We Now Interrupt the Story
1
We Now Interrupt the Story: Mediating Student Learning Using
Historical Stories
DON METZ, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, email:d.metz@uwinnipeg.ca
Abstract: Integrating history and philosophy of science and science teaching has been
advocated by many educators for many years and there are indications that it would be welcomed
by students. One means of integrated suggested is the use of historical science stories. While the
historical story has some interesting potential we are advised to focus attention on some of the
issues surrounding the implementation of science stories in the classroom. In this paper, I
consider what HPS looks like in the implemented curriculum today. Further, I outline briefly
some aspects of the literature on student comprehension and advance a form of science story
intended to actively engage students in the implemented curriculum.
Introduction
A role for the history of science within the larger framework of science teaching
has been advocated by many historians, philosophers of science, and educators. Almost
twenty years ago Ian Winchester (1989) argued that “An education which fails to show
the creativity necessary to frame scientific concepts is surely an inadequate education and
almost certainly a misleading one”
There are many reasons given for integrating history and philosophy of science
(HPS) and science teaching. Historical perspectives naturally raise personal, ethical,
sociological, philosophical and political concerns which tend to increase interest and
motivation in students (Meyling, 1997; Metz, 2003) and provide a context to address
science in a humanistic tradition (Stinner, 1995). Importantly, historical approaches may
connect the development of individual thinking with the development of scientific ideas.
Students’ ideas have also been demonstrated to parallel historical concepts (Wandersee,
1990). Moreover, Matthews (1989) has suggested that appreciating where great minds
had difficulty is a potential comfort to students unsure and afraid to express their own
viewpoints and allows students to locate their concepts within an intellectual tradition
(Matthews, 1994). Monk and Osborne (1997) have argued that the historical approach to
the learning of scientific concepts should help students because their acceptance or
opposition to scientific concepts is often for the same reasons as the original scientists.
Matthews (1994) also reminds us that the history of science can suggest questions
and experiments that promote appropriate conceptual change in students.
“Knowledge of the slow and difficult path traversed in the historical development
of particular sciences can assist teachers planning the organization of a program,
the choice of experiments and activities, and their responses to classroom
questions and puzzles”.
Thus, the historical perspective can be deemed useful not only in the learning process but
in the teaching process. Klassen (2006) agrees, arguing that a historical perspective helps
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
2
to uncover the vitality of investigation and creative invention that is lacking in school
science. Consequently, in this paper, I aim to look at some of the ways the historical
perspective can influence science teaching and provide some means for mediating student
learning in science.
In any examination of the teaching process it is prudent to consider the intended
curriculum and then more practically, the implemented curriculum. The intended
curriculum is the curriculum mandated by schools, school jurisdictions, and governments.
The implemented curriculum is the actual curriculum delivered in the classroom by the
teacher. Research has shown that the intended curriculum and the implemented
curriculum are not always congruent.
In recent years many reforms have been enacted resulting in a number of
international, national, and local curriculum frameworks and documents available to
teachers. In many of these documents history and philosophy of science is addressed and
in some cases assumes a prominent role. The influential Science for All Americans
(AAAS, 1989) assigns the foremost position in the document - chapter 1 - to the Nature
of Science and includes a complete chapter on historical perspectives recognizing that
“episodes in the history of the scientific endeavour are of surpassing significance to our
cultural heritage”. Several other countries have also aligned with this view (McComas &
Olson, 1999) profiling science more as a humanistic activity in contrast to a compilation
of unrelated scientific facts and concepts. However as Matthews (1998) ardently noted,
many of these HPS intentions form a host of “opportunities lost”. For example, he argues
that while there are many laudable statements in standards documents, the model lessons
that are outlined in the curriculum framework contain no historical or cultural
components.
We must give these curriculum documents due credit for enabling the integration
of HPS into our science curriculum and work further to design approaches that assist a
more widespread implementation of such a perspective in a liberal tradition. To begin, I
consider what HPS might look like in the implemented curriculum today and propose
science stories as a means to integrate HPS and science teaching. Further, I outline
briefly some aspects of the literature on student comprehension and advance a form of
science story intended to actively engage students in the implemented curriculum.
