How do different student constituencies (not) learn the history andudphilosophy of their subject? Case studies from science, technology andudmedicine

摘要

[FIRST PARAGRAPH]udWhy should H.E. teachers concern themselves with how theirudstudents do or don’t learn? Much has been said recently about theudalleged merits and demerits of ‘student-centred’ learning, especially onudthe extent to which student autonomy in the learning process isudbeneficial to their long-term interests. This paper is a not a contributionudto that debate. Rather it focuses on how teachers might uphold theirudconventional educational responsibilities but make their role moreudeffective. Its central thesis is that this role is most effective when treated not so much as the ‘teaching’ of students as the process of helping studentsudto learn. This particular study concerns how university students ofudscience, technology and medicine (STM) can be helped to learn theudhistory and philosophy of their respective subject from practitioners inudthe history and philosophy of science, technology and medicine. But Iudwill not be focussing on those students (sometimes the majority) whoudhave no trouble learning to think in historical and philosophical waysudabout their subject. They are not the ones who require most help fromudus. More importantly, I look at those students who—despite the bestudefforts of their teachers—find the historical or philosophical sensibilityudto be difficult, repellent, uninteresting, irrelevant, pointless or simplyudweird. In the worst case scenario such students learn nothing substantialudor valuable from classes in the history and philosophy of their subject,udand become bored, alienated or hostile to the whole enterprise.udud