Editor's introduction to the theme issue 'Teaching Chemistry and Physics': Facilitating science learning in the inter-disciplinary matrix – some perspectives on teaching chemistry and physics
One of my publications is:
Taber, K. S. (2003). Facilitating science learning in the inter-disciplinary matrix – some perspectives on teaching chemistry and physics [Editor's introduction to theme issue]. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(2), 103-114.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Chemistry and physics are often considered as two well established and closely linked scientific disciplines. As well as there being recognised common ground between the two subjects, it is generally accepted that key aspects of chemistry are supported by a foundation of physics. The present editorial article introduces a suite of papers exploring aspects of the theme 'teaching chemistry and physics'. It is suggested that common perceptions of the relationship between chemistry and physics as neighbouring scientific disciplines may be over-simplistic. The present major division of science into biology, chemistry and physics is considered to be both historically contingent, and possibly passé. In any case, a subject such as chemistry can only be considered as a unitary scientific discipline to a limited extent, as within chemistry there are distinct disciplinary traditions (or 'paradigms'). It is known that students do not always integrate their science knowledge as teachers might hope, but this may reflect the way scientists themselves work within a paradigm. These papers on 'teaching chemistry and physics' raise some important questions that should be of concern to those teaching aspects of chemistry whether in school, college or university.
Key words
- chemistry & physics;
- integration of knowledge;
- disciplinary structure;
- paradigms and disciplinary matrices;
- research questions;
- history of science
My own view is that once something we would recognise as 'science' became well established, and grew to encompass more than any individual 'scientist' could master, the appearance of some form of disciplinary structure might well be inevitable. I can even be convinced that (what we might recognise as) biology-chemistry-physics lie on some form of continuum. However, I do not feel that the three-fold division was inevitable, nor that the commonly accepted boundaries between chemistry and biology (on one 'side') and physics (on the other) are inescapable. To my mind significantly different disciplinary structures could well have arisen. Just as an extra-terrestrial visitor is as likely to map the earth with the Southern hemisphere at the top as at the bottom (or even use a graphic convention that puts the rotational axis on, say, the horizontal or across the page from bottom left to top right), I would expect her alien conceptualisation of science or sciences to be likely to be noticeably different from our modern (late 20th-early 21st century) Occidental way of thinking.
So, I would suggest that our present conceptualisation of the sciences arises from historical contingencies that could easily have been different: the structure we have represents something that evolved from the particular decisions of the particular scientists, scientific organisations, and editors who have been influential. Surely much in science could be different but for historical 'accidents'.
Taber, 2003, p.107
Contents:
- Preface
- Chemistry, physics, or science? A biographical context for a theme
- The sciences as historically contingent disciplines
- The chemistry-physics interface
- The inter-disciplinary matrix
