The Oil Drop Experiment: Do Physical Chemistry Textbooks Refer to its Controversial Nature?

Most general chemistry textbooks consider the oil drop experiment as a classic experiment, characterized by its simplicity and precise results. A review of the history and philosophy of science literature shows that the experiment is difficult to perform (even today!) and generated a considerable amount of controversy. Acceptance of the quantization of the elementary electrical charge was preceded by a bitter dispute between R.A. Millikan and F. Ehrenhaft, that lasted for many years (1910–1925). The objective of this study was to investigate whether physical chemistry textbooks refer to the controversial nature of the experiment. Based on six criteria developed previously, 28 physical chemistry textbooks were evaluated. Analysis of the texts using six identified criteria demonstrated that the textbooks neither referred to the controversial nature of the experiment nor recognized the difficulty of the experimental procedure. Only a few texts even attempted to include any discussion of the history or philosophy of the experiment. The instructor of a physical chemistry course could include aspects of the Millikan–Ehrenhaft controversy to motivate classroom discussion and help facilitate an understanding of the role that controversy has in scientific progress.     

The Oil Drop Experiment: An Illustration of Scientific Research Methodology and its Implications for Physics Textbooks

The objectives of this study are:(1) evaluation of the methodology used in recent search for particles with fractional electrical charge (quarks) and its implications for understanding the scientific research methodology of Millikan; (2) evaluation of 43 general physics textbooks and 11 laboratory manuals, with respect to the oil drop experiment, based on seven history and philosophy of science criteria. Results obtained show that all the textbooks and manuals ignored the Millikan–Ehrenhaft controversy and in general lacked a history and philosophy of science perspective. In spite of the anomalous data, Millikan adhered to the guiding assumptions of his research program. Ehrenhaft's work strictly followed the logic of experimental observations. Although, Ehrenhaft's work approximated the traditional scientific method, the scientific community supported Millikan. General physics textbooks and laboratory manuals present the oil drop experiment as an example of the scientific method in which experimental data implicitly serves as an arbiter in the defense of Millikan. It is suggested that textbooks and manuals by including the Millikan–Ehrenhaft controversy and the methodology used in the search for quarks could enrich students' understanding of scientific research methodology, viz., experimental data do not always dictate the choice of a theory.     

A reconstruction of development of the periodic table based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for general chemistry textbooks

The objectives of this study are: (a) elaboration of a history and philosophy of science (HPS) framework based on a reconstruction of the development of the periodic table; (b) formulation of seven criteria based on the framework; and (c) evaluation of 57 freshman college‐level general chemistry textbooks with respect to the presentation of the periodic table. The historical reconstruction of the periodic table showed that the periodicity of the elements could be construed as an inductive generalization or as a function of the atomic theory. There is considerable controversy with respect to the nature of Mendeleev's contribution, and various alternatives are discussed: ordered domain; empirical law; and a theory with limited explanatory power. Accommodation of the elements according to their physicochemical properties is considered to be the major contribution of the periodic table by all textbooks, followed by contrapredictions of previously unknown elements (30 textbooks), and novel predictions (corrections of atomic mass) of known elements (10 textbooks). The relative importance of accommodation and prediction within an HPS framework is generally ignored. Few textbooks have attempted to explore the possible cause of periodicity in the table and very few textbooks have explored the nature of Mendeleev's contribution. The development of the periodic table as a sequence of heuristic principles in the form of a convincing argument has been ignored. The textbook approach of emphasizing that the development of the periodic table was an inductive generalization, and that Mendeleev had no model or theory, does not facilitate the spirit of critical inquiry that led the scientists to grapple with alternative interpretations, conflicts, and controversies. It is concluded that the development of the periodic table went through a continual critical appraisal (conflict and controversy), in which scientists presented various tentative theoretical ideas to understand the observed phenomena. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 84–111, 2005     

A Reconstruction of Structure of the Atom and Its Implications for General Physics Textbooks: A History and Philosophy of Science Perspective

Recent research in science education has recognized the importance of history and philosophy of science. The objective of this study is to evaluate the presentation of the Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr models of the atom in general physics textbooks based on criteria derived from history and philosophy of science. Forty-one general physics textbooks (all published in the United States) were evaluated on two criteria based on Thomson's work, three on Rutherford's work, and three on Bohr's work. Results obtained show that general physics textbooks do not systematically include a history and philosophy of science perspective. Most textbooks present an inductivist perspective in which experimental details are considered to be paramount. On the contrary, a historical reconstruction of the experimental details inevitably includes: the context in which an experiment is conducted, the theoretical framework that guides the scientist, and alternative interpretations of data that lead to conflicts and controversies. Examples are provided to show how historical reconstructions of atomic models can provide students an opportunity to appreciate how scientists work and science progresses. It is plausible to suggest that textbook presentations based on a history and philosophy of science perspective can perhaps arouse students' interest in the subject and hence lead to greater conceptual understanding.     

