the findings of Becker with regards to the student learning of science con-
tent (e-mail to author, 18 May 2001), Irwin (2000), and Klopfer and
Cooley (1961).
It should be noted that there were more similarities than differences in
the teaching methods used for all classes. Since the study was conducted in
actual science classrooms, student learning of science concepts was targeted
for all historical treatment groups and the Traditional Class. For example;
students in all classes discussed their untutored beliefs about physical phe-
nomena; they were all encouraged to find their own misconceptions; the
relationships between concepts were all strongly emphasized in all class-
rooms; motivation to learn scientific concepts was considered for all clas-
ses. Since these similar considerations for all classes would be expected to
contribute to Meaningful Learning, this may explain the similar significant
changes for all classes from pretest to posttest for the increase of student
Meaningful Learning scores for both the motion and force units.
7.2. THE EFFECTS ON STUDENT VIEWS OF THE NOS
The historical information related to the NOS was used in the NOS Class
while regular science curriculum was followed in the Traditional Class.
Also, there were no treatments for understanding of the nature of science
in the other historical treatment classes; the Meaningful Class and the
Interest Class. The changes in student perceptions of the nature of science
were compared with the Traditional Class and the other historical
treatment groups.
The current study observed significant evidence on the effectiveness of
the use HOS on student perceptions of Scientific Method and Inference.
The number of students in each class who could change their views posi-
tively or negatively at the beginning of the study was considered. The pro-
portion of the number of students who changed their perceptions positively
or negatively to the number of students who could change their views posi-
tively and negatively were compared between classes. For the perceptions
of Scientific Method, the proportion of negative changes for the
Traditional Class was greater than for the historical treatment groups.
These differences between classes in part resulted because students in the
Traditional Class changed their views of Scientific Method negatively while

students in the historical treatment groups changed their perceptions of
Scientific Method positively.
There were significant differences between classes in the change of stu-
dent perception of Inference. The proportion of students who changed
their views of Inference positively for the Traditional Class and Meaning-
ful Class were less than that for the NOS Class and Interest Class. The
proportion of students who changed their views of Inference negatively for
the Traditional Class was greater than that for the Interest Class. These
differences in perceptions of Inference may be due to the use of discussions
about scientific methods that past scientists used and sharing of their per-
sonal life stories. For other aspects of the NOS, Tentativeness and Subjec-
tivity, there were no significant differences in the proportion of students,
that changed their perspectives either positively or negatively.
Even though HOS is considered as a potentially valuable curriculum re-
source for understanding the NOS, the results of the previous studies
(Klopfer and Cooley 1961; Solomon et al. 1992; Irwin 1997, 2000) did not
provide conclusive evidence. The current study was different from the prior
studies conducted in this field with regards to the design and the length of
the study. The design of this study provided opportunities to compare
explicit, implicit ways of using HOS in teaching the NOS. Irwin (1997,
2000), Klopfer and Cooley (1961), Solomon et al. (1992) did not consider
the differences between explicit and implicit ways of teaching nature of sci-
ence.Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000a) suggested explicit explanations
of NOS conceptions, but their sample was college students and student
teachers. Based on the definitions in the literature (Khishfe and Abd-El-
Khalick 2002), the explicit way of teaching is when the teacher targets
the aspects of the NOS; the teaching strategies in the NOS Class was the
explicit way of teaching the NOS. The teaching strategies for other histori-
cal treatment classes; the Meaningful Class, the Interest Class, and the
Traditional Class can be considered as implicit ways of teaching the NOS
because the teacher did not target the aspects of the NOS. The results
of the current study indicated no statistical significant differences resulted
between these contexts in the use of the HOS for teaching the nature of
science.
7.3. THE EFFECTS ON STUDENT INTEREST IN SCIENCE
The current study used the interest model discussed by Hidi and Baird
(1986), Krapp et al. (1992), and Mitchell (1993). According to this model,
aspects of student interest are Individual Interest, Situational Interest,
Hold Components of Interest (Involvement Component of Interest, Mean-
ingful Component of Interest), and Catch Component of Interest (Story
Component of Interest). The current study used interest survey to investi-

