Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80201-1

This chapter outlines the consolidation of the concept of image in optics. We start from classical Greece where scientists suggested several theories for the understanding of vision. Early Hellenic theories provided nonmathematical, qualitative, holistic accounts. The later Hellenistic optics of Euclid refined the holistic conception but suggested the erroneous concept of “active vision” by means of visual rays. Alhazen, a distinguished Arab scholar during the medieval era, split an image into points, each “transmitted” to the eye by a single ray. Further progress in the Renaissance noted the similarity between the eye and the Camera Obscura, but scholars were puzzled by the inverted image in the eye. The solution was due to Kepler, in Germany, who introduced light flux to create an image and understood that human cognition provides the “inversion.” The whole history of optical image—from holistic to light flux created and interpreted by the mind—reconstructs the theory of vision and sheds light on the nature of science. This is through a consideration of the scientific discourse of competing theories, a complex cumulative process, not a simple accretion, but a conceptual change. Research has revealed a similarity of students’ accounts for vision with the old ideas, intromission and extramission, holistic and differential images, and the central role of light rays or light flux. This similarity suggests that historical debate may be included in teaching to remedy common misconceptions and upgrade the meaningful learning of optics.

The concept of weight emerged in physics through the periods of Ancient Greece, the medieval world, the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, classical mechanics, and modern physics. Along the way, the knowledge and the method of knowledge construction changed; they are connected to each other. Weight was always among the fundamental concepts of mechanical theories, and its definition changed until it was finalized in the twentieth century. However, school curricula in many countries did not copy this progress and remained with the Newtonian definition of weight. In contrast, some textbooks define weight in the modern way, matching the equivalence principle of Einstein and modern epistemology. Following the conceptual growth along the history and philosophy of science brings familiarity with the scientific discourse and promotes construction of the cultural content knowledge of weight and its relation to gravitation. The implications for the teaching of weight drawing on the results of physics education research are considered, being illustrated with a brief review of weight impact on society, situations of everyday life on our planet and beyond.

Optics—the theory of light—is presented from the perspective of the theory-based science. Four separate theories have sequentially dominated in the domain of optics: Geometrical optics (theory of rays), Newtonian theory (theory of particles), physical optics (theory of waves), and modern optics (theory of photons). Three of these theories are still taught in high school today. Here we argue that when teaching about light, these theories should be presented in their discipline–culture structure, making explicit the contents of the nucleus of each theory and the corresponding elements of the body of knowledge. Presenting the historical sequence of theory exchange, rather than mere “replacement of the wrong theory,” can clarify the area of validity of each theory. The conceptual change between theories of light exemplifies the features of the nature of science and is presented drawing on the triadic structure of a scientific theory.

This chapter illustrates the use of pictorial artistic images in teaching scientific concepts and the nature of science. One example is Giotto’s fresco of the stigmatization of St. Francis. Its interpretation associates an artistic image of a philosophical idea with plane mirror features facilitating the expression of the idea. Specific implications of this case for teaching optics are suggested. Other pictorial images are discussed in the intention to suggest them for using in the teaching of science at school. These images can facilitate hermeneutic reconsideration addressing the meaning and nature of scientific knowledge, its specific features in forms especially appealing to people for their aesthetic value, and imagination and the surprising discovery of aspects easily missed in a disciplinary instruction of scientific technicalities. These aspects are of holistic importance in public education. Finally, science presents an image of reality in human mind. This image may also be expressed in artistic form.

Here is the place for making summarizing comments regarding the subject considered - science education. Becoming “educated in science” can be understood in a very broad sense, and this rather vague phrase often expresses people’s feeling of satisfaction in the mere idea that they possess something very valuable – scientific knowledge. A spontaneous self-evaluation in this regard is often not indicative because the subject is far from trivial. Therefore, in light of what was discussed in this book, we may suggest to agree, at least, that in this area a supervisor’s guidance is essential. We tried to address several aspects of complexity of the subject which we consider being of central importance. Among the vast number of components comprising the knowledge under examination, we brought to the fore its organization, relationships between components, their nature, and hierarchical structure.

This chapter reviews a cultural approach to the science/physics curriculum. Scientific knowledge is considered as a culture related to a discipline, which we term as discipline–culture (DC); accordingly, disciplinary content knowledge is upgraded to cultural content knowledge (CCK). Physics knowledge comprises fundamental theories that are hierarchically structured in a triadic pattern: nucleus–body–periphery to represent the discipline–culture. This structure effectively displays the meaning of each theory within the discipline and their relationship to each other. The meaning of fundamental theories (nucleus) is emphasized by their contrast to alternative theories (periphery). From an epistemological perspective, the cultural approach suggests that different approaches—rationalist and empiricist—are complementary threads interwoven into an integrated method of science. The DC-oriented curriculum incorporates content of history and philosophy of science and clarifies their role in science education. A metaknowledge (big picture) of science is established, which may be attractive to a wide variety of learners having different interests and cognitive preferences. Three ways to implement a DC-oriented approach were empirically explored and are briefly described: a new curriculum, conceptual excursus, and summative lecture. Poincaré (1903)

This excursus reviews the conceptual basis of the classical theory of motion from Aristotle in Hellenic science, through the medieval theory of impetus, to the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. The concept of impetus became central in physics after Aristotle and served as a mediator between Aristotelian and Newtonian mechanics. Familiarization with older theories provides the latter with both conceptual and cultural perspectives and encourages organizing knowledge while preserving a scientific discourse of ideas in science. Pioneers in the theory of motion were philosophers and enthusiasts of exploration of reality in an objective sense. Our depiction and analysis address not only the subject matter but also the employed epistemology, the type of evidence practiced, and the reasoning used—the method of science. We argue that understanding physical ideas is reached through comparison with older ideas, through acquaintance with the intellectual products of bright minds from the past who suggested other theories of motion and essentially contributed to scientific progress.