How in Spite of the Rhetoric,History of Chemistry has Been Ignored in Presenting Atomic Structure in Textbooks

Recent research in science education has recognized the importance of history and philosophy of science. This study has the following objectives:(a) To show how the importance of history of chemistry has been recognized in theclassroom, starting from the 1920s to the present; (b) How criteria based on history andphilosophy of science can be used to evaluate presentation of atomic structure in generalchemistry textbooks; (c) Comparison of the new (1970–1992) and old textbooks (1929–1967)with respect to the presentation of atomic structure. Results obtained show thatmost of the new and old textbooks not only ignore the history and philosophy of sciencebut also present experimental findings as a `rhetoric of conclusions'. It isconcluded that such presentations are not conducive towards a better understanding of scientificprogress. It is suggested that history and philosophy of science can be introduced in theclassroom not necessarily through formal courses in the history of chemistry or commentsand anecdotes, but rather by incorporating the `heuristic principles' that guided thescientists to elaborate their theories.     

A rational reconstruction of the kinetic molecular theory of gases based on history and philosophy of science and its implications for chemistry textbooks

Research in science education has recognized the importance of history and philosophy of science. Given this perspective, the study was designed to develop a framework for examining the way in which chemistry textbooks describe the kinetic theory and related issues. The framework was developed by a rational reconstruction of the kinetic molecular theory of gases based primarily on the interpretations of Maxwell and Boltzmann, by historians and philosophers of science. Another aspect of the framework was based on an analysis of freshman chemistry students' performance on gas problems that required the use of algorithms or conceptual understanding. Subsequently, 22 textbooks were evaluated using a framework consisting of six criteria. Results obtained showed that most textbooks lacked a history and philosophy of science framework and did not deal adequately with the following aspects: (1) Postulates of the kinetic theory were speculative and played the role of simplifying assumptions, considered to be the rule in science rather than being the exceptions; (2) Based on these simplifying assumptions, the theorists built a series of tentative models that progressively incorporated the behavior of real gases; (3) Similar to other research programs in the history of science, Maxwell's was based on inconsistent foundations; (4) Development of the kinetic theory had to compete with chemical thermodynamics, a rival research program; (5) Maxwell and Boltzmann facilitated our understanding of gas behavior beyond the observable hydrodynamical laws, by explaining the internal properties (e.g., molecular collisions).     

Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science

Scholars have argued that the history of science might facilitate an understanding of processes of science. Focusing on science education for citizenship and active involvement in debates on socioscientific issues, one might argue that today’s post-academic science differs from academic science in the past, making the history of academic science irrelevant. However, this article argues that, under certain conditions, cases from the history of science should be included in science curricula for democratic participation. One condition is that the concept of processes is broadened to include science–society interactions in a politically sensitive sense. The scope of possibilities of using historical case studies to prepare for citizenship is illustrated by the use of a well-known case from the history of science: Millikan’s and Ehrenhaft’s “Battle over the electron”.     

Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science based on historical controversies

The objective of this study is to facilitate progressive transitions in chemistry teachers understanding of nature of science in the context of historical controversies. Selected controversies referred to episodes that form part of the chemistry curriculum both at secondary and university freshman level. The study is based on 17 in-service teachers who had registered for an 11-week course on ‘Investigation in the teaching of chemistry’ as part of their Master’s degree program. The course is based on 17 readings drawing on a history and philosophy of science perspective with special reference to controversial episodes in the chemistry curriculum. Course activities included written reports, class room discussions based on participants’ presentations, and written exams. Based on the results obtained it is suggested that this study facilitated the following progressive transitions in teachers’ understanding of nature of science: (a) Problematic nature of the scientific method, objectivity and the empirical basis of science; (b) Myths associated with respect to the nature of science and teaching chemistry; (c) Science does not develop by appealing to objectivity in an absolute sense, as creativity and presuppositions also play a crucial role; (d) The role of speculation and controversy in the construction of knowledge based on episodes from the chemistry curriculum; (e) How did Bohr confirm his postulates? This goes beyond the treatment in most textbooks; (f) Differentiation between the idealized scientific law and the observations. It is concluded that given the opportunity to reflect, discuss and participate in a series of course activities based on various controversial episodes, teachers’ understanding of nature of science can be enhanced.     