gate the effects of HOS on student responses to interest scales: Individual
Interest, Situational Interest, Involvement Component of Interest, Mean-
ingful Component of Interest, and Story Component of Interest. Not only
the effects on student interest, but also the sources of student interest were
analyzed using statistical methods. Other studies (Solomon et al. 1992; Ir-
win 2000; Warrick 2000) did not collect data on student interest but they
emphasized positive effects on student interest rhetorically. Matthews
(2000), and Stinner and Williams (1993) also mentioned that HOS could
have a positive effect on student motivation.
Findings from the analyses in the current study revealed that scientists’
personal life stories consistently affected student interest positively. The
Story Component of Interest for the Interest Class changed more than that
for the other classes; the Meaningful Class, the NOS Class, and the Tradi-
tional Class. The student Situational Interest scores also showed significant
increases for the Interest Class and the Traditional Class while those for
the NOS Class and Meaningful Class remained constant. Scientists’ life
stories had a greater effect on Situational Interest than other historical
materials used in the Meaningful Class and the NOS Class. The student
Involvement Component of Interest scores for the NOS Class showed a
decrease for the force unit, and this change was significantly different than
the other classes. This suggests that discussions of scientists’ ideas of the
past and their methods affected student interest in a negative way.
Scientists’ personal life stories have the most positive effect on student
interest. The interviews with students at the end of the study support that
students in the Meaningful Class and the NOS Class were not used to dis-
cussing their ideas. In previous years, they were expected to memorize what
the science teacher told them and what the textbook emphasized. Expecta-
tions might have played an important role and their interest may have de-
clined when they did not experience what they had expected in the NOS
Class. The science teacher encouraged the students to challenge their prior
knowledge about concepts and scientific methods. Dissatisfaction with prior
knowledge might also have affected student interest in a negative way.
7.4. STUDENT LEARNING OF SCIENCE AND VIEWS OF THE NOS
The effects of the use HOS on both student learning of science and under-
standing of the NOS were reported without considering differences in the
class contexts with regards to the class objectives (Solomon et al. 1992;
Irwin 2000; Barbara Becker, email to author, May 18, 2001). Irwin and
Solomon created class context to improve student understanding of the
NOS and reported trivial results on student learning. In the current study,
the relationships between student meaningful learning and understanding

aspects of the NOS were investigated. Even though there were significant
correlations, they are consistently significant for both motion and force
units. Because differences between classes were not significant, there was
no direct evidence that the teaching materials from the HOS affected both
learning of science and understanding of the NOS.
7.5. STUDENT LEARNING OF SCIENCE AND INTEREST IN SCIENCE
The analyses of differences between classes for these correlation coefficients

showed that students with more Individual Interest had better Meaningful
Learning scores in the Meaningful Class, the NOS Class, and Interest Class
than did the students in the Traditional Class. However, in general, the
Meaningful Class and NOS Class interest scores decreased during the
study. It might be expected that students who have low interest would get
low scores. This also may explain the substantial change in standard devia-
tion for these classes. The discussions may have frustrated some students in
these classes.
Student Situational Interest might have played a more important role in
relation to the Meaningful Learning for students in the Meaningful Class
than in the Traditional Class. Students in the Meaningful Class may have
seemed to be frustrated because of discussions of the history of scientific
concepts. In the study, the teacher did not give a resolution but through
discussions encouraged students to discuss their own ideas. The students
might have thought that what they were learning was not substantial for
them and consequently were less motivated and had lower Meaningful
Learning scores. As a student stated, ‘If someone is going to come along in
the next few years and come up with something new, then what’s the
point? I’m not learning this stuff if it will change’ (Student 8281, Meaning-
ful Class). On the other hand, students who thought that what they were
learning in science class was important for them and their future, they
might have tended to get higher Meaningful Learning scores. In the Mean-
ingful Class, the distinction between the low-interest student and the high-
interest student was clearer than with students in the Traditional Class.
Stronger correlations between the Meaningful Learning and the Individual
and Situational Interest for Meaningful Class also supported this
distinctive characteristic of the class.
8. Class Contexts
Differentiation of class contexts can be important for future research con-
sidering lesson goals and objectives. The analysis of data indicated a
variety of changes of student perceptions of the NOS and student interest
in science. Three types of class contexts are described: the Meaningful