HPS in the Science Classroom Today
The most influential resource in the implemented curriculum today is arguably the
textbook (Schmidt et. al, 1998). Indeed, Yore (1991) claims that most teachers use the
science textbook most of the time. As a resource, science textbooks tend to be
compendiums of factual information, or as Schwab (1962) noted, “a rhetoric of
conclusions”. Textbooks also tend to have a user-unfriendly style, often with more new
vocabulary than a course in a second language (Holiday, 1991) and a high level of
readability (Morrow, 1995). Morrow also points out that the approach to science learning
most consistent with textbook driven instruction is to accumulate factual knowledge and
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
3
that “Conventional science instruction with science texts only has resulted in low
motivation to participate in science”.
Winchester (2006) notes that a peculiarity of science teaching today is to teach
from a single textbook rather than to use many books and many thinkers. He contrasts
the schools of Athens with modern instruction. In the Greek tradition problems were
approached in context with the history of the problem considered first. He concludes
that
“As a consequence most textbooks, and especially scientific textbooks, are mere
summaries of results completely without context. And these context free results
are usually supplemented by context free problems. The problems are usually
such as would never appear spontaneously as the sort of question or problem that
would arise in the mind of a student interested in the subject in question.
Winchester (2006)
More specifically, Rodriguez and Niaz (2004) examined numerous textbooks for
their HPS approach to teaching atomic structure and found that only rarely do we find an
adequate reflection of the historical case. Their results illustrate that physics textbooks
do not generally include a history and philosophy of science perspective. Typically, most
textbooks assign historical facts and anecdotes in footnotes or sidebars and most science
stories that are represented are of the “heroic” type (Milne, 1998). As Levere (2006)
notes “Science writers today often give history a pro forma acknowledgment and then go
on to ignore it”.
Why science textbooks represent HPS so poorly is an open question. It may be
that popular textbooks are simply “copied” and all textbooks become homogenous. It
may also be that science teachers do not demand or use HPS in their classroom.
How might textbooks portray the HPS? If not textbooks, what kinds of resources
should teachers develop to supplement their instruction with HPS and importantly, what
do their students do? Many educators have argued for the use of narratives – science
stories – as a means of addressing HPS in the science classroom. Tao (2003) reminds us
that
“every piece of scientific knowledge, and the way it has been constructed and
validated, is associated with a human story in which there are actors and events
as the plot to account for that knowledge is pursued” (Tao, 2003)
Hefner and Lewis (1995) argue that the linking of the disciplines of literature and science
should be natural. The narrative, in particular the story form, has been advocated as a
means to provide this link (Metz et. al, 2006, Norris et. al, 2005, Millar & Osborne, 1998,
Solomon, 1992). The narrative can be used to encourage a personal engagement with
scientists and their science (Martin & Brouwer, 1991), to facilitate the making of
scientific ideas more coherent, memorable, and meaningful (Millar and Osborne, 1998),
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
4
as an explanatory device (Norris et. al, 2005), to address the significance of discovery
(Myers, 1990) and to increase the plausibility of an argument (Voss et al. 1999).
While the story form has some interesting potential we are advised, given our
experience with curriculum outcomes and implementation of HPS to mark our intentions
of the story form with implementation concerns. Consequently, lest we miss Matthews’
warning of “opportunities lost”, some additional attention needs to be placed on the
implementation of the story form in the classroom. What are its best practices, what does
the research tell us, and in terms of promoting an active learning environment - what do
students do?
What Does Research Say?
Scientific literacy has been described as the ability to locate and comprehend
scientific information (Holliday et. al, 1994). Therefore, an important component of
scientific literacy must be reading and comprehending scientific text (Trowbridge &
Bybee, 1996) as reading becomes a primary source of scientific knowledge for most
people (Shepardson 1997). Consequently, any consideration of implementing science
stories in the classroom directs us to consider what research says about reading and
comprehension.
Armbruster (1993) reminds us that the same skills that make good scientists such
as engaging prior knowledge, evaluating understanding, deciding on the importance of
information, making inferences and drawing conclusions, are the same skills that make
good readers. The implementation of the science story in the classroom inevitably leads
us to consider several salient aspects of reading comprehension across the curriculum in
the content areas. Learning from textual materials is not a one-way path of information
from text to reader. Reading comprehension is a complex process which involves
knowledge, inferential and evaluative thinking skills, experience, and teaching (Fielding
& Pearson, 1994). A strong relationship has been established between prior knowledge
and reading comprehension (Fielding & Pearson, 1994) and linking the context of the text
with existing knowledge structures (Kintsch 1989). Reading involves complex
interactions between the reader’s mind and the text (Holliday et al. 1994) and novices
find this complex interaction difficult (Alexander & Jetton 2000). Thus, reading
comprehension strategies should become an essential component in any instruction
involving reading.
