Current Event #1 page 1
Kevin D. McMahon
Student ID#: 78513
SED 600
February 27, 2007
Department of Chemistry
National Kaohsiung Normal University

Current Event #1 page 2
Promoting Science Literacy through Historical Context
What is science literacy? Is it simply a mastery of science content standards? If it is then our understanding of science literacy runs the risk of being reduced to disparate factoids disconnected from their rich historical, social, and philosophical context. This context is necessary for a proper understanding of what science is and how it works.
Consequently, when science education is deprived of this context students become less
“literate” in science in spite of knowing more scientific data. This is the point that Lynn
Fendler and Steven Tuckey, make when they argue that the current education regime tends to “… ‘thingify’ scientific ideas and concepts without regard to their historical contingency.” (Fendler, Tuckey, 2006 p590). They propose that an authentic understanding of science literacy requires that students learn the context in which new scientific knowledge emerges:
“…we suggest that an understanding of the historical, discursive production of scientific knowledge affects the meaning of scientific literacy in at least three ways. A discursive study of scientific knowledge has epistemological consequences because such a historical grounded approach avoids the selective perception that occurs when facts are abstracted form the historical conditions of their emergence. (Fendler, Tuckey, 2006, p591)
The Researcher’s Hypotheses
Huann-shyang Lin, and his fellow researchers, proposed that scientific literacy can be enhanced through a historical approach because it would provide students with an opportunity to explore their own pre-(mis)-conceptions regarding natural phenomena:
“… we suspect that the introduction of the historical development of a concept might help students to reflect on their original ideas and appreciate the superior explanatory power of the more advanced model. (Lin, et-al, 2006 p454)

Current Event #1 page 3
They further observed that science students tend to rely too heavily on algorithmic techniques in solving problems rather than reasoning skills. They have suggested that a historical approach might provide a conceptual/qualitative foundation upon which a quantitative/algorithmic knowledge could be built:
“In order to promote students’ conceptual problem-solving ability, it has been suggested that students learn scientific concepts qualitatively before they are met quantitatively. The study reported here was designed to investigate the effectiveness of integrating history into science and focused on students’ qualitative understanding and application of scientific concepts.
(Lin, et-al, 2006, p454)
The Experimental Protocol
To test these hypotheses Lin and his researchers, conducted a one-year study examining two groups of eight-grade students. The physical science teacher selected for the study was familiar with the history of science and was eager to implement the historyrich materials provided by the researchers. Two classes of eight-graders were selected for the study. They both shared similar GPA’s and socioeconomic backgrounds. One group was randomly selected to be the experimental group. This group would be taught using only the historically enriched materials provided by the researchers. The control group would be taught in a manner similar to that of other Taiwanese middle-school students, i.e., through teacher directed lecture and note taking. The same teacher taught both groups.
At the beginning of the study both groups were administered a conceptual test in which student were encouraged to answer and explain as much as possible. Over the

Current Event #1 page 4 course of the year, the experimental group was instructed using the historical-rich materials which incorporated:
“… small group discussions, student presentation, teacher demonstrations, and hands-on activities. Students were required to predict possible outcomes of an experiment, to explain the reason of their predictions, to make a hypothesis of a problem, and to simulate previous scientists’ experiments. (Lin, et-al,
2006 p460)
Students in the control group listened to lectures, took notes, practiced problems and did
“… hands-on experiments by following the procedures described in the laboratory manuals…and followed cookbook formulae and tried to get the ‘correct answers.” (Lin,, et-al, 2006 p460)
Analysis and Conclusion
Through the study period both the experimental and control groups were given identical conceptual assessments. The results were analyzed using a variety of statistical techniques including an independent t-test, means and standard-deviations, and an analysis of covariance. In comparing the results of the experimental and control groups the researchers determined that after the first assessment (after the pre-assessment) there was statistical no difference in the performance of the two groups. However, by the second assessment, the experimental group was performing better than the control group.
The researchers concluded that a historical approach was effective in promoting conceptual understanding with the caveat that:
“The slow-acting effect of history in science teaching reminds teachers and educators to be patient while they are implementing this teaching approach. Although the potential benefits of integrating history of science in teaching has been revealed and justified in previous studies, this study further found that a short time of intervention of this approach might not be effective in student achievement in science.” (Lin, 2006 p463)

Current Event #1 page 5
This Reviewer’s Assessment
The authors of the research articulated their hypotheses and supported it with a thorough literature review. They were meticulous in their description of several of the historically-rich lessons that were presented to the experimental group. The study was carefully implemented, and analyzed. However, I have two concerns: (1) the design of the study, and (2) the conclusions drawn from the results.
The question asked by the authors was, “Does the history of science promote students’ problem-solving ability?” However, the way in which the study was conducted it might just as well have asked, “Does small group discussion, student presentations, teacher demonstration, hand-on activities in which student predict outcomes, explain the reasoning behind their predictions, etc., promote students’ problem-solving ability?”
Because of the way in which the study was conducted it is impossible to differentiate between the history that was presented and the pedagogy in which it was taught. And since the control group was taught using more traditional teacher directed pedagogy the dichotomy becomes even more problematic. Given this inability to differentiate between the historical content and the effect of pedagogy it seems difficult to draw specific conclusions regarding the effectiveness of incorporating history into science education to enhance science literacy. However, if incorporation of historical context is viewed holistically as containing both content and pedagogy then such a conclusion is probably legitimate.
Science literacy is more than disparate scientific factoids. Researchers, such as those who performed this study, argue that it should encompass an understanding of the

Current Event #1 page 6 history and the nature of the scientific endeavor. They believe that curricula and pedagogy that adopts this understanding of scientific literacy will also make the doing of science more accessible to students. The results of this study adds to the evidence in favor of a historical approach to teaching science with the caveat that it should also incorporate elements of inquisitional pedagogy.

Current Event #1 page 7
Reference:
Fendler, Lynn & Tuckey, Steven (2006) Whose Literacy? Discursive Constructions of
Life and Objectivity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2006 p589
Lin, Huann-shyang, Hung, Jui-ying,, & Hung, Su-chu (2006) Using the History of
Science to Promote Students’ Problem-Solving Ability. International Journal of
Science Education, Vol. 24, No. 5, 2002, p.453