Class, the NOS Class, and Interest Class.
The current study developed three different curriculum approaches using
the HOS for three science classrooms. The results of the analysis of dif-
ferences between classes in the changes of student Meaningful Learning,
perspectives of the NOS, and student interest in science showed that there
might have been unique components of class contexts for the use of the
HOS. The effects of the historical materials developed for the Interest
Class on student interest were different from other historical treatment
groups. While student views of Inference in the Interest Class changed
positively, those in the Meaningful Class changed negatively.
The class contexts had different effects on student interest in science and
perceptions of the NOS. This suggests a need for identifying types of infor-
mation with regards to the objectives of the science class. Figure 1 repre-
sents the effects of these different historical contexts on student Meaningful
Learning, interest in science, and perceptions of the NOS.
At the left edge of Figure the types of information used in the study are
labeled. Similar and opposing ideas of scientists were used in the Meaning-
ful Class; scientists’ epistemologies or scientific methods, were used in the
NOS Class; biographical information from scientists’ personal life stories
were used in the Interest Class; and no HOS was used in the Traditional
Class. The following symbols ‘+, ),±’ represent the followings: ‘+’ indi-
cates a positive change or relationship; ‘)’ indicates a negative change or
relationship; ‘±’ indicates no change or relationship. When the symbols
are in the parentheses, such as (+,±) , the first symbol is representative of
the effects or relationship for the motion unit, and the second symbol is
representative of the effects or relationships for the force unit.
8.1. THE MEANINGFUL CLASS
The primary expected outcome of the activities in the Meaningful Class

was to help student Meaningful Learning (Wandersee 1985; Seroglou et al.
1998). Also it was expected that students would perceive that the historical
information incorporated into the science class would be useful for their
future. This variable was defined as Meaningful Component of Interest.
Additionally, it was expected that students would like to be involved in
class discussion, which was defined as the Involvement Component of
Interest. As previous studies did not report any relationship between stu-
dent learning of science and views of the NOS, the gains in the perceptions
of the NOS were not projected as expected outcomes for the current study.
However, intuitively it might be expected that scientists’ dissensus through-
out history may affect student perceptions of Tentativeness.
Figure 1. The model of the use of history of science in science teaching (UHOSIST). Note:
‘+’ = positive change or relationship; ‘)’ = negative change or relationship; ‘±’=no
change or relationship.
The results of the current study showed that student Meaningful Learning
increased for the motion and force unit; however this result was similar to
that of the Traditional Class, in which students were taught with traditional
curriculum activities and other historical treatment groups. In addition no

