net/publication/225608672
CITATIONS READS
66 853
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Terhi Mäntylä on 13 March 2014.
ABSTRACT. In physics teaching experimentality is an integral component in giving the starting point
of knowledge formation and conceptualization. However, epistemology of experiments is not often
addressed directly in the educational and pedagogical literature. This warrants an attempt to produce an
acceptable reconstruction of the epistemological role of experiments in physics by drawing insight
from history and philosophy of physics. Towards that end, the experiments’ role in the 19th-century
physics is discussed. We propose here a reconstruction, which is based on the idea that in epistemology
of experiments the inductive-like generative justification of knowledge is central. A generative view
makes it possible to retain those aspects of experiments which make them purposeful for learning and
can give a starting point for students’ own construction of knowledge. The reconstruction also helps to
conceive the experiments with their correct historical role and helps to bring back the generative use of
experiments in teaching, which, after all, has never vanished from the practice of physics.
1. Introduction
Experiments have so central a role in physics education that hardly any textbook fails
to mention that physics is an ‘experimental science’ and that in physics ‘knowledge is
based on experiments’. Of these statements there seems to be a general agreement
among physicists doing their science, philosophers interpreting the physicists’
activities, and finally, science educators trying to give a picture of physics to their
students. However, as soon as the epistemological role of experiments needs to be
made more definite, there is a broad spectrum of views ranging from experiments as a
basis for simple inductions to views that experiments are used for refuting theories.
Therefore, there is a need to pay more attention to the epistemology of experiments in
physics education.
The verificatory role of experiments is the preferred physicists’ stance,
expressed by Feynman et al. (1963) mentioning: ‘The test of all knowledge is
experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth’. Physicists often mention
experiments in the role of ‘supporting’ theory (Weinberg 1993; Einstein 1970), but
the idea that experiments are for refuting theories by falsification (Popper 1935/2002)
is, however, denied (Weinberg 1993, p. 102; Einstein 1970, p. 21-23). The ‘textbooks’
science’, on the other hand, follows the scheme of verificatory justification, and it
displays physics as a logical chain of steady progress, experiments verifying the
predictions based on theory (Kuhn 1996). Contrary to this conception, inductivist
views about the role of experiments are common in the 19th-century physics literature
(see e.g. Duhem 1914/1954; Robin 1904). However, towards the end of the 19th
century, there was a shift to hypothetical-deductive views of science, and questions
related to the logic of discovery were set aside in favour of the logic of justifying
theoretical knowledge (Suppe 1977; Giere 1988).
During two decades there has been increasing criticism towards the
predominant view that the main role of experiments is in verifying, or refuting
knowledge, and that the epistemology of experiments and philosophy of experiments
is far richer than depicted in standard accounts of science (Giere 1988, 1999; Gooding
et al. 1993; Hacking 1983; Franklin 1986, 1999). Recently it has been suggested that
the inductivist ideal, or what can be called – from a wider perspective – the
‘generative knowledge justification’ may still be an important part of doing science (if
not in speaking about science), and has actually never been abandoned (Nickles
1993). These notions suggest that, also in physics education, there is a need to
reconsider and reanalyse the role of experiments in generating new knowledge and in
forming the meaning of theoretical concepts.
Another reason to pay attention to the epistemology of experiments is due to
fact that today questions related to the role of experiments in generating knowledge is
not often addressed directly in the physics education literature. Educational literature
concentrates, of course, predominantly on educational aspects of doing experiments;
on their role on learning and on the practical questions related to teaching. These
questions are often discussed in the framework referred to as the personal
constructivist view on learning (Trumper 2003). Within personal constructivism many
problems related to learning have been resolved, and there are also informative studies
on physics education of laboratory work used to support students’ cognitive process
of forming knowledge (Sokoloff & Thornton 1997; Redish 1994, 1999; Van Heuvelen
1991; McDermott et al. 2000; Hammer 1996). However, questions addressed within
personal constructivism are often separate from the epistemological problem
concerning the origin of objective (or intersubjective and shared) knowledge that
science produces and how this knowledge is justified. There is still a need for an
epistemological reconstruction of the role of experiments in physics, truthful to their
role as conceived in the history of physics.
