Los historiadores de la ciencia reclaman el derecho a ser útiles en educación enfatizando, no la comprensión restrictiva y pobre de la historia como recuento de lo obsoleto, sino su aspecto de reflexión y filosofía sobre el saber actual desde el anterior. El artículo presenta ejemplos de un uso estimulante y creador de la historia, en la enseñanza de las ciencias.
Se plantea el uso de la historia de la ciencia en la enseñanza. El procedimiento histórico muestra cómo se llegó a las conclusiones científicas, y esto implica pensar, y en ocasiones experimentar, con lo que se mejora la comprensión hacia el funcionamiento de las ciencias. El autor propone tres usos de la historia en la educación: situar la materia dentro de un entorno filosófico; difundir la idea de que la ciencia no tiene un lugar preponderante sobre otras materias, ya que todo conocimiento se construye socialmente; y contribuir a que no se olviden las aportaciones de las mujeres o de las minorías, que normalmente se mencionan pero no se atribuyen.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlgrenA.WalbergH. J. (1973). Changing attitudes towards science among adolescents.Nature, 245, 187–190.
2.
AikenheadG. S. (1974). Course evaluation II: Interpretation of student performance on evaluative tests, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 23–30.
3.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS (1978, December). High school needs assessment completed. AAPT Announcer.8(4), 33–35.
4.
BennettW. J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy: A report on the humanities in higher education.Washington, DC: National Endowment on the Humanities.
5.
BevilacquaEKennedyP. J. (Eds.) (1983). Proceedings of the International Conference on Using History of Physic in Innovatory Physics Education, September 5–9, 1983, Pavia, Italy.Pavia: Centra studi per la Didattica della Facolta de Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali, Universita di Pavia.
6.
BloorD. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery.Londres: Routledge y Kegan Paul.
7.
BloorD. (1978). Polyhedra and the abominations of Leviticus.British Journal for the History of Science, 11, 245–272.
8.
BrushL. (1979). Avoidance of science and stereotypes of scientists, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 237–241.
9.
BrushS. G. (1969). The role of history in the teaching of physics.Physics Teacher, 7, 271–280.
10.
BrushS. G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated X?Science, 183, 1.164–1.172.
11.
BrushS. G. (1979). Comments on “On the distortion of the history of science education.”Science Education, 63, 277–278.
12.
BrushS. G. (1985). Women in physical science: From drudges to discoverers.Physics Teacher, 23, 11–19.1.
13.
BrushS. G. (1987). The history of modern science: A guide to the second scientific revolution, 1.800–1.950.Ames: Iowa State University Press.
14.
BrushS. G.KingA. L. (Eds.) (1972). History in the teaching of phisics.Hanover, NH: University Press de Nueva Inglaterra.
15.
ButterfieldH. (1931). The Whig interpretation of history.Londres: Bell.
16.
ButterfieldH. (1944). The Englishman and his history.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
ButtsD. P. (1982). Science education.Encyclopedia of educational research (5 th ed., MitzelH. E., Ed.) (pp. 1.665–1.675). Nueva York: Free Press.
18.
CollinsH. M. (1981). Stages in the empirical programme of relativism.Social Studies of Science, 11, 3–10.
19.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (n. d.). The state of school science: A review of the teaching of mathematics, science and social studies in American schools, and recommendations for improvements. Reproducido en What are the needs in precollege science, mathematics and social science education? Views from the field.Washington, DC: National Science Foundation Report SE-80–9.
20.
CraneL. T. (1975). The National Science Foundation and pre-college science education: 1950–1975.Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
21.
DhombresJ. (Ed.) (1981). Actes du Colloque Enseignement de l'histoire des Sciences aux Scientifiques, Nantes 9-10-11, 1980.París: Société Française d'Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques/Nantes: Université de Nantes.
22.
DonovanA.et al.. (1978, April). The history of science in undergraduate education—Three approaches. Scan: A data bank os scientific research for science faculty in schools and colleges, 2(2), 36–41.
23.
EhrlichR. (1977). Factors influencing secondary school enrolments.Physics Teacher, 15, 490–494.
24.
