Abstract
Introduction
This paper probes the objectives and established practices of science-history education in science centre–style popular-science venues, which are most accessible to the general public. The analysis is approached from two vantage points: the self-positioning of these venues and the pivotal role that the history of science and technology plays in enhancing the scientific understanding of their visitors. However, since the means of science popularization are diverse, and the self-positioning and visitor profiles of different venues are notably varied, the viewpoints introduced in this paper are only one of the paths for conducting science-history education in popular-science venues and so should not be regarded as a universal path for science communication. The philosophies and objectives mentioned in this paper are also applicable only to science and technology museums or science centre–style venues that practise science communication by displaying phenomena. For more broadly defined comprehensive science and technology museums and specialized science-history museums, the content of this paper may offer some inspiration, but that does not mean that the path described in this paper should be seen as a model to be universally adopted by non-traditional interactive popular-science venues.
The basic science-popularization model of traditional science centre–style venues
Traditional science centre–style venues (TSCVs), as described in this paper, include science and technology museums and science centres, but exclude venues for displaying static objects. TSCVs are popular-science venues that use the display of scientific phenomena as the main form of exhibition and interaction and allow the visitors to engage in interactions with the exhibits.
The basic science-popularization model of TSCVs is based mainly on hardware resources that are different from the scientific collections in science museums, as they do not possess the rarity and uniqueness of collections. Therefore, exhibits in TSCVs do not need to be carefully protected; instead, the public is encouraged to interact with the exhibits. This unique model brings a visiting experience that is quite different from that of general museums and is one of the core advantages of TSCVs.
The logic and means of exhibition at the Exploratorium in San Francisco are closely aligned with the science-popularization model of TSCVs described in this paper. A paper written by Frank Oppenheimer when he founded the Exploratorium can best capture the distinctive features of this model: There is thus a growing need for an environment in which people can become familiar with the details of science and technology and begin to gain some understanding by controlling and watching the behavior of laboratory apparatus and machinery; such a place can arouse their latent curiosity and can provide at least partial answers. The laboratory atmosphere of such an ‘exploratorium’ could then be supplemented with historical displays showing the development of both science and technology and its roots in the past. (Oppenheimer, 1968)
By summarizing Oppenheimer's descriptions, some basic principles of TSCVs can be established:
They are open to the general public to promote public understanding of science. Visitors can freely manipulate exhibits and observe the results (phenomena) of the experiments designed by them. They stimulate the latent curiosity of visitors to the venue. They display the development and origins of science and technology in an innovative way.
TSCVs hold a unique position in science education: they are neither the principal actor of conventional knowledge education nor the primary channel for disseminating scientific knowledge. Due to their emphasis on allowing visitors to observe real phenomena and engage in free exploration, TSCVs should be positioned as places of enlightenment for the public to understand science and as drivers for cultivating the public's intrinsic motivation for scientific inquiry. To elaborate on this viewpoint, it is necessary to briefly discuss the differences in the positioning of science education in the context of TSCVs compared to schools and information media.
Since their inception, TSCVs have embraced educational goals different from those of formal education. However, these goals are not in conflict with the objectives of formal education; rather, they are complementary. Murphy (2010) noted in his review article: The most significant historical contribution of the Exploratorium to the education in science and technology museums is the introduction of the new exhibition and teaching concept of ‘Making As Thinking’, which provides the ideological foundation for the creative design and practice of exhibition and education functions in modern science centers. The term ‘Making As Thinking’ means allowing the visitors to actively construct scientific concepts and principles through interaction with operable exhibits. It inspires creative imagination and practice through the creative activities of the subject. In terms of educational practice, it seeks to transform the scientific inquiry conducted by scientists at the academic research level into inquiry-based learning in an educational context, thereby making the learning process akin to ‘exploring science like a scientist’.