Analysis of the Image of Scientists Portrayed in the Lebanese National Science Textbooks

This article presents an analysis of how scientists are portrayed in the Lebanese national science textbooks. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, to develop a comprehensive analytical framework that can serve as a tool to analyze the image of scientists portrayed in educational resources. Second, to analyze the image of scientists portrayed in the Lebanese national science textbooks that are used in Basic Education. An analytical framework, based on an extensive review of the relevant literature, was constructed that served as a tool for analyzing the textbooks. Based on evidence-based stereotypes, the framework focused on the individual and work-related characteristics of scientists. Fifteen science textbooks were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative measures. Our analysis of the textbooks showed the presence of a number of stereotypical images. The scientists are predominantly white males of European descent. Non-Western scientists, including Lebanese and/or Arab scientists are mostly absent in the textbooks. In addition, the scientists are portrayed as rational individuals who work alone, who conduct experiments in their labs by following the scientific method, and by operating within Eurocentric paradigms. External factors do not influence their work. They are engaged in an enterprise which is objective, which aims for discovering the truth out there, and which involves dealing with direct evidence. Implications for science education are discussed.     

20世纪中国科学教育的文化批评

从当代科学哲学和科学社会学的视角出发,本分析了20世纪不同版本历史、语和物理教材中的科学化,认为其存在以下有待完善的地方：在科学观方面,应该进一步强调科学问题、科学假设作为科学活动重要的组成部分,深刻阐明科学是一种社会建制的思想;在科学价值观方面,应该充分阐明科学的负面价值与内在价值;在科学发展观方面,应当修正“科学成就史观”和“个人英雄史观”,确立“问题史观”,突出科学问题、科学论争与科学家共同体在推动科学发展中的重要作用;在科学家的形象表征方面,应该注意表现科学家从事科学工作更为重要的一些专业性品质。     

Science curriculum and teacher education: The role of presuppositions,contradictions, controversies and speculations vs Kuhn's ‘normal science’

Kuhn (1970) considered textbooks to be good 'pedagogical vehicles' for the perpetuation of ‘normal science’. Collins (2000) has pointed out a fundamental contradiction with respect to what science could achieve (create new knowledge) and how we teach science (authoritarian). Despite the reform efforts, students still have naïve views about the nature of science. Textbook analyses show almost a complete lack of understanding of the role played by presuppositions, contradictions, controversies and speculations in scientific progress. A possible solution to the contradiction pointed out by Collins is provided by the comparison of teaching approaches based on Kuhnian and Lakatosian perspectives of history and philosophy of science. It appears that the Kuhnian approach leaves out what really happens, that is the 'how' and 'why' of scientific progress. On the other hand, the Lakatosian perspective would enable students to understand that scientific progress is subsumed by a process that involves conflicting frameworks (dispute in science, according to Collins, 2000), based on processes that require the elaboration of rival hypotheses and their evaluation in the light of new evidence. It is plausible to suggest that the teacher by 'unfolding' the different episodes (based on historical reconstructions) can emphasize and illustrate how science actually works (tentative, controversial, rivalries, alternative interpretations of the same data), and this will show to the students that they need to go beyond ‘normal science’ as presented in their textbooks.     

The Treatment of the Motion of a Simple Pendulum in some Early 18th Century Newtonian Textbooks

The treatment of pendulum motion in early 18th century Newtonian textbooks is quite different to what we find in today's physics textbooks and is based on presuppositions and mathematical techniques which are not widely used today. In spite of a desire to present Newton's new philosophy of nature as found in his Principia 18th century textbook analysis of pendulum motion appears to owe more to Galileo's insights than to those of Newton. The following case study outlines this analysis and identifies some of its distinctive features as a resource for teachers wishing to refer to this period in the history of science.     

Young black children and science: Chronotopes of narratives around their science journals

We explored 30 Black Kindergarten‐2nd grade students' spoken narratives around pages of their science journals that the children selected as best for showing them as scientists. Because in all narratives, space–time relationships play an important role not only in situating but also in constituting them, we focused on such relationships using Bakhtin's (1981) construct of chronotopes. Our chronotopical analysis aimed at fleshing out the temporal and spatial features that were present in the children's journal pages, and in the children's ways of talking both about these features and about being scientists. Our goal was to better understand ways in which African‐American children identify with science and scientists in particular contexts: an interview with an adult who had visited their class throughout that year and a class where they were offered various opportunities to engage with science. Using six cases that maximized the variety of understandings we could develop vis‐à‐vis our research question, we show how the children's narratives were filled with differing space–time relationships in which the children found ways to showcase their agency. Thus, we provide insights into how the children authored relationships with science and scientists, negotiated the past with the present and possible future, and contextualized their narratives within various time‐spaces that had meaning for them. Moreover, multiple people populated the children's chronotopes and became intertwined with the space–time relationships that underlined their conceptions of themselves vis‐à‐vis science and scientists. Despite the varied conceptions of science and scientists that the children portrayed, their narratives communicated a high level of confidence in being able to do science and be scientists, and initiative in learning. The children's narratives were filled with hope, “able‐ness,” knowledge, affect, and possibility. These findings point to several considerations for practice. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 568–596, 2012     