Textual materials can be presented to students in three forms, procedural,
expository, and narrative. Procedural text is used to convey a step by step process to
achieve a specific task. In science teaching we find procedural text used extensively in
laboratory manuals to give instructions for practical activities. Expository text is used to
develop an argument or to convey information directly (Iser, 1980). In the narrative form
the strict connectability of expository text is replaced by blanks and the reader must
produce coherence in the text by imagination and interaction with the narrative. (Norris et
al. 2005). Generally, students have more difficulty with expository text (Saenz & Fuchs
2002) while narrative text is read faster and tends to be more interesting for students
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
5
(Graesser 1981). Egan (1989) claims that information presented to learners in narrative
format is more easily stored in and retrieved from memory.
Reading alone does not guarantee success in student comprehension. Philips and
Norris (1999) found that students who read scientific stories in the newspaper deferred to
authority in their written reports and attributed a higher degree of certainty to their views.
Canter (2003) found that narrative elements can also influence understanding and that the
the logic of a narrative may not be the only basis for judging its plausibility. Phillips also
found that students inferential abilities were weak (Phillips, 2002). “once we venture
past rote learning, literal interpretation of texts, and locating information, students will
require additional literacy competence and the instruction that fosters it no matter what
the genre” (p 558,cited from Norris et. al, 2005).
Brill, Falk, and Yarden (2004) studied the reading strategies of two high school
students using primary materials in biology. They argued that exposure to the primary
materials would provide a context for the research questions, authentic connections to
scientific methodology, and that students could identify with the quest of the researchers
reporting their work. Students read original materials and answered questions which
were intended “to create a kind of discourse between the students and the article”. Brill
et al. found that students had difficulties with unfamiliar scientific language and models,
contradictions with prior knowledge and the text style. Additionally, the researchers
found that students mediated their problems by:








Connecting to prior knowledge.
Using illustrations
Repeated reading.
Making predictions.
Using added explanations
Ignoring technical terms
Declaring miscomprehension.
Asking the expert
Brill et al. also suggested that students passed through two stages in the learning process
“Initial reading where the readers felt they fully understood the article and a
second stage where the readers focussed on their misunderstandings attempting
to mediate the misunderstood details” (p. 506).
They concluded that mere reading was not enough to foster deep understanding. One
strategy that they developed involved student-generated questions and an anticipatory
guide of the following stages of research.
My brief consideration of the literature on comprehension highlights several
aspects of science stories that may impact learning strategies in the classroom.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
6

Reading alone is not enough to stimulate deeper understanding. Students must be
engaged in idea generating activities.

Strong connections to science concepts require different text styles. Novices
especially need to move between text written for direction (procedural), text
written for clarity (expository), and text written for interpretation (narrative).

Expert facilitation is required.

Original materials may provide a contextual setting for inquiry.

More research is necessary to determine how students mediate comprehension
problems in the content area – specifically in secondary school science.
However, historical stories alone may not be the answer. The students in Tobias’ study
(1990) suggest stories from the history of science need be more than a form of relief from
the standard lecture and they looked for materials that they could creatively engage them
with the story. One possible strategy for these students could be the interrupted story
form.
The Interrupted Story Form
One interesting approach to engaging storytelling is the ‘‘punctuated’’ or
interrupted story form (Roach & Wandersee 1993). In the interrupted story form, a
story is broken down into smaller vignettes from which students have the opportunity to
make inferences and predictions. Roach (1995) also describes an extension of the
interrupted story as the interactive historical vignettes (IHV). IHVs are fictional stories
based on historical episodes in a scientist’s life. The vignettes are used to promote
discussion, especially to promote an understanding of the nature of science.
My preference is to broaden the view of the story form to Herrnstein Smith’s
(1981) description of story as “Someone telling someone that something happened”.
In our case, someone (the teacher) is “telling” someone else (the student) about something
(a historical episode). My intention is to expand upon the telling aspect of story to focus
a little more, in an educational sense, on the receiver – the student. What are they doing?
This is the interactive part of the storytelling whereby the reader constructs deeper
meaning through active engagement with the text.