Neither TSCVs nor general popular-science venues can shake the central position of schools, especially those in formal education systems, in the learning of scientific knowledge. The teaching methods, objectives and systems used in formal education, as opposed to the informal education model of science centres, have been extensively and deeply researched by the educational community for many years, and their research depth and level far exceed those of the education models of science centres. Regardless of these advantages, just the time spent by young students in schools is much longer than their time spent visiting museums. Compared to the fragmented knowledge acquired in popular-science venues, the systematic, well-structured and curriculum-based education and training in schools is more likely to enable students to learn knowledge that will be useful in their future work. Therefore, disseminating knowledge is not the core task of TSCVs. That said, this does not mean that TSCVs do not impart any knowledge. On the contrary, they are quite active in disseminating scientific knowledge to the public, but such knowledge is only the vehicle for disseminating the core content of the museums; it is not the core content itself. By displaying knowledge, TSCVs are not providing answers directly. They are not simply verifying knowledge through experiments, but bringing visitors into an exploration mode, in which they can acquire knowledge through guided thinking and reasoning from the phenomena displayed by interesting exhibits and further understand what science is by understanding the development process behind it, thereby enhancing people's understanding of science. This kind of education, which delves deeply into the underlying logic and scientific culture, is not something that can be easily provided by school education. After all, at least in compulsory school education, schools are more inclined to cultivate students’ ability to apply knowledge. This is, of course, completely understandable, as such learning is more efficient and has more practical value. However, such education is more likely to cultivate excellent engineers rather than excellent scientists.
On the other hand, promoting science education in schools often puts greater pressure on schools. This is a conclusion that is often drawn in relevant research. For example, Zhang Zuxing from the Guangxi Science and Technology Museum pointed out in an article that: Science and technology courses are popular with schools and students, but they are also the most lacking in resources. The inadequate allocation and limited professional capability of science teachers, as well as a lack of science course resources in schools, are the primary cause of the contradiction between the insufficient supply of science and technology courses in the after-class services of schools and the increased demand for science and technology courses by students after the introduction of the ‘double reduction’ policy. (Zhang, 2023c)
Of course, that does not mean that TSCVs are able only to provide science education that promotes public understanding of science but unable to assist schools in teaching knowledge. After all, Oppenheimer's desire to found the Exploratorium originated from his own experience of teaching in high school. As a science educator, Oppenheimer moved his experimental site from a laboratory to a classroom and transformed his scientific exploration tools from laboratory instruments to teaching aids in the classroom. Ultimately, this shift led to the formation of an educational philosophy focused on scientific instruction within the practice of curriculum development. During his tenure as a science teacher, Oppenheimer changed the passivity that existed in traditional education. He personally restructured a teaching laboratory arranged by the school and, based on this, established an experimental library that encouraged students to engage in hands-on activities to stimulate their thinking. This is also considered to be the foundational prototype of the Exploratorium (Li, 2014).
The exhibits created by the TSCV model are indeed very useful in helping students understand scientific knowledge. However, school education today is no longer the same as in the past, and high-quality primary and secondary schools are already able to solve related problems. Moreover, many popular-science venues have invested heavily in the functions of non-TSCVs and are quite capable of solving problems in the teaching of knowledge. As the content in question is not directly pertinent to this paper, further elaboration on this point will be omitted.
Compared with the popular-science content of physical venues, the content disseminated through information media has a huge advantage in terms of its influence. Many well-crafted popular-science videos have attracted significant attention and views online. For example, the popular-science video
Trying to define ‘science’ in TSCVs
We have briefly discussed the science-popularization model and positioning of TSCVs, but, before discussing science-history education in TSCVs, we need to address another issue first. That is, how should we define ‘science’ in popular-science venues, or in scientific enlightenment education? If we do not have a clear concept of science, it would be impossible for us to discuss science education. That said, defining the concept of science is by no means an easy task.