We propose here one possibility for a reconstruction, which can be used as a
basis for the planning of educational experiments. It is based on the idea, that we must
pay more attention to the generative justification of knowledge. That is to say, we
must pay more attention to the phenomenological physics and empiricism as
exemplified in the practice of the 19th-century physics. We discuss the history and
philosophy of physics at length, which is needed to make these arguments plausible
and acceptable. We believe that the resulting reconstruction helps to avoid the pitfalls
of simple inductivism and the narrow scope of verificatory use of experiments. It also
retains those aspects of experimentation, which make them purposeful for learning by
giving a starting point for students’ own construction of knowledge.
III Generalisations are proposed and annexed to Quantitative experiments are in a role of
Theory theory. Theory guides experimentation (P3, consequential justification. Experiments
P5, P6). Generation of ‘existence claims’ of test the validity of predictions and
new phenomena, entities and their properties existence claims (P1).
(P6, P1).
a) b) I
I QUALITIES
II
B D
N.K. III
A
II QUANTITIES & LAWS
C c) I
New
knowledge II
III THEORY
III N.K.
II Experiment with two coils A (primary) and B Correlation between the rate of change of
Quantities (secondary) is designed. Precise measurements current in A and induced voltage in B is
and laws (MBL) are done with changing current in coil represented graphically. Results are
(40 min) A and induced voltage in coil B. Behaviour of interpreted by using magnetic flux density
system is analysed using known theory and flux. Linear invariance is produced
(Ampere’s law, Biot and Savart law, quantities between rate of change of flux and induced
magnetic flux density and flux introduced). voltage tentative induction law.
III Generalizations: general induction law is Predictions based on the induction law are
Theory proposed. New experiments are designed with tested. With their success, generality of the
(20 min) different geometries and situations (number of result is established new general law is
turns in coil is varied, its position is varied, established. Position of new law in theory
different rate of changes in current are used). is scrutinized.
Table III. Role of experiments used by student teachers in learning concepts and
laws. Relative fractions in each class are given (number of students is in
parenthesis).
Concept/Law Generative Consequential Inductive Undefined
Temperature 93% (13) - - 7% (1)
Resistivity and
Ohm’s II Law 74% (37) 10% (5) - 16% (8)
Induction Law 63% (24) 5% (2) 8% (3) 24% (9)
The construction of the meaning of physical laws was studied by using Ohm’s
II law and the induction law (Faraday’s and Henry’s law). The role of experimentality
in establishing these laws is in principle rather similar, but there are conceptually
significant differences between them. In Ohm’s II law, magnitudes of quantities are
related to each other, in the induction law, the time rate of change of quantity is
related to other quantity’s value. In the case of the induction law, the steps explained
in Table II were discussed and students were guided to pay attention to them.
In both cases, students started with qualitative observations (stage I) and then
progressed through stages II and III. Constructing Ohm’s II law resulted in rather
good illustrations about ‘quantitative experiments’ with experiments seen in a
generative role in 74% of the cases (the same as in the case of resistivity, because
these tasks were treated together). The induction law turned out to be more
demanding and not all groups completed it successfully. In the best representations,
the construction of the induction law was discussed much along the lines shown in
Table II, and the role of experiments was generative in 63% of all cases, as indicated
in Table III. In these reports, variations of the basic experiment were suggested to
make the generality of the law plausible and to test the tentative law, in accordance
with the consequential testing phase.
The results discussed here indicate that by using the reconstruction, student
teachers manage to better organize their knowledge about physics concepts and laws.
The large percentage of students opting for the generative role of experiments
demonstrates that students have learned to recognise the role of experiments in
conceptualisation. This suggests that the educational and epistemological goals set for
the teaching sequence are reached satisfactorily.
From the results shown in Table IV it is seen that the laboratory course
produces good results with respect to practical possibilities to realize and implement
the experiments in school context, and this correlates well with the degree of
generativity of the planned experiments. The support that the experiments give for
constructing qualitative meanings of concepts and the quantitative design of the
experiments correlate also well with the degree of their generativity. These results
indicate that generative experimentality leads to the desired expertise in planning the
school experiments.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge useful discussions with Prof. emer. Kaarle Kurki-
Suonio concerning the topic of the present work. We would also like to thank Dr. Ari
Hämäläinen for providing unpublished data from ESL.
References
Arons, A.: 1993, ‘Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory Physics
Laboratory’, The Physics Teacher 31, 278–282.
Bagno, E., Eylon B.-S. & Ganiel, U.: 2000, ‘From fragmented knowledge to a
knowledge structure: Linking the domains of mechanics and
electromagnetism’, American Journal of Physics 68, S16-S26.
Berry, J. & Sahlberg, P.: 1996, ‘Investigating Pupils’ Ideas of Learning’, Learning
and Instruction 6, 19–36.
