A First Year Course In General Science

Excerpt from A First Year Course in General Science It is not necessary, in this period of the making of high school curricula, to show that, for the first year of a high school, a general course in science is better than a year's study of one branch of science. Without discussion of the advisability of a general course, therefore, the author would state her reasons for the wide choice of subjects considered in this book. For pupils who complete a high school course, the study of general science should be an introduction to any ordinary high school work in biology, physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy. No pupil can study all of these subjects, but he can learn that they are not separate sciences but branches of science. Whatever branch he studies later, he will find that the course in general science has given him the elements of the other divisions which dovetail into that branch. To suit the needs of pupils who are not able to finish a high school course, this first year science course must present a comprehensive view, though with no attempt to be complete. "The proper study of mankind" for the pupil at the age of twelve to fourteen years seems to be the world of which he is a part. The fact that the earth, important as it is to man, is not the only nor the greatest body in the universe; that it is not an independent body sufficient unto itself; and that its influence extends to other bodies - these are some of the subjects taken up in the first chapters. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

A former Wisconsin high school science teacher makes the case that how and why we teach science matters, especially now that its legitimacy is under attack. Why teach science? The answer to that question will determine how it is taught. Yet despite the enduring belief in this country 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. Nearly all of the basic knowledge we have about the world is rock solid. The science we teach in high schools in particular—laws of motion, the structure of the atom, cell division, DNA replication, the universal speed limit of light—is accepted as the way nature works. Everyone also agrees that students and the public more generally should understand the methods used to gain this knowledge. But what exactly is the scientific method? Ever since the late 1800s, scientists and science educators have grappled with that question. Through the years, they’ve advanced an assortment of strategies, ranging from “the laboratory method” to the “five-step method” to “science as inquiry” to no method at all. How We Teach Science reveals that each strategy was influenced by the intellectual, cultural, and political circumstances of the time. In some eras, learning about experimentation and scientific inquiry was seen to contribute to an individual’s intellectual and moral improvement, while in others it was viewed as a way to minimize public interference in institutional science. John Rudolph shows that how we think about and teach science will either sustain or thwart future innovation, and ultimately determine how science is perceived and received by the public.