How history and philosophy in the US Science Education Standards could have promoted multidisciplinary teaching

School Science and Mathematics, Oct 1998 by Matthews, Michael R

Once the "facts of the matter" were ascertained and agreed upon-by no means a simple matter-a dispute ensued between Huygens and Newton about the cause of the equatorial slowing of the pendulum. Huygens believed that the slowing was entirely accounted for by the rotational effect of the earth diminishing the "apparent" weight of the pendulum-at the poles there was no "spinning off" effect to counteract weight, whereas at the equator there was such a spinning off, or "centrifugal" force counteracting the centripetal gravitation attractive force. Newton calculated that the apparent loss of weight at the equator--one third of 1 %)was not sufficient to produce the slowing observed first by Richer at Cayenne and then by Halley on St. Helena Island. Newton proposed that the earth was oblate, not spherical, in shape. This dispute between two giants of science was the beginning of the modem discipline of geodesy.

Once a seconds pendulum is created, then the technological challenge of converting it to a clock might be raised. The crucial interdependence of hand and brain might be appreciated. This has been very well done for elementary and middle school children (National Science Resource Center, 1994). All of this connects the learning and activities of contemporary students to experiments and achievements in the 17th century. The sense of participation in a tradition could be engendered. But there is none of this in the Standards. Repeatedly, model lessons are outlined that have no historical or cultural component.

In brief, there are lost opportunites in this section of the US Standards. This is surprising, because the drafts were subject to so much examination; they were read by thousands. One wonders why the foregoing simple suggestions about the pendulum were, seemingly, not mentioned during the review process. One implication is that there is a widespread ignorance of the history of science in the US science education community.

Teacher Education

Although regretable, this ignorance of history is understandable. The history of science rarely figures at any stage in the professional development of scientists, science teachers, or the science educators who prepare science teachers. The history of science tends to fall between stools: The science faculties do not deal with it because it is deemed irrelevant; the humanities faculties do not deal with it because it is deemed too technical. The result is that the pendulum, when it appears in the US National Science Education Standards, is a shadow of its historical self. The opportunity for US students to learn about the nature of science, the place of science in cultural development, the interrelationship of science with other disciplines and technology, and the importance of tradition and history in forming current scientific understanding and social practice is, unfortunately, lost.

Realizing the wider goals of the Science Education Standards and other such liberal documents and teaching the historical dimensions of the pendulum require teachers who have knowledge about the history and philosophy of science (HPS). However teacher education programs are dominated by educational psychology and teaching methodology, or pedagogy. There is precious little time available for student teachers to learn about the wider picture of science-its history, philosophy, and relationship to culture (Matthews, 1994, pp. 200-202). The widening influence of constructivism in teacher education has done little to ameliorate this situation. Indeed the contrary: The program's focus is more and more inside the learner's head; or for social constructivists, the learner's immediate cohort. Sixty years ago Mortimer Adler perceptively wrote,