Sci & Educ (2010) 19:75–90 DOI 10.1007/s11191-008-9182-2 The Development of Dalton’s Atomic Theory as a Case Study in the History of Science: Reflections for Educators in Chemistry He´lio Elael Bonini Viana Æ Paulo Alves Porto Published online: 4 February 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract The inclusion of the history of science in science curricula—and specially, in the curricula of science teachers—is a trend that has been followed in several countries. The reasons advanced for the study of the history of science are manifold. This paper presents a case study in the history of chemistry, on the early developments of John Dalton’s atomic theory. Based on the case study, several questions that are worth dis- cussing in educational contexts are pointed out. It is argued that the kind of history of science that was made in the first decades of the twentieth century (encyclopaedic, con- tinuist, essentially anachronistic) is not appropriate for the development of the competences that are expected from the students of sciences in the present. Science teaching for current days will benefit from the approach that may be termed the ‘‘new historiography of science’’. 1 Introduction The inclusion of the history of science in science curricula is a trend that has been followed in several countries. In some countries, it has been recommended for decades; in other countries, the discussion is more recent. Without intending to give a complete review of such proposals, we would like to illustrate this point with three examples. In the United Kingdom, one can find an early exhortation in favour of the historical approach to science teaching, made by the Duke of Argyll before the members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In his 1855 presidential address, he stated: ‘‘what we want in the teaching of the young, is, not so much mere results, as the methods and above all, the history of science’’ (Jenkins 1990, p. 274). According to H. E. B. Viana Á P. A. Porto (&) Instituto de Quı´mica, Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 748 B 7 Sup, Sa˜o Paulo, SP 05508-900, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] H. E. B. Viana e-mail: [email protected] 123 76 H. E. B. Viana, P. A. Porto Matthews, this claim has been scarcely followed—although there is a minority tradition of including the history of science in science education in the United Kingdom (Matthews 1994, p. 49). More recently (1988), the National Curriculum Council (NCC) recommended that part of the school science curriculum should be dedicated to the history and philosophy of science (NCC 1988). In the United States, the history of science has been included in science education projects for a long time. Maybe one of the most well-known of such materials is the series entitled, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, edited by J. B. Conant (1957). However, the ‘‘post-Sputnik’’ science teaching projects of the 1960s—designed to help students grasp the theoretical basis of the natural sciences—hardly included historical aspects. In more recent years, documents such as the American Chemical Society guide- lines for undergraduate education in chemistry recommended the historical approach—but, again according to Matthews, the guidelines are ‘‘more often ignored than followed’’ (Matthews 1994, p. 57). As a last example, let us consider the case of Denmark. Following a national educa- tional reform in the late 1980s, a new physics curriculum was proposed. Its goal was to present physics as a human activity, instead of focusing on the contents of physics. To accomplish that, the history and philosophy of science approach was suggested (Nielsen and Thomsen 1990). The reasons advanced for the inclusion of the history of science in science education are manifold, as suggested by authors such as Matthews (1994) and Cachapuz et al. (2005), among others. In summary, these reasons include: (a) a historical approach can present science as a human enterprise, relating it to ethical, political and social aspects; (b) history of science can contribute to meaningful learning, by relating scientific concepts to other aspects of students’ knowledge; (c) it can make lessons more interesting and reflective, by stimulating critical thought; (d) it can improve teacher edu- cation, by enriching their epistemological views; (e) it can help teachers to understand the learning difficulties of the students; (f) it can help teachers to reflect over educational matters, by means of a more complex epistemological approach. It is the purpose of this paper to present a case study in the history of chemistry designed to be used in the context of chemistry teaching. The case study is presented here to show some points that should be discussed in the initial or in-service education of chemistry teachers. We argue that the kind of history of science that was available in the first decades of the twentieth century is not appropriate for the development of the competencies that are expected from science students in the present, and science teachers need to be aware of that. Science teaching will benefit from the approach that may be termed, the new his- toriography of science, in order to meet the challenges posed by current educational guidelines. 2 The New Historiography of Science Until recently, the main approach to the history of science was based upon an encyclo- paedic, continuist and cumulative model. It was an essentially anachronistic model, for it looked to the past with the eyes of the present: historians searched for ‘‘red lines’’ that led from past concepts to present-day concepts, and for the ‘‘precursors’’ of the ideas estab- lished in current science. Moreover, much of the history of science was written under an internalist perspective. This historiographical approach might have been appropriate for a more ‘‘dogmatic’’ science teaching approach, concerned only with the transmission of content; or in science teaching projects designed to emulate the so-called idealized 123 The Development of Dalton’s Atomic Theory 77 ‘‘scientific method’’ that did not reflect what really happens in research laboratories. However, this kind of historiography does not fulfil the requirements of present science teaching demands. If our goal is to develop in our students the ability to approach scientific knowledge in a critical way, and to understand the complexity of the process of making science, then the new historiography of science may have much to offer. The contemporary approach of historians of science is marked by the well-delimited and profound analysis of case studies, aimed at the characterization of specific episodes and documents. Another aim is to contextualize the ideas of the past, in search of their meaning within the peculiar scientific thinking of the period under analysis. By doing so, it is possible to identify different, superimposed levels of continuities and ruptures with former ideas, as well as the peculiarities of the interpretations of the same sources that contributed to the development of a certain scientific work. Moreover, it is necessary to consider the influences that do not belong to the strict domain of science, such as psychological and social influences. By following such an approach, the relationship between the case studies and the broader context of the history of science acquires new meanings, which help to make a more detailed picture of the complexity of the scientific enterprise over time (Alfonso-Goldfarb and Beltran 2004; Debus 1984). This new historiography of science has also been influenced by developments in philosophy of science itself, after the works of Popper, Hanson, Polanyi, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Laudan and others. Considering this, we believe that the use of case histories—developed according to the new historiography of science—should be part of the training of science teachers. This would enable them to critically assess didactic materials related to the history of science, and use them to develop the desired abilities among their students. When one considers a case study, one can find several points that may be discussed with pre-service teachers, or with students, that can be helpful for two main purposes: the construction of a complex view of the scientific activity; and the construction of scientific concepts. In this paper, we take the development of Dalton’s atomic theory as an example. Atomic theory is an important part of chemistry education, and as such it has been an object of concern for chemistry educators. Niaz (2001), for example, presented some questions that were the subject of debate in the early years of Dalton’s atomic theory. Starting from historical and epistemological questions, Niaz went on to discuss if the teaching of the laws of definite and multiple proportions is really necessary in present curricula. In another paper, Rodrı´guez and Niaz (2002) detail the lack of an historical approach to the development of atomic theories in chemistry textbooks. We agree with Niaz and Rodrı´guez that aspects of the history of science should be presented to students— not to ‘‘indoctrinate’’ them in a naive version of inductivism, but rather to challenge such a view. We also agree with Brush (1978), when he argued that: Chemical education should be revised to take account of the improved conception of the nature of chemistry that emerges from a study of its history. If we really believe that Lavoisier and Dalton were great chemists, we should be able to live with a more accurate account of how they made their discoveries… (Brush 1978, p. 290). In the present paper, we follow Brush’s suggestion of taking the work of Dalton as an example of the complexity of the process of developing scientific knowledge that may be discussed in science education.