We make an excursus to the history of mechanics and consider the set of laws of motion established by Rene Descartes in the seventeenth century, followed by his inferred rules of collisions of material bodies. This knowledge preceded the mechanics of Newton who was inspired by Descartes’ theory. Observing the history in retrospect, the laws of Descartes may be seen as including important ideas—the uniform rectilinear motion as a natural state and the concept of quantity of motion (momentum). Descartes stated conservation of momentum in interaction (collisions); however, because Descartes’ momentum was defined incorrectly, his account of collisions was incorrect, violating Galileo’s principle of relativity which implies rest-uniform motion equivalence. We analyze Descartes’ laws of motion and each of his rules for elastic collisions, revealing the specific logic of Descartes and show how the following scholars—Wallis, Wren, Huygens, and Newton—refined some and refuted other of his statements regarding the conservation of momentum. Finally, we compare the laws of motion obtained by Descartes with those of Newton. The critique of Descartes’ theory is both ontological and epistemological. It emphasizes the inappropriate neglecting of empirical verification in favor of principles postulated as certain and convincing.

The nature of science (NOS) has become a popular topic of science education research. This is also due to its short list of features, which essentially revised traditional views on the subject and provided simple answers to the complex questions regarding the status of scientific knowledge. In this chapter, the list of NOS features is reconsidered. It is stated that this list, as is, may harm, impede, and mislead the understanding of science. Yet, the refinement of its claims may enrich or sometimes reverse them. The suggested analysis calls for addressing the range of variation in each particular aspect of NOS. The approach of discipline–culture provides a useful platform for such reconsideration clarifying the questions common in the teaching of science. Cultural content knowledge naturally incorporates conceptual variation referring to the structure of knowledge and plurality of scientific methodology while drawing on the history and philosophy of science. The implication of such revision highlights the major role of science educators who face veracity of polar claims while constructing science curricula. The cultural approach protects their disciplinary content from oversimplification and provides the necessary philosophical defense of the traditional NOS claims as required for genuine understanding of science.

The concept of inertial force is one of the most important and the most difficult in classical dynamics. The complexity and obscurity come from both inertia and force. However, for that very reason, making sense of inertial force may shed light on much of the meaning of mechanics. In fact, inertial force designates a cluster of meanings and touches upon different aspects of science. This will emerge from the history brought here. Different meanings coexist today, thus causing confusion for the novice learner. The challenge and need is to address the concept of inertia and inertial force as the concepts unifying classical physics with the modern physics. Yet, even learned at introductory level, this topic provides benefit to the students through widening the picture of physics as continuously improving itself even in classical mechanics. In fact, without inertial force and the directly related non-inertial observer, classical mechanics cannot treat one of the most important aspects of movement—its relativity. This excursus reviews the development of inertial force as a concept and addresses the way it could be better represented in teaching.

Physics textbooks often present disciplinary knowledge in the sequential order of topics under instruction. Such presentation is usually univocal, that is, isolated from alternative claims and contributions regarding the subject matter in the pertinent scientific discourse. Here, I argue that comparing and contrasting the contributions of scientists addressing the same or similar subjects would not only enrich the picture of scientific enterprise but also be especially appealing to the learner seeking genuine understanding of the concept considered. This approach draws on the historical tradition from Plutarch in the distant past to Koyré in the recent history and philosophy of science. It gains new support in seeking cultural content knowledge of the subject matter. Here, we address two prominent individuals of the Italian Renaissance, Leonardo and Galileo, in their dealing with the issues relevant to introductory science courses. Although both figures addressed similar subjects of scientific content, their products were essentially different. Considering this difference is educationally beneficial, illustrating the meaning of what students presently learn in mechanics, optics, and astronomy and what they perceive with regard to the nature of science and scientific knowledge.

Authentic opportunities have the potential to support development of learners’ understanding of how scientists do their work. This chapter examines authentic classroom investigations, the use of modified primary literature, visits to authentic research labs, and research apprenticeships as models for this development. Strategies to help teachers at all levels implement these models and solutions to mitigate potential challenges are addressed.

The essay reviews a new approach to science/physics curriculum. Scientific knowledge is considered as a culture, and the disciplinary content knowledge is upgraded to cultural content knowledge (CCK Cultural Content Knowledge (CCK) ). Physics disciplinary knowledge is considered as comprised of fundamental theories Fundamental theory, structure of hierarchically structured in triadic model: nucleus-body-periphery representing discipline-culture. This structure supports displaying major steps of the scientific discourse Discourses in construction of the particular discipline. By contrast between the fundamentals (nucleus) and their alternatives (periphery) the conceptual meaning of the former is established and emphasized. As to the epistemological Epistemology aspects of knowledge, the cultural approach suggests considering different approaches - rationalist, empiricist and constructivist − as complementary contributions interwoven in the integrated method practiced in science. CCK Cultural Content Knowledge (CCK) based curriculum involves and arranges using history and philosophy of science. It seeks meta-knowledge (big picture) of science appealing to the broad population of learners of different interests and preferences. Three ways to deliver the CCK Cultural Content Knowledge (CCK) oriented curriculum had been empirically explored. They were briefly described: new curriculum, conceptual excursus and summative lecture. Some epistemological features are addressed within the discipline-culture perspective (theory-model relationship, concept definitions, cumulative nature and objectivity of scientific knowledge). Altogether, the suggested curricular perspective provides a paradigm matching the tradition of dissemination of scientific literacy and enlightenment.