significant changes were observed in Meaningful Component and Involvement
Component of Interest. The class activities in the Meaningful Class did not
result in a decrease in interest, which might be expected because of the addi-
tion of discussion sessions. The analysis of student interest scores and Mean-
ingful Learning scores showed that these variables for the Meaningful Class
were significantly and positively correlated. Student interest appeared to play
an important role in Meaningful Learning of science in the Meaningful Class.
For the Meaningful Class, student perceptions of Inference changed nega-
tively. It was not an expected outcome of the study that this historical treat-
ment would have this effect on student perceptions of Inference. In addition
there were significant relationships between Meaningful Learning of science
and the perceptions of Inference for the Meaningful Class. The potential
expected outcome in the Meaningful Class was to change student perceptions
of Tentativeness; however their perceptions were not significantly different
than other classes. Nevertheless, there was a significant relationship between
the perceptions of Tentativeness and Meaningful Learning.
8.2. THE NOS CLASS
The expected outcome from the treatment in this class was to help student
to be aware of different scientific methods, the tentative nature of scientific
knowledge, the role of inference in producing scientific knowledge, and
subjective nature of scientific knowledge. It was also expected that students
would appreciate discussing scientists’ methods and that the Involvement
Component of Interest would change positively.
The positive changes of student perceptions of Inference for the NOS
Class were greater than that for the Traditional Class. The negative chan-
ges of the perceptions of Scientific Method for the NOS Class were less
than that for the Traditional Class as well. However other historical treat-
ment class scores also showed the same positive results. The treatments in
both the Meaningful Class and the NOS Class had some similarities with
regards to the characteristics of some historical information. For example,
different scientific methods to observe the same natural phenomena and
different scientific concepts as result of observations of the same phenom-
ena can emphasize the aspect of Scientific Method and Tentativeness.
These results support the positive effects of the use of HOS, but not un-
iquely for class activities conducted in the NOS Class. Contrary to the
expectations of the study, Involvement Component of Interest decreased
significantly and this drop was significantly different from other classes.
The discussions on scientific methods from the past might have affected
student interest negatively. The Individual Interest scores for the NOS
Class showed significant relationship with Meaningful Learning scores,
stronger than that for the Traditional Class. Since the Individual Interest
scores decreased significantly, students with lower Individual Interest had
lower Meaningful Learning scores while students with higher Individual
Interest had higher Meaningful Learning scores.
8.3. INTEREST CLASS
The expected outcome from scientists’ personal life stories was to increase
student Situational Interest and Story Component of Interest. Additionally
it was expected that stimulation of student interest over a long term would
positively influence student Individual Interest, which has been considered
to have a positive effect on student learning of science (Krapp et al. 1992).
The Situational Interest scores for the Interest Class increased signifi-
cantly but did not differ from that of the Traditional Class. On the other
hand, the Story Component of Interest scores for the Interest Class in-
creased significantly and differed from that for the Traditional Class. Al-
though the Situational Interest, the Involvement Component of Interest,
and the Story Component of Interest increased, Individual Interest scores
seem to be unchanged by the end of the study. Perhaps if students had
more consistent and regular exposure to this context for the use of the his-
tory of science, the long-term effect would develop positive changes in
Individual Interest. Unexpectedly the positive changes and negative chan-
ges in student perspective of Inference for the Interest Class were positively
and significantly different from the Traditional Class. Scientist personal life
stories seem to be the best way of using HOS to affect student Story
Component of Interest and perspectives of Inference.
The variety of results with regards to the different class contexts sup-
ports the differentiation of class contexts developed with different types of
information. The initial step of overcoming the difficulties of the use of
HOS in science teaching was to help the science teacher recognize various
types of information and their connection to lesson objectives and goals.
For example, one of the concerns about using new materials was the al-
ready crowded curriculum (Gallagher 1991). The variety of historical infor-
mation presented by media and books represent only supplementary
materials for science teachers unless it can be related to the lesson objec-
tives and goals. In order to incorporate these materials, teachers need to
understand the differences between the types and uses of historical infor-
mation as described before; the history of scientific concepts, scientific
methods through history, the relation between science and society, and sci-
entists’ personal life stories. The HOS is a proper supplementary material
for science teaching as long as teachers recognize the parallel between the
objectives of the lessons and the historical materials. Historical information
can be valuable and accessible learning material.
9. Recommendations for Future Research