In the simplest sense narrative can be presented in three stages, a beginning, a
middle, and an end. Ball (1985) presents the narrative structure as a possibility, and
event, and a resolution whereas Egan (1986) describes the stages as expectation,
elaboration and compilation. There are many possibilities and each one should be
assessed on its own merits. In the interrupted story, these stages are set out as character
events, situations, problems, imbalances, discrepant events, confrontations,
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
7
complications, dead ends, or setbacks. However each narration connects to an active
engagement stage designed to mediate deeper understanding. The mediation may include
such attributes as reflection, anticipation, predictions, inferences, comparisons, contrast,
experimentation, or demonstration.
There are many ways that an interrupted story may unfold. For example, all of
the stages may be contained within one vignette which acts as a door opener (Kubli,
2005) to a related scientific experiment. At the conclusion of the experiment there is a
reflection/feedback loop to the vignette. Another possibility is to interrupt the story at
each stage. For my example, I’ve chosen problem, complication, and resolution as the
stages of my story (figure 1). Each stage contains its own story and is interrupted with a
stage of student engagement.
To present an example of an interrupted story, I will outline one of Benjamin
Thompson’s - also known as Count Rumford - experiments on heat which can easily be
adapted to the classroom. The case study is summarized in table 1. The first narrative is
a brief biography of Rumford and establishes the context of the investigation. Rumford
was an “Indiana Jones” kind of guy who led an intriguing life as a soldier, scientist, and
spy. Students find the story quite entertaining and the narrative is intended to establish a
narrative appetite while setting the scene for the practical exercise to follow by raising the
problem Rumford faced to efficiently clothe his military in Bavaria. To make better
uniforms, Rumford was interested in determining what materials afforded the best
insulating protection. At this point students are engaged in an activity to advance their
own ideas, propose an experiment, and draw the experimental apparatus to complete the
investigation.
The second narrative is an excerpt from Rumford’s report of his experiments in
the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society read February 2, 1804. In this
investigation on heat, Rumford built and described in detail a simple set of containers he
used to measure the time it would take the container to cool ten degrees. He compared
various materials, such as Irish linen and wool, to a standard uncovered container
(“naked” in his terminology). Students read his account and then compare and contrast
their design and drawings to Rumford’s depictions. Invariably many ideas of the students
are comparable to Rumford’s and a procedure is written to complete the experiments as
Rumford did in his lab. In the classroom representation of his experiment, two ordinary
soup cans, one naked and the other covered in nylon are cut from women’s hosiery.
Students are asked to predict how long it takes for each can, naked or covered, to cool ten
degrees. Students’ predictions are remarkably consistent as they expect the covered can
to cool much slower than the naked can. Upon doing the experiment they are surprised
that the can dressed in nylon cools faster. At this time the third narrative, which is a later
excerpt from Rumford’s report, is unveiled and students are surprised to find that their
results are identical to Rumford’s data, the covered can does indeed cool faster than the
“naked” can! At this time, hypotheses are reconsidered and modified and these ideas are
compared with Rumford’s scientific explanation from his report.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
8
Some Concluding Remarks
Contrary to the typical textbook approach, students continually generate their own
ideas, design and write experimental procedure as they alternate between the narratives
and their investigations (figure 2). As they interact with the narrative throughout the
investigation students repeatedly address nature of science questions which arise
naturally from the narrative. Students also find it remarkably rewarding that they have
similar ideas, design, drawings, and conclusions of the original scientist.
As we continue to use science story in the classroom additional efforts need to be
directed toward understanding narrative, how research can inform us in domains such as
reading comprehension, and we need to further develop materials that students can use to
creatively interact with the story.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
9
Table 1
Stages of the Historical Narrative
Historical Representation
Narrative Part 1
Problem
Rumford’s biography and the
problem of clothing the military
Student Activity
In your group, devise an experiment
to compare the ability of various
materials to keep an object warm.
Carefully describe your experiment
and sketch your proposed apparatus
on one page in your notebook.
Narrative Part 2
Complication
Read the first excerpt from
Rumford’s “An Enquiry concerning
the Nature of Heat, and the Mode of
its Communication” published in
the Royal Transactions in 1804.
Rumford’s description of his
experiment and apparatus.
Performance of Rumford’s
experiment.
Narrative Part 3
Resolution
Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Rumford’s explanation of the
insulating capabilities of air.