The Philosophy of Science and Technology in China: Political and Ideological Influences

In China, the philosophy of science and technology (PST) is derived from “Dialectics of Nature” (DN), which is based on Engels’ unfinished book Dialektik der Natur. DN as a political ideology provides political guidance for scientists and engineers. Therefore, since 1981, “Introduction to Dialectics of Nature” (IDN) has been an obligatory course for master’s degree students who study natural science or technology. In 1987, DN was renamed PST by the Chinese government in order to communicate and do research. The IDN teachers constitute most of the scholars who research PST. Nowadays, in China, PST includes philosophy of nature, philosophy of science, philosophy of technology, sociology of science, sociology of technology, “science, technology and society,” history of science, history of technology, management of science, and management of technology due to having too many IDN teachers. In fact, it is neither a branch of philosophy, nor a subject. The number of the IDN teachers has been increasing since 1981, which makes PST a miscellaneous collection of many branches or subjects. Finally, PST is facing two new challenges: the reduction of IDN and academic corruption.     

The Nature of Scientific Explanation: Examining the perceptions of the nature,quality, and “goodness” of explanation among college students,science teachers,and scientists

Issues regarding scientific explanation have been of interest to philosophers from Pre-Socratic times. The notion of scientific explanation is of interest not only to philosophers, but also to science educators as is clearly evident in the emphasis given to K-12 students' construction of explanations in current national science education reform efforts. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of research on conceptualizing explanation in science education. Using a philosophically guided framework—the Nature of Scientific Explanation (NOSE) framework—the study aims to elucidate and compare college freshmen science students', secondary science teachers', and practicing scientists' scientific explanations and their views of scientific explanations. In particular, this study aims to: (1) analyze students', teachers', and scientists' scientific explanations; (2) explore the nuances about how freshman students, science teachers, and practicing scientists construct explanations; and (3) elucidate the criteria that participants use in analyzing scientific explanations. In two separate interviews, participants first constructed explanations of everyday scientific phenomena and then provided feedback on the explanations constructed by other participants. Major findings showed that, when analyzed using NOSE framework, participant scientists did significantly “better” than teachers and students. Our analysis revealed that scientists, teachers, and students share a lot of similarities in how they construct their explanations in science. However, they differ in some key dimensions. The present study highlighted the need articulated by many researchers in science education to understand additional aspects specific to scientific explanation. The present findings provide an initial analytical framework for examining students' and science teachers' scientific explanations.     

Teaching the Philosophical Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Chemistry Through Controversies

This study has the key premise of teaching history and philosophy of physical sciences to illustrate how controversies and rivalries among scientists play a key role in the progress of science and why scientific development is not only founded on the accumulation of experimental data. The author is a defender of teachers who consider philosophical, historical and socio-scientific issues. In particular, the disputes can be used in science teaching to promote students awareness of the “historicity” of science and to facilitate the understanding of scientific progress beyond that of inductive generalizations. The establishment of a theory is accompanied with philosophical interpretations all the way. The author will try to show that it gives excellent results in teaching and learning to bring to the foreground the complexity that surrounds the development of ideas in science, illustrating how controversies, presuppositions, contradictions and inconsistencies find a place in the work of scientists and philosophers alike. In this sense, the case of quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry is very solid because it is historically full of controversies among their heads: Einstein, Bohr, De Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Born, Lewis, Langmuir, Bader, Hoffmann and Pauling, at least.     

History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of 'the atom'

It is suggested that the contribution of history and philosophy of science (HPS) to science education can be enhanced through a consideration of scientific models which are relevant to major sectors of the curriculum. The possibilities for so doing are considered through the discussion of six assertions. A way of characterizing such models, based on the work of Lakatos (1970, 1978), is outlined and applied to a typically important sector, that of the nature of the atom. An analysis of the way that the curriculum for 14-16 year olds and typical textbooks in Brazil and the UK treat historical models of the atom is given. The use of 'hybrid' models was identified in those treatments. Hybrid models, by their very nature as composites drawn from several distinct historical models, do not allow the history and philosophy of science to make a full contribution to science education. They do this by denying the role of distinct models in the history of science and of the role of progression between these models in the philosophy of science. The consequences for the teaching of science of an appropriate treatment of historical models are outlined.