With regard to results of this study, the following suggestions for further
research in the use of HOS, and its effects on student learning of science,
understanding NOS, interest in science, and the assessment of these aspects
are provided. One of the results of this study is that there were different
class contexts provided by history of science with regards to the objectives
of science lessons. The tendency to ignore class context has been a source
of mixed results of studies in the use of HOS. Future research should de-
scribe the type of class context developed with HOS as it is described in
this study; such as Meaningful Class, NOS Class, and Interest Class. The
results of research on the use of HOS to teach science should be designed
and reported in respect to the specific context, not as a general finding
related to the overall effectiveness.
The results of the current study showed that discussions of scientific con-
cepts from the HOS and on scientists’ ways of producing scientific knowl-
edge tended to decrease student interest in science. The characterization,
selection, and sequencing of historical materials appropriate for discussion
session at various grade levels is one of the concerns of using the HOS as
it is discussed in the literature review section. Irwin’s (2000) study also had
similar results on the effect of the HOS on student attitude at the middle
school level. Further studies should investigate strategies for engaging stu-
dents in historical class contexts which foster positive student attitudes
toward HOS. The effectiveness of historical materials considering the class
contexts created should be investigated for middle school, high school, and
college-level science instruction.
There are two approaches proposed for teaching NOS, implicit and ex-
plicit. Abd-El-Khalick (1998) suggested the use of the explicit approach
after his study investigating the effectiveness of HOS courses on students’
views of the NOS. In further study, Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002)
identified the use of HOS as a third approach that may help students
articulate their prior beliefs related to scientific methods. Historical class
contexts showed significant effects on Scientific Method. These results
showed that the HOS had an influence on student perceptions of Scien-
tific Method when the science teacher incorporated scientists’ ideas, scien-
tific methods, or scientists’ personal life stories. Then again, the historical
classes, except for the Meaningful Class, showed significant effects on
perceptions of Inference. The Meaningful Class scores for Inference are
significantly lower than for the other historical classes. Considering differ-
ent results for different aspects of the nature of science, it is difficult to
suggest a certain way of using history of science to help student under-
standing of the NOS. New curriculum materials should be developed for
effective ways of using history of science in science teaching to change
students’ VNOC. In the development of these curricula, student interest