Han Qide, who is an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a professor at Peking University, raised the issue of defining science in the opening section of his article titled ‘Twelve important questions about science that must be understood to conduct good scientific education’: There have been numerous discussions among experts and scholars on the definition of science, yet there is still no clear and universally accepted answer to date. The first viewpoint considers science as a body of knowledge. For example, the explanations of science in
In his article, Han summarized the concept of science and noted the benefit of a profound study of science history for understanding what science is. However, for popular-science practices in TSCVs, since their audience is the general public in the broadest sense, providing people with complex definitions will not only fail to help them understand science but may also hinder their acquisition of basic scientific knowledge. After all, the typical learning trajectory follows a gradual progression from simplicity to complexity, and it is rare for any discipline to begin with an exceedingly challenging ‘hell-level’ difficulty.
Considering the above analysis, we believe that using the second viewpoint as the definition of science in TSCVs may be more effective for the scientific enlightenment education of popular-science venues; that is, science is a paradigm for producing knowledge. ‘Observing phenomena—raising questions—studying questions—forming hypotheses—testing in practice’ is the general process under this paradigm. By learning this paradigm and its examples, the audience can clearly see the general laws of scientific inquiry, thereby stimulating their desire to explore and enhancing their ability to inquire. This kind of learning-in-inquiry practice requires physical institutions such as TSCVs. Allowing visitors to directly experience the process of scientific discovery, or even to re-participate in the process of scientific discovery, is the unique advantage of physical popular-science venues compared to other ways of acquiring knowledge. This is also one of the core responsibilities of TSCVs in the science-education system.
Then, we may have to answer the following questions: Is it good to use an incomplete definition to interpret science? Will it confuse the audience to introduce an incomplete definition in science education? Will it have any other adverse impact on people?
If we look at those issues just at face value, we may easily conclude that giving an incomplete definition is not rigorous. However, if we think more deeply, we will immediately find that things are not so simple. Cognition is a gradual process. We cannot say that the method we use to define science in popular-science venues is not rigorous. It is just incomplete. In other words, the definition we use is one of the definitions of science—a concept that has been given a complex meaning due to its own and historical reasons. This might indeed not be rigorous enough for academic research, but for education it can only be said to be incomplete. And this kind of incompleteness can also be accepted at a specific stage of education. For example, when the current authors were receiving secondary education, the definition of a function was the traditional definition, and the independent variable was only allowed to map to the dependent variable one-to-one or many-to-one. The school did not teach a more rigorous modern definition because, at that time, students had not yet been exposed to the concept of sets. Defining a function using the concept of sets and mappings was not only unrealistic but also not easily understood. At that time, students would not have been exposed to complex functions either, and using a simpler variable-mapping method also reflected the principle of starting with the easy and then moving on to the difficult. When they went to college and began to study advanced mathematics, they would need to expand the definition of a function. Therefore, it is very normal to use the definition of a concept that can be accepted by the target group at a particular educational stage. Instead of producing adverse effects, such an approach is a good way for the target group at that stage to learn the relevant knowledge concepts.
Moreover, the multiple meanings of ‘science’ that exist today are detrimental to rigorous academic exchanges and science education for the public. That is because logic is the foundation of scientific methods and scientific thinking, but logic places great emphasis on the importance of definitions, and the law of identity is the premise of scientific inquiry and discussion. If the science you speak of is not the same as the science I speak of, then the communication we have would also lose its meaning.
The high degree of compatibility between science-history education and TSCV education
Precisely because TSCVs and popular-science venues with TSCV functions have the unique positioning that we have described, their science-popularization model should also differ from the knowledge-dissemination-based model. The presentation of the history of science and technology, especially science history, has thus become one of the best options for TSCVs to achieve their positioning goals. In science-education activities within TSCVs, the integration of science history not only leverages the distinctive strengths of such institutions but also embodies the basic principles that guide their operations.
First, we can understand the science defined in TSCVs more profoundly through science history. Since science is a method and paradigm for acquiring knowledge, the process of acquiring knowledge through TSCVs’ innovative methods and exploratory paradigms is an example of their operation. Visitors to TSCVs, by personally experiencing the most central scientific processes, will be able to understand the origin of scientific knowledge and identify with the definition of science in TSCVs. This specific approach for promoting the public's understanding of science is not limited to the interpretation of principles but is more inclined to interpret the essential logic behind science. If visitors can understand this, it will not only help science-history education to achieve its purpose but also encourage visitors to think about the origins and processes behind other exhibits in TSCVs and ask high-quality questions that are likely to become the driving force or opportunity for visitors to conduct scientific inquiries in the future. This is in line with the first basic principle of TSCVs summarized in the previous section.
