William McComas
(Photo: Submitted)
FAYETTEVILLE,
Ark. — A University of Arkansas professor wants science educators to put a
human face on the science concepts they teach in the classroom.
In a paper to be presented at the biennial
conference of the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching
Group, William McComas offers science educators a set of historical vignettes
to better teach students about the underlying nature of science.
“Incorporation
of rich historical episodes into the science classroom can humanize science by
raising instruction from the mere recitation of facts to its exploration as an
authentic and exciting human adventure,” McComas wrote.
According to
McComas, there is a consensus among educators interested in science curriculum
reform that “a robust and authentic science program must contain elements of
the nature of science” for students to understand both the content and process
of science.
McComas
explained “nature of science” as “a rich description of science; how it works,
how scientists operate as a social group and how society itself both directs
and reacts to scientific endeavors.” The field includes aspects of history,
sociology and philosophy of science. In previous research, he had developed a
list of nine core nature of science concepts appropriate to a K-12 curriculum.
The current research adds an extensive list of historical vignettes that link
to those concepts.
In an
examination of eight recent textbooks, McComas identified and analyzed
historical examples used to clarify nature of science concepts. He found that
59 percent of examples relating to nature of science came from the physical
sciences. He cautioned that there is a danger that students could miss the
unity of science when so many examples come from one discipline.
“Students must
be provided opportunities to see that the core nature of science ideas transcend
the traditional boundaries of scientific disciplines,” McComas wrote.
The great
majority of examples he examined came from older rather than contemporary
historical accounts. Einstein, Newton, Galileo and Darwin were used frequently.
While those scientists are useful, McComas noted that students need to see
contemporary examples in order to understand that “the rules of the 'game’ of
science operate in much the same fashion today as they have in the past.”
McComas
identified a gap in some accounts between presenting principles and making an
explicit link to nature of science concepts. For example, one text used an
account that illustrated the distinction between laws and theories, but because
the author never labeled the examples “law” or “theory,” he missed an
opportunity to explicitly teach nature of science concepts.
“If students do
not have an explicit opportunity to link the historical example with a nature
of science principle,” McComas wrote, “they will likely hear these accounts of
science and consider them interesting but not particularly enlightening
stories.”
McComas is the
Parks Family Professor of Science Education in the College of Education and
Health Professions at the University of Arkansas and is president of the
International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group. He will present
his paper, “Seeking Historical Examples to Illustrate Key Aspects of the Nature
of Science,” at 11 a.m. Thursday, June 28, at the organization’s international
conference in Calgary, Alberta.