should be the initial concern due to the decrease in the Involvement Compo-
nent of Interest for the NOS Class. Instead of promoting discussion sessions,
other methods should be used to incorporate the HOS into the science teach-
ing. For example role-playing, drama writing, etc. The variety of results in the
implicit and explicit ways of using HOS for student understanding of the NOS
suggests that there is a need for more detailed description of the teaching
strategies rather than implicit or explicit ways of teaching the NOS.
The current study showed that scientists’ personal life stories affected stu-
dent interest positively. This is consistent with Stinner’s (1995) arguments on
the appropriateness of historical information for the middle grade level. The
Story Component of Interest survey measures student emotional beliefs, which
is related to the student short-term interest. This survey also assessed student
Individual Interest, which is long term and not easily changed in the science
class. Further research should monitor students over longitudinal studies to
measure student Individual Interest overtime. The Schick and Schewedes
(1999) analysis of Individual Interest and Situational Interest can be used to
support the analysis of interest level. Future studies can evaluate student out-
of-school experiences by conducting interviews throughout the research. In
addition, qualitative analysis can be conducted to obtain information about
involvement of individuals with class activities. Their involvements with class
activities, and the effects or connections of class activities related to daily life
situations could help to explore the change in student Individual Interest.
There were differences in results of the analyses for the motion unit and
the force unit. There might have been several potential reasons for these
differences; (a) concepts in the force unit (i.e., inertia, action and reaction
forces) were more abstract than in the motion unit (i.e., distance, velocity,
and speed), (b) students were more familiar with the concepts in the mo-
tion unit (i.e., distance, displacement, velocity, speed vs. inertia, gravity,
action and reaction forces), (c) there are long breaks in the school schedule
throughout the force unit. Moreover, the design of further research should
consider the effect of content knowledge in observing effects of historical
materials. The characteristics of concepts in the content should be de-
scribed as to their abstract level, student experience, quantitative require-
ments, complexity, and the perceived relevance to the students. Research
to characterize and classify concepts by the degree of consistency they have
with specific contexts for the use of history of science could help guide sci-
ence curriculum and instructional development.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F.: 2002, April, ‘The Development of Conceptions of The Nature of Sci-
entific Knowledge and Knowing in The Middle and High School Years: A Cross-Sectional
Study’, Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of The National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Abd-El-Khalick, F.: 1998, The Influence of History of Science Courses On Students’ Con-
ceptions of The Nature of Science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State
University.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L. & Lederman, N.G.: 1998, ÔThe Nature of Science and
Instructional Practice: Making The Unnatural NaturalÕ, Science Education 82(4), 417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G.: 2000a, ÔImproving Science Teachers’ Conceptions of
Nature of Science: A Critical Review of The LiteratureÕ, International Journal of Science
Education 22(7), 665–701.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G.: 2000b, ÔThe Influence of History of Science Courses
On Students’ Views of Nature of ScienceÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(10),
1057–1095.
Ausubel, D.: 1968, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
New York.
Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H.: 1978, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View,
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Bar, V. & Zinn, B.: 1998, ÔSimilar Frameworks of Action-At-A-Distance: Early Scientists’ and
Pupils’ IdeasÕ, Science and Education 7(5), 471–491.
Becker, B.: 2000, ÔMindworks: Making Scientific Concepts Come AliveÕ, Science and Education
9, 269–278.
Bell, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N.G., McComas, W.F. & Matthews, M.R.: 2001,
ÔThe Nature of Science and Science Education: A BibliographyÕ, Science and Education
10(1–2), 187–204.
Bentley, M.L.: 2000, ÔImprovisational Drama and The Nature of ScienceÕ, Journal of Science
Teacher Education 11(1), 63–75.
Boujaoude, S.: 1995, ÔDemonstrating The Nature of ScienceÕ, Science Teacher 62(4), 46–49.
Carson, R.N.: 1997, ÔWhy science education alone is not enoughÕ, Interchange 28(2–3), 109–
120.
Conant, J.: 1957, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Duschl, R.A.: 1990, Restructuring Science Education, Teachers College Press, New York.
Duschl, R.A.: 1994, Research On The History and Philosophy of Science, in D. Gable (ed.),
Handbook of research in science teaching, Macmillan, New York, pp. 443–465.
Duschl, R.A., Hamilton, R.J. & Grandy, R.E.: 1992, Psychology and Epistemology: Match
Or Mismatch When Applied to Science Education, in R.A. Duschl and R.J. Hamilton
(eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice, State
University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 19–47.
Egan, K.: 1985, ÔTeaching as Story-Telling: A Non-Mechanistic Approach to Planning
TeachingÕ, Journal of Curriculum Studies 17(4), 397–406.
Egan, K.: 1989, Teaching as Story Telling: An Alternative Approach to Teaching and Curric-
ulum in The Elementary School, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ferguson, G.A.: 1966, Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education (2nd ed.) edn,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gallagher, J.J.: 1991, ÔProspective and Practicing Secondary School Science Teachers’
Knowledge and Beliefs About The Philosophy of ScienceÕ, Science Education 75(1), 121–
133.
Hidi, S. & Baird, W.: 1986, ÔInterestingness-A Neglected Variable in Discourse ProcessingÕ,
Cognitive Science 10, 179–194.
Holton, G., Rutherford, F.J. & Watson, F.G.: 1970, The Project Physics Course, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Irwin, A.R.: 1997, ÔTheories of Burning: A Case Study Using A Historical PerspectiveÕ, School
Science Review 78(285), 31–38.
Irwin, A.R.: 2000, ÔHistorical Case Studies: Teaching The Nature of Science in ContextÕ,
Science Education 84(1), 5–26.
Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F.: 2002, ÔInfluence of Explicit and Reflective Versus Implicit
Inquiry-Oriented Instruction On Sixth Graders’ Views of Nature of ScienceÕ, Journal of
Research in Science Education 39(7), 551–578.
Klopfer, L. & Cooley, W.: 1961, The Use of Case Histories in The Development of Student