FeyerabendP. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.Londres: Verso.
25.
FinocchiaroM. A. (Ed.) (1980, September). A symposium on the use of the history of science in the science curriculum. Journal of College Science Teaching, 10(1).
26.
FinocchiaroM. A.et al. (1982). A symposium on the use of the history in the social sciences in the science curriculum.Journal on the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 263–289.
27.
GingerichO. (1975). “Crisis” versus aesthetic in the Copernican Revolution.Vistas in Astronomy, 17, 85–93.
28.
GoldbergS.et al. (1982, June). History of science in the new Liberal Arts curricula. Science, Technology and Society (Lehigh University), 30.
29.
GrahamL. (1981, Winter). Why can't history dance contemporary ballet? Or Whig history and the evils of contemporary dance. Science, Technology and Human Values, 6(3), 3–6.
30.
HegelsonS. L.BlosserP. E.HoweR. W. (1977). The status of pre-college science, mathematics and social science education: 1955–1975.Columbus: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, Ohio State University.
31.
HetheringtonN. S. (1982, Summer). The history of science and the teaching of science literacy. Journal of Thought, 17(2), 53–66.
32.
HoltonG. (1974). On being caught between Dionysians and Appollonians.Daedalus, 103, 65–81.
33.
HoltonG. (1978). On the educational philosophy of the Project Physic Course. In G. Holton, The scientific imagination (pp. 294–298). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HomeR. W. (Ed.) (1983). Science under scrutiny: The place of history and philosophy of science.Boston: Reidel.
35.
HullD. L. (1979). In defence of presentism.History and Theory, 18, 1–15.
36.
JonesR. S. (1986, June 25). Science has become our state religion. Washington Post/Health, p. 6.
37.
KauffmanG. B. (1979). History in the chemistry curriculum: Pros and cons.Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 395–402.
38.
KockelmansJ. J. (1979). Reflections on Lakatos methodology of scientific research programs. InRadnitzkyG.AndersonG. (Eds.), The structure and development of science.Boston: Reidel.
39.
KolataG. (1983). Math archive in disarray.Science, 219, p. 940.
LingenfeldP. (1985). A survey of high-school physics teachers in New Jersey.American Journal of Physics, 53, 1.065–1.069.
42.
OgilvieM. B. (1986). Women in science: Antiquity through the nineteenth century.Cambridge: MIT Press.
43.
OdroydD. R. (1980). Sir Archibald Geikie (1835–1924), geologist, romantic aesthete, and historian of geology: The problem of Whig historiography of history.Annals of Science, 37, 441–462.
44.
PallrandG.LingenfeldP. (1985, November). The physics classroom revisited: Have we learned our lesson? Physics today, 38(11), 46–52.
45.
PfeiffenbergerG. W. (1975). Letter to Fletcher Watson, November 1974, quoted inProject Physics Newsletter, 5.
46.
PorterD. H. (1981). The emergence of the past: A theory of historical explanation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
QuattroiwniD. J. (1978). An evaluation of the effect of Harvard Project Physics on student understanding of the relationships among science, technology, and society. Tesis doctoral inédita, University of Connecticut.
48.
RobinsonJ. D. (1986). Appreciating key experiments.British Journal for the History of Science, 19, 51–56.
49.
Roll-HansenN. (1983). The death of spontaneous generation and the birth of the gene: Two case studies of relativism.Social Studes of Science, 13, 481–519.
50.
RussellT. L. (1981). What history of science, How much, and Why?Science Education, 65, 51–64.
51.
RutherfordF. JHoltonG.WatsonF. G.(n.d.).Project Physics Text.Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart y Winston.
52.
ShapereD.et al. (1986, Spring). External and internal factors in the development of science. Science & Technology Studies, 4(1), 1–23.
53.
SiegelH. (1979). On the distortion of the history of science in science education.Science Education, 63, 277–278.
54.
TermanL. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
55.
TermanL. M.MerrillM. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence.Cambridge: Riverside Press.
56.
WelchW. W. (1973). Review of the research and evaluation program of Harvard Project Physics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 365–378.
57.
WelchW. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back.Review of Research in Education, 7, 282–306.
