Skip to main content
Log in

A research base for new objectives of science teaching

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A bright year 7 student was going through the usual steps that lead to the concept of density and its values for wood and brass and aluminium. After mensurating the volumes of cuboids of these materials he was observing the volume of liquid they displaced in a measuring cylinder. As he carefully pushed the wooden cuboid below the surface, I asked him, “Why do you have to push the wood down?” “Because it floats otherwise”, he replied. “Why didn't you have to push the aluminium down?” “Because there was not enough water to make it float”. “Tell me more”, I said. “Well, sir, you must have seen metal ships floating on the sea. If there's enough water, metal will float, but not in a little bit like this”.

Just after describing for me how liquid acetone evaporated if it is placed on your skin, a first year university chemistry student with good test results was unable to give me any examples of a liquified gas. When pressed he muttered “Solids, liquids, gases” (A strangely immutable sequence that has neither evolutionary nor biblical support.) and said he thought the cO in a cylinder was probably liquid. Gases could be liquified by lowering the temperature, he said. On being asked to describe what would happen if he steadily cooled down the air in a space, he began by quoting, “Air molecules, being particles moving very rapidly with energy proportional to temperature”. As he cooled them down in thought, he held out his hands and slowed down the vibration of his fingers about a point in space. Finally, his fingers stopped and he said, “It's nothing”. “What do you mean, has it disappeared?” I said. “No”, he replied, but it's no longer a gas, and it's not a liquid or a solid. They are all just there suspended in space. It's no-thing”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BRUMBY, M. Students' perceptions and learning styles associated with the concept of evolution by natural selection. Ph. D. thesis, Surrey University, 1979.

  • CAWTHRON, E.R. & ROWELL, J.A. Epistemology and science education.Studies in Science Education, 1978, 5, 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • CHAMPAGNE, A. Private communications, 1979.

  • DRISCOLL, D.R. Student misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. Unpublished B.Ed. thesis, Monash University, 1966.

  • EASLEY, J. & DRIVER, R. Pupils and paradigms.Studies in Science Education, 1978, 5, 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEDERATION FOR UNIFIED SCIENCE EDUCATION.What is Unified Science Education? FUSE, Columbus, Ohio, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEHR, H.F., Contemporary mathematics and its intervention in the sciences. InEducational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 1, No. 3. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • FENSHAM, P.J. & GEORGE, S.C. Learning structural concepts of simple alcohols.Education in Chemistry, 1973, 10, 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • FENSHAM, P.J. Conditions for co-operation and strategies for innovation, inCo-operation between science teachers and mathematics teachers, 553–580, Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik der Universität Bielefeld, 1979.

  • FENSHAM, P.J. Head, hearts and hands.Australian Science Teachers Journal, 1980 (in press).

  • GARDNER, P.L. Difficulties with non-technical words amongst junior secondary school students: The Words in Science Project.Research, 1972, 58–81.

  • GILBERT, J.K. The study of student misunderstandings in the physical sciences.Research in Science Education, 1977, 165–172.

  • KARPLUS, R. & THIER, H.D.A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • KELLETT, N.B., & JOHNSTONE, A.H. Condensation and hydrolysis — an optical problem.Education in Chemistry, 1974, 11 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • KUHN, T.S.The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • LUNDGREN, U.P.Model analysis of pedagogical processes. Stockholm Institute of Education, Department of Educational Research, 1977.

  • LYBECK, L. Private communications, 1978.

  • LYBECK, L. A research approach to science education at Goteborg.European Journal of Science Education, 1979, 1, 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOVAK, J.D. et al. Interpretation of research findings in terms of Ausubel's theory and implications for science education.Science Education, 1971, 55, (4), 483–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • NOVAK, J.Studies in Science Education, 1978, 5, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • OSBORNE, R.J. & GILGERT, J.K.An approach to student learning of basic concepts in science. Report from Institute of Ed. Technology, University of Surrey, 1979.

  • OSBORNE, R.J., TASKER, C.R. & FREYBERG, P.S. Focus on topics. InLearning in Science Project Working Papers, University of Waikato, N.Z., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • SUAN, M.Z. Evaluation of A.S.E.P.: A case study approach. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Monash University, 1976.

  • WEST, L.H.T. & FENSHAM, P.J. What is learning chemistry? InChemical Educationa view across the Secondary Tertiary interface, 162–169, R.A.C.I. Chemical Education Division, 1979.

  • WHITE, R.T. & GUNSTONE, R.F. A matter of gravity.Research in Science Education, 1980, 10(in press).

  • WHITE, R.T. Describing cognitive structure. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 1979, 198–212.

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fensham, P.J. A research base for new objectives of science teaching. Research in Science Education 10, 23–33 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356306

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356306

Keywords

Navigation