Understanding of Science and Scientists, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Krapp, A., Hidi, S. & Renninger, A.K.: 1992, Interest, Learning and Development, in K.A.
Reninger, S. Hidi and A. Krapp (eds.), The role of interest in learning and development,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 5–25.
Kuhn, T.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lauritzen, C. & Jaeger, M. (1992) November, ‘The Power of Story in Science Learning’, Paper
Presented at The Annual Meeting of The National Council of Teachers of English Con-
vention, Louisville, KY.
Lauritzen, C. & Jaeger, M.: 1997, Integrating Learning Through Story, Delmar Publishers,
Albany, NY.
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L. & Schwartz, R.S.: 2002, ÔViews of Nature of
Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Concep-
tions of Nature of ScienceÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz R. S. & Akerson V.: 2001, March,
‘Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire, Assessing The Un-Assessable’, Paper Presented
at The Annual Meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St.
Louis, MO.
Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science,
Routledge, New York.
Matthews, M.R.: 1998, ÔHow History and Philosophy in The U.S. Science Education Stan-
dards Could Have Promoted Multidisciplinary TeachingÕ, School Science and Mathematics
98(6), 285–293.
Matthews, M.R.: 2000, Time For Science Education: How Teaching The History and Philos-
ophy of Pendulum Motion Can Contribute to Science Literacy, Academic/Plenum Pub-
lishers, New York, Kluwer.
Mitchell, M.: 1992, April, ‘Situational Interest: Its Multifaceted Structure in The Secondary
Mathematics Classrooms’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Mitchell, M.: 1993, ÔSituational Interest: Its Multifaceted Structure in The Secondary School
Mathematics ClassroomÕ, Journal of Educational Psychology 85(3), 424–436.
Mitchell, M.: 1994, April, ‘Enhancing Situational Interest in The Mathematics Classroom’,
Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Associ-
ation, New Orleans, LA.
Novak, J.D.: 1995, Concept Mapping: A Strategy for Organizing Knowledge, in S.M. Glyn
and R. Duit (eds.), Learning science in the schools, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 229–245.
Novak, J.D.: 1998, Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative
Tools in Schools and Corporations, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Quale, A.: 2001, November, ‘Telling A Story: The Role of Radical Constructivist Episte-
mology in Science Teaching’, Paper Presented at The Sixth Meeting of The History of
Science Society, Denver, CO.
Renninger, K.A.: 1990, Children’s Play Interests, Representation and Activity, in R. Fivush
and J. Hudson (eds.), Knowing and Remembering in Young Children Emory Cognition
Series vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 127–165.
Roach, L.E. & Wandersee, J.H.: 1995, ÔPutting People Back Into Science: Using Historical
VignettesÕ, School Science and Mathematics 95(7), 365–370.
Ruı́z-Primo, M.: 2000, March 22, On The Use of Concept Maps as An Assessment Tool in
Science: What We Have Learned So Far. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa,
2 (1). Retrieved September 2, 2002, from http://redie.ens.uabc.mx/vol2no1/contenido-
ruizpri.html.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Shavelson, R.J. & Schultz, S.E.: 1997, ‘On The Validity of Concept-Map
Based Assessment Interpretations: An Experiment Testing The Assumption of Hierar-
chical Concept Maps in Science’, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards,
and Student Testing, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate school of Education &
Information Studies, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 90024-6511.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Schultz, S.E., Li, M. & Shavelson, R.J.: 1998, ‘Comparison of The Reli-
ability and Validity of Scores From Two Concept-Mapping Techniques’, National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Center for the Study of
Evaluation, Graduate school of Education & Information Studies, UCLA, Los Angeles,
CA, 90024-6511.
Rutherford, J.: 2001, ÔFostering The History of Science in American Science EducationÕ,
Science and Education 10(6), 569–580.
Schau, C. Mattern, N., Weber, R., Minnick, K., & Witt, C.: 1997, March, Use of Fill-In
Concept Maps to Assess Middle School Students’ Connected Understanding of Science.
Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Schick, A. & Schewedes, H.: 1999, March, ‘The Influence of Interest Influence and Self-
Concept On Students’ Actions in Physics Lessons’, Paper Presented at The Annual
Meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Schwartz, R.S. & Lederman, N.G.: 2000, ÔIt’s The Nature of The Beast: The Influence of
Knowledge and Intentions On Learning and Teaching Nature of ScienceÕ, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 39(3), 205–236.
Seroglou, F., Koumaras, P. & Tselfes, V.: 1998, ÔHistory of Science and Instructional Design:
The Case of ElectromagnetismÕ, Science and Education 7, 261–280.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J. & Scot, L.: 1992, ÔTeaching About The Nature of Science Through
History: Action Research in The ClassroomÕ, Journal of Research in Science Education
29(4), 409–421.
Stinner, A.: 1989, ÔThe Teaching of Physics and The Contexts of Inquiry: From Aristotle to
EinsteinÕ, Science Education 73(5), 591–605.
Stinner, A.: 1994, ÔThe Story of Force: From Aristotle to EinsteinÕ, Physics Education 29(2),
77–85.
Stinner, A.: 1995, ÔContextual Settings, Science Stories, and Large Context Problems: Toward
A More Humanistic Science EducationÕ, Science Education 79(5), 555–581.
Stinner, A.: 1996, ÔProviding A Contextual Base and A Theoretical Structure to Guide The
Teaching of Science From Early Years to Senior YearsÕ, Science and Education 5(3), 247–
266.
Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M. & Klassen, S.: 2001, November, ‘Contexts,
Stories and History in the Science Classroom’, Paper Presented at The Sixth Meeting of
The History of Science Society, Denver, CO.
Stinner, A. & Williams, H.: 1993, ÔConceptual Change, History, and Science StoriesÕ, Inter-
change 24(1–2), 87–103.
Wandersee, J.H.: 1985, ÔCan The History of Science Help Science Educators Anticipate Stu-
dents’ Misconceptions?Õ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23(17), 581–597.
Wandersee, J.H.: 1992, ÔThe Historicality of Cognition: Implications For Science Education
ResearchÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(4), 423–434.
Wandersee, J.H. & Roach, L.E.: 1998, Interactive historical vignettes, in J.J. Mintzes, J.H.
Wandersee and J.D. Novak (eds.), Teaching Science For Understanding: A Human Con-
structivist View, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 281–323.
Warrick, J.: 2000, ÔBringing Science History to LifeÕ, Science Scope 23(7), 23–25.
Welch, W.W.: 1973, ÔReview of The Research and Evaluation Program of Harvard Project
PhysicsÕ, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 10(4), 365–378.