Brush, S.G.: 1983, Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of Matter, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Buchwald, J.D.: 1994, The Creation of Scientific Effects, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Cartwright, N.: 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Chang, H.: 2001, ‘Spirit, air and quicksilver: The search for the “real” scale of
temperature’, Historical studies in the physical and biological sciences 31,
249-284.
Darrigol, O.: 2000, Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Duhem P.: 1914/1954, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (transl. of La
Théorie Physique: Son Objet, Sa Structure, second ed. 1914 Paris), Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Duit, R. & Confrey, J.: 1996, ‘Reorganizing the Curriculum and Teaching to Improve
Learning in Science and Mathematics’, in D.F. Treagust, R. Duit and B.J.
Fraser (eds.), Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics,
Teachers College Press. Columbia University, New York.
Einstein, A.: 1970, ‘Autobiographical Notes’, in P. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein:
Philosopher-Scientist. The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. VII, MJF
Books, New York.
Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A., Brookes D.T. & Mills, D.: 2002, ‘Role of
experiments in physics instruction – a process approach’, The Physics Teacher
40, 351-355.
Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B. & Sands, M.: 1963, The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Franklin, A.: 1986, The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Franklin, A.: 1999, ‘The Roles of Experiment’, Physics in perspective 1, 35–53.
Fine, A.: 1986, The Shaky Game, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Galison, P.: 1997, Image & Logic, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Giere, R. N.: 1988, Explaining Science: a cognitive approach, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Giere, R. N.: 1999, Science without laws, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Gil-Pérez, D., Guisásola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa de Carvalho, A.M.,
Martínez Torregrosa, J., Salinas, J., Valdés, P., González, E., Gené Duch, A.,
Dumas-Carré, A., Tricárico, H. & Gallego, R.: 2002, ‘Defending
Constructivism in Science Education’, Science & Education 11, 557–571.
Gooding, D.: 1990, Experiment and the Making of Meaning, Kluwer Academic
Publisher, Dordrecht.
Gooding, D., Pinch T., Schaffer, S. (eds.): 1993, The uses of experiment: Studies in
the natural sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hacking, I.: 1983, Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hammer, D.: 1996, ‘More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student
knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research’,
American Journal of Physics 64, 1316-1325.
Hanson, N.R.: 1958, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Heidelberger, M.: 1998, ‘From Helmholtz’s Philosophy of Science to Hertz’ Picture
Theory’, in D. Baird, R.I.G. Hughes and A. Nordmann (eds.), Heinrich Hertz:
Classical Physicist, Modern Philosopher, Kluwer Academic Publisher,
Dordrecht.
Hestenes, D.: 1992, ‘Modeling games in the Newtonian World’, American Journal of
Physics 60, 732-748.
Hestenes, D.: 1998, ‘Who needs physics education research?’, American Journal of
Physics 66, 465-467.
Hodson, D.: 1992, ‘In search of a meaningful relationship: an exploration of some
issues relating to integration in science and science education’, International
Journal of Science Education 14, 541–562.
Hodson, D.: 1993, ‘Re-Thinking Old Ways: Towards a More Critical Approach to
Practical Work in Science’, Studies in Science Education 22, 85–142.
Hodson, D.: 1996, ‘Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion
and distortion’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 28, 115-135.
Hon, G.: 2003, ‘From Propagation to Structure: The Experimental Technique of
Bombardment as Contributing Factor to the Emerging Quantum Physics’,
Physics in Perspective 5, 150-173.
Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. & Adúriz-Bravo, A.: 2003, ‘Epistemological Foundations of
School Science’, Science & Education 12, 27-43.
Jungnickel, C. & McCormmach, R.: 1986, Intellectual mastery of nature : theoretical
physics from Ohm to Einstein, Vol. 1 : The torch of mathematics 1800-1870,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Jurkowitz, E.: 2002, ‘Helmholtz and the liberal unification of science’, Historical
studies in the physical and biological sciences 32, 291-317.
Kim, D.-W.: 2002, Leadership and Creativity: A History of the Cavendish
Laboratory, 1871-1919, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Koponen I. T., Mäntylä, T. & Lavonen J.: 2004, ‘The role of physics departments in
developing student teachers’ expertise in teaching physics’, European Journal
of Physics 25, 645-653.
