The Instructional Model for Using History of Science.

Abstract This paper discusses the levels of The Instructional Model for Using History of Science IUH0S] to explain the -elationship between the history of science and science teaching. The UHOS model proposes four levels: Conceptual Level, Epistemological Level, Sociocultural Level, and Interest Level. Each Level has sublevels with -egards to types of historical knowledge, pedagogical approach and educational objectives. The UHOS model ourports to help educator and researchers to explain their findings with an overarching theoretical framework. Key Words History of Science, Science Education, Instructional Model. The history of science has an important role in science education (Matthews, 1994). The use of history of science in science teaching has positi-ve influence on student understanding nature of science, interest in science, and science learning (Brush, 1989; Irwin, 2000; Klopfer & Cooley, 1961; Seker & Welsh, 2006; Seroglou, Koumaras, & Tselfes, 1998; Solbes & Traver, 2003; Solomon, Duveen, & Scot, 1992; Stinner & Williams 1993). Studies showing significant contributions to the field have not convinced science teachers and educators why and how history of science can be influential in science education because of the weak connection with educational approaches. The use of the history of science in science teaching requires to be considered an instructional approach based on educational approaches to disseminate research results to educators. For this purpose, this paper presents an instructi-onal model, which is continuation of previous models discussed in authors' recent papers (Seker, 2007, 2011). Early initiatives; such as, Harvard Case Histori-es in Experimental Science (Conant, 1957), the Harvard Project Physics Course (Holton, Rutherford, & Watson, 1970), Science Cases for Schools (Klopfer, 1964-1966) and Teachers' Handbook for the BSCS Curriculum (Schwab, 1963) have not convinced follow up studies in science education (Russell, 1981; Welch, 1973). These initial efforts did not contribute an explanatory model of instruction to the following studies. After 1970's, Egan's Story Form (1986) became primary instructional approach for science educators to use the history of science in science education. Wandersee (1992) and Roach and Wandersee (1995) proposed Interactive Historical Vignettes, Interrupted Story Form, and Binary Opposites and Stinner (1994; Stinner & Williams, 1993) proposed Story Line and Large Context Problems (1995) to incorporate the history of science into science lessons. The Story Form provides a context to help students organize their cognitive structure and connects ideas in the story (Carson, 1997). Studies introduce history of science in Story Form often emphasize that storytelling requires teacher talent even some consider teachers as natural storytellers. To explain the effects of the use of the history of science on student learning, science educators debate parallelism between students' cognitive development and the development of scientific knowledge throughout history. Even though the parallelism is still obscure, the similarity between scientists' ideas and students' alternative ideas may help students learn meaningfully (Monk & Osborne, 1997; Piaget & Garcia, 1989; Wander-see, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994). The parallelism between student cognition and the development of scientific concepts emphasizes that the assimi-lation and accommodation processes in learning scientific concepts are analogous to the 'normal sciences' and 'revolutionary sciences' in the development of scientific knowledge. However, there are arguments against using this analogy. Most studies on the use of the history of science in science education have not concerned with teachers' competencies and curriculum restraints. It is assumed that science teachers found stories joyful to use the history of science (Monk & Osborne, 1997). …