Second, TSCVs’ model of science popularization by displaying phenomena is highly compatible with the needs of science-history education. This is because, in scientific inquiry, proposing hypotheses based on phenomena, logical reasoning and argumentation, and practical verification, are all very important links and should also be the focus of science-history education. Both hypotheses based on phenomena and verification by practice have high requirements for hands-on experiments and observations of phenomena. This fits perfectly into the second basic principle of TSCVs summarized in the previous section.
Third, many experiments in science history are natural materials for stimulating the curiosity, inquiry and imagination of young people. In science history, there were numerous experiments that led to the birth of a new theory or even a new era, either because the phenomenon was so counterintuitive that nobody had thought about doing it, or because the causal relationship between the phenomenon and its results was so counterintuitive that people failed to see a connection. One example of the former is Oersted's experiment, for which Ampère once lamented that, for 20 years after the invention of the voltaic pile, none of his French compatriots had placed a current-carrying wire next to a small magnet as Oersted did (Zhang, 2023a). An example of the latter is Newton's experiment on the dispersion of light. Following conventional thought processes, most individuals would not have deduced the astonishingly counterintuitive fact that white light, although appearing pure and transparent, is in fact constituted by coloured monochromatic spectra. Even the outstanding individuals among Newton's contemporaries found it extremely difficult to accept his theory that light contains countless different, independent and non-convertible colours and features a certain definite refrangibility. It seemed to have been refuted by experiments showing that a third colour is produced by mixing two coloured pigments, and also by other experiments involving the subjective physiology of colour vision. Even Huygens stated in 1673, ‘A hypothesis that can explain yellow and blue should be sufficient to explain all the other colours’ (cited in Newton, 2018: 7). However, throughout history, there have always been individuals with a spirit of exploration and pioneering who have either conducted experiments that others had not thought of or proposed hypotheses that others dared not imagine. By discarding inertia from thought, they have gained the opportunity to take a step closer to the truth, making great scientific discoveries and gaining a place in science history. Such counterintuitive experiments are an excellent source of inspirations for designing TSCV exhibits. Since one of the important positionings of TSCVs is to cultivate the public's intrinsic motivation for scientific inquiry, while the source of this intrinsic motivation is mainly curiosity about the essential laws of the operation of the world, we can say with confidence that young people with curiosity are more likely to embark on the path of scientific achievement. Using counterintuitive phenomena to stimulate young people's curiosity about science is a typical means of exhibit design in TSCVs. This also coincides with the third basic principle of TSCVs summarized in the previous section.
Finally, and most importantly, the process of learning science history is essentially a practice and study of the methods and paradigms of scientific innovation and inquiry. The greatest benefit that TSCV visitors could gain by retracing the path of scientific discovery is not knowing what a great achievement a scientist has made, nor the knowledge content and significance of the achievement itself, but how the scientist and his or her colleagues in the scientific community thought during the process of producing the achievement, and what methods and paradigms they used to reach their conclusions. If the visitors can truly think about what insights these methods and paradigms have for their own inquiry and innovation after the visit, then the greatest value of science-history education among young people will be fully unlocked. This is also the practice of the fourth basic principle of TSCVs summarized in the previous section.
In summary, implementing science-history education in TSCVs plays to the venues’ strengths in showcasing scientific phenomena, promoting hands-on engagement and stimulating the public's curiosity. This approach also helps to practise the basic philosophy of science education in TSCVs, which makes it a highly compatible win–win model. Compared with separating TSCV-based science education from science-history education, embedding science-history education into the science-education work of TSCVs can produce a multiplying effect in which one plus one is greater than two.
