Evaluation of the Nigerian Physics Curriculum Contents and Physics Textbooks towards the Attainment of the Goals of the History and Philosophy of Science
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Science Education, Adamawa State University, Mubi, Nigeria
2
School of Education, National Open University of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Okoronka Ugwumba Augustine   

Department of Science Education, Adamawa State University, Mubi, Nigeria
Publish date: 2017-10-12
 
International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education 2011;3(2):75–83
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study examined the Nigerian Physics Curriculum contents and some purposively selected physics textbooks to ascertain the attainment of the goals of the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS). Content analysis of both the National Physics Curriculum and selected Physics textbooks was carried out. Only 17.4% of the topics in the curriculum contained issues concerned with HPS key among which is the models of the atom. Only one textbook out of five reviewed dealt measurably well with the HPS topics as contained in the curriculum. The students and teachers most preferred physics textbook has almost nothing in it to justify its attainment of HPS goals, while the rest of the physics textbooks dealt with HPS matters implicitly. The implication of these results is discussed.
 
REFERENCES (37)
1.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in pre-service courses: Abandoning Scientism but…, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
 
2.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of pre-service elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785-810.
 
3.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. A Critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
 
4.
Akerson, V.L. & Volrich, M.L. (2006). Teaching the nature of science explicitly in a firstgrade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377-394.
 
5.
Allchin, D. (1995). How not to teach history in science. In F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rnees & S. Fifield (eds) Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, Vol. 1, 13-22.
 
6.
Brown, S.C. Lindsay, D. & Brush, S.G. (1972). History of science and its place in a physics course in teaching school physics in J. Lewis (Ed.) UNESCO; Peruguine Books Limited.
 
7.
Bybee, R.W., Powell, I.C., Ellis, I.D., Glese, I.R., Parissi, L. & Singleton, L. (1991). Teaching history and nature of science in science courses. A rational for Integrating the history and nature of science and technology in science and social studies curriculum. Science Education, 75(1), 143-155.
 
8.
Chan, K. (1999). Effectiveness of interactive historical vignettes in enhancing high school students understanding of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 
9.
Chan, K. (2005). Exploring the dynamic interplay of college students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2). Article 8.
 
10.
CESAC (1980). Nigerian secondary school science project (Physics) Books 1, 2 & 3.
 
11.
Duschi, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development: New York Teachers College Press.
 
12.
Durkee, P. (1974). An analysis of the appropriateness of and utilization of TOUS with special reference to high-ability students studying physics. Science Education, 58, 343-356.
 
13.
Federal Ministry of Education, FME (1985). National curriculum for senior secondary school. Vol 3, 104-145.
 
14.
Justi, R. & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993-1009.
 
15.
Khisfe, R. & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching the nature of science with controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418.
 
16.
Khisfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39, 551-578.
 
17.
Lawrenz, F. & Kipris, N. (1990). Hands-on history of physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1(3), 54-59.
 
18.
Lederman, L., Wade, P. & Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of Science. A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Educational Rationales and Strategies, pp 331-354.
 
19.
Lederman, N.G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote the understanding of the science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.). The nature of Science and science education: Rationales & Strategies, pp (83-126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Khiwer.
 
20.
Mathews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
 
21.
McComas, W.F., Clough, M. P. & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science education. Science Education, 7(6), 511-532.
 
22.
Monk, M. & Ogborne, J. (1997). Placing the History and Philosophy of Science on the Curriculum: A Model for the Development of Pedagogy: Science Education, 81(4), 405-425.
 
23.
Nelkon, M. (1986). Principles of physics (Nig. Ed.) Nigeria: Heinemann Educational Plc. Ndupu, B.N.L., Okeke, P.N. & Ladipo, O.A. (2000). Senior secondary physics. Books 1, 2, & 3. Lagos: Longman Nigeria Plc.
 
24.
Okeke, P.N. & Anyakoha, M.W. (1994). Senior secondary physics. Ibadan: Macmillan Educational Plc.
 
25.
Parker, L.C., Krockover, G.H., Laser-Trap, S. & Eichinger, D.C. (2008). Ideas about the nature of Science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the Ameriacn Meteorological Society, 89 (II).
 
26.
Ray, C. (1991). Breaking free from dogma philosophical prejudice in science education. Science Education, 75(1), 87-97.
 
27.
Roach, L.E. & Wandersee, J. H. (1993). Short story science. The Science Teacher, 60(16), 18-21.
 
28.
Roach, L.E. & Wandersee, J.H. (1995). Putting people back into science: Using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics. 95(7), 365-370.
 
29.
Rudolph, J.L. & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 35(10), 1069-1089.
 
30.
Rutherford, F.J. (2005). Is our past our future? Thoughts on the next 50 years of science education reform in the light of judgment on the past 50 years. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4), 367-386.
 
31.
STAN (1993). STAN physics for senior secondary schools. Nigeria: Heinemann Educational Plc.
 
32.
Scharmann, L.C., Smith, M.U., James, M.C. & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of Science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellology, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27-41.
 
33.
Scharmann, L.C. & Harris, W.M.Jr. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 375-388.
 
34.
Schwab, I.I. & Brandwin, P.F. (1962). The teaching of sciences as enquiry. Cambridge, M.A. Harvard University Press.
 
35.
Seroglon, F., Koumaran, P. & Tselfes, V. (1998). History of science and instructional design: The case of electromagnetism. Science & Education. 7(3), 261-280.
 
36.
Shahn, E. (1998). On science literacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 42-46.
 
37.
Stinner, A. (1989) The teaching of physics and the content inquiry: From aristotle to einstein. Science Education, 73(5), 591-605.
 
eISSN:1306-3049