The Use of History of Mechanics in Teac PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Use of History of Mechanics in Teac PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Science & Education (2006) 15:55–89 Springer 2006

The Use of History of Mechanics in Teaching

HAYATI SEKER,1 and LAURA C. WELSH2

required. The classroom diﬃculties, such as limited period of time and

2. The Eﬀects of Using the HOS in Science Teaching

concepts as reported in historical accounts. Wandersee points out that

(b) appreciated the power of scientists’ imagination and creativity, and

network form. Concepts are deﬁned as regularities of events or objects with

encouraging; the correlation between concept map scores and multiple –

positively, but enrollment in these classes declined (Welch 1973). Student

1993). According to Mitchell’s model of interest, the hold component has

independent variable is the regular or traditional approach to the science

students were enrolled in the classes. Therefore, student background variables:

Students’ responses to the POSE instrument were scored by the re-

The proportion of students who changed their views of Inference

There were four items to measure student Individual Interest (i.e.,

correlation coefﬁcients between student Meaningful Learning scores and

7.1. THE EFFECTS ON STUDENT MEANINGFUL LEARNING

7.2. THE EFFECTS ON STUDENT VIEWS OF THE NOS

Traditional Class changed their views of Scientiﬁc Method negatively while

7.3. THE EFFECTS ON STUDENT INTEREST IN SCIENCE

Component of Interest). The current study used interest survey to investi-

7.4. STUDENT LEARNING OF SCIENCE AND VIEWS OF THE NOS

the relationships between student meaningful learning and understanding

7.5. STUDENT LEARNING OF SCIENCE AND INTEREST IN SCIENCE

The analyses of differences between classes for these correlation coefﬁcients

in science. Three types of class contexts are described: the Meaningful

8.1. THE MEANINGFUL CLASS

The primary expected outcome of the activities in the Meaningful Class

curriculum activities and other historical treatment groups. In addition no

8.2. THE NOS CLASS

8.3. INTEREST CLASS

9. Recommendations for Future Research

students’ VNOC. In the development of these curricula, student interest

Potrebbero piacerti anche