The ‘reproduction’ exhibition model
The remaining question is how to design exhibitions in a way that can effectively leverage the advantages of the science-education + science-history education model of TSCVs. Our research team is still looking for answers to this question, and there is not yet sufficient practice to support any conclusion. However, based on our current conception, the ‘reproduction’ exhibition model might be a possible solution.
The so-called reproduction model is one that uses exhibition displays and items as historical reproduction tools for conducting science-history education and builds on the venue's hardware resources to promote that education. Under this model, the venue can start with offering exhibitions through self-guided tours, thereby implementing the four core principles of TSCVs as outlined above. At the same time, the venue can also design a rich variety of interesting courses around related items or groups of items to help visitors understand the thought processes and innovative methods behind science history. Through such an arrangement, the public will be able to appreciate that scientific conjectures and hypotheses constitute an intellectual banquet founded on knowledge and deduction. Furthermore, they will be able to acquire fundamental patterns of scientific thinking and innovative problem-solving skills, as illustrated by science history. To achieve this goal, exhibitions need to be designed with built-in educational functions and services and truly serve the purpose of education.
We think that exhibitions under the reproduction model should focus mainly on the restoration of the following elements.
This is one of the necessary preliminaries for science-history education. The reason is very simple. If we look at historical discoveries from a ‘God's perspective’, the question may become very simple. Take Galileo's inclined-plane experiment, for example. From our current perspective, we can naturally reach the corresponding conclusion by using the conservation of gravitational potential energy to understand it. However, the concept of energy had not yet been established in Galileo's time. It is precisely because of this that Galileo's thought experiment and the thinking process within it have a more far-reaching significance, and these brilliant ideas are more worthy of our appreciation and learning. Therefore, in science-history education, we should first clarify the historical context of science-history events and understand what people or the academic community at the time knew and did not know. Only by mastering enough historical and cognitive context can we have an accurate and comprehensive understanding of what happened subsequently.
As we have mentioned, experiments are one of the core elements of science-history education in TSCVs. Because the core advantage of TSCVs compared to online popular science is the presentation of reality, the reproduction model should, of course, also present the core experimental process in reality. In the process of reproduction, we should pay attention to which experiments were conducted in history and which were thought experiments or misconceptions. For example, as we can see from current research, it is highly likely that Galileo did not really drop iron balls and wooden balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa; it was just a thought experiment. Of course, if the thought experiment itself is an exciting one, we can also use modern means to conduct experiments that were not done at the time. However, when performing this kind of reproduction, we must let the audience know that the experiment was not conducted in history, but not conducting the experiment does not affect the historical understanding of this issue, and the experiment does help us to have a more comprehensive understanding of history at that time. Through such clarification, misinformation can be avoided. After all, our purpose in drawing wisdom and strength from science history is not to muddy the waters of history.
The cognitive-reasoning process lies at the heart of science-history education, and it merits extra attention from exhibition designers to ensure a comprehensive understanding. The process includes not only ones like the exciting reasoning process that led to Lavoisier's oxygen theory, but also how great scientists in history designed experiments to solve problems, such as Galileo using the inclined-plane experiment to slow down the acceleration of falling objects and study the relationship between time and position changes during the fall. Enhancing young people's ability to think and solve practical problems with their hands is one of the great treasures that science-history education can bring to them. Of course, we must admit that fully reproducing the cognitive-reasoning process is not easy, which is one of the challenges faced by the reproduction model. However, we believe that, with the guidance of experienced experts in science history, many problems can be solved. The cognitive process might not be as methodical and verifiable as historical facts, and so a proper amount of reasoning and speculation should be allowed, but it should still be based on reasonable grounds and recognized by experts. Reading scientists’ own works to gain insights into their brilliant thought processes could be a pretty good choice.
