The Relevance of History of Biology to Teaching and Learning in the Life Sciences: The Case of Mendel’s Laws

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Zoubeida R. Dagher
• 关键词：Mendel’s laws ; Laws in biology ; History of biology
• 刊名：Interchange
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：November 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：45
• 期：3-4
• 页码：205-216
• 全文大小：371 KB
• 参考文献：Allchin, D. (2000). Mending mendelism. The American Biology Teacher, 62(9), 633-39.View Article
  Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329-51.View Article
  Allchin, D. (2012). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1-9.View Article
  Brush, S. (1989). History of science in science education. Interchange, 20(2), 60-0.View Article
  BSCS. (2003). BSCS biology: A human approach (2nd ed.). Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.
  Dagher, Z., Brickhouse, N., Shipman, H., & Letts, W. (2004). How some college students represent their understanding of scientific theories. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 735-55.View Article
  Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2014). Laws and explanations in biology and chemistry: Philosophical perspectives and educational implications. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 1203-233). Dordrecht: Springer.
  Dhar, P., & Giuliani, A. (2010). Laws of biology: Why so few? Systems and Synthetic Biology, 4, 7-3.View Article
  dos Santos, V. C., Joaquim, L. M., El-Hani, C. N. 2012. Hybrid deterministic views about genes in biology textbooks: A key problem in genetics teaching. Science & Education, 21(4), 543-78.
  Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.View Article
  Fairbanks, D. (2008). Mendelian controversies: An update. In A. W. Allan Franklin, W. F. Edwards, D. J. Fairbanks, & D. L. Hartl (Eds.), Mendelian controversies: Ending the mendel-fisher controversy (pp. 302-12). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
  Fairbanks, D. J., & Rytting, B. (2001). Mendelian controversies: A botanical and historical review. American Journal of Botany, 88(5), 737-52.View Article
  Falk, R. (2006). Mendel’s impact. Science in Context, 19, 215-36.View Article
  Gibbs, A. & Lawson, A. E. (1992). The nature of science as reflected by the work of biologists and biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 3137-152.
  Heering, P., Klassen, S., Metz D. (Eds.). (2013). Enabling scientific understanding through historical instruments and experiments in formal and non-formal learning environments. In: Flensburg studies on the history and philosophy of science in science education (2nd volume). Flensburg:?Flensburg University Press.
  Kampourakis, K. (2013). Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 22(2), 293-24.
  Klassen, S. (2010). The relation of story structure to a model of conceptual change in science learning. Science & Education, 19(3), 305-17.View Article
  Kugler, C. (2002). Darwin’s theory, Mendel’s laws: Labels and the teaching of science. The American Biology Teacher, 64(5), 341-51.View Article
  Marks, J. (2008). The construction of mendel’s laws. Evolutionary Anthropology, 17, 250-53.View Article
  Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
  Matthews, M. (2014). The contribution of history and philosophy of science, 20th Anniversary Revised and Expanded. New York: Routledge.
  Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.View Article
  McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53-0). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175-87.View Article
  Mitchell, S. (2009). Unsimple truths. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.View Article
  National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington: National Academies Press.
  National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Washington: National Academies Press.
  NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Appendix H. Washington: National Academies Press.
  Norris, S. P., & Philips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-40.View Article
  Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., C, Michael L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R. B. (2014). Campbell biology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  Rudge, D. (2003). The role of photographs and films in Kettlewell’s popularizations of the phenomenon of industrial melanism. Science & Education, 12(3), 261-87.View Article
  Sapp, J. (1990). The nine lives of Gregor Mendel. In H. K. Le Grand (Ed.), Experimental inquiries (pp. 137-66). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.View Article
  SEPUP. (2011). Biology: S
• 作者单位：Zoubeida R. Dagher (1)
  
  1. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Education
  Education
  Philosophy of Education
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-1790

文摘

Using Mendel’s laws as a case in point, the purpose of this paper is to bring historical and philosophical perspectives together to help students understand science as a human endeavor. Three questions as addressed: (1) how did the Mendelian scheme, principles, or facts become labeled as laws, (2) to what extent do Mendel’s laws exhibit characteristics of scientific laws, and (3) what are the implications for biology education. This paper argues that adding historical details about Mendel’s successors and their actions at the time, coupled with explicit consideration of the particular nature of biological laws can provide educators and learners a more comprehensive account for understanding Mendel’s laws, their explanatory and predictive functions, as well as the social context that facilitated their appropriation by the wider scientific community.