Kuhn T. S.: 1996, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (third edition), University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lavonen J., Jauhiainen J., Koponen I.T. & Kurki-Suonio K.: 2004, ‘Effect of a long-
term in-service training program on teachers’ beliefs about the role of
experiments in physics education’, International Journal of Science Education
26, 309-328.
Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P.: 1994, ‘Research on using laboratory instruction in
science’, in D.L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of Science Teaching and Learning,
Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
Matthews, M.R.: 1997, ‘Introductory Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism
in Science Education’, Science & Education 6, 5–14.
Matthews, M.R.: 2000, Editorial, Science & Education 9, 491–505.
May, D.B. & Etkina, E.: 2002, ‘College physics students’ epistemological self-
reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning’, American Journal of
Physics 70, 1249-1258.
McDermott, L., Shaffer, P.S. & Constantinou C.P.: 2000, ‘Preparing teachers to teach
physics and physical science by inquiry’, Physics Education 35, 411-416.
Millar, R.: 1989, ‘What is Scientific Method and Can it be Taught?’, in J. Wellington,
(ed.), Skills and Processes in Science Education, Routledge, London.
Nersessian, N.: 1984, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific
Theory, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.
Nersessian, N.: 1995, ‘Should Physicists Preach What They Practise?’, Science &
Education 4, 203-226.
Niaz, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Benarroch, A., Cardellini, L., Laburú, C.E., Marín, N.,
Montes, L.A., Nola, R., Orlik, Y., Scharmann, L.C., Tsai, C.-C. & Tsaparlis,
G.: 2003, ‘Constructivism: Defense or a Continual Critical Appraisal - A
Response to Gil-Perez et al.’, Science&Education 12, 787-797.
Nickles, T.: 1993, ‘Justification and experiment’, in D. Gooding, T. Pinch and S.
Schaffer (eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nola, R.: 1997, ‘Constructivism in Science and Science Education: A Philosophical
Critique’, Science & Education 6, 55–83.
Popper, K.: 1935/2002, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (translation of Logik der
Forschung, 1935), Routledge Classics, Routledge, London.
Redish, E.: 1994, ‘The Implications of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics’,
American Journal of Physics 62, 796–803.
Redish, E. F.: 1999, ‘Millikan Lecture 1998: Building a science of teaching physics’,
American Journal of Physics 67, 562-573.
Reichenbach, H.: 1951, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, California University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Reif, F.: 1987, ‘Instructional design, cognition and technology: Applications to the
teaching of scientific concepts’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24,
309-324.
Reif, F.: 1995, ‘Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important
scientific thought processes’, American Journal of Physics 63, 17-32.
Reif-Acherman, S.: 2004, ‘Heike Kamerlingh Onnes: Master of Experimental
Technique and Quantitative Research’, Physics in Perspective 6, 197-223.
Robin, G.: 1904, Oeuvres scientifiques. Thermodynamique générale, Gauthier Villars,
Paris.
Sokoloff, D. & Thornton, R.: 1997, ‘Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to
Create an Active Learning Environment’, The Physics Teacher 35, 340–347.
Smith, C. & Wise, M.N.: 1989, Energy and empire : a biographical study of Lord
Kelvin, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Suppe, F.; 1977, The Structure of Scientific Theories (second edition), University of
Illinois Press, Urbana.
Toulmin, S.: 1969, The Philosophy of Science: An Introduction, Hutchinson, London.
Trumper, R.: 2003, ‘The Physics Laboratory – A Historical Overview and Future
Perspectives’, Science & Education 12, 645–670.
van Fraassen, B.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Van Heuvelen, A.: 1991, ‘Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-
based instructional strategies’, American Journal of Physics 59, 891-897.
von Helmholtz, H.: 1886/1995, ‘On the relation of natural science to science in
general’, in D. Cahan (ed.), Helmholtz, Science and Culture: Popular and
philosophical essays, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Watson, J.R., Prieto, T. & Dillon, J.: 1995, ‘The effects of practical work on students’
understanding of combustion’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32,
487–502.
Weinberg, S.: 1993, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage, London.
Wellington, J.: 1998, ‘Practical Work in Science’, in J. Wellington (ed.) Practical
work in school science: Which way now?, London: Routledge.
Wells, M., Hestenes, D., and Swackhamer, G.: 1995, ‘A modeling method for high
school physics instruction’, American Journal of Physics 63, 606-619.
Whewell, W.: 1847, Philosophy of Inductive Sciences, J. W. Parker, London.
White, T.: 1996, ‘The link between the laboratory and learning’, International Journal
of Science Education, 18, 761–774.