In addition, deconstructing the cognitive process through constructivist learning theory and employing problem-guided or context-guided approaches should also be important means for reconstructing the process of cognitive reasoning. This has been referred to more than once in relevant literature. For example, Zhang (2023b) proposed similar ideas in her master's thesis. According to Zhang, constructivism emphasizes the dynamic nature of knowledge and advocates creative learning in the context of specific problem situations. According to constructivist learning theory, teachers should recognize the importance of autonomous learning and create problem contexts to help students build knowledge structures. It also argues that learning is not a one-way process through which teachers transmit knowledge to students, but helps students construct their own knowledge systems through inquiry-based learning, anchored instruction and cooperative learning models. The constructivist view of knowledge warns us that knowledge is not absolute truth. Educators should not suppress students’ intellectual development but should cultivate their critical thinking and encourage them to question authority. Meanwhile, the constructivist view of students reminds us that students do not enter the classroom with empty minds. When teaching new content, incorporating the history of biological science can fill in the gaps. The science-history content in the biology textbooks of high schools is usually described based on experiments. Teachers can use problem-based teaching contexts to guide students to retrace the path of scientific inquiry, identify and pose questions, and make corrections. By doing so, they can effectively utilize the science-history content in the textbooks to impart knowledge to students.
Indeed, deconstructing the cognitive process through constructivist theory demands that curators possess stronger capabilities in theoretical research—a requirement that is itself a hallmark of exhibition planning in the realm of science. Curators must be aware of the need to engage in in-depth theoretical study. After all, it is difficult for curators who are reluctant to think critically to inspire active thinking among their visitors.
At the end of the reproduction of a piece of science history, it is imperative to clearly articulate the conclusions reached by scientists in that period of history. Regardless of whether those conclusions conform to modern knowledge or whether they are complete, they should be faithfully represented in the course of science-history education. That is because such a conclusion is likely to be the one that the audience should independently reach through their own contemplation during the education process of science history. For example, when Mendeleev published the periodic law of elements in 1869, he did not correctly deal with the position of transition elements, and the periodic table at the time did not include noble gases either. These contents required subsequent cognitive improvements before conclusions could be reached. In science-history education, we should not ‘spoil the ending’ during the thinking and reasoning stage; only after the historical conclusion has been reached should we reveal the truth and the ‘full picture’, as we currently know it, to the audience.
Selection of the themes of science history under the reproduction model
During the planning of an exhibition, the science-history content to be presented should be carefully selected, and it should be determined whether to showcase the entire process of discovery or just a part of it. After all, even for great discoveries in human history, the duration of the discovery, the volume of the content and the difficulty of understanding it are not the same. Exhibitions aimed at the general public should not be difficult to understand, and the ‘hell-mode’ issues that we mentioned in the section on the definition of ‘science’ should also be avoided. Therefore, based on the audience's competence, some science-history content that is too abstruse or in conflict with the reproduction model should be excluded. In our view, the science-history content that needs to be excluded includes, but is not limited to, the following.
This is mainly because the audience of TSCVs is the general public in the broadest sense. The demand for overly abstruse or extensive prior knowledge is too high a threshold for general visitors. After all, in an exhibition in a TSCV, it is necessary to provide scientific enlightenment to the broadest public. More in-depth and professional popular-science work can be carried out by professional venues, and bringing science fans to popular-science activities can achieve twice the result with half the effort. Compared to professional venues, TSCVs should do a better job of popularizing science from the ground up.
As we have mentioned, the core advantage of TSCVs is to reproduce the real experimental process. Science-history education that does not require actual experiments might not necessarily be carried out within TSCVs. Accordingly, the reproduction model might also find it difficult to capitalize on its advantages in such circumstances.
The operation of popular-science venues follows basic rules and safety regulations. Experiments that are likely to have serious adverse effects on visitors or even pose safety threats, such as experiments involving combustion or explosion, or experiments that generate toxic and harmful gases, should not be conducted in popular-science exhibition venues. However, this does not mean that some exciting experiments should be missing from science education. It is just that, due to the positioning of TSCVs, those experiments will not be reproduced under the current reproduction model. Modern popular-science venues can certainly add facilities such as chemistry laboratories to meet a more diverse range of popular-science needs.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
ORCID iD