Using Rumford’s notes, write out
an experimental procedure for his
investigation with the “naked” and
“clothed” cans. Record your
experimental predictions,
expectations, and procedure.
Compare your experimental results
to Rumford’s results.
How does Rumford account for the
discrepant results?
Scientific Explanation
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
10
Figure 1
Problem
reflect
Engagement anticipate
Complication
predict
compare
Engagement
Resolution
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
11
Figure 2
Clothing the military
questions, design activity
Rumford’s experimental design
predict
compare
Performance of experiment
Results and explanation
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
reflect
anticipate
We Now Interrupt the Story
12
References
Alexander, P. A. And Jetton, T. L:. 2000, Learning from text: a multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In R. Barr (Ed.) Handbook of Reading Research
(London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 285–310.
American Association for the Advancement of Science:.1989, Project 2061, Science for
All Americans, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bal, M:.1985, Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Barton, M. L., & Jordan, D. L:.2001, Teaching reading in science: A supplement to the
Second Edition of Teaching Reading in the Content Areas Teacher's Manual.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Brill, G., Falk, H. & Yarden, Y:.2004, The learning processes of two high-school biology
students when reading primary literature, International Journal of Science
Education, 26, 4, 497–512.
Canter, D:.2003, Narrative Plausibility: The Impact of Sequence and Anchoring
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21: 251–267
Egan, K:. 1986, Teaching as story telling: An alternative approach to teaching and
curriculum in the elementary school. London, ON: Althouse Press.
Egan, K.: 1989, The Shape of the Science Text: a Function of Stories, in S. Castellde, A.
Luke and C. Luke (eds.), Language, Authority and Criticism: Readings on the
School Textbook, The Falmer Press, New York, pp. 96–108.
Fielding, L. & Pearson, D:.1994, Reading Comprehension: What Works, Educational
Leadership. 50, 5. Framework for Narrative Explanation in Science, Science
Education 89(4): 535–554.
Graesser, A. C:.1981, Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Hefner, C. & Lewis, K:.1995, Children’s books and activities to enrich the K – 5
curriculum. Oryx.
Herrenstein–Smith:. 1981, Narrative versions, narrative theories. In W. Mitchel (Ed.), On
narrative (pp. 209–232). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V:. 2003, The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for
the Twenty-First Century, Science Education, 87, 1, 28-54
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D. And Alvermann, D. E:.1994, The reading–science learning–
writing connection: breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31(9), 877–893.
Iser,W:.1980, The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kintsch, W:.1989, Leaning from text. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, Learning, and
Instruction, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 25–46.
Klassen, S:.2006, A Theoretical Framework for Contextual Science Teaching,
Interchange, Numbers 1-2 / April, 2006, p 31-62.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
13
Kubli, F.: 2005, Science Teaching as a Dialogue – Bakhtin, Vygotsky and some
Applications in the Classroom, Science & Education 14(6): 501–534.
Levere, T:.,2006, What History Can Teach Us About Science: Theory and Experiment,
Data and Evidence, Interchange, Numbers 1-2 / April, 2006, p115-128.
Martin, B.E., & Brouwer, W:.,1991, The sharing of personal science and the narrative
element in science education. Science Education, 75, 707–722.
Matthews, M:.,1994, Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science,
NewYork: Routledge.
Matthews, M:.1998, Opportunities Lost, The Pendulum in the USA National Science
Education Standards, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 3, 203-214.
McComas, William & Olson, Joanne:. 1999, The Nature of Science as Expressed in
International Science Education Standards Documents: A Qualitative consensus
Analysis. Toward Scientific Literacy, History and Philosophy of Science and
Science Teaching Conference Proceedings (I. Winchester, Ed.), 551-559, Calgary,
1999.
Metz, D. & Stinner, A:.2004, A Role for Historical Experiments: Capturing the Spirit of
the Itinerant Lecturers of the 18th Century, in press, Science & Education.
Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M. & Olson, J:.2007, Building a
Foundation for the Use Narratives, Science & Education , 16:313–334
Metz, D.: 2003, Understanding the Nature of Science through the Historical Development
of Conceptual Models, A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Education Conference, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
March 23–26, 2003.
Meyer, K:. 2000, Looking for science in all the wrong places. In C. E. James (Ed.),
Experiencing difference (pp. 78–88). Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Meyling, H.: 1997, How to Change Students’ Conceptions of the Epistemology of
Science, Science & Education 6(4): 397–416.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J(Eds.):. 1998, Beyond 2000: Science education for the future.
