You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Despite an enduring belief that science should be taught, there has been no enduring consensus about how or why. This is especially true when it comes to teaching scientific process. John Rudolph shows that how we think about and teach science will either sustain or thwart future innovation, and determine how science is perceived by the public.
Few people question the importance of science education in American schooling. The public readily accepts that it is the key to economic growth through innovation, develops the ability to reason more effectively, and enables us to solve the everyday problems we encounter through knowing how the world works. Good science teaching results in all these benefits and more -- or so we think. But what if all this is simply wrong? What if the benefits we assume science education produces turn out to be an illusion, nothing more than wishful thinking? In Why We Teach Science (and Why We Should), former high school teacher and historian of science education John L. Rudolph examines the reasons we've l...
During the 1950s, leading American scientists embarked on an unprecedented project to remake high school science education. Dissatisfaction with the 'soft' school curriculum of the time advocated by the professional education establishment, and concern over the growing technological sophistication of the Soviet Union, led government officials to encourage a handful of elite research scientists, fresh from their World War II successes, to revitalize the nations' science curricula. In Scientists in the Classroom , John L. Rudolph argues that the Cold War environment, long neglected in the history of education literature, is crucial to understanding both the reasons for the public acceptance of...
During the Victorian period science shifted from being practiced in a theistic context (integrating religious considerations and ideas) to a naturalistic context (explicitly forbidding religious matters). This book examines the foundations of that change. While it is generally thought that the transformation was due to the methodological superiority of naturalistic science, Matthew Stanley shows that most of the methodological values underlying scientific practice were virtually identical between the theists and the naturalists. Each agreed on the importance of the uniformity of natural laws, the use of hypothesis and theory, the moral value of science, and intellectual freedom. This was des...
The scientific method is just over a hundred years old. From debates about the evolution of the human mind to the rise of instrumental reasoning, Henry M. Cowles shows how the idea of a single “scientific method” emerged from a turn inward by psychologists that produced powerful epistemological and historical effects that are still with us today.
Science fairs, clubs, and talent searches are familiar fixtures in American education, yet little is known about why they began and grew in popularity. In Science Education and Citizenship, Sevan G. Terzian traces the civic purposes of these extracurricular programs for youth over four decades in the early to mid-twentieth century. He argues that Americans' mobilization for World War Two reoriented these educational activities from scientific literacy to national defense a shift that persisted in the ensuing atomic age and has left a lasting legacy in American science education.
The science taught in high schools-Newton's theory of universal gravitation, basic structure of the atom, cell division, DNA replication-is accepted as the way nature works. What is puzzling is how this precisely specified knowledge could come from an intellectual process-the scientific method-that has been incredibly difficult to describe or characterize with any precision. Philosophers, sociologists, and scientists have weighed in on how science operates without arriving at any consensus. Despite this confusion, the scientific method has been one of the highest priorities of science teaching in the United States over the past 150 years. Everyone agrees that high school students and the pub...
During the 1950s, leading American scientists embarked on an unprecedented project to remake high school science education. Dissatisfaction with the 'soft' school curriculum of the time advocated by the professional education establishment, and concern over the growing technological sophistication of the Soviet Union, led government officials to encourage a handful of elite research scientists, fresh from their World War II successes, to revitalize the nations' science curricula. In Scientists in the Classroom , John L. Rudolph argues that the Cold War environment, long neglected in the history of education literature, is crucial to understanding both the reasons for the public acceptance of...
None