London: King’s College, London, School of Education.
Milne, C:. 1998, Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of
heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
35, 175–187.
Monk, M. & Osborne, J.: 1997, Placing the History and Philosophy of Science on the
Curriculum: A Model for the Development of Pedagogy, Science Education 81(4):
405–424.
Morrow, L., Pressley, M. & Smith, J.:.1995, The Effect of a Literature-Based Program
Integrated into Literary and Science Instruction on Achievement, Use, and
Attitudes toward Literacy and Science, National Reading Research Center, Athens,
GA.
Myers, G:.1990, Making a discovery: Narratives of split genes. In C. Nash (Ed.),
Narrative in culture: The uses of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and
literature (pp. 102–126). London: Routledge.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
14
National Research Council (NRC) (1996, National Science Education Standards,
National Academy Press, Washington.
Norris, S., Guilbert, M., Smith, M., Shahram, H. & Phillips, L:.2005, A Theoretical
Framework for Narrative Explanation in Science, Science Education, 89(4), 535 –
554.
Phillips, L. M:.2002, Making new or making do: Epistemological, normative, and
pragmatic bases of literacy. In J. Brockmeir, M. Wang, & D. R. Olson (Eds.),
Literacy, narrative and culture (pp. 283–300). Surrey, U.K.: Curzon Press.
Phillips, L.M. & Norris, S.: 1999, Interpreting Popular Reports of Science: What
Happens when the Reader’s World meets the World on Paper?, International
Journal of Science Education 21(3): 317–327.
Roach, L.E. & Wandersee, J.H:.1993, Short Story Science, Science Teacher, 60(6), 1821.
Rodriguez, M. & Niaz, M:.2004, A Reconstruction of Structure of the Atom and Its
Implications for General Physics Textbooks: A History and Philosophy of Science
Perspective, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3.
Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S:.2002, Examining the reading difficulty of secondary
students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and
Special Education, 23 (1), 31–41.
Schwab, J.J:.1962, The teaching of inquiry as enquiry. In J.J. Schwab and P.F.
Breandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Shepardson, D. P:.1997, The nature of student thinking in life science laboratories.
School Science & Mathematics, 97, 37-44.
Solomon, J:.2002, Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students?
Studies in Science Education, 37, 85–106.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S.: 1992, ‘Teaching About the Nature of
Science Through History: Action Research in the Classroom’, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409–421.
Stinner A. & Williams, H.: 1998. History and Philosophy of Science in the Science
Curriculum, in Tobin K.G., Fraser B.J. (eds), International Handbook of Science
Education, Boston, MA, Kluwer, pp. 1027–1045.
Stinner, A., MacMillan, B. Metz, D., Klassen, S., & Jilek, J.: 2003, ‘The Renewal of Case
Studies in Science Education, Science & Education, 12, 7, 645 - 670
Stinner, A.: 1995, Contextual Settings, Science Stories, and Large Context Problems:
Toward a More Humanistic Science Education, Science Education 79(5): 555–581.
Tao, P.K:.2003, Eliciting and Developing Junior Secondary Students’ Understanding of
the Nature of Science Through a Peer Collaboration Instruction in Science Stories,
International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171.
Thompson, Benjamin:. 1804, ‘‘An enquiry concerning the nature of heat and its mode of
communication’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 94, 77 - 182.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
We Now Interrupt the Story
15
Trowbridge, L. W. & Bybee, R. W:.1996, Teaching Secondary School Science Strategies
for Developing Scientific Literacy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ & Columbus, OH: Merrill
an Imprint of Prentice Hall.
Voss, J., Wiley, J., & Sandak, R:.1999, On the use of narrative as argument. In S.
Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension,
causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 235–253).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wandersee, J. H:.1990, On the value and use of history of science in teaching today’s
science; Constructing historical vignettes. In More history and philosophy of
science in science teaching. D. Herget (Ed.), FL: Florida State University Press.
Wandersee, James H.:. 1985, Can the History of Science Help Science Educators
Anticipate Students’ Misconceptions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
v23, 7, p 581-597.
Winchester, I.:. 1989, History of science and science teaching, Interchange, 20 (2), 1-2.
Yager, R.E:.1992, Viewpoint: What we did not learn from the 60s about science
curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 8, 905-910.
Ninth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference
June 24 - 28, 2007, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada