This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-22,091
BESCH, Gordon Otto, 1922- THE EVOLUTION OF SOME MAJOR CONCEPTS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Education, theory and practice
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
©Copyright Gordon Otto Besch THE EVOLUTION OF SOME MAJOR CONCEPTS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
DISSERTATION Presented in P artial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements f o r the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Gordon Otto Besch, B.S., Ed.M.
**»*»*
The Ohio State University 1969
Approved by
Adviser j r t College of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Because no th esis becomes a rea lity by the work of one scholar, I wish to acknowledge my gratitude for the interest, Ideas, and assistance of the many persons that helped In some way in the evolution of the study. The thoughtful and sym pathetic criticism by Dr. E- R. Schlessinger was especially appreciated, as was the added personal dimension which helped make the study a dynamic, intellectual experience. I am grateful to Dr. J. S. Richardson whose work and life are an inspiration for one to strive for nothing less than a "well done." Sherri Kinzle made the final copies a work of a pro fessional and her many hours of personal time spent on the manuscript is appreciated. I gratefully acknowledge the excellent work of my ty p ist, Mrs. R. P. Sapp. No one but my wife, Alice, experienced with me the many trials necessary for the completion of the study. For her ever present patience and understanding, a mere thank you is in su ffic ie n t. New symbols w ill be created to express my gratitude. I am grateful . . .
i i VITA
March 16, 1922 Born - LaCrosse, Wisconsin 1939 ...... Diploma, Central High School, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 1943 ...... Diploma, United States Maritime Radio School, Gallups Island, Boston, Massachusetts 1943-1944 • • Marine Radio Operator, United States Merchant Marine 1944-1947 . • Cadet-Midshipman, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York 1947 ...... B.S. in Nautical Science, United States Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, New York 1947-1948 . . Third Mate, United States Merchant Marine 1951 ...... B.S. in Secondary Education, Wisconsin State University, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 1951-1953 • • Teacher, Sturgeon Bay High School, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin 1952 ...... Certificate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1953-1954 . . Graduate School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Teaching Fellow in Education 1954 ...... Ed.M., Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1954 ...... C ertificate, Case In stitu te of Tech nology, Cleveland, Ohio
i l l VITA (Contd.)
1954-1955 . Teacher, Onalaska High School, Onalaska, Wisconsin Instructor, Wisconsin State University, LaCrosse, Wisconsin
1955-1957 . Teacher, Luther High School South, Chicago, Illinois 1957-1958 . Graduate School, The Ohio State Uni versity , Columbus, Ohio 1958-1964 . Assistant Professor of Science and Mathematics, Concordia Teachers College, River Forest, Illinois 1961-1968 . Lecturer in Physics, North Park College, Chicago, Illinois
1962-1963 . Graduate School, The Ohio State Uni v ersity , Columbus, Ohio
1964-1969 . Associate Professor of Physics, Con cordia Teachers College, River Forest, Illin o is 1966-1968 . Chairman, Division of Science and Mathematics, Concordia Teachers College, River Forest, Illinois
1968-1969 . Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Science Education Professors J. S. Richardson, F. R. Schlessinger Minor Field: Physics Professor H. Shaffer Minor Field: Higher Education, Mathematics Education Professors E. J. Kircher, H. P. Fawcett CONTENTS Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS il VITA i l l Chapter I . INTRODUCTION 1 The problem Purpose of the research Methodology Sources of the data Limitations of the study II. THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION ...... 8 Richardson's early ideas on the social responsibility of science teachers Philosophical roots for his early ideas on the teaching about science and society More than a decade of advocating his early viewpoints Magnum Opus Evidence of some change in Richardson's position following Sputnik Summary I II. TEACHING THE METHOD(S) OF SCIENCE 58 Teaching the scientific method including the "steps'1 Early philosophy, experiences and opinions as his foundation scones Emphasis on exploration Philosophical base underlying the concept of "direct experience" Teaching the method(s) His major work Generalizing the method A philosophical position with historical overtones
v CONTENTS (Contd.) Chapter Page The classroom as a research laboratory The scientific enterprise and Its pressures Summary IV. "SCIENCE CONTENT" COURSES FOR TEACHERS OF SCIENCE 11U The "subject matter" competency of "A World Picture" The professionalized" academic science course Toward a valid philosophical basis Advocating "competencies" as criteria Implementation of some of his Ideas Integration—specific and general Contemporary Ideas on "science content" courses for teachers Summary V. SCIENCE IN GENERAL EDUCATION ...... 169 Evidence indicating his early position Meeting needs in the basic aspects of living by problem solving experiences An amorphous concept Implementation of the concept Scientific literacy for all Sources of some influencing ideas Rise and eclipse of the neglected gifted student The primary function of school science Recent significant references Summary VI. REFLECTIONS ON THE EVOLUTION OF FOUR MAJOR CONCEPTS 217 The social function of science in science education Teaching the method(s) of science "Science content" courses for teachers of science Science In general education Implications for further research
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231 Vi CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Abstract speculation has been the salvation of the world—speculations which made systems and then transcended them, speculations which ventured to the furthest limits of abstraction. To set limits to speculation is treason to the future. —Whitehead The Function of Reason
The problem Many science educators fail to observe the roots of modern thought: the implementation of the ideas seems to overshadow the growth and nature of the ideas. Since science education is much influenced by current social and scientific demands, the need for viewing the educational concepts in some h isto ric a l perspective always ex ists. One sometimes is not aware of the evolutionary processes altering old concepts and producing,.new concepts in science education, and the science educators responsible for these conceptual transi tions are a ll too soon forgotten. The idea for this study originated with a paper viewing retrospectively some concepts of S. Ralph Powers. Dr. Powers re tire d in 1953 a fte r 29 -years of service at Teachers College, Columbia University. However in his la tte r years he had a change of educational theory. The change involved his position regarding the selection of subject matter to be learned by youngsters based on some social criterion. The integration principle which seemed sound to him in 1932 was inadequate for him in 1952.^ These changes of position in one great leader in science education prompted the study of the development of the major ideas of John Sanford Richardson, a current leader in science education who accepted the early ideas of Powers. The investigation was designed to make an analysis of the writings of a present day leader in science education— an outstanding leader in his field for over thirty years. The investigator desired to make a contribution toward the understanding of the present ideas in science education by analyzing the growth, development and philosophical basis of some concepts In the area of science education of Richardson. Therefore, the researcher secured permission from Richardson to analyze his writings. In implementing the many new programs In science it is important that the development of the ideas of present day science educators be researched, as well as the basis for their ideas. It is evident that in many new developments in science education little is done to investigate and identify the historical roots for some of these programs, and conse quently some of the "new ideas" have their origin several
*S. Ralph Powers, "T h irty -first Yearbook in Retro spect," Science Education, XXXVII (February, 1953), 31*. generations in the past. The investigator attempted to search for the basis of Richardson's ideas. The literature Richardson has written spans the past three decades: the literature which Richardson used as a basis for some of the concepts expressed by him in science education encompasses a period of many centuries.
Purpose of the research The purpose of the research was twofold. Specifi cally, the purposes of the study were (1) to assess the growth and development of an outstanding educator's major ideas in science education as expressed in his writings, and (2) to determine some writings that contributed to the growth of the major ideas of a distinguished science educator. With respect to the first purpose, four major concepts from the domains of science education were selected for analysis in his writings. These four major ideas were: 1. The social function of science in science education. 2. Teaching the method(s) of science. 3. "Science content" courses for teachers of science. 4. Science in general education. The major intent of the present study was to trace the evolution of successive statements about each of these domains in science education and determine the relationship between successive statements and their philosophical basis. Methodology The primary methodological aspect of this study was historical. A study of the historical development of the Ideas of a man Is not unusual In the academic world. But, particularly at this point In time, such a study was appro priate. The study was concerned with Richardson's writings during a thirty-year period. This period was divided by the event of the Sputnik. The researcher deems that the study will be a contribution to the literature of science education Inasmuch as considerable thought In science education pre ceded Sputnik, and a great deal of activity has taken place In the era following that event. This particular science educator, John S. Richardson, being at the center of these activities, certainly helped In changing the course of events. Consequently a study of his Ideas relative to the periods before and after Sputnik have proved to be enlight ening. A second methodological aspect was, In a limited sence, philosophical. Tracing the writings which were referred to by a science educator and having found therein a basis for his ideas, has provided the study with a philo sophical aspect.
Source of the data Richardson has written extensively in the field of science education over a long period of time. Recently he was a major contributing author to two books. A study of all of his publications that were available was made to determine the major ideas in science education expressed by each article or book. The evolution of these ideas from 1939 to 1968 was discerned. The vastness of his bibliographical references obviously required delimitation. From the footnotes and other specific references in his writings, it was determined which men influenced his works. Therefore a set of writings relevant to these particular domains of science education was established. These writings fall in the following categories: 1. The writings of leading figures in science educa tion who have influenced Richardson from 1900 to date. 2. The w ritings of leading men of science who have written in the area of science education and were influen tial with respect to this particular science educator. 3. The w ritings of special groups which were influen tial in the field of science education, like those of the National Society for the Study of Education and the Progres sive Education Association. In the study the researcher tried to determine the development of some of Richardson's major ideas. It was assumed that he did express his major ideas in p rin t, and that the ideas were retained by him at the time of their expression. Also, it was assumed that the educator's ideas were p a rtia lly based on the ideas of other men i f they were referred to in his writings. If a particular idea of an other writer was referred to many times over an extended period of time, it was then assumed that the writer had a strong influence on the science educator's writings. If a publication was co-authored by Richardson, it was assumed that he agreed with the major points of view expressed in the publication.
Limitations of the study The tracing of the four major concepts through a period of thirty years was obviously quite an undertaking. This study was limited to Richardson's ideas and the particu lar references that influenced him. Certainly many histori cal forces were working during this period of thirty years, but a comprehensive study of these forces was judged to lie outside of the domain of the study. Another major limitation of the study was that it was restricted to the available published material or the readily available unpublished material since time did not permit an exhaustive search for unpublished material. An other possible limitation with respect to objectivity may be raised due to the researcher knowing this author personally. However, the critical analysis of the study by the adviser and the reading committee, as well as the scientific back ground of the researcher, mitigated against this possible limitation. One problem was the complexity of writing about a living person. The researcher was fortunate in having the cooperation of this recognized leader in science education, and the help of an adviser who is a colleague of Richardson. Mo attempt was made to trace the ideas expressed in the pertinent bibliographical references back to an ultimate origin. I t was the immediate source of the idea which influenced Richardson that was relevant to the study. The study concentrated on the evolution and basis of Richardson's ideas, rather than on the development of any particular philosophy referred to by him. This was a further limita tion necessarily imposed on the study. Concisely the salient merit of the study is found in having traced the evolution of four major concepts of an influential science educator and noting what he viewed as the basis for these ideas. CHAPTER II
THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
The sc ie n tist has begun to realize his social re sponsibility, but if science is to fulfil the function which its trad itio n demands, and to avoid the dangers which threaten it, we require an increased appreciation, both on the part of scientists and of the general public, of the intricate relations between science and con temporary life. —Bernal The Social Function of Science One of his major concepts, characteristic of Richard son as being different from some of his contemporaries, was his position on the social function of science in science education. Foremost in his w riting were the ideas that supported the implementation of this concept. When he listed problems in his writings, one would find that first on his list would be one associated with the understanding of the social function of science either by the teachers, the students, or our whole society.
Richardson’s early ideas on the social responsibility of science teachers While Richardson* was still at Miami University, he wrote one of his first works with his mentor, G. P. Cahoon.
G. P. Cahoon and J. S. Richardson, "Secondary School Science Teaching," Columbus, Ohio, 1939, XI-M. (Mimeographed.) (Hereinafter referred to as "School Science.") 8 He stated that one of the phases of competency for a science teacher was the "Social and Economic Relationship and the Implications of Science." He said that th is embraced inven tions, unemployment, production and consumptions, housing, war application of scientific planning, role of government, consumer science, cooperatives, advertising and propaganda, scientific research, conservation, misconcepts and pseudo science, transportation, communication, leisure time and hobbies.^ Even at this early date Richardson was concerned that the science teacher demonstrate a competency in th is aspect of science such that science would function in the lives of students. One will note that "consumer science" is men tioned in the above iteration. Such a course was proposed by him as a functional course in high school science. Richardson fe lt that many phases of consumer education could be considered entirely within the science course, even though consumer problems have many implications for courses in social studies. He noted that some progress had been made in developing combined courses.^
Another one of his early publications was an article 4 title d "Introduction to a Workshop," which was published in
2Ibid. 3Ibid., V-29-30. ^J. S. Richardson, "Introduction to a Workshop," Edu cational Methods, XIX (October, 1939), 7-9. 10 October of 1939. It is interesting to note that this article, which was not specifically addressed to science teachers, stressed that the teachers must come to an under standing of the student's needs and aid him in the solution of his problems. In this pre-war article he was already interested in the needs of the students and also the needs of the community. In his first paragraph he offered a plea for the social responsibility of teachers. He spoke of the Workshop as providing particulars highly essential to progress in education. Specific reference was given to the opportunity to work on problems relevant to the school and in the inter ests of society. The staff, adequately prepared through a broad scope of interests and experiences, would have a keen awareness of the import of the problems to be dealt with and would have a genuine desire to a ssist in th e ir s o lu tio n .^
One of the fine characteristics of his dissertation,^ a work of approximately three years later, was that Richard son expressed in a very lucid way his major ideas with respect to the education of the science teachers and the philosophical ideas that undergirded his concepts. The main
5I b id ., 7. ^John S. Richardson, A Proposed College Curriculum for the Education of Science Teachers (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 19^2), 1-4. Hereinafter referred to as Proposed College Curriculum. 11 purpose of his dissertation was to propose a functional cur riculum which would have promise of effective preparation of science teachers.7 Foremost in his thinking appeared to be the major concept that there was a social aspect to science and that this concept must be taught. His major consideration in the education of teachers in the science area was their under standing of the role of science in the curriculum, which, in the broadest sense, was the role of science in living. His writings indicated his preoccupation with the social re- sponsibility of the science teacher.8 In order to have a comprehensive "world picture," science teachers must under stand the impact of science on society. According to Richardson, science teachers must have a knowledge of the "relationship of science and technology, science and the industrial revolution, science and its relation to health, the relationship of technology and economics, the effect of science on employment, and the relationship of science and technology to the standard of living. His position, as expressed in his thesis, was that science teachers must teach science, not as science special ists, but as individuals interested in causing science to
7Ibid ., 2. 8Ib ld ., 34. 9 Ibid., 257. 12 contribute to the welfare of society. With science inter preted as a functional aspect of our culture, the teaching of science would stress giving assistance to students so that they in turn might be able to meet problem situ ations. Complementary to his concept of science as a social function was his concept of the nature of the individual and the learning process. He cited the psychological basis noted in a publication of the Progressive Education Association: It is the business of the teacher to understand the nature and needs of the individual in his numerous and varied relation ships of living and to help him to meet his needs in a way that makes life richer and more meaningful.*® In his major study he proposed that the needs of the child and the teacher must be met by the process of educa tion. Science courses should be organized about the needs of the child and society. It was evident that the science which was to be learned by youth, however, could not be selected on the basis of tradition. He recommended that it be based upon the surveys of the needs of society. The organization of the science material was, in his thoughts, not only centered around the social concerns of society, but also the needs and characteristics of boys and girls.
*®Commission on Secondary School Curriculum, Science in General Education (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938), 22. (Hereinafter referred to as General Education. ) One of his chapters was titled, "Philosophy Basic to the Education of Science Teachers." Succinctly he supported the position that education is life and that the philosophy of education is also the philosophy of life. Therefore, he implied a particular society's way of living was also the way of living of the school. He reasoned that inasmuch as our society is a democratic society, the school would reflect the ideals of such a society: the worth of the per sonality, cooperative action for the common good, and the method of intelligence for the solution of all problems.^
Philosophical roots for his early ideas on the teaching about science and society The Committee on the Function of Science in General Education expressed many ideas regarding the social function of science in the secondary school curriculum.12 Richardson recommended their report for professional reading by science teachers as early as 1939 and he referred to i t time and time again in his w ritings. A case in point would be his thesis in which he cited the report many tim es.^ In general, the report recommended that science in the secondary school be structured around the broad areas of
^Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 5-20. •^C.S.S.C., General Education, 22.
^Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 10, 13, 62, 14 living such as (1) personal living, (2) personal-social relationships, (3) social-civic relationships, (4) economic relations, and (5) the use of critical thinking in the solu- tion of problems.i it In the area of the social function of science, the committee took the position that the major Ideals of our society are based on the concept of a democracy and that the science teacher must be concerned with the personal qualities of the pupil which are essential to effective functioning in a democracy. These needs by the adolescent were a point of departure in their curriculum construction, and these needs must always Include th e ir social and personal aspects. Based on this position, it is understandable that Richardson in his thesis emphasized "competency in the area of person ality" as one aspect of his curriculum for the science teacher, as well as seminars in sociology and economics as related to community life and to school.^ One aspect of the relationship between society and science is the impact of science on our economy. The com mittee, as noted by Richardson,^ reflected the implied privileges and responsibilities of the science teacher in the $rea of the social responsibility of science. Man's
l li C.S.S.C., General Education, 59. ^Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 313-315. tflbid., 30-31. 15 responsibility in a democratic society is to protect and secure his own rights and those of his fellows. Speaking to the situation at hand, he must assume responsibility for promoting and evaluating attempts to solve economic problems. The teacher’s responsibility is to provide reliable informa tion concerning economic life and to make available a con ducive atmosphere for the examination and open discussion of opposing positions on economic issues. "The science teacher can play his part by helping young people gain an understand ing of the effects of the sciences on modern so cial order, especially th e ir impact on its economic organization. The reason for citing the above as one of the philosopb ical roots is that its philosophy, which in essence is a social philosophy of life, is reflected in Richardson's rec ommendation that the education of a science teacher be such that he is able and willing to call upon any of the resources of science in the solution of students' problems. It would follow, also, that his definition of the science teacher would reflect the social function of science teaching. One aspect of his definition of a science teacher was that he was a person with a philosophy which functions in his living. Another aspect of the definition was that this teacher would be able to work effectively with children and adolescents in l8 directing and promoting their development.
^C.S.S.C., General Education, 255-256. Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 100, 161, 223. 16 There were several major Ideas of John Dewey that were Integrated into the thoughts and writings of Richardson. It is important to note that throughout the three decades Richardson wrote he continually referred to one particular article written by Dewey, "The Supreme Intellectual Obliga
t i o n . " ^ in this article Dewey said that every obligation was moral, and ultimately social. He stated that the demands of a situation could not be met by going backwards in science or by putting restrictions on its productive activities. Also, he said that they could not be met by "putting a gloss of humanistic culture over the brute realities of the situ ation. "2® Dewey felt they could only be met by human activ ity exercised in human directions. He said: The wounds made by applications of science can be healed only by a further extension of applications of knowledge and intelligence; like the purpose of all modern healing the application must be preven tive as well as curative. This is the supreme obligation of intellectual activity at the present time. The moral consequences of science in life impose a corresponding responsibility Richardson22 concurred with Dewey that the major re sponsibility of science is in the way it affects human living. Richardson also accepted the fact that Dewey held that the social responsibility of the teacher of science was
^John Dewey, "The Supreme In telle c tu a l O glibation," Science Educaltfon, XVIII, 1 (February, 1934), 1-4. 20I b id ., 2. 21Ibid. 22Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 32-33* 17 a major factor In his education and in the teaching of science. In this light he said that the duties obligatory to science cannot be met until its representatives are no longer content with just having a great number of courses in various sciences represented in the schools, but devote their energy to seeing that the sciences which are taught are more concerned with creating a certain mental attitude than they are about supplying a fixed body of information, or about preparing a small number of persons for further specialized pursuit of a particular science. That is not to say that the small group of selected minds that have taste and capacity for advanced work in a specific field of science should be ignored, but this should not be done to the neglect of in fluencing the much larger number to integrate into their minds "attitudes of openmindedness, intellectual integrity, observation and interest in testing their opinions and beliefs that are characteristic of the scientific attitude."23 As a basis for his curriculum design, Richardson cited certain programs of education in which science was conceived as being an important functional aspect of life. He then included as one of the precepts of his program the position statement pertinent to the social function of science: "The institutions for teacher education should provide for broad foundations of social understandings and
23Ibid., 30-31. 18 controls as a part of the preparation of prospective teachers. "2l* "Some Factors In Competency for Teachers"25 was ac_ cepted by Richardson as another basis for his curriculum proposal. This document contains twenty major factors in competency for teaching and practically all are concerned in some way with the social function of science. The four headings for these factors are: 1. Expressing in action a clearly formulated social and educational philospphy. 2. Effectively promoting the growth and devel opment of boys and g irls . 3. Expressing in action and developing in pupils effective personal and community relationships. Utilizing all available resources—in men, , materials, and techniques—in the learning process. ° The c rite ria which he also used as foundation stones for his curriculum proposal included twenty-four points, some of which are: 2. The curriculum should enable the science teacher to contribute to community land school welfare through his knowledge and ab ility in science. 4. The curriculum should provide experiences which w ill enable the science teacher to conserve and improve his own health and that of his students. 5. The curriculum should enable the science teacher to interrelate the school and community in teaching. 21. Through the curriculum the science teacher should come to utilize the process of effective planning in daily living and acting.
2l,Ib id ., 210. 25 Ibid.., Appendix 1. 2^ Ib id ., Appendixes 1, 2. 19 23. The curriculum should consist of meaningful experiences, meaningful because they find their origin in problems.27
It appears that more than half of these points gave evidence of being closely related to the social function of science. The aforementioned instances are cited to document the importance Richardson gave to the social function. Richardson indicated weaknesses in the ten current science education programs relative to the social function of science in science education. He recommended that institu tions for teacher education should provide for the broad foundations of social understandings and controls as part of the preparation of prospective science teachers. The insti tutions should also help in the development of the personality and social equipment of prospective teachers in the broadest sense. 28 One cannot analyze his program of experiences piece meal. It was a whole. Though all five areas of his program reflected the social function of science, the first three, namely, Personality, Professional, and Community, illus trated the emphasis he placed on the value of a socially responsible and socially oriented teacher of science. If one referred to the General Science area, one would note that the curriculum was trying to enlarge the students’
27Ib id ., 228-229. 28Ibid., 215. 20 ability to understand science in living—a world view. The Special Science area was also functional in that it stressed the content which functions in the ap plication.^9 Richardson summarized by saying that he had made an attempt at proposing a manner of preparing science teachers so that they would actively and constructively p articip ate in seeking to cause the method and content of science to be more functional in the lives of boys and girls at both the
OQ school and community level. It seems clear to the writer of the present study that Richardson at this early period of his professional life desired that teachers of science should not only understand science but they should thoroughly understand the social function of science and be prepared to teach in such a way that science would be an in teg ral, functioning part of the lives of their students. Kis position was partially based on the writings of Dewey and the Progressive Education Association. He also read and quoted an author who once spoke to the Progressive Education Curriculum Workshop at Sarah Lawrence College in August of 1939—J* D. Bernal (P.R.S.). In brief Bernal realized that people could con trib u te to society through th e ir own use of the methods of science in solving problems of a personal, social and
29Ib id ., 312-313. 30Ib id ., 329. 21 economic nature. With respect to the teacher’s responsibil ity to teach he said, "It is sometimes claimed that the ex tension of the field of science to cover practical and social concerns puts too much of a burden on the teacher, but those who make this claim have usually little acquaintance with the practice of such an extension, or they would know that an appreciation of the social significance of science greatly increases our understanding of its principles."^ In his dissertation, Richardson quoted profusely from Bernal’s The Social Function of Science. In this volume Bernal makes the point that scientists have been forced to consider the relationship between science and the social developments which were occurring around them. Ke predicted that science would not only provide the ideas that would enable us to understand and to satisfy our needs in the social realm, but he envisioned science giving man an in spiration which would slowly become a dominant driving force of present day thought and action.32 Bernal was not quoted in Richardson's later writings, but was referred to in reading lists, such as, in the read ings on the "Social Implications of Science" in Resource 33 Literature for Science Teachers.
3^J. D. Bernal, "Science Teaching in General Educa tion," Science and Society, LV, 1 (Winter, 19^0), 10-11. 32J. D. Bernal, The Social Function of Science (Cam bridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1967)", ^08-416. 33john S. Richardson, Resource Literature for Science Teachers (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1961), w . ------Another writer in the field of science education, who was often quoted by Richardson during his early years, was W. C. Croxton. Croxton was in 1942 the Chairman of a subcommittee on "Needs in Relation to the Science Program." His report, "Redirecting Science Teaching in Light of Per sonal-Social Needs," was one of the reports Issued by the National Committee on Science Teaching. It dealt, in part, with ways in which science teaching could make contributions in making science b etter meet the needs of pupils, as w ell as giving pupils understanding and appreciation of the contri butions science has made for better living, both in the past and the present. Richardson contributed to the work of Croxton’s subcommittee. The opening paragraph of the report reflected a plea for greater purposefulness in the teaching of science. It stated that reaching and working with and through American schools and teacher education Institutions toward the devel opment of a more effective science approach to meeting per sonal-social problems was the task to which the committee was committed. Insight into needs must be the basis for revision if the present courses are to serve. Often because needs in specific areas (e.g., health, safety, consumership,
34 W. C. Croxton, Redirecting Science Teaching in the Light of Personal-Social Needs (Washington: American Council of Science Teachers, 1942), 11. (Hereinafter referred to as Personal-Social Needs. ) 23 conservation) are inadequately treated, separate subjects are added to the school p r o g r a m .35 Many times in his dissertation Richardson referred to the writings of Croxton. Croxton's position with respect to the teaching of the social function of science was that the proposed continuous Twelve-ryear Science Program must be the best instrument to meet the needs that could be devised through the efforts of those involved, and its social and personal contributions must be obvious so that they could be evaluated and appreciated for the most part by school executives and educators.^ A life-long friend of Richardson was Ellsworth S. Obourn. Obourn left his mark on science education from his early work as a teacher in a progressive school to his work in his latter years in the Office of Education. Richardson referred to Obourn in his writings and also invited him, at times, to lecture to his students at The Ohio State Univer s ity . Obourn’s early position on the teaching of science and society in the secondary school found expression while he was still teaching at a progressive school in Missouri. He had an awareness of the science teacher’s unique and impor tant function in a school whose concern was helping young
35ibld., 9. ^W. C. Croxton, "Twelve-Year Science Program from the Viewpoint of Colleges Training for Towns, Villages and Rural Schools," Science Education, XXII, 2 (February, 1938), 62. 2<4 people to a better understanding of and adjustment to the problems of modern life. Recognizing the relationship between modern life and technological causes and effects, Obourn felt It was the teacher's responsibility to be sensi tive to the adjustment problems having science Implications which must be solved by the young people. This meant that an attempt must be made to level the unnatural b arriers between the sciences, and the teacher must look beyond the narrow confines of his particular area and seek the social and economic Implications of his teachings.^ Another vital force In formulating the social phil osophy of Richardson with respect to science education was the influence of Powers. "The Education of the Science o g Teacher," a report of a subcommittee on teacher education of the National Committee on Science Teaching, even in its e a rlie st mimeographed form, was quoted again and again by Richardson in his dissertation. It has remained an influ encing document throughout Richardson's writings. This report was guided by Powers. Because the Import of Powers’ ideas were in the area of teacher education, the present study examined them in
37Ellsworth S. Obourn, "A Teacher of Science in a Private-Progressive School," Education, LIX (March, 1939), 1*00- 1*0 1 . 3®Samuel Ralph Powers, The Education of the Science Teacher (Washington: American Council of Science Teachers, 19^2), 10. (Hereinafter referred to as Education.) detail in a later chapter. However, the following indi cates Powers’ position on the teaching of the social func tion of science: "They (men of science) recognize a respon sibility not only for their own immediate discipline, but also for the employment of their discoveries in the better ment of man's lot. . . ,"39 At the same time our youth face a world of contradictions, and amid these confusions the teacher of science has a responsibility for helping young people solve their problems.**0
More than a decade of advocating his early viewpoints Near the end of the World War II period, Richardson wrote an article which revealed his concern that persons who were not students of the problems of science and society would formulate the course of science in our schools. He had hoped that the general science course after the war would be determined in light of an evolving society. He noted that one of the challenges confronting the educators at that time was a need for a revised concept of the social function of science in the general science courses. It was his position at that time that the accumulated knowledge of
39Ibid., 10.
1<0Ib id ., 11.
*^John S. Richardson, "Trends, Deficiencies, and Challenges Related to General Science," School, Science and Mathematics, LV (March, 19^5), 202-210. ""(Hereinafter re ferred to as "Trends.") 26 the various areas of science by the student must be Inte grated and utilized directly In solving the problems of life, a viewpoint similar to the early position of Powers. In another article which was published during this period Richardson1^ discussed some problems which were cur rent In the education of science teachers. It Is signifi cant that the first problem he cited was related to the social function of science: "Prospective science teachers exhibit a lack of understanding of the social function of science."1,11 The writer, from his analysis of Richardson's writings to date, would like to underscore the point that Richardson seemed to view the relationship between science and society only in reference to the contribution of science to society. He deplored the lack of understanding and the lack of appreciation for this contribution. He did not, at the beginning of the period under study, express the impact of society on science. His later writing, however, included ideas relative to the impact of society on science.
^ I b l d . , 210. ^Jo h n s. Richardson, "Some Problems in the Education of Science Teachers," Science Education, XXIX (December, 19**5)» 249-252. (Hereinafter referred to as "Problems.") ^ Ib ld . , 250. 27 According to another article by Richardsonone of the factors that was changing the outlook in science educa tion in 1950 was the ever increasing role of science and technology in human living. Corresponding to this was the growing realization by the public that schools must prepare people for effective living. Richardson gave an even more specific expression to this concern by his statement that "the social, economic, political and technological implica- tions of science have major bearing upon man’s living." In the report he noted instances in the secondary school in which the student had explicit experiences with the direct problem approach and in the use of consumer I17 resources. Laton and Powers 1 described a number of situ ations in which science courses were expressly related to the communities in which the schools were located. One could infer that this book had a major influence on the writings of Richardson. He referred to it throughout his professional life. In this particular article he said, "Prom the fore going sampling (of Laton and Powers), it is obvious that there are many schools in which the science, both elementary
45 J. R. Richardson, Introduction of Experimental Science in the Elementary and Secondary Schools of the United States (Paris, France: U.N.E.S.C.O., 1950). (Her e - inafter referred to as Experimental Science.)
1*6I b id ., 3. ^ A n ita Duncan Laton and Samuel Ralph Powers, New Directions in Science Teaching (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949), 13-20. (Hereinafter referred to as New Directions.) 28 and secondary levels, is consciously related to the life of h p the community.” ° The quotation is given as an illustration of his referring to the writings of Laton and Powers in order to cite examples of the relationship between science and the community. In the document one will find that Richardson des cribed two instances where O b o u r n 1^ used the problem approach in the area of the daily life of the student. Richardson also paralleled the ideas of Powers again when in his descriptions of science courses based on the interrela tion of some other academic area with science, the basis of this integration was always social conditions or social problems—integration based on some social criterion. He summarized one of his discussion in the following manner: The concern in each of these developments is to find those problem areas of significance to liv ing, and to provide for the experience of students through their efforts to solve these problems. Such developments have thus made worthwhile con tributions to the use of experimental approach to learning.50
It is evident from the paper that the author thought that the community being real, functional and familiar to the student had decided value in the learning of science.
HORichardson,lift Experimental Science, 11. ll9Ib id ., 16.
5°lbld., 26. 29 In 1951 Richardson^ wrote a book with Dr. G. P. Cahoon which was especially useful for teachers of the physi cal sciences. He indicated his convictions in this social area as follows: Science has played an outstanding role in our life in recent years and is now changing our entire existence in such important aspects as health, transportation, communication and power. The so cial, economic and p o litic a l implications are both national and international in character. We are truly living in an air age, a power age, and an atomic age, where boys and g irls are lite ra lly forced to be concerned w1th some principles of science and their ever important applications in everyday living . 52 At the annual winter conference of the National Science Teachers Association at Berkeley, California, in December of 195^, Richardson presented a major address. The social function of science in science education was reflected in his conclusion. He cited seven major problems under the topic of "Professional Self Discipline and Our Major Prob lems." The third problem was: "Can we so teach that the essen tial attitudes and methods of science are generalized to the point that they influence human conduct as we go about the general activities of l i v i n g ? "53
J. S. Richardson and G. P. Cahoon, Methods and Materials for Teaching General and Physical Science (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951), 3 • (Hereinafter referred to as Methods.) 52Ibid. 53john S. Richardson, "Professional Discipline and the Teaching of Science," The Science Teacher, XXII (September, 1955), 172, 198. (Hereinafter referred to as "Professional D iscipline.") 30 Again in 1957 we find Richardon writing about his ideas on the social function of science in education. 5 ty 5 5 Specifically he wrote an article and his major book on the teaching of science. Both were published that year. In the index of the book we find the names of Cahoon, Dewey, Laton, Obourn, and Powers. I t is significant that we do not 56 find the names of Bernal and Croxton. The first quotation in the book is from Dewey's, "The Supreme Intellectual Obli g a tio n ." ^ In an a rtic le w ritten in 1957, Richardson viewed the programs of science education very optim istically. Not only did he note that during the past few decades the science curriculum had been developing about centers of human activ ity, but he characterized the direction of curriculum devel opment as being organized in a psychological manner rather than a logical manner. Therefore, before Sputnik he pre dicted that the trend in the secondary schools of that time was toward an acceptance of technological development and
^John S. Richardson, "Science Tomorrow," N.E.A. Journal, LVI (May, 1957), 311-312. •^John S. Richardson, Science Teaching in Secondary Schools (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), (Hereinafter referred to as Science Teaching.) 56Ib id ., 377-385. 57Ib id ., 3. 31 other aspects of applied science as a legitimate phase of their science curriculum.5® His convictions on the teaching of the relationships with respect to science and society are thus expressed: That our science teaching should be more scientific is con cluded after a critical appraisal of the relation of the secondary school to society and of the place science occupies in the curriculum. Only as the teacher exemplifies rational inquiry in his teaching can he hope to produce persons who distinctively exhibit thoughtful behavior. This behavior, based on stable social values is one of our ultimate goals 59 in education.
Magnum Opus His major work, Science Teaching in the Secondary School, ^ written in 1957, stated very clearly and succinctly his position regarding the social function of science in science education. Throughout this book one found interest in the implementation of his concerns for the social and economic implications of science and technology. One in stance is found in his discussion of the responsibility of the science teacher. He said, "The obligation of the science teacher is to help young people contribute to
58 Richardson, "Science Tomorrow," 311-312. 59Ib id ., 312. ^°Richardson, Science Teaching, 4. 32 society through their own use of the method of science in solution of personal, so cial, and economic problems. His philosophical position is set forth as follows: "Science is philosophically defensible and worthy of a place in the curriculum to the extent that it serves the growth of the individual, his harmonious, enlightened, and effective living, and the optimum realization of his personal poten-
Richardson's philosophy was also reflected in his objectives for the secondary school. He stated in his book that a science teacher should teach in such ways that stu dents will: 3. Use wisely and effectively the natural re sources of our earth as well as the products of science and technology. 4. Understand the social function of science and think and act in relation to the implications of science and technology for society. 5. Develop understandings that will contribute positively to their physical and mental health and their recreational interest. 6. Acquire information, understandings, and appreciations that will contribute to their educa tional and vocational guidance.“3 The social implications of teaching science are evi denced in many ways in his book. A perusal of the additional courses that he suggested for the high school indicated that they were concerned with the application of science in our
6 lIbid. 62Ib id ., 6. 63Ibid., 9. 33 living. Some courses suggested were conservation, earth science, and aeronautics.^ In one of his summaries he stated in clear terms that the organization of the science curriculum was partially based on his thoughts regarding the social implications of s c ie n c e .^ He viewed the school as a part of our social system with the bilateral purposes of directing society on one hand and being a servant of society on the other. Much of his book is devoted to the number of ways in which pupils in science may serve th e ir community. In serving the community, he thought that the students would come to understand and appreciate science as part of their lives.^ In his discussion of the areas of research that were in need of study, he included a paragraph which sharpens his position relative to the social function of science. "... Can we so teach that i t s essen tial attitudes and methods are generalized to the point that they influence human conduct as we go about the general activities of l i v i n g ? " ^ This bears a similarity to the statement he made in a speech in 1954.68
64Ib id ., 44.
65Ib id ., 65. 66Ib id ., 5. ^Richardson, Science Teaching, 358. ^Richardson, "Professional D iscipline," 172, 198. 31* In the area of teaching the social function of science, one found in his book references which he had used previously. He referred to the ideas of John Dewey, National Committee on Science Teaching, Progressive Education Associ ation, Anita Laton, S. Ralph Powers, Ellsworth S. Obourn and others. There was another report on science education that had been quoted by Richardson ever since its publication. go The Report, Science Education in American Schools, 7 sup ported the social aspects of science by emphasizing the various functional aspects of science. Richardson summarized the report as follows: . . . This point of view can be summarized in this way: those facts, concepts, and principles that are functional; those skills used in problem-solv ing; and attitu d es, appreciations, and in terests having implications for functional learning should constitute the objectives of science teaching.70 The focus is on the word "functional." It was not new to Richardson as the roots of the functional science teaching approach are very old. During the professional life of Richardson, the 19^2 report of the National Committee on Science Teaching, Science Teaching for Better Living—A
^National Society for the Study of Education, Forty- sixth Yearbook, Part I, Science Education in American Schools (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19^7), 5-18. (Hereinafter referred to as Forty-sixth Yearbook. ) 70Rlchardson, Science Teaching, 8. 35 Philosophy or Point of View,71 advocated functional science In our schools. It Is a very Interesting coincidence that Richardson purports the same point of view in his book. . . . Such goals (functional science) are quite comparable to the acknowledged emphasis of the period from 1751 to 1872. While these concerns were in eclipse in the latter part of the nineteenth century, there has been a revival of concern for the place of science in the activities of living.' In his consideration of an approach for building a "functional science" curriculum concerned with the growth of the individual, he studied the concept of developmental tasks of youth purported by Havighurst These tasks, recognized by society and the individual, were related to needs, both per sonal and social. The achievement of these tasks necessi tated the solution of problems using all areas of learning including science—"functional science.Midway between the needs of the individual and the demands of society were the developmental tasks—tasks which arise "at or about a certain period in the life of the individual, successful achievement of which leads to his happiness and to success
^Nathan A. Neal, Science Teaching for Better Living— A Philosophy or Point of vTew (Washington: American Council of Science Teachers, 19^2), 23. (Hereinafter referred to as Better Living.) 72Richardson, Science Teaching, 8.
"^Robert j. Havighurst, Developmental Tasks and Edu- cation (2nd e d .; New York: Longsman, Green and Co., l9$2), 1-5. 71»Ibid., 1-2. 36 with later tasks, while failure leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by the society, and difficulty with later tasks."75
Evidence of some change in Richardson's position following Sputnik After Sputnik there were many changes on the educa tional scene. In his writings on the social implications of science and education, there were evidences of change. In a keynote address given in October 1958 to the Virginia Educa tion Association Science Institute, Richardson7^ stated a much different point of view. He brought to their attention that in a quality program of science education young people should learn to use wisely and effectively the products of science and technology, and that young people should come to understand the social function of science through seeing implications of science and technology for society. Note worthy in the evolution of his ideas on the social function of science was that he pointed out that it was not only the impact of technology on society with which one must be con cerned, but, also, with the new ideas of science and their impact on society. A case in point would be the impact on 77 society of the scientific concept of relativity.
75Ib id ., 2.
7^J. S. Richardson, "Putting Quality in a Science Pro gram," Virginia Journal of Education, LII(October, 1958), 11-15. 77Ibld., 12-13. 37 It is doubly significant that in this same article he articu lated by implication that not only does science have an impact on society, but society has an impact on science and science teaching. He noted specifically that the fund ing of the National Science Foundation was easy and generous and that society was saying, "Here is something we really believe in." His position seemed to be that if science and science teaching were to progress, one must also have the support of society—including its financial support.^® By February of I960, The Center of Science and Mathe matics Education at The Ohio State University had made its mark in the field of science education. In an article describing this center, Richardson*^ noted that a typical area of concern in a course in the teaching of general and physical science would be the social setting of science teaching. In I960, Richardson, as a member of the Fifty-ninth Yearbook Committee of the National Society for the Study of Education, headed two writing groups. The result was a chapter on "The Education of the Science Teacher"®0 and one
?8Ib ld. , 12. ^ J . S. Richardson and F. R. Schlessinger, "A Center for Science and Mathematics Education," The Science Teacher, XXVII (February, i 960), 6- 9. Hereinafter referred to as "Center.") ®°John S. Richardson, and others, "The Education of the Science Teacher," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty- ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I960), 258-278. 38 81 on "The Professional Growth of the Science Teacher." Re ferring to elementary education Richardson writes, "But over and beyond what they teach, the teacher must have a s ig n ifi cant grasp of the social impact of science."®^ In 1961 Richardson edited a book on School Facili tie s for Science Instru ctio n .®® His concern for improvements in the teaching of problem areas as health, communication, and transportation, prompted him to suggest that the facili ties for learning in science should be built around the needs of young people, as those needs are determined by the society of which they are a p art.84 His statement of dedi cation is noteworthy: "This book is dedicated to our youth who will gladly accept the problems and promises of an evolving society. May it make their lives more effective and more abundant through full realization of the contribu tions of science."®5
Q "I John S. Richardson, and others, "The Professional Growth of the Science Teacher," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I960), 279-296.
Q p Richardson and others, "The Education of the Science Teacher," 261. ®®J. S. Richardson, ed.. School Facilities for Science Instruction (2nd ed.; Washington: National Science Teachers Association, 1961). Hereinafter referred to as Facilities for Science.) ®4Ib id ., 18. ®5Ibid., v iii. 39 Rfi It is significant that Richardson advocated the above viewpoint in the first edition of this book in 195*1. The frontpiece found at the beginning of chapter five, "Facilities for High School General Science," indicates his viewpoint at that date: The horizons of boys and girls deserve great lati tude for the realization of their full growth. From such growth comes the most significant contri bution to their future lives, to their families and to society as a whole. Formal class procedures and subject matter organization should not be barriers to their greatest positive achievement. General science can encourage exploration and growth; the use of many resources and experiences will help boys and girls to meet their problems and needs in an in te llig en t and constructive manner. ' In a short article on the "School in Its Social OO Setting" Richardson specified what contribution school science should make to the growth of the student. The stu dent should increase his competence to identify problems, solve problems and arrive at guarded conclusions. The increased ability of students to receive new ideas in an atmosphere that nurtures creativity should be the hallmark go of a viable science curriculum. ^
86 J. S. Richardson, ed., School Facilities for Science Instruction (Washington: National Science Teachers Associ- ation, 195^). (Hereinafter referred to as School Facilities.) 87 Richardson, Facilities for Science, 93* 88 J. S. Richardson, "School Science in Its Social Setting," Theory Into P ractice, I, 5 (1962), 237-238. 89ibid., 237-238. no A few years later, Richardson^90 wrote a paper with respect to the teacher education program at The Ohio State University. Again positive evidence of his concern for the social function of science in the education of all persons was shown. He then expressed that "a teacher directly con cerned with the general education of America’s youth should obtain a breadth of knowledge and understanding i f he is to be able to function effectively both in school and in the 91 community." A more recent paper presented by Richardson on the topic of "The Real Horizons in ScienceEducation"^2 was mainly concerned with the teaching of the methods of science and will be referred to again in the next chapter. However, in it he noted that a trap may be in the offing. This trap in science education may be the sharp barrier being erected between science and technology. One will recall that, prior to Sputnik, Richardson noted that the trend was for teaching science and the applications of science. According to him,
^Robert W. Howe and John S. Richardson, "Secondary School Science Teacher Education at The Ohio State Univer sity," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (1965), 136-140. 91Ibld., 136-137. 92John S. Richardson, "The Real Horizons in Science Education, Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University, 1966, 22. (Mimeographed.) (Hereinafter referred to as "Real Horizons.") ill one always had the danger of teaching lim ited meaning i f the science was unrelated to the experience of the learner. He noted that in rea lity technology and science were closely related and the relationship may serve the student by pro viding him with a starting point for learning, insight, and motivation for his investigations.^3 In 1966, Richardson headed a conference on "The Role gii of Centers." In the published report^ of this conference, he indicated his concern for the social significance of science, education, and research. He thought the greatest challenge after World War II was the establishment of the communication of ideas between the men whose disciplines had emerged independently with th e ir own formal structures and those whose disciplines had social responsibility and social content. He defined the field of science education as a hybrid of the social sciences and the natural sciences 95 which has implications for research design. The relevance of research and the teaching of the qg social function of science was advocated by Bernal^ and
93I b id ., 22. 9^John S. Richardson and Robert W. Howe, The Role of Centers for Science Education in the Production, Demonstra tion, and Dissemination of Research, Cooperative Research Project No. Y-002 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1966). (Hereinafter referred to as Centers.) 95I b id ., 3. 9^Bernal, The Social Function of Science, 2h6. this work by Bernal was quoted profusely early in Richard son's professional life. Bernal stressed that it is much more important to teach the techniques and the thought pat terns of research to the general public than to the research scientist.97 Bernal's position was reflected in Richardson's writ ings on the social significance of science, education and research. The following quotations are examples of Richardson's ideas in these areas: The evident need in our society for a greater depth and breadth in scienoe for our intelligent under standing, interp retatio n and action, and for the advance of our technology to improve man's lot and his control over his surroundings has spurred us on to thought and action.9° During the nineteen th irtie s a general foment in edu cation was initiated, largely the result of the out standing leadership of John Dewey and those educa tors who Joined him in an effort to move ahead in a field of great social significance but with rela tively little identified content. . . . Underlying the effo rts were concepts, and terms to represent them, not unlike many that have characterized more recently supported efforts. . . . The social impli cation of the various phases of education were held up to study.99 The social significance of research can not be a step-child to the techniques and procedures used in the process of research.
97 Ib id . 9®Richardson and Howe, Centers, 1. " ib id . , 2. 100Ib id ., 108. To indicate the importance that Richardson attached to this point of view, he included in his list of the unde veloped facets of science education research the sociological implications of science for school programs.101 A very fine summary statement of Richardson's10^ position on many domains of science education was published in the fall of 1966. A notation at the beginning of the article described the author as "a nationally-known teacher, author, and consultant on science education and curriculum evaluation and reform."103 Richardson based his assessment of the present science programs on the values useful in a 10^ democratic society and the emerging needs of our society. He was alarmed that there was not more concern for the in terests and problems of youth and the social function of s c i e n c e . 10^ He said, "Our society cannot achieve its maxi mum potential until each individual has developed his full a b ilitie s , insights and value systems."10^
101Ib id . , 122. 102 John S. Richardson, "Evaluating a High School Science Program," North Central Association Quarterly, XVI, 2 (Pall, 1966), 192-203. (Hereinafter referred to as "Evaluating.") 103I b id ., 192. 10^ Ib id ., 193. 1Q5ib ld . , 195. lo6Ibid., 197. 44
In 1967 Richardson was one of the authors of a book 107 on The Supervision of School Science Programs. It is the analysis of the writer of the present study that both Richardson’s philosophical position on the relationship between science and an evolving society and some of the major issues with respect to the teaching of the social implications of science are lucidly stated in the book. The following quotation reminded one of the philosophy of the Progressive Education Association discussed earlier in the chapter. Science does not deliver fin al answers, only newer ones as time passes. . . . a society that does not assume it has final answers, but can gain better ones each year by careful experimentation. Such a society can only be maintained i f its citizens emerge from schools with the same general attitude of becoming. This, in view of the largely memoriter role of traditional schools, has produced tremendous concern for a modernized science education.106 Again one found in the book the "two-sided coin" con cept of science and society. Not only does science alter society by its ideas and technological contributions, but society alters the progress and the aims of science. It was evidenced in several places in the volume. S cientists mold society, and society molds and limits scientists. In a modern, space-age
*®?Donald stotler, John S. Richardson, and Stanley Williamson, The Supervision of School Science Programs (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Books, in c ., 1967)'. (Hereinafter referred to as Supervision.) 108Ib id ., 5. 45 democracy a ll citizens must enter into the social problem-solving process to the best of their abilities.1°9 The individual learners should be led to:. . . Understand the social function of science and think and act in relation to the implications of science and technology for society.*10 His emphasis on an effective genesis of ideas was demonstrated by his including more than just one printed statement of his position in this one volume. It is being increasingly recognized that one of the real world struggles is basically a struggle for the c h ild ’s mind. The ideology th at can or ganize its intellectual resources so that it can produce the most new ideas, in the shortest amount of time, and put them to the most productive use w ill most likely be the ideology which w ill pre vail on planet earth.m He pointed out in his book that there recently seemed to be a greater willingness of different groups in society to use scientific processes in the social area. Specifi cally he referred to the social activities of church groups, the community participation of science teachers and students, the handling of controversial issues by science teachers, and the need for a changed concept of the science enterprise as pointed out by leading scientists. 112 In the "Summary of Basic Ideas" are two concepts which appeared to be concerned with science and society, and have
109lb ld ., 9. 110Ib ld . , 48. 111Ib id . , 21.
112Ib ld . , 38, 58, 90, 114. 1*6 not been stated by Richardson in this way in his previous w ritin gs. 2. The society that actively seeks revolutionary ideas and screens them experimentally is most likely to sustain evolutionary growth without enduring a revolution. 4. Population mobility alone will force socie ties to choose between eith er extensive standard!- zation of curriculum or extensive individualization. 5 The f ir s t quotation above amplified and summarized the first philosophical quotation referred to in the book. The second quotation.indicated a social force which may act fav orably for implementing Richardson's present position, or it may act diametrically to oppose it. Since his Magnum Opus^** of 1957 Richardson had been concerned with the problem of "scientific literacy." He used a quotation from Glass to point up the relationship between scientific literacy and society. In effect this quotation said that a nation could not endure with an in finitesimal quantity of scientists seeking to mold and alter the life of a people characteristically superstitious and resistan t to new ideas. The immediate need was for mankind to become truly scientific in spirit and endeavor, or face the prospect of oligarchy and the eventual collapse of its civil structure and way of life.^-^
113lb ld . , 128-129. Richards on, Science Teaching, 1. 1-L5stotler, Richardson and Williamson, Supervision, 9. From the above quotation and the one preceding it,
Richardson was setting a mood of urgency. This urgency appeared to hinge on the relationship of science, society and science education in the present day world—there may be other reasons.
In October of that same year, 1967, Richardson^-^ expressed his thoughts again in this domain of science edu cation. In his article titled, "Human Rights, UNESCO, and the Science Teacher," he asked the science teacher to show his social responsibility. Two references from this article are illustrative of the point that was made above. In regard to the treatment of individual citizens and minority groups, he asked, "Do we (as science teachers) find the insight, the time and the energy to fulfill our responsibilities?"^--1-7 He also advocated asking the question, "What would eventually happen to our own positions i f our own human rights were not 118 guaranteed?" Science can only exist in the unfettered mind of the person whose human rights have been protected. The importance is equally as great in the school as it is in the research laboratory.
S. Richardson, "Human Rights, UNESCO, and the Science Teacher," The Science Teacher (October, 1§67), 5^-55. 117I b id ., 54. ll8Ibld., 55. 119Ib ld ., 55. 1*8 Richardson 120 stated one of the aspects of the social function of science In science education in his latest book. It is one of the most refreshing new insights expressed in his latest w ritings, even though he previously had w ritten that science education was a marriage between the natural sciences and the social sciences. Specifically he said that the science teachers face a dichotomy in th e ir in te lle c tu a l life. On one side of the coin one finds an intellectual activity which is largely factual and rigorous, while on the other side of the proverbial coin the prospective science teacher faces in te lle c tu a l activ ity which is amorphous. He equates the f i r s t with academic activ ity and the second with professional activity of this prospective and in-service science teacher. His proposed resolution of this conflict required that the common goal of both aspects be identified and that both the content vehicle and the instructional pro- cedures be varied to achieve this goal. 121 The most important concept to flow through th is whole publication was his recurring theme that there are social aspects to science and science education that must not, in any case, be overlooked.122
12®John S. Richardson, Stanley E. Williamson, and Donald W. S to tle r, The Education of Science Teachers (Colum bus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 196^). (Here inafter referred to as Education.)
121Ib id ., 30.
122Ib ld ., 3, 142, 186. The ramifications of the above stated major point of view are varied and numerous. One could \ery easily summar ize Richardson’s position on the social implications of science for science education by statements he made in this book. He said that the most acute educational program in science finds relationship in one instance to the needs and expectations of society. ^2® "Science education should be considered both science and social science."124 gpo^e Qf the need for including in the preparation of science teach ers courses related to the problems of living—including its economic and technological aspects and ones related to other areas like the social sciences.^25 "Programs for our schools," he said, "require a philosophical base which is in 1 harmony with a democratic society." In his opinion science teachers should view science in its broader sense as one of the humanities.I27 The science teacher must be socially responsible,acting as mediator between society and the individual learner.1^9
1 2 3 l b l d . , 10, 3 6 , 37.
12l,Ib id ., 17, 96, 98. 125Ib id ., 21, 187. 126Ib id ., 168. 127Ib id ., 33.
128Ib ld ., 83, 93. 129 ib id ., 23. 50
In one of his most recent articles,Richardson^O made an appeal to the science teachers and their students for greater understanding of the social implications of science on an International basis. To implement this he suggested that they read "The UNESCO C ourier."^31
Summary Early in his professional life, John S. Richardson was committed to the premise that the sociological aspects of science must be taught in our schools. First efforts of implementation centered on the economical aspects—a course titled, "Consumer Science." These endeavors were based on the needs of the individual and aimed at the solution of his problems. The watchword of this early period was "Science In Living." Throughout these three decades, Richardson wrote about the education of the science teacher. One of his first, and, then, one of his most recent publications dealt with this topic. Early recommendations in this area desired that science teachers be so educated as to make science an inte gral, functional part of the lives of their students. Philosophically, Richardson viewed education as life and the philosophy of education as also the philosophy of
13°John S. Richardson, "The UNESCO Division of Science Teaching," The Science Teacher, XXXV (May, 1968), 51-52. 131lb ld . , 52. 51 life. He placed much emphasis on the experience approach of Dewey. Special attention was given to the unique interests and purposes of the individual. Not only did he base his recommendations for curriculum around the needs and charac- teri.-'tL~s of boys and girls, but also centered them around the social concerns of our society—a democratic society. Prior to Sputnik Richardson implemented and advocated the ideas developed early in his career on the teaching of the sociological aspects of science. He continually called to the attention of the public and professional groups the fact that science teachers lacked an understanding in this area. His concept of science and society of this period re flected the idea that the technological developments of science altered our way of living—health, fuels, communica tion, transportation and power. The community was real, functional and familiar to the student and had great poten tial for him in the learning of science. In turn, the student could then serve his community. Up until Sputnik Richardson was very optimistic that science curriculum thinking and design would center around human a ctiv ity . His major work summarized his early posi tion just prior to Sputnik. Near the end of these three decades we denote a change of direction in the new programs of science in the secondary schools and a sense of urgency expressed in Richardson’s writings. 52 As the great educational upheaval occurred In science education following Sputnik, much activity seemed to follow the precepts of the Harvard Report rather than the more pro gressive documents. The mathematical and scientific needs for the educated man in a modern society asserted Itself with an intensity that began to weaken all other points of view on curriculum—including a concern for the social aspects. Emphasis on greater rigor in mathematics and science resulted in an emphasis on subject matter-practically Invulnerable to any purpose consideration beyond the inher ent demands of the discipline. Richardson's concept of the science-society relation ship broadened. As a member of the President's Committee on S cientists and Engineers and as a National Science Founda tion Director of Academic Year Institutes, he, more than likely, became personally aware of the political perspective of society. His concept of society's influence on science and science education appears to have been learned on a personal basis. He noted the impact of ideas from science on society, as well as the ever-present gap between science and technology, real or not, and its effect on curriculum thinkers. Later he concluded that new ideas used most productively will make up new conceptual schemes. Near the end of this period of thirty years, he brought in a broader concept of research and education—not only for the m aterial good of humanity which he advocated at 53 an early date, but as an Integral, necessary part of the educational framework of every citizen —science and the methods of science could improve man’s lot i f used not only in the realm of the natural sciences but in the social arena and in one’s own life . At least two questions are addressed to the writings of Richardson during this period of thirty years of this study. 1. What position did Richardson take on the teaching of the science-society relationship? 2. How did these posi tion statements evolve? The following generalizations are concluded: 1. Science education must be concerned with the sociological aspects of science was a concept held during this entire period. 2. The concept of those aspects of science that bear on society broadened from the aspects of technology and the scientific method to an emphasis also on major ideas, methods of science, and research. 3. His stating the conclusion that an evolving society does effect science originated during this period and grew to include many aspects other than the effect society has due to funding of scientific research and study. 4. The concept that science education should be con sidered both science and social science developed and later was sharpened by his reference to the dichotomy of rigor and lack of rigor in the background areas of the teacher of science. 51* 5. By his activity, one can conclude that his concern for mankind's understanding of science broadened during this period to become international in scope. His final emphasis was that a ll mankind must be so educated as to be truly scientific in spirit and endeavor.
The roots of his philosophical position in this area are varied and deep. It would be impossible to pinpoint all of them. The evolution of these concepts extended over the whole period of his professional life. Detailed references have been made in this chapter to some of the publications that were referred to by him in his writings and,in the opinion of the writer, served partially as a basis for some of Richardson's statements regarding the teaching of the sociological aspects of science. The clearest statement that man had a moral obliga tion to exercise his human activity in science in human directions was gleaned from Dewey. This doctrinal statement was evidenced throughout his whole professional life. The writings of Bernal had a profound effect on him. Though he failed to quote him after his very early writings, the ideas of Bernal percolated to the surface. Like Bernal, he realized that people could contribute to society through th e ir own use of the methods of science in solution of per sonal, social and economic problems. One of the most sur prising developments was his recent statements regarding the teaching of research—not for the scientists but for the 55 citizens—reflecting Bernal's position of 1939. The inspir ational tone found in his latest book may be based on Bernal's plea. S. Ralph Powers wrote in many areas of science educa tion. The integration principle, the emphasis on the solving the problems of life, and the selection of material from science based on a social criterion were, more than likely, gleaned from the early ideas of Powers. It was interesting to note that the period of great change of ideas for Powers was around 1952; Richardson had an explosion of new ideas in this area, as well as embellishment of former concepts, fol lowing Sputnik. Powers' ideas on teacher education In this area were a constant reference in Richardson's writings. The book Powers wrote with Anita Laton became a source book for Richardson for instances of implementing in the classroom the proper relationship between science and the community. Q. P. Cahoon was an advocate of teaching the effects of technology on society and he stressed competencies for use in the evaluation of science teachers. This concept of "competencies" in teacher behavior was a focal point for Richardson during this period. His ideas on "Consumer Science" reflected Cahoon's position. W. C. Croxton helped surface Richardson's commitment to the needs of the Individu al and society as central in curriculum thinking in science, but he did not play an obvious role during the end of the period. E. S. Obourn's practical way of implementing the Ideas of helping students solve problems complemented Richardson's ideas during this thirty-year period. R. J. Havighurst's study of the developmental tasks of youth served as one of Richardson's approaches to curriculum development. The writings of the National Council on Science Teaching, Progressive Education Association, the early faculty members who were colleagues of Richardson, and the Forty-sixth Yearbook had a lasting influence on the "func tional" aspect of Richardson's philosophy. Science educators were to use broad areas of living as central themes in cur riculum thinking. Needs of youth in a democracy were a point of departure in curriculum recommendations. Resources of science were to be used to help solve student's problems. These sim ilar writings are hard to separate and iso la te , but were referred to throughout Richardson's period of writing. Unfortunately, it was difficult to specify what authors recently broadened and changed Richardson's later views on the science, society, and science education rela tionship. His references in his recent writings gave few clues as to the source of these changes. Some personal responsibilities of Richardson may have had an effect. Some of the men with whom he wrote these recent publications were F. R. Schlessinger, Robert W. Howe, Donald W. S to tle r, and Stanley E. Williamson. References will not substantiate the influence of these men in this area. Some inferences, based on content, have been made with respect to the early writers. 57 The roots of Richardson's position in this area included: 1. Dewey's doctrinal statement. 2. Powers' ideas on teacher education. 3. Cahoon’s,Croxton's and Obourn's practical ideas on implementation. il. Havighurst's concept of developmental tasks. 5. The "functional" philosophy of the progressive w rite rs . 6. Bernal's ideas on teaching the social function of science. The above generalizations and conclusions were made after a formal examination of the writings of Richardson during a thirty-year period and other materials in the area of science, science education, and society. Another set of reflections on his writings during this period in a differ ent area of thought, "Teaching the Methods of Science," will constitute the next chapter of the study. CHAPTER III
TEACHING THE METHOD(S) OF SCIENCE
We must accomplish a task more difficult to many minds than daring to know. We must dare to be ignorant. —Pearson The Grammar of Science
As indicated in the last chapter, the problems which mankind encountered in its search for a b e tte r way of liv ing became the "warp” of Richardson’s conceptual scheme. The "woof of his intellectual tapestry of science educa tion" was the method that one used to help him solve a ll his problems. The most effective method for Richardson was the method of science. His emphasis on the sc ie n tific method or methods permeated his writings in the fie ld of science education.
Teaching the sc ie n tific method including the "steps" There has probably never been a period in the history of American education when the development of c ritic a l and reflective thought has not been stated as an objective. To implement this objective in the lives of boys and g irls , Richardson,1 in one of his first major publications,
1Cahoon and Richardson, "School Science," V-29. 58 59 co-authored with G. P. Cahoon, stated that preparation in critical or reflective thinking concerning everyday problems had been one of the prime purposes of science teaching for many years. "That this goal has not been generally achieved seems apparent when one considers the credulity, and even p the gullibility, of people in the role of consumers." He then suggested a course in consumer science as a way of implementing this objective of the development of critical thinking in secondary education. It is revealing that early in the period his ideas on the method of science and science education were approached with some foreboding. He spoke of the "so-called scientific attitude" as being an outcome of science most sought afte r; however, this scientific attitude did not enjoy the reputa tion it should have had.3 Perhaps this was due to the general lack of understanding of what components were essen tial to the scientific attitude. In order to present some idea regarding the definition of the scientific method (reflective thinking) held by Richardson at that time, one discovered that he desired the science teacher to have a se n sitiv ity to and an a b ility to use and provide experiences relative to such phases as: Recognition of problems, relation of past experi ence , use of books, authorities and experimenta-
2Ibid.
3Ibid., VI-B-33. 60 tion, place of hypotheses, testing of hypotheses, interpreting data (observations, tabular, graphic), applying principles, tolerance, withholding of judgment, role of definitions and assumptions, nature of proof, formulating conclusions, interpolation and extrapolation, use of statistical methods, miscon ceptions, superstitutions, rationalization, propa ganda, relation to other experiences (demonstra tions, individual problems, directed study), rela tion to individual needs, guiding pupils in, role of language, use of biographical and contemporary m aterials,relatio n to consumer problems, advertis ing, radio, social and economic problems, etc.^ Because of Richardson’s strong commitment to the prob lem approach, his early opinions on the role of the labora tory in science education may even startle some present day science educators. He perceived the meaninglessness of laboratory work if pupils performing an experiment did not know what they were doing or what question was being answered through the results of their experimentation. The laboratory was functional only inasmuch as it was a place to find answers to their problems.5 In this early publication Richardson evaluates Science in General Education** as probably the best recent 7 study in the philosophy and place of science teaching. He drew heavily on this document and the writings of the
**Ibid., XI-10-11. 5Ib id ., IV-B-2 ^C.S.S.C., General Education, 23-56. ^Cahoon and Richardson, "School Science," VIII-6. 61 o Progressive Education Association Workshops of 1937 for tests designed for evaluating the following aspects of thinking: Interpretation of Data, Application of Principles and Nature of Proof.^ Regarding the evaluation of this domain of science education, one found the name of Ralph W. Tyler appeared and was mentioned in the writings of Richardson many times during the period of thirty years under study. Tyler's w ritings in Constructing Achievement 10 Tests included steps in the construction of objective tests which Richardson quoted,^ as well as thoughts on the measurement of the a b ility to use the sc ie n tific method and the measurement of the a b ility to in fer.12 Differing from his approach in the previous chapter, one found much emphasis on instruments to measure the achieve^ ' ment of his objective of teaching the scientific method. Many different kinds of evaluation instruments which were constructed by writers of the Progressive Education Associ ation were referred to in Richardson's writings including the Nature of Proof Test 5.2a.^ Q Progressive Education Association, Evaluation in the Eight Year Study, Bulletins 1-6 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1935, 1936).
9 c a h o o n and Richardson, "School Science," X-20. *®Ralph W. Tyler, Constructing Achievement Tests (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 193*0• n ib id ., 5. 12I b id ., 25. ^Cahoon and Richardson, "School Science," X-31-31*. 62 Some early writers in science education were referred i l l to by Richardson* such as Carleton E. Preston and G. R. Twiss. One of the valuable points of view of Preston in this area was establishing a major objective of developing what is known to be the scientific attitude as a general point of view from which the sc ie n tist would approach problems both in his own field and in relation to life in its entirety.^5 Twiss viewed clear logical thinking, possession of a socialized concept of educational aims and values, the abil ity to use problematic situations and to establish a connec tion with life situations, clear deduction and forensic treatment of evidence as being important attributes for the science teacher.^ He envisioned probable student responses as including the recall of momentous facts and ideas; selecting those pertinent to a conclusion; formulating and testing hypotheses; coming to conclusions, inductively and deductively; and obtaining and u tilizin g concepts of method- 17 ica l procedure in thought and action. ' Because Twiss was a forerunner of Cahoon and Richardson at The Ohio State
11>Ibld., 5-6. ^■^Carleton E. Preston, The High School Science Teacher and His Work (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, In c., 1936), 53. ^George R. Twiss, "A Plan for Rating the Teachers in a School System,” School and Society, IX (June, 1919)* 7*» 8-756. 17Ib id ., 7^6-756. 63 University, It was noteworthy to list aspects of his concept of an effective teacher of science. In October of 1939 Richardson*® wrote an a rtic le about workshops. Although the article was addressed to all teachers and although the article did not address the topic of "the scientific method" specifically, it did mention several times that the teacher and the student must be assisted In the solution of their problems. In the article In his thesis a few years later he expressed clearly and concisely the role of the scientific method in the solution of problems and the need for both the student and the teacher to have th is knowledge. The curriculum proposed by Richardson in his disser- tation10 ^ was partially based on a set of factors found in ?n "Some Major Factors in Competency for Teaching." Stated clearly as one of the factors was: "Applying critical reflec tive thinking (scientific method) to the solution of prob lems, exemplifying it, and teaching for it in school situ ations . "2* In the document, he advanced as a major goal in teacher education the achievement of the scientific method
18 Richardson, "Introduction to a Workshop," 7-9* 19 Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum. ^ I b i d . , Appendix I . ^*Ibld., Appendix I, 7. 64 as I t applied to a ll problems and desired i ts habitual use in the activities of life. Research activity was Included in his reference to the sc ie n tific method, and i t should be noted that research was emphasized as "part and parcel" of 22 the program for the teacher of science. Because it is the present writer's proposition that the concept of the sc ie n tific method underwent modifications during the professional life of Richardson, another refer ence to Richardson’s concept of the sc ie n tific method is in order. One of the criteria as seen by Richardson to be observed in curriculum organization for the education of teachers of science was that every science teacher should have attitu des of mind and methods of work and investigation that will enable him to meet every problem in an objective, sc ie n tific and e ffic ie n t manner. He expounded on the unique relation between the teaching of science and the scientific method by listing many aspects including that the teacher of science should be "inimical to superstition" and recognize the "steps" of the method of science.23 In striv in g for the above major outcome, Richardson wrote that the following points were salien t: (1) Learnings should be gained by problems applicable to the student; (2) A broad scope of experiences should be made available to
22Ibid., 98-100. 23Ibld. , 259-260. stress choice; (3) Emphasis should be given to in te llig e n t choice of experiences; (4) The true experimental method should be deemed reliab le ; (5) Emphasis should also be on the 24 intelligent formulation and testing of hypotheses. Experiences recommended for science teachers included opportunity for research work in science and with science teaching materials, a study of the investigative methods of great scientists, examination of the history and philosophy of science, perusal of characteristics of the scientific method, and investigation of ignorance and superstitions and how they affect peoples.^ When he contemplated the ramifications of reflective thinking, Richardson concluded that science teaching was not helping the child if the child only acquired facts. It would be an Improvement i f the science teacher would only help the child to locate places where information may be found. One of Richardson's early publications with Cahoon was a short reference for the science teacher, "Locating Government Pub- 26 lications." His emphasis was on the implementation of his position that science teachers should be able to direct activities of children so that the pupils In their ability
24Ib id ., 278. 25Ib id ., 278. ^ G . P. Cahoon and J. S. Richardson, "Locating Govern ment Publications," Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Univer sity , n.d. (Mimeographed.) 66 to think would move toward maturation. In other words, he advocated that the science teacher had an opportunity and a responsibility to help students to do "reflective-thinking."^ In his proposed curriculum, the scientific method was a basic factor undergirding the whole set of experiencesj but it was not specified as a unique factor that should occur at a particular time or place in the curriculum. One could abstract that proposition from his statement that the merit for the specialization in the Special Science was found in its providing experience in order to use the methods of science including scientific research. So, basic to his program was the method of science.P ft °
Early philosophy, experiences and opinion as his foundation stones Upon interpreting the import of his bibliographical references with regard to the teaching of the methods of science, one concluded that once again, as in the previous chapter, the writers of the Progressive Education Association had a great impact on the development of Richardson's ideas. In addition to the references already made in this chapter to Science in General Education ^ one must not overlook his reference to their ideas on other occasions. Richardson's
27 'Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 59* 28I b id ., 328. 29c.S.S.C., General Education, 306-3M. 67 awareness of the obstacles to the wide use of critical thinking was sharpened by the writers of the Progressive Education Association. Both the obstacles which were per sonal, like emotions and prejudice, as well as those which were inherent in the community like propaganda, superstition and outmoded folkways, were examined by these writers.^® Richardson attempted to include what he believed to be a valid philosophical basis for his recommendations in his dissertation. He endeavored to profit by the wisdom and experiences of others as revealed by the literature. He strived to profit from certain innovations.31 He explored the document, previously mentioned, "Factors in Competency"32 to some length. This document, a product of the faculty of the College of Education of The Ohio State University listed and explained b riefly factors in competency which are common to all teachers. Richardson phrased one of their factors in the following way for curriculum thinkers: "The curriculum should educate the science teacher with attitudes of mind and habits of work and investigation that will enable him to meet every problem in an objective, scientific, and efficient manner. 33J
3°Ibid., 59-60.
3^-Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum , 329.
3 ^ l b i d . , Appendix I. 33ibid., 228.
/ 68 There was early evidence that Richardson's actions required philosophical uprights. His first chapter was titled, "Philosophy Basic to the Education of Science Teachers. "3** William L. Wrinkle,35 j. p. Bernal36 and
S. R. PowersVI were some of the men whose ideas had a bear ing on the writings of Richardson in the domain of science education concerned with the teaching of the scientific method. Richardson referred to Wrinkle, Bernal and Powers several times in his first chapter. The weaknesses in science education expressed by these men included the lack of achievement and maintenance of the scientific attitude by the individual. The vision of these three men with respect to what science teaching ought to be was captured by Richardson. The more positive approach in this area of teaching the scientific method was again formulated in the writings of Wrinkle, Bernal and Powers, respectively. This implies that the method for solving problems of the consumer type and the attitud es toward and the understanding of social and physical environ ment should be d e v e lo p e d . 38
34lb id ., 5-20.
3 5 w i l l i a m L. W rinkle, The New High School in the Mak i n g (New York: American Book Co., 1937)7 150-151. ( H e r e i n - after referred to as New High School.)
3^Bernal, The Social Function of Science, 245*
3?s. R. Powers, "Improvement of Science Teaching," Teachers College Record, XL (January, 1939), 273-283. 38Wrlnkle.New High School, 150-151. 69 It Is most important that all, and particularly those who are not continuing in scientific ca reers, should learn scientific method by prac ticing it. 39
The use of scientific method requires, among other things, understanding of and ability to use theory .... A second requisite for understanding sc ie n tific method is the appreciation of condi tions th at must be fu lfille d before a conclusion is substantiated. . . . A third requisite in deal ing with knowledge arrived at through the objec tive criteria of science is a realization of the relativity of truth so obtained. **0 As a background for his dissertation Richardson read very widely—too many writers to treat in detail; from his appraisal of the wisdom and experience of others and from examples of th e ir innovation^ he concluded that the science teacher should help the student do reflective thinking by providing situations which require thinking and by removing obstacles such as emotions, prejudice, supersti tion, outmoded folkways, and propaganda.^ It Is significant that one particular article by Dewey, "The Supreme In telle c tu a l O bligation,"1^ seemed to serve as one of the sources of Richardson's primary position statement during these thirty years. The chief responsibility for the attainment of a system of education in which the groundwork of a habit and attitu d e inspired and directed by
39Bernal, "Science Teaching in General Education," 4. iin Powers, Education, 37. ^Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 67-68. ho Dewey, "The Supreme In telle c tu a l Obligation," 1-4. 70 something akin to the method of science lies with those who already enioy the benefits of special scientific training.^3
Emphasis on exploration An article written by Richardson during the World War II period noted that the war needs pointed out the deficiency of knowledge in science by our citizens. How ever, he arrived at the conclusion that there were no com plaints registered about individuals lacking the possession of scientific attitudes or the ability to apply the method of science. This did not mean, of course, that graduates from high school who were thoughtfully observed were ade quately equipped in this respect. When Richardson reflected on the idea that general science was a terminal course in science for many students, he ascertained that there was a need for extensive research in science education with regard to the teaching of the method of science to every student. Richardson emphasized "exploration." He was of the opinion that little had been learned about true exploration as a part of the learning process. He spoke of the paradox that in a field based so fundamentally on the experimental method of sc ien c e,u tiliza tio n of i t was minimal in the learning process. Was this not one of the more significant
^ ibld., 3-4. **^Richardson, "Trends," 202-210. 71 lie functions of the laboratory.J This emphasis on exploration may have been partially based on his reflection on the cen tr a l ideas of Louis Agassiz and John Dewey as Richardson used the following quotes, "Study nature not books," and "Learn to do by doing. As late as 1953 one detected his emphasis on the need for f a c ilitie s for students to explore.^ One of the reasons that Richardson wrote an article about the storage of materials during the war years, may have been that he wished to present his basic assumption that adequate storage of materials was correlated with adequate teaching of the scientific method. lift ° A month later he demonstrated his determination to advocate that prospective science teachers should under stand the method of science. It was evidenced by noting that two of his five problems in the education of science teachers, as stated in the article, referred to that domain of science education. (1) Prospective science teachers appeared to believe that imparting Information is the only goal of science teaching. (2) The prospective science
1’5Ib id ., 209-210. lt6Ib ld ., 209. ^Jo h n S. Richardson, G. P. Cahoon, and Ralph W. Lefler, "Facilities for Science Teacher Education," in Amer ican School and University, Vol. 24 (New York: American School Publishing Corporation, 1952), 209. jig J. S. Richardson, "Storage of Pamphlets and Charts," School, Science and Mathematics, LV (November, 1945), 757. 72 teacher was limited in his concept of the function of the laboratory in the learning situation. **9 Once again he wrote words to the effect that methods of science should be built into the science teachers' behavior, and that fundamentally the laboratory work should be exploratory in function. The prospective teacher of science must have experiences in exploration and, conse quently, according to him, must have a fam iliarity with a broad range of tools, materials, and equipment in everyday uses.His emphasis seemed to be on exploration during this period of his writings. For about two years after the war, Richardson was editor of a column entitled, "Teaching Reports" in Science cl Education. Part of his general plans for this column included, in addition to articles about field trips (or to use an earlier term used by Richardson, science Journey) and unusual experiments, evaluation m aterials which could be reproduced for use in other classes. What is significant to the present study, was that, in the domain of science educa tion under examination, he seemed to orientate his work in the CO direction of evaluation instruments. His concern was with
^Richardson, "Problems," 251. 5°Ibid. 51 J. S. Richardson, "Teaching Reports," Science Education, XXIX (December, 19^5), 205-207. 52Ibid., 205. 73 evaluation instruments designed to test reasoning, critical thinking, and attitudes—all attributes of the scientific method.
The philosophical base underlying the concept of '^direct experience”
In 1950 Richardson^3 wrote an a rtic le which estab lished very clearly his attaching a high priority to the idea that the method of science should be taught in our schools. The article was prepared in order to initiate discussion on the difficult task of "teaching for think ing." Without any doubt, Richardson built the structure of his document partially on the philosophy of Dewey. Throughout his w riting, he has quoted statements from Dewey’s writings which indicated to the researcher the pro found effect that Dewey had on his conceptual framework. In the article Richardson cited a quotation from a publication of the State Department of Education of Ohio relativ e to the role of education in a democracy: "One of the fundamental obligations of education in a democracy is to insure the development of ability in problem solving in critical or reflective thinking."55
53Richardson, Experimental Science, 1.
5^Dewey, "The Supreme Intellectual O bligation," 3-^.
•’•’The State Department of Education, Science Educa tion for the Elementary Schools of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio: The State Department of Education, 1945), 12. In the publication he noted a number of incidents in the schools of the United States of their using the experi mental approach. He saw the need for laboratory work as a prerequisite to student experience and the need for a wide variety of equipment. Some of the work introduced into the secondary school involved "project work" which took on aspects of research. His references to Cahoon, his mentor and colleague, reinforced concepts expounded previously in their publica tion of 1939* Unfortunately, a tendency and ability to think scientifically is not a necessary nor automatic outcome achieved by pupils in science classes. It is not an "Either-or" case, however, either teach science facts and principles or critical, reflective, scientific thinking.56 In Cahoonfs a rtic le , he repeated some of the examples that used the demonstration method, like the "Crushing the Tin Can" example, to teach for thinking, and once again specified the "competencies" needed by the science teacher and ways for their attainment. His list of competencies included the use of an experimental approach to learning. The different ways that one could utilize "direct experience" in science in the secondary school were contem plated by Richardson. One can illustrate this point by his
. P. Cahoon, "Using Demonstrations for Providing Pupil Experiences in Thinking," Science Education, XXX, 4 (October, 19^6), 196. 57Ibid., 196-197. 75 reference to Carleton's-*® article. Carleton discussed the necessity of planning courses in order to meet felt needs of students in this aspect of general education. Richardson repeatedly referred to the source book by Laton and cq Powers^ in order to give examples of courses related to the communities. He also cited a private communication from his friend Obourn.®® One of the names which will be referred to many times in the domain of science education under examination is R. W. Lefler of Purdue University. Lefler employed problems which interested and concerned the students and which in volved facts, concepts and principles in the field of physics, for the foundation of his planning and experimenta tion by his pupils. Lefler advocated leaving the mechanical procedure which had been encouraged by a "cook book" type of laboratory manual and fostered laboratory procedure where students would be called upon to th in k , think in a way th at science had found to be effective in solving problems—what ever their nature, scientific or personal.^
5®Robert H. Carleton, "Some Suggestions for Research in the Senior High School Sciences," Science Education, XXXI, (October, 19^7), 217. -^Laton and Powers, New Directions in Science Teach ing, 13-22. ^Richardson, Experimental Science, 37* ^R. W. Lefler, "The Teaching of Laboratory Work In High School Physics," School Science and Mathematics, XLVII (June, 19^7), 538. 76 Another strong influence on the writings of Richard son was Philip G. Johnson as indicated by the numerous times his name appeared in Richardson's writings including refer ences to private communications. Johnson in 19^8 wrote a position statement on the teaching of the scientific method when he was Specialist for Science, Division of Secondary Education, U.S.- Office of Education. One of the major goals of science teaching is a functional understanding of scientific methods. Coupled with this goal must be the mastery of use ful scientific information, a growth in understand ing of the interrelationships that exist between forces and materials that help to make many ordi nary events predictable, and a feeling of appre ciation for the methods which man has developed for probing the intricacies of natural materials and changes. While there is some disagreement on which aspect of th is goal is of most importance, there is general agreement that the ability to understand and use sc ie n tific methods should be placed high in deciding what to teach and how to teach. One of the classical reports in science education was
the Forty-sixth Y e a r b o o k .^3 i t was employed by Richardson to give evidence of the extent of the support for direct experiences in the secondary school. Richardson referred to the following instances: Advised a wide use of m aterials, equipment, and multisensory aids in biology. 4
Philip G. Johnson, "Some Implications of Scien tific Methods for Secondary Education," XXX, 10 (July, 19^8), 3-6. ^^NSSE, The Forty-sixth Yearbook, 176. 6**Ibid., 186. 77 Advised the teaching of chemistry through a direct problem approach, such as consumer chemistry.65 Advised the use of techniques and materials to avoid lock-stepping.oo Advised the extensive use of direct experiences.^7 Advised use of community resources. Alberty's definition of the core curriculum was help ful to Richardson*^ in his writings. Alberty70 defined the core curriculum as being that aspect of the total curriculum basic to all students and consisting of learning activities that are organized without reference to conventional sub ject lines. This definition appeared beneficial to Richard son because it had the possibility of leading to the imple mentation of desirable changes in behavior.
Teaching the method Shortly after the publication of the last article, a book was published which Richardson7^- authored with Cahoon.
65Ib id ., 206. 66Ib id ., 208.
67Ib id ., 229. 68Ib id ., 233. 6Q 7John S. Richardson, "Experimental Science—Brief History and Present Outlook," The Science Teacher, XVII (November, 1950), 164-166. 7°Harold Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Cur riculum (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947), 15**. 7^-Richardson and Cahoon, Methods, 66. 78 Whether i t was in the d iscu ssio n of th e purposes of demon strations or under the topic of individual laboratory work, the importance of the students sensing genuine problems and seeking to arrive at their solutions by using the methods of science was emphasized. A whole chapter in this volume was devoted to "Teaching for Thinking Through Laboratory Experiences .72 As the current researcher has indicated previously, Richardson did include "steps" in his early concept of the scientific method. After 1950 there was evidence to indi cate that he altered his previous position by arriving at the conclusion that there were not "steps" in the methods of science. He also indicated very clearly that the concept of "the scientific method" was no longer adequate in his con ceptual framework of the nature of science,and "... there is no one scientific method, or the scientific method."71* Because of bibliographical references, there is some evidence that Johnson's article, quoted earlier in this chapter, may have made a contribution to the thinking of Richardson relative to his idea of method or methods of science. Later the writings of J. B. Conant undergird this new position. The writings of R. W. Lefler, which were re ferred to in his last article, were referred to again and
72Ibid., 66- 82. 73Ibid., 67-68. 7l*Ibid., 68. 79 again, as were the documents of the Progressive Education Association; previously employed references to the writings of Cahoon, Carleton, and Alberty by Richardson were found in the book. Another classic in the field of education was cited in the book. It was used to support the importance and desirability of planning experiences concerned with think ing. The Educational Policies Commission statement stated: Schools should be dedicated to the proposition that every youth in these United States—regardless of sex, economic status, geographic location, or race --should experience a broad and balanced education which will . . . (4) stimulate intellectual curi osity, engender satisfaction in intellectual achieve ment, and cultivate the ability to think ration a lly . 75 76 The next year Richardson edited a book which was devoted to an extensive discussion of school facilities for the instruction of science at all levels of elementary and secondary education and teacher education. Included in a list of twenty principles concerned with the facilities for science instruction were three bearing on the teaching of the methods of science: (1) Facilities where experiments and projects may be carried on for others to observe should be provided by the school. (2) Facilities for science instruc tion should be designed to enable students to do experimental
75Educational Policies Commission, Education for A ll American Youth (W ashington: N ational Education A ssociation, 19*m), 121.
7^Richardson, School F acilities, v-vi. 80 work on an individual basis. (3) Inclusive in school facilities for science should be published materials avail able to students to help them plan their work, interpret their observations, and study the activities and findings of 77 scientists. 1 A few years later Richardson7® presented a major address at an annual winter conference of the National Science Teachers Association. Not only did he in this address chide his critics with the supposition that their ill-founded criticism may be due to unsuccessful attempts of their own science teachers to teach them to withhold conclusions until adequate evidence is presented, but he again underscored his faith in the scientific methods by indicating it as the number one and number three problems in the teaching of science:79 How do we develop creativity in the pupil using the content and the methods of science? How do we teach for the methods of science? There is some evidence that we can teach for the methods of science; that as method, science influences our conduct so long as we stay within the discipline of science. Can we so teach that the essential attitudes and methods of science are generalized to the p o in t th a t they influ ence human conduct as we go about our general activities of living?®0
77Ibid., 10-11. 7®Richardson, "Professional Discipline," 169-172. 79 lb id ., 170. 8°Ibid., 172. 81 One concluded that In the above Richardson was con centrating on the utilization of the methods of science in one’s life. The problem of living in all of its ramifica tions should be submitted to the generalized methods of science. This was his position as indicated by his writings at that time.
His m ajor work Just prior to Sputnik, Richardson published his major book.®^ In the introduction he stipulated that society was in the process of developing scientific ways of thinking and acting, and was enjoying simultaneously the material bene- Op fits of the applications of science in its problems. The current researcher concluded that John Dewey had a great effect on the ideas of Richardson. One may postulate that Richardson's support for the idea that the study of science intermixes with the whole of human thought and activity had been strengthened by his reflections on the following position of Dewey: The obligations incumbent upon science cannot be met until its representatives . . . devote even more energy than was spent in getting a place for science in the curriculum to seeing to it that the sciences which are taught are themselves more concerned about creating a certain mental attitude. . . .83
®^Richardson, Science Teaching. 82I b i d ., v. 83cewey, "The Supreme Intellectual Obligation,” 3. 82 In support of the science teachers’ responsibility for assisting the students in the use of the methods of science, Richardson cited one of the classic yearbooks in science education: "The major generalizations and associated scientific attitudes are seen as of such importance that understandings of them are made the objectives of science teaching."®1* It is significant that the above quotation was written for the committee by S. Ralph Powers. Throughout the book, and especially in the chapter on the "Teaching for the Method of Science," one disovered that Richardson was supporting a position that all students must understand the methods of science, the effects of science on the life of human beings, and the main scientific ideas con cerning the nature of this universe.®^ Interspersed through out the book one learned of the above ideas formulated in various ways—as objectives,®8 as summary statements,®7 as problems,®® and as methods of teaching.®^ The following
®1*National Society for the Study of Education, Thirty- first Yearbook, Part I, A Program for Teaching Science (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Co., 1932), 44. (Hereinafter referred to as Thirty-first Yearbook.) ®5Richardson, Science Teaching, 13. 86Ibid., 83. ®7I b i d . , 15. ®®Ib ld . , 140. ®9lbld., 69. 83 are two quotations relative to his concern with the scien tific method: . . . It may be that there is a growing recogni tion that only through the careful use of the method of science in all aspects of our thinking and living can we solve the many problems that confront us.90
The development of the scientific attitude of mind and of the habits and skills characteristic of re flective thinking is at once the major goal of the teaching of science and the most challenging aspect of that teaching.91
Because Richardson was so motivated to help students do reflective thinking, it is important that one under stands that his concept of ’'thinking" was derived from Boyd H. Bode. Bode describes the process of thinking as "the finding and testing of meaning."92 Therefore, in Richardson's acceptance of this definition at that time, he was found advocating that "if we accept the development of critical thought as the paramount objective of the teaching of science, it should follow that students must first of all be able to find m eaning."93 When Richardson reflected on the nature of science which embraced the methods of science, he concluded that science was an attitude of mind,a method of study and
90Ibid., 13.
9 1I b i d . , m o . ^Boyd H. Bode, How We Learn (Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1940), 251. 93Richardson, Science Teaching, 25. 84 investigation and a body of organized knowledge. According to Richardson, science owed its existence to reflective thought. 94 As underpinings for his philosophy of science Richardson referred to some previously mentioned authors:
Obourn,95writers of Science in General Education,a n d , his friend, Johnson.He also c alle d on oth ers: one was a philosopher who had a faith in abstract speculation, Whitehead;9® and the other was one who saw ideas, observa tion and experimentation as the hallmarks of science, James B. Conant.99 Both Whitehead and Conant were concerned that all students understand science.Whitehead expressed that in the teaching of science, the art of thought should be taught.
9l,I b i d ., 107. 95 Ellsworth S. Obourn, An Analysis and Check List on the Problem Solving Objective, Science Teaching Service Circular No. 48l (Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 1956). qg 7 C.S.S.C., General Education, 309. 9?Johnson, "Some Implications of Scientific Methods for Secondary Education," 3-6. 98Alfred North Whitehead, The Alms of Education (New York: The Macmillan Company,1932). 99James B. Conant, On Understanding Science (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1951). He said, "It is essential that the generality of the method be continually brought to light and contrasted with the specialty of the particular application."1®® Conant dis cerned between being well informed about science and under standing science. Methods for imparting some knowledge of the Tactics and Strategy of Science to those who are not scientists was, in his opinion, needful.1®1 Richardson spent many pages describing ways of imple menting ideas that would lead to the achievement of reflec tive thought by students of science. As noted in an earlier reference, everyday occurrences could be employed as prob lems for students to develop this process of thinking. The laboratory made an important contribution to the achievement of reflecting thinking according to Richardson's position. He maintained that there is no adequate substitute for firsthand experience. He concluded: "The key to the achievement of reflective thinking, as with other objectives, lies in the quality of the science teacher’s w o r k ' . ' * 0 2 To illustrate instances which had played a role in the achievement of reflective thought, Richardson cited the
10®Whitehead, The Aims of Education, 80-81. 101Conant, On Understanding Science, 25-27. *®^Richardson, Science Teaching, 115. 86 writings of Barnard,^3 Lefler,Tyler,as well as his colleagues, Cahoon,and Faw cett. One would recall that Tyler directed the evaluation in the Eight Year Study. The reference by Tyler cited above was a book written by him in 1934. That book and Materials Prepared by Participants in the Science Group,108 wrj_tten in 1937i was frequently referred to by Richardson. The last volume was comprised of evaluation exercises in the area of thinking abilities—interpretation of data, application of principles, nature of proof, use of tested knowledge to proposed hypotheses, as well as scales of belief and skills. The exercises closely paralleled other Progressive Education
^J. Darrell Barnard, "Teaching Scientific Attitudes and Methods in Science," Science in Secondary Schools Today, The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Xxxvtl(January, 1953), 181-183. W. L e fle r, "Use Your Science Lab S c ie n tif i cally," NEA Journal, XLIII (February, 1954), 83-84. 105Tyler, Constructing Achievement Tests, 24-36. lO^cahoon, "Using Demonstrations for Providing Pupil Experiences in Thinking," 196-201. ■^H. p. Fawcett, The Nature of Proof, Thirteenth Yearbook National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (New York: Columbia University, 1939), 103-104.
108prOgressive Education Association, Material Pre pared by Participants in the Science Group of the Progres sive Education Association Summer Workshop (Columbus, 6hlo: The Ohio State University, 1937). Association tests, such as the Nature of Proof Test, 5.2A .109 His co lleag u e, Harold P. Faw cett, had been a member of the Committee on the Function of Mathematics In General Education of the Commission on Secondary School Curriculum. Fawcett was Involved with the construction of new Instruments to evaluate the outcomes in reflective thinking, and he also appreciated the fact that Tyler was making progress in this d ire c tio n . Lefler,*** in his 1951* article, suggested one of the methods of teaching the methods of science that became a main point in one of Richardson's latest books. Heading the article was the question, "Have you ever pretended with your class that as the teacher you are director of research in a laboratory employing a staff of scientists?"**^ In Barnard's article one discovered many of the same references that were applied in Richardson's writings. It was noteworthy that he referred to some ideas by Keeslar*^
109I b i d . , 75. **®Fawcett, The Nature of P roof, 121.
***L efler, "Use Your Science Lab S c ie n tif ic a lly ," 83. 11? Stotler, Richardson, and Williamson, Supervision, 78.
^^Lefler, "Use Your Science Lab Scientifically," 83. H^Oreon Keeslar, "The Elements of Scientific Method," Science Education, XXIX, 5 (December, 19^5), 273-278. 88 which had been cited, at times, by Richardson. Keeslar not only listed the elements of the scientific method, but stated that they were definite, distinct from scientific attitudes, and known and used by scientists. K eeslar,in h is 19^5 a r t i c l e , designated the investigational steps that one would observe if he employed "The Scientific Method" to solve the many kinds of problems of everyday life. The article may have been the source of Richardson’s reference to "steps" in the scientific method or it may have reinforced his position. 117 Near the end of Richardson's major book, 1 there was a discussion about which domains of science education were in need of further research and study. It surprised no one that he cited as a need for further study the methods of science and how one may teach them effectively to children so as to have an influence in their conduct in all of life's activities, not just within the discipline of s c i e n c e . ^ 8 Before the event of Sputnik one learned that Richard son, in an article published at about the same time, insisted that individual laboratory work was necessary to
115Ibid., 277. ll6Ibid., 276. ^^Richardson, Science Teaching, 358. l l 8 I b i d . , 358. ^■^Richardson, Science Tomorrow," 311-312. achieve meaningful experience. He was m otivated to some extent by the psychological necessity of providing for individual differences, but he Justified his position on the basis of its contribution to general education. It was enlightening to uncover his position of tension. He faced the obvious fact at that time that the laboratory manual would continue, but he optimistically hoped that it would become an instrument which would challenge the student and be suggestive to him. Boldly he prescribed that the formal laboratory period should become less formal by the inclusion of appropriate direct experiences.
Generalizing the method(s) On most occasions Richardson would begin a list of objectives with the social function of science objective. - After the event of Sputnik, he spoke to a group of educators in Virginia. In this major address, he stated that "in a listing of objectives, there is not much order or prefer ence: but my first is that which is almost invariably at the top—science in our schools should help our young people to 1 pi learn to think critically. He challenged the teachers present to think of what investigations and real problems their students had tackled ■ last year. He conspicuously favored the "open-ended
12°Ibid., 312. 121Richardson, "Putting Quality in a Science Pro gram," 12. 90 experiments.” His counsel to these teachers included the recommendation that their laboratories should not be limited to the classrooms but should be God's great universe, in cluding the men and women—His engineers and His scientists —in their community.122 Two years later, in another article,123 he wrote about The Ohio State University Center and its relationship to the teaching of science and mathematics. He terminated his paper with the following sentence which is relevant to the teaching of the methods of science: "Probably its most important function is to help science and mathematics teach ers learn that the solutions to their professional problems, as with the problems of science, can be found in their own i pji laboratory investigations." One is forced to conclude that Richardson placed much emphasis on the role of the laboratory in the teaching of the method of science as a method used not only in science, but, in this case, professional education. Richardson in a chapter in the Fifty-ninth Year- book^-* viewed the teacher of science in the optimum role of a "social architect," whose competence was also in science.
122Ibid., 15. ^•^^Richardson and Schlessinger, "Centers," 6-9. 1 2 4 ib id ., 8.
^■^^Richardson and others, "The Professional Growth of the Science Teacher," 28l. 91 In order for such a teacher to develop in his students the understandings and abilities essential for life in the com plex world of today, he recommended the organization of Instruction in a manner that students would be able to gain "important concepts by a scientific approach." The result of this would hopefully be the employment of critical think ing to correctly answer questions and arrive at real solu- 126 tlons to problems. In another chapter in that same yearbook, he resolved that not only must the teacher of science be able to demon strate the function of science in our society, but he must impart the method by which science has made its contribu tions to society.*27 One year later Richardson and T. Handley Diehl developed a research project which utilized a mobile labora tory as its main mode of Instruction. In the report^-2® on the research, it was evident that much laboratory equipment was involved in the operation. By the sixth day in its scheduled series of presentations, teachers usually fully realized their need for more direct experience with labora tory apparatus. In this research project the experimental
• 126Ibid., 281. 127I b i d . , 263. *^®John S. Richardson and T. Handley D iehl, The Devel opment of a Mobile Laboratory for the In-service Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics, Research Foundation Project 9^5 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1962). (Hereinafter referred to as Mobile Laboratory.) 92 spirit of the mobile laboratory was not limited to experi ments with science. The teachers were helped to experiment with techniques of teaching other than those customarily used. They were encouraged to discern and define problems of teaching. The suggestion was made that Individual stu dent interest be utilized in identifying problems in the classroom and laboratory. Ways in which to achieve these goals were suggested . 129 130 During the next year, Richardson J published an article about school science in its social setting. One paragraph illustrated Richardson’s continuous concern for the teaching of the methods of science. Herein he stated that if science had a contribution to make to the growth of a learner it must surely be in making him more competent in the areas of identifying problems, working toward satisfac tory solutions and coming to reasonable conclusions.1^1 By referring to Johnson's ideas in the article, Richardson implied his position on the effect of a standard ized curriculum on a national basis on the teaching of the methods of science. . . . scientific literacy would be impeded by efforts to standardize the science curriculum on a national
129Ibid., 26. 13°Richardson, ’’School Science in Its Social Setting," 237-238. 131Ibid., 237. 93 basis. Such efforts have a stultifying effect on science as an intellectual enterprise; the spirit of investigation and creativity as the heart of science would be seriously endangered. *32
The above paragraph is significant because of the events in science education in February of i 960. Since the event of Sputnik, the government of the United States through the National Science Foundation assisted in "science curricula building*and "science curricula thinking." The above stand was a very important and controversial position to take in light of the national activity in science educa tion at that time.
A philosophical position with historical overtones In "The Real Horizons in Science Education,"^33 ^ unpublished paper, Richardson reviewed the merits and de merits of the present curriculum programs in science. He concluded from this review that when each of the present curricular studies, much too dependent on content per se, would evolve into science as an intellectual investigation the real horizon of science education will come one step c lo s e r. The paper was directed mainly toward the achievement of understanding science as a process of thinking and inves tigation. "Understanding science" should play a central
132I b id ., 238. ^Richardson, "Real Horizons," 23. 94 role with respect to learning science in our schools. To Richardson, it is a real horizon for the teaching of school science. He appealed to a historical record which spanned many centuries. The evidence accumulated down through the ages supported the teaching of science through actual individual learning experiences in science. However, in the same article Richardson reflected on the possibility and the danger the vision, which has been with us for centuries, may not be fully implemented. He forewarned mankind that there are many dangers on the horizon mitigating against the teaching of science in a true atmosphere of science. In his historical overview of evidence supporting the teaching of science as an investigation by the individual, Richardson quoted from such men of science as Benjamin Franklinf Edmund Burke, Joseph Priestly, Louis Agassiz, Thomas H. Huxley, Karl Pearson, Alfred North Whitehead, John Dewey, Max C. O tto, and James B. Conant. One should acknowl edge that previously in his writings, the present writer shared his observation of the influence of Louis Agassiz, Whitehead, Dewey and Conant. This is additional evidence that all of these men did contribute to the thought of Richardson and affected his position on the methods of science.^35 ^he following are abbreviated position statements
13l,Ib id ., 7. 135ibid., 7-18. 95 by these men of science on the importance of teaching science as an investigation by the individual and as quoted in Richardson's writings. 1. Benjamin Franklin: While they are reading Natural History, might not a little Gardening, Planting, Grafting, Inoculating, &c. be taught and practiced; and now and then Excursions made to the neighboring Plantations of.the best Farmers, their Methods observ'd and reason'd upon for the Infor mation of Y o u t h .136
2. Edmund Burke: I am convinced that the method of teaching which approaches most nearly to the methods of investigation is incomparably the best. 3. Joseph P r ie s tly : They should more esp ec ially be early initiated in the theory and practice of Investigation, by which many of the old discoveries may be made to be really their own—on which ac count they will be made more valued by them.138 M. Louis Agassiz: I am therefore placed in a some what difficult and abnormal position for a teacher. I must teach and yet not give information. I must, in short, to all interests and purposes be ignorant before y o u139 . 5. Thomas H. Huxley: What I mean i s , th a t no boy or girl should leave school without possessing a grasp of the general character of science, and without having been disciplined, more or less, in the methods of all sciences. 1™ 6. Karl Pearson: In the teaching of science, the art of thought should be taught. 1 ^
136Ibid., 8. 137I b i d ., 8. 138I b i d ., 10. 139I b i d ., 11.
^ O l b i d . . 11.
2l,1I b id ., 13. 96 7. Alfred North Whitehead: It is essential that the generality of the method be continually brought to light and contrasted with the specialty of the particular application.142 8. John Dewey: As long as intellectual docility is the chief aim, as long as it is esteemed more important for the young to acquire correct beliefs than to be alert about the methods by which beliefs are formed the influence of science will be con fined to those departments in which it has won its victories in the past.14^ 9. Max C. Otto: So defined (science), the dispen sable characteristic as we have seen, is not to be found in the peculiarity of the material or subject matter under investigation, but in the particular way the material or subject matter is dealt with whatever i t may b e .144 10. James B. Conant: In my experience, a man who has been a successful investigator in any field of experimental science approaches a problem in pure or applied science, even in an area in which he is quite Ignorant, with a special point of view. I designate this point of view "understanding s c ie n c e ."145 The import of the above quotations is not only that these men supported teaching science as investigation, but that Richardson found their views supporting "investigation" appropriate for several of his most recent publications.
In 1966 Richardson1^ compiled a report of a November,
1965, meeting on the role of centers for research in science education. In this document one discovers that again he sets
llt2Ibld., 14. ll>3ibld., 15. l42,I b id ., 16. 11,5Ibid., 18. 146 Richardson and Howe, Centers, 5. 97 forth the Idea that student behavior should not be charac terized by the memorization of bits of information but it should be the result of one's ability to generalize using scientific information—the power of generalization! One can glean his position from the previous paper and the re p o rt. An integral part of the report was the inclusion of other papers that had been presented at the same conference. Some of these were statements of Tyler, Williamson, Howe, Lee, and Clark regarding their positions . Inasmuch as their statements may have contributed to Richardson's position, due to their long term associations with him, the following quote was taken from one of the papers and had relevancy to the subject of "science as investigation." Based on the possible danger that the emphasis on science and the new curriculum materials may bring certain science objectives to a dominant position relative to other important goals, liifl Williamson specified his number one Issue in science education as: Shall the central purpose of the science program be the development of process outcomes (critical thought) or the memorization and interrelation of bodies of scientific Information?149
"" llt7Ibld. li,8Ibid., 42. W ibld., 43. 98
Providentially, R i c h a r d s o n ^ 0 published his thoughts recently regarding the current need for the evaluation of the high school science program. One of the central issues that appeared in the evaluation was that the secondary science program should develop critical thinking (problem solving, inquiry) and, in a complementary way, the laboratory should have a central role. When he considered the attributes of an effective teacher of science, he listed not only the point that such a person needed to have the understanding that the great objective of science education is the development of critical thought, but the individual should possess the devotion to the teaching of investigation that Louis Agassiz had. Incidentally he cited the quotation of Agassiz pre viously referred to in this study. He depended on the ideas of Dewey when he underscored the importance of the role of student experience in learning. If one accepts his position, Richardson then generalized that the laboratory work in secondary school science should become a central aspect of 151 the learning experience. He encouraged further experi mentation in unified science courses and laboratory- 152 centered courses as described by Hale and Woodfield,
•^Richardson, ’'Evaluating," 192-203. 151Ib ld ., 194-200.
■^H eien e . Hale and Charles W. Woodfield, "General Physical Science," The Science Teacher, XXXI, 2 (March, 1964), 24-26. 99 153 and Slesnick and Showalter.
The classroom as a research lab o rato ry One of Richardson's*^1* latest books,which he co authored, was written on the topic of supervision. A new direction was perceived in this volume relative to the teaching of the scientific method. The sense of his new emphasis can be illustrated by the statement that opportunity and encouragement should be provided "for science teachers to more nearly approximate in their classrooms the spirit and learning of a genuine research laboratory."*55
During the progressive education era, Richardson lived at or near The Ohio State University with its emphasis in science education on the method of science. It was fortun ate that in 1967 he contrasted the present with the former tim e. One of the promising aspects of the post-Sputnik era stems from the fact that those who knew the learner were brought together, and have continued to work together in experimental testing and revi sion of curriculum based on feedback. Either con sciously or unconsciously, some of the frustrations of the progressive education movement have been avoided. Teachers in the progressive era were not fully prepared to use the processes of science and
^Sirvfin L. Slesnick and Victor Showalter, "Program Development in Unified Science," The Science Teacher, XXVIII (December, 1961), 5^-55. l^ sto tler, Richardson and Williamson, Supervision. J-SSibld., 22. 100 the latest knowledge in their teaching; they did not have sufficient instructional materials to implement progressive education. . . . The main concern of the research scientists is not sufficient coverage of information but the fact that research skills were not being taught. Finally, the progressives by means of experimental data, offered their research-oriented education to an authority-oriented populace. In its post- Sputnlk era, the groups that developed the new cur ricula used a different approach; . . . These courses were accepted by the public mainly on the basis of the authoritative names of the scientists and the groups that sponsored the curriculum projects, rather them the experimental data.^56 Many places in his book Richardson set forth his posi tion that students should be led to develop the ability to think critically and to use the methods of science, which was the same position he held when he wrote his major volume in 1957. The one minor change in emphasis was described p re viously. The research laboratory and the appropriate activ ities and behaviors were now being used by Richardson as a model. The student should behave as a scientist behaves in his research laboratory. Therefore, the person involved in changing a pupil’s behavior in science now has a standard to use for calibration of his behavioral instruments .^ 7 This standard is the research laboratory activity. This study had previously stated that Rich.ardson did overthrow his concept of "steps" in the scientific method.
156Ibid., 36-37. 157Ib id ., 86. 101
It Is necessary for one to be aware that in1967 he said the scientific method had been the result of an analysis of the way the mind works. However, he felt, in laboriously fol lowing the "steps" of the scientific method, it might no longer be a true model of thought processes and hence would become an actual barrier to learning. In his book there were repeated references to the writings of Lefler, Agassiz, and Whitehead.*59 Because the ideas of John Dewey generated a profound effect on Richard son's thoughts on the scientific method, a statement of Richardson's analysis of Dewey's effect on the educational world is in order. Meanwhile, John Dewey was shaking the educational world. He pointed out that education in America should be relative to the individual observer rather than in some absolute external curriculum organiza- tion. What is the most effective way for the individual observer to learn? The way scientists learn ! To Dewey, science was the most s ig n ific a n t thing that ever happened to the human race, and the future of civilization is dependent upon the deepening hold of the scientific habit of men. Dewey also reasoned that unless all of the obser vers in the nation were elevated to scientific literacy, the nation's observations would in time be invalid and freedom would be lost.160 Richardson Judged that research workers' skills are necessary to our society and to research, but ultimately he reasoned that society depended upon the jnltlative,
158Ibid., 92. ^ ib ld ., 78, 122. l6oIbld., 88. problem-solving skill and integrity of the individual citizen.1*^ To summarize other views on the topic of the methods of science and science education of Richardson, the following summary of his basic ideas is appropriate: (1) The experience of the learner should include the composition and exploration of problems in an "open-ended way." Thus, as a result of this continual process new concepts should grada- tlonally come into view. (2) Science reposes on faith in the keen observer's potential for rational thought, "the discoverability of the observed universe, and increasingly using democratic channels in developing faith in the reason ing ability of people." (3) The basis for study of science in the public school should be the processes of science used in discovery rather than memorized facts and laws which have already been discovered in science. (M) Science classes should be of a sufficient length of time to allow for flex ibility in teaching, effectively using the laboratory T_6p centered approach or a timely field trip. c
The s c ie n tif ic e n te rp ris e and its pressures Freedom in the scientific enterprise required submis sion to what some science educators may term, "scientific attitudes." While working in the research laboratory, the
l6lIbid., 82. l62Ibid., 61. 103 scientist must be honest and open-minded. Pressures compel him to be patient, to be self-critical, and to hold conclu sion tentatively. In the last chapter of his book
Richardson1^ 3 expounded on an aspect of the "scientific enterprise." He called on the ideas of Agassiz and White head to undergird his position. The importance of his treatment of the scientific enterprise was that it provided one with insight into the position held by him on the relationship between science and morality. Scientific method involves an impersonal three-way interaction of observation, explanation and experi mentation. As such, it is essentially amoral. The values of science form the main basis for morality. The learner tends to accept the values of science for the same reason that they are accepted by scientists—they make the search more effective. The fact that the search is in a broader and more life-like setting may mean that these values can be used even more outside of the laboratory. The pragmatically accepted values of science prob ably were originally borrowed from religion. The basic values of science, related to religion, are honesty (in all reporting), idea sharing (by all people), humaneness (toward all living things), and faith that there is dependability in the universe.1&^ Even though it was also discussed in Chapter Four of r" the study in the analysis of general education, it is apT. propriate here to mention that it was a major point of view of Richardson that science was a process and that pupils in the high school program, college students in a general
l63ibid., 119-121.
l6MIb id ., 121. <
ion education program, as well as, college students in a science education program must be provided with the opportunity to
Investigate. In his latest book, R ichardson*^ highlighted various programs of research in the schools, from action research by the teacher and pupil to teacher-scientist participation research programs and indicated the need for these particular programs. A basic concept penetrated through all of these different operational techniques, that is, science is a method and one must teach it as such.1^ For the teaching of science as a process, special laboratories are desirable and necessary for the prospective science teacher. New approaches for the teaching of science have been investigated in Richardson's own courses identi fied by practlcums. It was notable that prior to his initial article on workshops, a Center for Science Education had been initiated and maintained at The Ohio State University providing the resources, both scientific and professional, to enable the student of science education to investigate and develop conceptual schemes related to life .*^7 included in these practlcum courses were such investigative procedures as laboratory work and field studies.
*^5RiChardson, Williamson and Stotler, Education, 11. *66I b i d ., 11, 20. lg 7 lb id ., 191. 105 In his reflections on the merits of graduate research in a specific discipline of science versus graduate research in education, his conclusion stated that "research is 168 research"; this, again, supports his concern for using the methods of science. Once again his book gave credence to the proposition that the roots for major concepts that Richardson held were extensive and penetrating. Chapter Eleven of the book developed the philosophical roots, as viewed at the time by Richardson, for the necessity of a man of science "to inves tigate" and the importance of teaching this "scientific method(s)." His treatment of his philosophical roots in his book served as a confirmation for the present writer of the study. It established those writers which had a lasting influence on Richardson's writings. With rare exception,
all of the philosophical sources whichRichardson1*^ re_
ferred to in his book had previously been treated in the study. One of the latest authors whose recent writings had been employed by Richardson was Robert J. Schaefer, Dean, Teachers College, Columbia University. His book, The School As a Center of Inquiry,1'^ envisioned a different kind of
l68Ibid., 124. l69Ibid., 160-166. 1^®Robert J. Schaefer, The School As a Center of Inquiry (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). 106 teaching profession—one necessary for the new society that Is emerging. It Is relevant that he had a conception of professional training that would result In teachers having ’’attitudes" basic to Inquiry. In this John Dewey Society lecture, which, incidentally included quotations from Dewey and Whitehead, the following position relative to the methods of science and science education was noted: "By a school organized as a center of inquiry, then, I imply an institu tion characterized by a pervasive search for meaning and rationality in its work."171
Summary Because there has probably never been a period iri the history of American education that scientific methods (critical thinking, reflective thinking) was not an important objective, it is not unusual that one science educator, namely, John S. Richardson, held with tenacity to this objec tive. He desired its universal application in all areas of living. His early view included a leaning toward the concept of one scientific method with a series of chronolog ical "steps" used to "find meaning." This was later soundly refuted; and he polarized toward the direction of teaching methods^ of science though he used the words method and methods interchangeably. Near the end of this period he
171Ibid., 3. 107 finally came to the conclusion that formal "steps" were a barrier to learning. Early in his life as an educator he approached with caution the teaching of the "scientific attitude" of the mind in reflective thought. This caution was due to social pressures—the method of science was inimical to supersti tion. He defined the "scientific attitude" as a universal point of view held by scientists with which they approach problems. He realized rather early that the learning of the scientific attitudes and the personality of the learner were interrelated. Later in life he philosophically reflected on the values of the scientific enterprise and desired that students demonstrating the "scientific attitudes" be imbued with pragmatic values such as honesty and humaneness. The pressures within the scientific enterprise are engendered by this standard—the scientific attitudes, which includes honesty, open-mindedness and idea sharing. In order to implement the teaching of the scientific methods, he centered his approach around the evaluation of reflective thinking—objective test construction. This emphasis was in evidence more during the f i r s t p a rt of the thirty-year period than in recent years. From the beginning of this period to his most recent writings, Richardson was concerned with the experiences of the individual which were necessary for learning the greatest Intellectual method of all—the scientific method. Problems 108 genuine to the student (problem-solving) was an early and lasting approach, coupled with his emphasis on laboratory work. On these central themes of problem solving and the laboratory approach evolved a series of emphases—demonstra tions for thinking, exploration, direct experience, project work, investigation with historical roots, research labora tory classrooms process, and, presently, inquiry. The role of the laboratory played an important part in the achieve ment of the methods of science and the scientific attitude for Richardson. Near the end of the period he evidenced a clear commitment to the concept of learning science through planned investigations of an original nature. As he had as one of his early axioms that all neces sary resources should be employed to solve problems, one must expect that storage of materials and laboratory facil ities were not overlooked by him as prerequisites to teaching the method. Another one of the methodological procedures involved his intellectually moving teachers from the "ency clopedic role of knowing all" to the "role of ignorance," searching for the truth with their students. In curriculum organization he recommended "the core" for consideration early in this period. He deplored the fact that critics of his curriculum thinking were not using the scientific methods but depended on their authority and position. He feared that a standardized curriculum or an emphasis on "content" would be inimical to the development of 109 critical thought. Recently, he supported programs high lighting more student investigations, such as curricula with the "unified science" approach. One of his main themes which surfaced occasionally was his opposition to the great emphasis on the "teaching of facts." He preferred the power of generalization. This disdain for the emphasis on bits of facts seemed to project more in his recent writings. He thought the "processes of science" used in discovery were more important than memoriz ing facts or laws of science. Research is research. His generalization of this scientific method began at the begin ning of his professional life with his recommendation that problem solving be utilized in all aspects of living. Following Sputnik he became quite specific and desired teachers to use it in their professional education in order to become "social architects." This resulted in his expand ing the role of practlcums and becoming involved in research work, such as the mobile laboratory, in order to implement this point of view. He concluded that the progress of society ultimately depended upon the initiative, problem solving skill, and integrity of its citizens. Two questions are addressed to the writings of Richardson during this period of thirty years of this study. 1. What position did Richardson take on the teaching of the method(s) of science? 2. How did these position statements 110 evolve? The following generalizations are made: 1. During the thirty-year period Richardson held that understanding the mathod(s) of science was an Important objective In science education. 2. He desired teaching of the universal application of themethods of science In all areas of living. 3. His concept of teaching "the scientific method” with steps evolved to teaching the "methods^ of science" without steps, as they become a barrier to learning. M. His concept of teaching the scientific attitudes evolved from teaching a universal approach to problems used by scientists and Inimical to superstition to teaching a pragmatic value system Including the value of honesty. 5. Objective test evaluation was an Important aspect in the teaching of critical thinking for him, especially during his first twenty years of professional life. 6. He had a commitment to the concept of science education as being concerned with experiences of individuals which are necessary for learning the greatest method of all. 7. Though he had tenaciously held to the problem solving approach and the role of the laboratory as an approach, his emphasis on methods of teaching this concept evolved—demonstration, exploration, direct experience, project work, investigation,process and inquiry. 8. All resources should be used to solve problems was one o f h is axioms. I l l 9. His consideration of possible curriculum organiza tion included "core” in his beginning years and "unified science" since Sputnik. 10. He preferred teaching for the power of generali zation of the method rather than bits of facts. This gener alization of the method included applications to the field of science education. In the assessment of the philosophical roots of Richardson in this domain of science education, one finds many specific references and several references were used many times in his publications. The roots of Richardson’s position in this particular domain of science education included: 1. Johnson partially influenced Richardson with regard to the evolution of the concept of the teaching of the scientific method to teaching of the methods of science. Conversely, his early views were braced by Keeslar’s views on steps and the writers of the Progressive Education Associ a tio n . 2. Ideas on the teaching of the scientific attitude including the aspects of early opposition due to social and personal characteristics were gleaned partially from Wrinkle and writers of the Progressive Education Association, 3. Objective test construction in the area of reflec tive thinking was aided by the previous work of Tyler, Fawcett, and the Progressive Education Association writers. 112 The idea that experiences of the Individual were necessary to learn the greatest Intellectual method of all reflected the writings of John Dewey. 5. Advocates and writers of the problem solving approach and its use in all areas of living were numerous. Ideas were quoted from Obourn,.Powers, Barnard, Bernal, Progressive Education Association writers, Twiss, Cahoon, Wrinkle, the Ohio State faculty of the forties, and many more. 6. His disdain for teaching facts rather than gener alizations may have originated with a less polar view of Cahoon who held that it was not a dichotomy. 7. Regarding teaching methods, some early work in demonstrations for thinking was done by Cahoon, Richardson's writings on exploration included references to Dewey and Agassiz, research for the citizen was advocated by Bernal in 1939, examples of "direct experiences" were drawn from Carleton and writers of the Forty-sixth Yearbook, recently Schaefer wrote on inquiry, and the important role of the laboratory for thinking was supported by Richardson using the writings of Lefler. 8. The historical overtones of the investigative approach included references to Franklin, Burke, Priestly, A gassiz, Huxley, Pearson, Whitehead, Dewey, O tto and Conant. 9. The "role of ignorance" as a teaching technique was purported earlier by Pearson and Agassiz. 113 10. In curriculum thinking, the "core" was supported by A lberty and "u n ifie d science" was researched by Slesnick and Showalter. 11. The power of generalization concept with regard to the methods of science being understood by all reflected the writings of Fawcett, Whitehead, and Conant. 12. His use of the methods of science in science education for teachers reflected the writings of Schlessinger and Williamson. After formally examining the writings of Richardson during this period of thirty years in the area of science methods and science education, the above generalizations and conclusion were made. The next chapter will encompass reflections on, and a search for a basis for, the ideas that Richardson had on the structure of science courses for science teachers. CHAPTER IV
"SCIENCE CONTENT" COURSES FOR TEACHERS OF SCIENCE
The ability to express ideas concisely and accur ately, the ability to abstract from a situation those qualities which make it different from other situations, the ability to define and the ability to generalize are all recognized as educational values which are common to many areas of learning. —Fawcett The Nature of Proof
The formal education of science teachers played an important role in the professional life of John S. Richardson during the thirty-year period from 1939 to 1968. His doctoral dissertation was titled A Proposed College Cur riculum for the Education of Science Teachers,^ and his most p recent book was titled The Education of Science Teachers. In the second chapter of the present study it was concluded that Richardson desired that science teachers be educated so as to make science an Integral, functional part of the lives of their students. Note was also made in that chapter of some aspects of the part "competencies in teacher behavior" played at the beginning of the period. One may expect that
1Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum. 2 Richardson, Williamson and Stotler, Education.
11M 115 these ideas will appear again in some form as the concepts in the domain of teacher education are formally examined.
The "su b ject matter** competency of "A World Picture" From the outset Richardson regarded teachers of specific areas of science, such as chemistry or physics, as "teachers of science." In 1939 Richardson’s name appeared on the title page of a publication he wrote with G. P. 3 Cahoon e n title d 'S e c o n d ary School Science Teaching." This early attempt to help teachers in their responsibility to teach included references to science courses which were re quired for study. Richardson expected science teachers to be familiar with a large number of important concepts, appli cations, and scientists in all areas of science. He noted that even teachers in the fields of chemistry or physics had a need for becoming acquainted with the content of the other sciences and the sociological and economic implications of it scien ce. When Richardson designated the "subject matter" to be understood by the science teacher, it included the require ment that the teacher must give evidence of a competency in the understanding of science concepts, facts and information. The intent was an integrated rather than a compartmentalized
3 Cahoon and Richardson, "School Science," title page. ^ I b id ., X I-1-2. 116 background—"A World Picture." Some of the concepts which made up this "world picture" included the fundamental ideas and facts in connection with "life, earth and the universe, waves, stuff, power, transportation and communication. In addition, he expected a more expert or technical competence in one specialized field.^ Two other competencies were mentioned in this early , v 6 document. They were (1) recent important advance, which included discoveries, inventions and technological trends in all branches of science, and (2) important men, commit tees, institutions, agencies in science (all branches) and 7 in science teaching both in the past and in the present.
The "p ro fessio n alized " academic science course' One of Richardson's objectives was to have science teachers participate in an active and a constructive way in their schools and communities and cause the method and con tent of science to function more fully in the lives of boys 8 and girls. One of the purposes of his own doctoral thesis was to design a curriculum for the education of science teachers with this objective in mind. In addition, his pro gram was designed to eliminate several weaknesses present in
5Ib id . 6I b l d . , XI-4. 7Ibid., XI-5. O Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 329. u 7 teacher education programs of that date, including the lack of "professionalization" of academic materials for the prospective science teachers.9 One of his strongest and oft-repeated recommendations was that in order to have new "courses" in the subject matter areas properly taught, disciplinary boundaries must be eliminated.*0 He maintained, however, that the prospec tive teacher of science must have some degree of specializa tion in one of the fields of science in order to give him full mastery of the scientific method and academic respecta bility. The breadth of the science courses taken by the teachers of science must, however, be greater than ones studied by the usual science specialist.'*'^ Conversely, the specialization should be in a functional area of science and research in some area should be included. The curriculum for the science teacher should enable the teacher to use apparatus, tools and materials needed in the shop and the laboratory. Throughout his major study were references to "pro fessionalized" courses in science needed to meet the objec tives of teacher education. What specifically is a profes sionalized subject matter course? "Generally speaking, it
9Ibid., 162-163. 10Ibid., 39, 47, 51, 55. 11I b i d ., 85. 12Ibid., 321. 118 might be accurate to describe any course, the content and method of which were chosen and designed to prepare the participant in the course for a chosen profession, as a professionalized course. For the profession of teaching, selection of materials and experiences and the manner of their use are of importance comparable to any of the other professions."^-3 He thought that those kinds of courses had been achieved up to that date by the "integration" of two or more academic courses with emphasis on the science needed by the consumer. "Professionalized science courses emphasize such functional aspects as social and community life, leisure activities, vocational possibilities, everyday applications of science, etc."*1* As an example of a "professionalized science course," Richardson described a course in laboratory science for experienced and prospective teachers at The Ohio State Uni versity—Education 681, Laboratory Practicum for Teachers of Science. In addition, he also described two other courses, Field Studies in Conservation Education and Everyday Science and Mechanics, as examples. The latter courses were taught a t Miami U n iv e rsity.^ Such courses concentrated on the
13Ibid., 195-196. 11,Ibid., 200. 15I b id ., 98. 119 functional aspects of the content of science and the func tional aspects of the resources in the science area. Richardson had a strong feeling that to produce a science teacher one must not rely on courses and credits, but on the "demonstration of competency." Therefore, his Justification for the "professionalization" of these subject matter courses in science resided in the factors of com petency needed by the teachers in the secondary school. The nature of the work in science by the high school students demanded, according to him, that the curriculum materials and experiences used for the education of the science teacher be professionalized.The major emphasis of such courses was science for the consumer because of the needs of high school scien ce. His proposed program of study was therefore partially based on "Some Major Factors in Competency for Teaching. According to the writer of the present thesis, the following factors of competency were used by Richardson as a basis for "science" courses for the teacher of science: 1. Utilizing the process of planning in daily living and in teaching. 2. Utilizing proficiently a wide range of materials and methods of Instruction.
l6Ibid., 101, 163. ^ Ib ld . , Appendix 1. 120 3. Control of the knowledge in the field within which one teaches and the ability to use it in terms of increasing the students’ intelligence about the world in which they liv e . Applying critical, reflective thinking (scientific method) to the solutions of problems, exemplifying it, and 1 Q teaching for it in school situations. It irritated him that the curricula for teacher edu cation had become too formalized. He envisioned that not only would the various "courses" be interrelated as mentioned above, but that continuous modification would be built into the curricula. Basic to the idea of a program of profes sional studies was the necessity for laboratory work. He viewed the laboratory as a place where one works toward the solution of certain problems.*9 one could conclude that these experiences in the laboratory were highly recommended, even as the basis for professional study. In the report of his doctoral research work, it was evidenced that he also accepted a list of twenty-four cri teria as a basis for his program for the education of prospective science teachers. Relative to subject-matter "course" recommendations, the following are pertinent: 1. The curriculum should provide the science teacher with knowledge in the field that will enable him (a) to meet
*^Ibld. , Appendix 1, 6. 19Ibid., 191. 121 proficiently present problems, (b) to understand and inter pret his environment intelligently, and (c) to have perspec tive in the scientific and technological realm of human a c tiv ity . 2. The curriculum should consist of meaningful ex periences ,meaningful because they find their origin in problem s. 3. The curriculum, in pursuance of the principle of learning by doing, should utilize the laboratory concept in its operation.20 His "Experience Curriculum" which was based on the above c r i t e r i a and experiences included sp e c ific recommen dations for the areas of general science and special science. The general science phase would enlarge the student's com petence and understanding with respect to science in living. 21 The development of a comprehensive "world picture" was a major goal in the study of general science. The under standing of everyday applications of science by the individ ual and by society were basic ccwpetencies to be achieved.^2 The realm of Special Science was to replace formal courses in content, and to include as its basic units, "functional units," such as conservation of resources or producing
20 Ibid., 228-229. 21Ibid., 227. 22Ibid., 227-228. 122 synthetic materials. Instead of "covering the material," he suggested experiences with content "through functional situations; functional in terms of man's activity."23 The emphasis was upon the content that functioned in the appli catio n . Upon the analysis of these two domains of the pros pective science teacher’s curriculum, it should be realized that the General Science sphere was responsible for present ing experiences that broadened the student’s ability to understand science in life, while the merit for the special ization in the Special Science rested in its providing experiences in order to use the methods of science, including scientific research in functional situations. Science was to function in the lives of people.
Toward a valid philosophical b asis Richardson's recommendations were based on what he believed to be a "valid philosophical and psychological basis," and he had attempted to profit by the wisdom and experience of others in the field of science and science ?li education as revealed in the literature. Again one will refer to the writings of J. D. Bernal, G. P. Cahoon, W. C. Croxton, John Dewey, S. R. Powers, E. S. Obourn, and
23Ibid., 328. 2**Ibid., 311. 123 W. Wrinkle, as well as T. Brailford Robertson, Victor H. N oll and A. W. Hurd and the way in which a l l of them con tributed to his conceptual frame of reference. As Richardson examined the literature for his research study, he concluded that "science teaching has also failed to bring out the human side of science, so that it has appeared cold and lifeless."2-5 Robertson2® who wrote that the specialists were responsible for this condition, also interpreted science as "the augmenting power to control" man's "destiny and obtain that ultimate comprehension of the universe"—the "supreme aspiration of mankind."2^ Science was viewed as the first and the greatest of the "humanities." Bernal2® implied in his writings that science should come into all subjects and required "humanization." He advocated that it could be made real to man by a reference to the immediate experience of ordinary life—a "living curriculum." He recommended an entire remodeling of college science. Wrinkle2^ proposed that a high school general science course was the place for meeting the needs
25lbid., H3-44. 2®T. Brailsford Robertson, "Science as a Vehicle of Education," in Science and Social Change, ed. by J. E. Thorton (Washington: Brookings Institution,1939), 111-113. 27lbid., 112. 28Bernal, The Social Function of Science, 2^6-2M7. 29wrinkle, 1^8-149. 12M and interests of the individual as he meets problematic situations in living. Croxton,3® who was concerned with the development of a continuous Twelve-year Science Program, addressed himself to the need for the reconstruction of science courses. Based on the reality that many science teachers will enter smaller high schools and be required to teach all of the science work, he declared that a greater professionalization of our science courses was indicated for the training of teachers at all levels.31 In light of the principal weakness of science and science teaching at that time, Richardson summarized these weaknesses, briefly: Since the material and spiritual welfare of society are of paramount importance there is a need for persons to study and teach science, not as science specialists, but as persons interested in causing science to contribute to the welfare of society. The science which they learn and teach should be organized about social concerns, and about the Interests and needs of boys and girls. In this the science should be made human. A major goal to be striven for in this is the achievement of the scientific method. New courses which ignore the present subject-matter boundaries will assist in providing teachers who can function as indicated a b o v e . 3 2
3®W. C. Croxton, "The Twelve-year Science Program from the Viewpoint of Colleges Training Teachers for Towns, Villages and Rural Schools," Science Education, XXII (Feb ruary, 1938), 62-63. 31I b id ., 63. 32Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 50-51. 125
His viewpoints on what science teaching ought to be were gleaned from many sources. Among these were W rinkle^ and his position that it was necessary to break down subject m atter com partm entalization; Bernal31* and W rinkle33 pointing out the desirability of teaching science for the achievement of the scientific method and scientific attitudes; Bernal3® and his position statements on the functional nature of science; and W rinkle's3^ declarations that there are other goals than the factual goal of knowing a mass of facts. After contemplating and expressing ideas of Bernal and Wrinkle in a concise and accurate way, Richardson^® summarized them. An a b s tra c t of th a t summary included the following: (1) compartmentalization of science should be discontinued, (2) a major goal of science is the application of the scientific method to all problems, (3) research should be used to develop the scientific method, (4) goals for secondary education should go beyond the factual,
(5) science is a functional aspect of our culture and
(6) the essential goal of science teaching is not the acqui sition of facts, but knowing where inform ation can be found.
33Wrinkle, New High School, 148-149.
3**Bernal, The Social Function of Science, 246, 348.
35y/rinkle, New High School, 150-151. 3^Bernal, The Social Function of Science, 246.
37W rinkle, New High School, 150, 248. 3®Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 55-67. When Richardson was reforming and restructuring his ideas on the abilities, functions and duties of the science teacher, he referred to Science in General Education,39 Obourn,1*®, H unter,^ Bernal1*^ and Powers **3 in particular. Prom the first reference he extracted that the science teacher should be able to "counsel students who show indi cation of troubles, worries, problems, difficulties and minor neuroses," "be an approachable, understanding, re spected and well-balanced adult," and "encourage reflective thinking."1^ Both Hunter **5 and Obourn^ supported the proposition that the necessity for a breadth of education goes beyond subject matter lines. Powers^ remarked on the lift function of the science teacher in the community. Bernal*3 expressiors were focused on the science teacher's growth and the
39C.S.S.C., General Education, 145-146, 313-315. i|0 Obourn, "Private-Progressive School," 400. li i ■‘■George W. Hunter, Science Teaching at Junior and Senior High School Levels—(New York: American Book Company, 1934), 51o. (Hereinafter referred to as Science.) ^Bernal, Social Function of Science. **3Powers, Education. lili ^C.S.S.C., General Education, 145-146, 313-315. ^Hunter, Science, 516. ^Obourn, "Private-Progressive School," 400. ^Powers, Education, 39-42. ^®Bernal, Social Function of Science, 247-248. 127 improvement of society. He proposed the formation of "a permanent standing commission composed of active and young research scientists and of experienced science teachers to keep under constant review the teaching of science and to suggest and bring into practice a continual change and improvement." As Richardson continued his thinking relative to this domain of science education, his focus of attention became the character of the experiences necessary for the teacher of science. His polestar was not "hours of credit," but "competency in teaching." In respect to this he referred to the words of Cahoon, "Why shouldn't courses be, then, the service agencies to which one goes to get guidance and experience in obtaining the skills and information requisite for certain competencies?"^ Some of his thoughts on the different types of science courses needed for teachers could be attributed to the writings of Hunter^0 and Noll.'*1 Richardson's position identified strongly with Hunter's position as expressed near the end of his writings in Science Teaching at Junior and Senior High School Levels, which advised that the "subsequent
^ g . p. Cahoon, "Competency in Science Teaching—Not Credit Hours," Science Education, XXVII
5°Hunter, Science, 5 15-517. 51V. H. Noll, "Science as an Organized Field of Study," Science Education, XXV (March, 1939), 125. subject matter courses given should provide special training in the teaching of science as well as in the subject matter 52 5^ itself.” Croxton, J as indicated earlier in the chapter, purported the idea that professionalization of subject 5i| matter courses was in order. Noll' stressed educating teachers by designing courses that are ’functional." Powers55 challenged the student of his thoughts with the proposition that the fact of over-specialization is not the main concern, but the type of overspecialization is the point to be questioned. "Specialization itself is not to be decried, for the advantages of personal mastery of an area of scientific thought are too numerous to be disregarded. But specialization for science teaching differs from specialization for other purposes."-'56 By implication he undergirded Richardson's position that the program of studies in science for teachers must be different from science courses for researchers—each science curriculum program would be a type of specialization.
52lb id . CO "Croxton, "The Twelve-year Science Program from the Viewpoint of Colleges Training Teachers for Towns, Villages and Rural Schools," 62-63. -^Noll, "Science as an Organized Field of Study," 125. 55powers, Education, 29. 56ibid. 129 At the time Richardson wrote his dissertation, he indicated that certain references like Hurd^ gave evidence of the existence of professionalized subject matter courses, but the problem itself was "relatively untouched."5® Accord ing to Cahoon^9 a direct attack upon the problem was made in the late thirties by The Ohio State University. Based on the writings of Powers**® Richardson suggested that the objectives of the secondary school be kept in mind in for mulating the programs of teacher education. The result would be professionalized subject matter courses. Richardson summarized: The curricular materials now provided for science teachers (particularly the "content courses") have been devised for such other persons as the pros pective research worker, and are therefore poorly suited to the needs of one who is to teach in the area of science in the secondary school. Profes- g, sionalization of subject-matter is greatly needed. Richardson concluded with the assertion that there was a reason for teaching for "the content of science."
■*^A. W. Hurd, "What is Professionalized Subject Mat ter in Teacher Training?" Science Education, XVI (February, 1932), 238-243. -*®Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 94. •*^G. P. Cahoon, "A Professional Laboratory Course for Science Teachers," Science Education, XXIV (February, 1940), 64-67. ^°S. R. Powers, "Research in Science Teaching," Teachers College Record, XXX (January, 1929), 340-341. ^Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 97-98. 130 "It is an outcome directly sought, and not a hoped-for inci dental."^2 In order to make the content more valuable, it must be chosen and organized into "functional areas." This outlook, based firmly on ideas in the report of the National Committee on Science Teaching,^3 directed educators to con sider the premise that the "prospective teacher become a scientist working with the science that relates directly to 64 living." The courses in science must be organized func tionally was the watchword.
Advocating "competencies" as c r i t e r i a The above position was articulated by Richardson in the years following the awarding of his doctorate. In 1945,
Richardson^ again expressed the thought that there was a need for courses different than the current science courses used to prepare the engineer and doctor. Science teachers, in his opinion, had a particular need to understand the social function of science and to pursue areas which were of a functional nature in the life of the individual. It is noteworthy that he based this recommendation on the kind of work the teacher must do at the high school level. He also
62Ibid., 307. 63powers, Education, 29-37. ^Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 306. ^Richardson,"Problems," 249-252. 131 urged educators to offer prospective teachers of science a much broader range of academic experiences.^ A few months earlier Richardson^ had been even more specific in his advocations. He lamented that science courses for the teachers of general science were inadequate. He criticized state departments for only selecting various separate academic courses for certification. Not only were these courses not "functionally related one to another" but "colleges of education did not provide adequate professional 68 integration." It was pertinent to the implementation of his concept that Richardson stipulated specifically where the responsibility rested for the implementation of appropriate courses. He specified that it was the responsibility of the teacher training institutions to organize academic and pro- 69 fessional courses appropriately. * During 19^5 veterans were returning from the war zones, but few men were preparing to teach science. This prompted Richardson to contemplate on "The Next Generation of Science Teachers."^0 He charged professional education with
6 6 I b i d . ^Richardson, "Trends," 202-210. Ibid., 206. 69lbid. , 202-210. 70 J. S. Richardson, "The Next Generation of Science Teachers," Metropolitan Detroit Science Review, VI (Septem ber, 1945),"5=10. 40. 132 the responsibility of providing new knowledge in both the professional and the disciplinary realm of the science teacher's education.71 His comment pertinent to science courses for science teachers was laboratory-oriented: "Science courses will mature into educational courses when we have learned to utilize the laboratory for exploration."72 One sensed in this war-flavored article the mood of urgency; he outlined some initial steps and then urged action. In 1950, Richardson7^ retrospectively reflected on the preparation of mathematics and science teachers during the first half of the twentieth century. One of the emphases he suggested for immediate consideration and possible inves tigation was the "provision for developing and evaluating competency in the various phases of science and mathematics teaching rather than dependence upon credit hours as an index of teaching preparation or effectiveness."7** Thus, he contributed to the evolving conception in education of what should be the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of a teacher or the courses used in his preparation.
71Ibid., 10. 72Ibid., 1»0.
73g . P. Cahoon and J . S. Richardson, "The P rep aratio n of Teachers," A Half Century of Science and Mathematics Teaching, Fiftieth Anniversary Volume of the Central Associ ation of Science and Mathematics Teachers, Oak Park, Illi nois: Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers, Inc., 1950, pp. 178-197.
7**Ibld., 195. 133
In March of 1950, Richardson75by Implication ex pressed several ideas regarding "science” courses. He de plored the slow progress being made in the effort to func- tionalize the physical science course. He attributed this in part to a lack of understanding by the science teachers as to how to proceed. Regarding courses for teacher education, he again referred to Cahoon*s^ work on the competency of a teacher. At this period, Richardson interpreted that Cahoon*s viewpoint attached great significance to the fact that the use of the experimental approach to learning depended upon the competence of the teacher.77 Relative to this particular domain Cahoon had outlined a program for providing for these competencies. In January of the following year, Cahoon and Richard son co-authored a book, Methods and Material for Teaching General and Physical Science.78 The search continued for those competencies that must be part of an adequately edu cated science teacher. Richardson wrote in the preface of the book words to the effect that he thought the present courses did not help the prospective science teacher acquire those attributes which have characterized teachers who are
"^Richardson, Experimental Science, 1-3^• ^Cahoon, "Competency in Science Teaching—Not Credit Hours," 55. ^Richardson, Experimental Science, 8. 78 Richardson and Cahoon, Methods. 131* able to provide "genuine experiences" for their students. "The academic and professional preparation of teachers have been of a formal nature; their teaching, as a consequence, has tended to be equally form al.H e asserted that teachers of science lacked the competence to provide "genuine experi ence ." Richardson was a member of a conference group th a t declared in 1953 th a t "there is a more r e a l i s t i c approach in designing courses and course patterns for the preparation of teachers in the general field of science rather than for Just one p a r tic u la r science. A few years later, in a major address to the National Science Teachers Association in Berkeley, California, 81 Richardson still voiced the maxim that competence was central in the education of teachers. His departure at that time was with respect to the concern for specific attributes essential to the production of effective teachers of science in the elementary and secondary school. The fifth problem mentioned in his speech, one of a list of seven major prob lems in science education, was addressed to the essential attributes—aspects of competence— of the effective science
^ Ibid. t v. 80 F le tc h e r G. Watson and o th e rs , C r itic a l Years Ahead in Science Teaching (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1953), 39. ®^Richardson, "Professional Discipline," 169-172, 198. 135 teacher. "This may be a stubborn problem, but our commonly- used pattern of subject-matter courses In science and our professional courses in education have not demonstrated the effectiveness that we should like to h a v e . " 8 ^ His attention was centered on the dichotomy found in programs for the education of prospective science teachers—the knowledge of science and technology and the knowledge of professional competence. Repeatedly he placed the responsibility for the adequately educated science teacher on the colleges and universities and bemoaned the fact that these institutions were not formulating and successfully defining minimum standards of competence which could be studied by the teacher certification boards.83 In his major book for science teachers, which was pub lished Just before Sputnik, Richardson81* indicated aspects which would be an integral part of a course in professional education for science teachers. His textbook was read by students of science education. Richardson's sights were continually on (a) the competencies necessary for an effec tive science teacher, and also on (b) the integration of not only the academic sciences but all of science with the necessary professional aspects. One procedure advised for
82I b i d . , 171.
8 3 i b i d . , 169. 8ii , Richardson, Science Teaching, 356. consideration by curriculum thinkers concerned with graduate programs for science teachers was that they must bring the "knowledge of professional education and the content of science together."85 He desired to amalgamate the "logic of science" with its "psychological usefulness for the student. He appealed for consideration of the idea that the subject matter of science must be focused on the "problems, inter- gg ests and needs of the student." To the researchers in the domain of science education he suggested the study of those attributes of competency necessary for an effective teacher-scientist. 87 At the beginning of the book, he placed the responsibility for the continued growth of the teacher of science in professional and scientific competence "four-square" on the shoulders of QO the science teacher. It was not only the science teacher' responsibility but, also, his opportunity.
Im plem entation of some of h is ideas When Sputnik was placed in orbit, Richardson was the director of a National Science Foundation Academic Year Institute for science and mathematics teachers. One would anticipate that in the "newly designed institute courses"
0 5 i b i d .
8 6 I b i d . 87I b i d ., 358. 88Ibid., 4. 137 It would be possible to discern Richardson's objectives being implemented. In the opinion of the present writer, the "institute courses" offered that first year were characterized by two aspects—excellent college teaching and an emphasis on the recent developments in each of the dis ciplines. The excellent college teachers used at times methods of teaching that were appropriate on the secondary level. So, to some extent, in the opinion of the current researcher, Richardson made progress toward his "different" science courses for teachers of science in the secondary school. In retrospect, it is noteworthy that attempts were made by Richardson to design new science courses for meet ing science teachers' needs for knowledge of new technolog ical developments, such as the course taught by various engineering instructors at The Ohio State University in the summer of 1956 (College of Engineering,"Short Course in Engineering Fundamentals for High School Science and Mathe matics Teachers").®^ The "engineering course for teachers" included laboratory demonstrations, tours, samples of materi als, guidance materials, safety lectures, mimeographed lec ture materials, visual aids and "open-ended" laboratory experiments in the various domains of engineering. The
^ C o l l e g e of Engineering, "Short Course in Engineering Fundamentals for High School Science and Mathematics Teachers," Outline of course. Columbus, Ohio, 1956, p. 1. 138 course organizational^ did not serve as a basis for the pattern for "new" courses in the Academic Year Institute pro gram d ire c te d by Richardson. The "lab practicum," viewed originally as a "profes sionalized" laboratory science course by Richardson,9® was taken by many students of science education during this period following Sputnik. Richardson, as indicated in the topics of the articles that he wrote following Sputnik, was involved with planning not only his own new facilities for the education of science teachers but on suggesting facili ties, in general, for the education of science teachers and the science education of youth in the United States. The period following Sputnik was a time for Richardson to seriously reconsider the education of youth and teachers in science. Richardson^* pressed in both his writings and speeches for providing better classroom teachers in order to furnish quality education in America’s science program. Circumspectively he wondered if the teachers were teaching science half as well as they knew how to teach the disci p l i n e . ^
Richardson wrote much about science facilities neces sary for the teaching of science both for the ;dent and the
9°Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 98. 9*Richardson, "Putting Quality in a Science Program," 11-15. 92Ibid., 15. 139 teacher. In February, I960, Richardson9^ described the facilities he used in his teacher education program at The Ohio State University. He delineated the unique facilities "needed to provide those professional experiences which contribute in vital ways to effective teaching. The profes sional laboratory—a center for science and mathematics education—can house such facilities for the needed a ctiv itie s.11^1* In 1961 he maintained that the professional labora tory was necessary in the development of a teacher’s "pro fessional interest." His concept of a teaching "center" in the area of science was based on the premise that "learning to teach science requires involvement in the activities and situations typical of effective science teaching."95 The design of the "center" at The Ohio State University was based on the needs of particular courses. "The courses con cerned with the science laboratory are provided for all students with major areas in science to integrate profes sional insights and laboratory competence."96 in such courses resources such as materials, tools and representative
^Richardson and Schlessinger, "Center," 6-9. 9**Ibld. , 6. 9^jqhn s. Richardson and Fred R. Schlessinger, Science Education at The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1961)* 37.
96I b l d ., 38. 140 apparatus for science teaching were provided.97 In the Introduction to the above document, Rlchardson^S prescribed that the teacher of science must have both academic and professional strengths. Regarding science courses, he envisioned the teacher-sdentist as not only having command of the "separate branches of science and their processes," but that he also understand "science as a single integrated field."99 Teachers of science therefore must have a depth in at least one field of science including research as well as a breadth in all of the sciences. To illustrate that Richardson was continually con templating the role of laboratory facilities in the science education of youth and teachers, he was an editor of such a book in 1954^"®^ and a second edition in 1961.^®^ With r e spect to professionalizing the content courses for the teacher, he entreated: While the science courses should broaden and deepen the knowledge of biological, physical and earth sciences for all future science teachers, the courses should also provide opportunities to professionalize the content, methods and materials so that other teachers can sense how their work may be enriched through an understanding of science. 02
97Ib id . " i b i d . , 2.
" i b i d . lOORichardson, School F acilities. ^Richardson, Facilities for Science.
102Ib id ., 6. Some of the ideas which appeared in his two books on facilities were expressed earlier by Richardson.In a 1953 a r t i c l e which was w ritte n w ith G. P. Cahoon and Ralph W. Lefler, he wrote a corollary which indicated that provi sion for facilities for the education of the science teacher are based on competencies needed by the science teacher. His analysis of present science content courses resulted in his criticism that they tended to be too formal in nature and made very little or no provision for the "needs of the science teachers." He encouraged the "profes sionalization of content and realized that in institutions that had content courses which were professionalized, there would be less of a need for "centers." "The teacher's need of a functional background in the content of science is 10i| fundamental. ..." The science areas o f geology, astronomy, conservation, meteorology, aviation, electronics, and geography were designated as ones which were fruitful prospects for making the science teacher's background in science functional. His conceptual scheme enlisted the academic courses and the professional courses as an "insep- 105 arable team" in preparing science teachers. Because it was the purpose of the "center" to provide first-hand
^0^Richardson, Cahoon and Lefler, "Facilities for Science Teacher Education," 299-308. 1Ql>Ib ld . , 300. 105Ib id ., 300, 303. 142 experience for the teacher of science in our schools, it was a necessary requirement that equipment and material gener ally used in the schools must be part of this "center.u1®8
Integration—specific and general In the Fifty-ninth Yearbook Richardson1^ wrote about "The Education of the Science Teacher," in collaboration with Louise Combs, A lfred G a rre tt, W illiam F. G oins, Clark Hubler, and Stanley E. Williamson. Included in the chapter was the idea that the study of science should help the teacher of science understand "the world about them" and its content should be selected on the needs of the pupils and the teacher ". . .in addition to solving practical problems, 1 fi 8 science can be a source of intellectual satisfaction." An underlying assumption was the assertion that "direct inves tigation through observation and experimentation should be exemplified in each course."1^ one could extract the posi tion that courses should include knowledge of science and its origins, but also the social impact of science. It was acknowledgedthat the study of science had "two dimensions,
lo6 I b i d ., 306. 1®^Richardson and others, "The Education of the Science Teacher," 258-278. lo8Ib id ., 259. 109lbid. 143 breadth and depth. "HO The concept of depth for the teacher- scientist Is not the same as the depth for researcher- scientist. Two specific types of "special'' courses for experienced teachers of science returning to college were explained. One had an emphasis on advanced general work in science and laboratory work and the other was a "recent advances" type of course. The latter was the approach used at The Ohio State University and examples were given. In this chapter the definition of the competent teacher included the dimension of a "general liberal educa tion with both breadth and depth" and skills in teaching for careful thinking. 112 Competence was not only the centrum of Richardson's reflections on the. structuring of courses in science but was also the center of attention when he con- 113 templated the basis for certification recommendations. The relationship between the academic programs and the professional programs for the prospective science teacher, was as stated in the conclusion, to be complementary and required cooperation of all involved.
110Ibid., 266. in Ibid., 270-273. 112I b i d ., 274. 113Ib ld . lxl*Ibid., 278. mu In May of 1961 Richardson11** took a different tact but did not change his ultimate destination. He was in volved again with the facilities for science teachers and for the teaching of science in the secondary school, but he made the facilities mobile. He designed a research project using a mobile laboratory for the in-rservice education of teachers. The integration of the scientific disciplines and the inte gration of all of science with the professional aspects of a science teacher were projected outcomes. He endeavored to improve the academic competence and the professional compe tence of teachers "simultaneously, i.e., within the same functional setting of learning."116 The professional con tributions and the academic components of the mobile labora tory were planned to be intimately related. During this same year Richardson 11^ wrote a paper delineating the science education program at The Ohio State University. He repeated his idea that the need was for not only professional courses in science education, but that "the competent science teacher has such command of the separate branches of science and their processes that he knows science as a single integrated field."11® Both the professional
11^Richardson and Diehl, Mobile Laboratory, 2. ll6Ibid., 2,5. H^Richardson Schlessinger, Science Education, 2. l l 8 Ib id . 145 and the academic were to be based in "a direct experience approach to le a rn in g ."H 9 when Richardson wrote on p ro fe s sional and academic competence needed by the teaching s c i e n t i s t , i t was not a q u estion of " e ith e r- o r ," i t was b o th . In 1962 Richardson edited an issue of a publication 120 devoted to "School Science in Its Social Setting" with Schlessinger as one of the authors. Schlessinger maintained a parallel view to Richardson regarding the teacher of science as the vital element in plotting the course for science in the schools of America. Consequently, the course he plotted was one from a basis of demonstrated competence to some more effective program of teacher education.121 In a publication written about 1962, Richardson wrote two pages on "Professionally Oriented Academic Courses."122 Because these courses had been relatively successful, according to Richardson, he specified their desirable dis tinguishing qualities. He suggested that the planners of "science content" courses for teachers of school science had
119Ibid., 4. 120Richardson, "School Science in Its Social Setting," 237-238. 121 Fred R. Schlessinger, "The Preparation and Certi fication of Science Teachers," Theory Into Practice, I (Decem ber, 1962), 271-276. John S. Richardson, "The Education of Science Teachers," Columbus, Ohio, n.d., 32-33. (Mimeographed.) observed the following guidelines when planning their courses 1. All courses in the major sequence were related. 2. Both the product and the process were stressed. 3. Investigation was included in laboratory work. 4. The course concluded with a minor problem in research which was related to the work of the teacher. 5. Distinguishing characteristics of the course in cluded the utilization of secondary school teaching methods, m aterials, and equipment.*23 1 p|i Again in 1964 Richardson and Schlessinger wrote about the professional laboratory at The Ohio State Uni versity, and explained that "probably its most important function is to help science and. mathematics teachers learn that the solutions to their professional problems, as with the problems of science, can often be most effectively found in their own laboratory investigations."*23 Writing with 126 Howe a year later, Richardson indicated that the "three practicians in the teaching of science have been developed to provide for the unique needs of teachers"in several content areas:—biology, earth science and physical science. The
*23Ibid., 33. *2i*John S. Richardson and Fred R. Schlessinger, "Ohio State University," Science Education News (July, 1964), 2. *25Ibid. 126 Howe and Richardson, Centers, 137. 1M7 lab o rato ry was a place fo r the tea ch e r to become competent "In using his school science laboratory as his own profes sional research laboratory—a place where he and his pupils work together in problem solving."127 Richardson is ever conscious of the fact that a broad array of materials and facilities must be available for the education of a teacher of science. The "clay of curricular experience" for the prospec tive science teacher was to Richardson amorphous and pliable. In addition to appropriate experiences in the areas of gen eral education, professional education, and specialized education in the sciences, he advanced the unique position that any program have provisions built into it for change. 12 8 His position statement declared that programs, and elemental courses in the programs, must be dynamic and continually reviewed and modified on the basis of the evi dence gleaned from new knowledge in the professional and
academic disciplines.
Contemporary ideas on "science content** courses fo r teachers"* In the spring of 1966 he voiced his ideas relative to 129 the nature of science courses for science teachers. * He
127 lb id . 128I b i d . , 193-lMO. l^Richardson, "Real Horizon," 19-23. 148 debated the point that researcher-scientists should have a different program of education than teacher-scientists. His argument was the prospective teacher of science certainly needed a "substantial, extensive, intellectually demanding preparation in science. But his preparation included "academic needs that are not appropriate to any significant 130 degree for the future researcher and vice versa." J His argument did not always fall on deaf ears. Recent writings evidenced once again that Richardson based his recommendations regarding teacher education pro grams on factors of competency needed by the teachers of science. His basic premise evolved from an accepted list of competencies or factors of competencies to an amorphorous position—a plea for research in this area to single out those behaviors unique to the teaching of science.*31 The appeal to fundamental research spanned the spectrum from the elementary teacher of science to the teacher-scholar in higher education. Richardson thought of science and education as com plementary; he specified that research in the field of science education could improve in quality by giving atten tion to "that dimension of research in science education which reflects both the academic and the professional components
130 J Ibid., 22. ^3lRichardson and Howe, Centers, 122. 149 of the field—the scientific and the educational."*32 revealing that in his selection of personnel for the "cen ters,” he wanted the faculty in a "center” to be chosen from three areas: professional, scientific fields and related social sciences. In centers engaged in all aspects of science education he desired one person from each of the three science areas—biological, physical and earth sciences.^33 ne saw strength in the cooperation of the scientific and the professional faculties. Science education to him was a "hybrid" of the social sciences and the natural sciences and the orientation of its research "should reflect its inheritance from its parentage."134 There are many schools of thought in science educa tio n . Williamson^3^ brought up the issue of whether academic graduate programs for the preparation of the teacher-scien- tists should be the same as for producing the researcher- scientists. This had been a Gordian knot for Richardson for some time. Williamson realized that there was "some general agreement that science teachers should have both breadth and depth of preparation in the basic science. ”136 Some critics of education believed the quality of the hours was more
132Ibld., 9. 1 ^ I b id . , 1 1 8 -1 1 9 . ^ibid., 106. 135Ib id ., 51. 136Ibid. 150 Important than the number of the hours earned In a science course for the education of teachers of science. Another school believed In teaching science teachers "subject matter for Its own s a k e . "*37 Richardson would more than lik e ly fall In the first school of thought and action. Research Is evidently needed. Because Richardson realized that the current science courses for science teachers were a major problem In science education, he wrote a fine summary of his current viewpoints In an article that was titled, "Evaluating a High School Science Program."138 introduction to this section labored the obvious point—introduction of science into school and college programs necessitated research and study. The seriousness of this conspicuous problem was due to characteristics apparent in both the academic and the profes sional programs in the universities and colleges—tradi tional, lacking vision, out-dated and too formal. He reached the conclusion that the courses in science were in need of "academic refurbishing." "If such upgrading could be brought about, a professional orientation and design could then be accomplished."*39
137Ibid., 51-52. 138RiChar 11>0Ibld., 201. l 4 l Ib id . iJi? National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Guidelines for Preparation Pro grams of Teachers of Secondary School Science and Mathe matics (Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1961). 152 with the materials, assistance and support to mold the cur ricular clay. Richardson appeared to be confident as he based his recommendation for standardization of requirements for the licensing of teachers of science on competencies—upon fundamental research with respect to demonstrated qualifica tions for teachers of science at all levels of education, inclu d in g college.one could conclude that Richardson thoughtfully looked toward research as a way of helping to meet our emerging needs; he distinctly decried the paucity of such research. 144 In The Supervision of School Science Programs, he devoted some of his attention to the nature of the academic science courses per se. It disturbed him that the general education courses in science did not teach the student to investigate in science, and, conversely, the potential scientist did not have an adequate base in the humanities. In fact, to him, the humanities as presented in higher educa tion programs of study were too limited in scope. He sup ported the role of the sciences as one of the more "human 145 parts" of the humanities. After all, science is the work 1[>3Ibid. , 202-203. llili A Stotler, Richardson and Williamson, Supervision, 21. “ S lbld. 153 of creative living men, not machines, whose ideas are the indlspensible ingredients for its advancement. His position regarding the nature of science courses was one of advocating integrated science courses. The teacher of science must have a better insight into the structure and development of science. On the other side of the desk, he hoped that the academician viewed his particu lar discipline of science as part of the whole of science and as part of the whole of knowledge. The academician should develop a deeper insight into the process of teach- in g .1"® Support for this position increased. Appropriately, scientists at institutions of higher learning were becoming involved in science education. V. Lawrence Parsegian^? of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, recently authored a book for use in general education in the sciences which exemplify the integration of some of the disciplines of science. Inte grated science was discussed as a basis for social and cultural progress by several speakers at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Dallas on December 30, 1968. Other prominent scientists indicated 11>6Ibld., 94. L. Parsegian, A. Meltzer, A. S. Luchins, and K. S. Kinerson, Introduction to Natural Science—Part I--The Physical Sciences (New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1968). 154 changes needed in the scientific enterprise, such as: Increased mental agility in moving from one's own science discipline or interacting system to others. This should result in increasingly inter related science disciplines. More vision in seeing one's own specialty as part of the cosmological whole. This should help illuminate values and pur poses of life.148 In his most recent book, Richardson*1^ supported most of the above positions. Historically, a 1946 report of the Cooperative Committee on the Teaching of Science*^ advo cated a position somewhat similar to Richardson's viewpoint that the preparation of science teachers should be differ ent from the preparation of research scientists. He ques tioned the appropriateness of a 1959 report^l Qf the Co operative Committee which specified conventional science courses for an educational program for teachers of science. 152 A third report, which was written by the Joint Commission l2*®Stotler, Richardson and Williamson, Supervision, 114. 1 ^Richardson, Williamson and Stotler, Education, 61, 65. 70, 71, 145. 150cooperative Committee on the Teaching of Science and Mathematics, "The Preparation of High School Science and Mathematics Teachers," School Science and Mathematics, XLVI (February, 1946), 107-1TB7 *5lAlfred B. Garrett, "Recommendation for the Prepar ation of High School Teachers of Science and Mathematics— 1959," School Science and Mathematics, LIX (April, 1959), 281-2897 152j0i nt Commission on the Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics, Improving Science and Mathematics Programs in American Schools (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 960 i ), 23• 155 on the Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education sup ported a position which he could support, that science courses for prospective "teaching scientists" should serve two purposes: one liberalizing and the other professional. This has been his stand during the whole thirty-year period. Mitigating against the science course serving the purposes of a d u a lis t was "the g en eral exodus of the compe tent faculty memberd' which occurred in many teachers' 153 colleges and had deleterious effects upon the students. Richardson was upset about the exodus and the teacher- scholar in higher education who had adequate background in one field of science, but little or no interest in the pro fessional aspects of teacher education.His dictum is that science education is a hybrid field—natural science and social science. In the book Richardson explained his conception of the competence of the science teacher. His views are of particu lar importance here inasmuch as he gave indication that the layman's concept of the competence of the teacher of science was relative to the degree in which science content had been 153Richardson, Williamson and Stotler, Education, 17. 156 mastered by him; the professional aspect was minor.*55 This conflict required resolution. The next chapter of the study will be a detailed study of the concept of science in general education. Be cause, customarily, introductory science courses are part of the general education of prospective teachers of science, the following qualities of such courses, as identified by Richardson, are listed: 1. Considers science as a process. 2. Considers and develops the way scientific ideas have been developed. 3. Develops a relation of the process and the content of science to everyday phenomena and problems of living. 4. Develops the relation of science to other dis c ip lin e s . 5. Develops the interrelations among the various fields 156 of science. Richardson made a sensitive analysis of how the "con tent" science courses and the professional courses were viewed by the prospective teacher of science. The prospective teacher perceived the first as "factual, precise, concise, and, as often used in the classroom, a matter of recall of 157 memorized information" while the second was less formal 155Ibid., 19-20. 156Ibid., 27-28. 157Ibid., 30. 157 and less specific. Richardson’s perception of the second was that they were more general in nature, but fruitful in helping the teacher of science to help his students to think.*58 £ method of resolution proposed by Richardson would be the identification of a common goal of both aspects and the varying of the "content vehicle" and the "instruc tional procedures" to achieve this goal. The prospective teacher of science could be evaluated relative to his growth toward this goal.^59 Richardson's criteria for advanced academic work for the pre-service preparation of teachers included (1) under standing the structure of science, (2) understanding the impact of society on science and technology, (3) understand ing more advanced general concepts, and (^) combining these understandings to help in his development of more effective curricula in secondary school science.The last criterion reflected the common aspect to advanced academic courses in science and professional education. In 1938 the Center for Science Education was developed at The Ohio State University and contained a broad range of resources, both scientific and professional. The practlcums evolved. The professional and "subject matter" relationship 158Ibld. 159lbid. l6oIbld., 98. 158 of these educational courses was described in 1968 in his explanation of these courses. "A practicum is conceived as an educational experience in which a student studies the concepts within certain phenomena of science with a view to their incorporation within the proposed science curriculum for the school."^* He concluded that "because of a shared faculty appointment with the Department of Geology, the institutional program and resources are enriched through the resources of that department."*^2 Once again Richardson indicated the benefits of c-ooperation between the academic and professional departments. When one searches for some of the philosophical roots in this domain of science education, one could again repeat the men whose ideas affected Richardson in the domain of the method(s) of science—Priestly, Burke, Franklin, Agassiz, Huxley, and Whitehead.Science courses for science teachers not only were based on the objective concerned with the methods of science, but Richardson specified that the teacher of science be assigned some research participation experience for development of what Conant*^1* termed the 16s "tactics and strategy" of science. *' l6lIbid., 115. l62I b ld . l63Ibid., 160-166. l64conant, On Understanding Science, 26. l65RiChai.dson, Williamson, and Stotler, Education, U6-1M7. Other men Influenced Richardson's Ideas. John Dewey's Ideas left their Imprint on the development of Richardson's ideas.In The Education of the Science Teacher,***7 Powers brought the student of his thought to the important function of the science teacher, namely, that of helping his students discover and solve meaningful problems lfifi by the methods of science. Experimental courses by Laton and Powers,so-called "curriculum" studies evaluated by Goodlad,*70 ^he unified science courses by Slesnick and S how alter,*71 the laboratory-centered course in general physical science by Hale and Woodfield,*^ and team teaching all were incorporated in the conceptual framework of Richardson. After reflecting on these ideas, Richardson declared that it was imperative that the teaching of science in higher education be improved because (1) it lacked insight *66Ibid., 166. 16 7 'Powers, Education. l68Ibid., 29. *^Laton and Powers, New Directions in Science Teach ing, 38-68. *70John I. Goodlad, School Curriculum Reform in the United States (New York: Fund for the Advancement of Educa tion, 1964), 70-71. 171 Slesnick and Showalter, "Program Development in Unified Science," 5*1-55. *72Hale and Woodfield, "General Physical Science," 2*1-26. 160 with respect to the learning process, (2) secondary students who had new curricula were hindered in colleges, and (3) the preparation of teachers of science at all levels was impos sible until the teaching of science in higher education improved.^ 3 Again we note a plea for cooperation—a co ordinated effort in the preparation of teachers of science at all levels of education, including graduate school. With his conclusion that events had limited the development of curricula for teachers of science and replica tion of present out-moded science courses and courses in the 17** separate disciplines persisted, ' Richardson's most recent evaluation of the status of science courses for teachers included th e comments th a t (1) t h e i r development is only "partially explored," (2) such "professionalized content courses" had been studied for many years, (3) only recently has there been any general recognition of special courses for teachers in higher education, and (4) the role of special courses in science at the advanced graduate level is "yet to be determined."175 ^ appeared that the "profes sionalized science course" is more of a vision than a reality in present programs for the education of teachers of 173Richardson, Williamson, and Stotler, Education, 171*. 17i*Ibld., 186. 175ibld., ll|l*-li*5. 161 science. In the words of Richardson, "much research and 176 experience are needed if the promises are to be fulfilled." Summary Three of the questions which were directed at the writings of Richardson during the period of thirty years considered by this study are (1) What position did Richardson take on "science content" courses for teachers of science? (2) How did these position statements evolve? and (3) What are the philosophical roots of these position statements? From his list of competencies in 1939 to his criteria for general education in 1968, Richardson asserted that con tent courses were needed for the preparation of teachers of science both in breadth and in depth. This position was designated by Williamson in 1966 for further research. The general course in science as recommended by Richardson evolved very little in one of its aspects, which was that the functional background in science is fundamental. His'Vorld picture" in 1939 reflected some of Cahoon's ideas, and his concept that general science was directly related to living and should be organized functionally was partially based on the ideas of Noll, National Committee on Science Teaching, and Powers. This was specifically reaffirmed in 1953 with L e fle r and Cahoon by the ax io m atical statem en t, "functional background in science is fundamental." His major 176Ibid., 145. 162 book expounded the previous ideas and focused on the prob lems, Interests and needs of the students. His latest criteria included the idea that science should be related to problems of living. Paralleling this development, was his emphasis in this general course on the scientific method. The development of this concept was studied in detail in the previous chapter. One is able to make the conclusion that an area of depth in science for the teacher of science was always recom mended by Richardson, but the emphasis within this area changed from a mastery of the scientific method and academic respectability of 19^2 as advocated by Bernal and Wrinkle, and, from specialization in a functional area as purported by Powers in that same year, to call for research and research participation with men of science. The latter endeavor would help accomplish Bernal’s goal of understanding the generalized methods of science and Conant's goal of under standing the "tactics and strategy" of science, respectively. By breaking down compartments and boundaries, Richardson continually, during this thirty-year period, hoped that science courses be integrated, internally and exter nally—with other sciences and with other disciplines. This position was earlier stated by Hunter and supported by Obourn and Wrinkle. Recently he desired that teachers of science understand science as a single integrated field. By this complete integration he envisioned it as leading to an 163 understanding of a cosmological whole and a resulting posi tion relative to the values and purposes of life. One of the central aspects of this chapter was his concept of "professionalized science content" courses, which was based on his dictum that science courses for research scientists are not adequately designed for teachers of science and the premise that science education is a hybrid— made up of social and natural sciences. Action, based on his basic assumptions, took many forms as he cooperated with men of science in the education of teachers of science. Croxton, Hunter, Powers, and Hurd defined and des cribed "professionalized" subject matter courses. The early emphasis was on the aspects of social and community life and the applications of science, and it was based on the needs of the teacher of science in the secondary school. Cahoon's practlcum which was viewed by Richardson as a "professional subject matter course" evolved to become a professional laboratory course integrating professional insights and laboratory competence and concurrently development the con cept of the "center." In the latter part of the period, his colleagues, Schlessinger and Howe, both, at different times, collaborated with him in describing this work. In the most recent years he received support for his concept from the Joint Commission, which advocated that science courses for teachers serve two purposes—liberaliz ing and producing professionalism. He looked for the factual 164 precise science to complement the generalized area of pro fessional education in order to achieve the common goal of helping the teacher of science grow toward designing effec tive curricula in the secondary school. His strategy and tactics included a professional orientation and design with the "refurbishing” of academic science courses for the teachers of science. Another phase of this whole concept is the tenacious hold Richardson had on his premise that the competencies of an effective teacher of science were a basis for recommenda tions and action. Curriculum thinking based on the excel lent work of the distinguished teacher of school science must be cognizant of the prior ideas of Wrinkle and Powers, the particulars of the unified science curriculum, the laboratory oriented courses, classical committee reports, and the basis of the new "curricular studies." Beginning with Cahoon's "competency not credit hours" and Richardson’s list of competencies in his major study, Richardson's sites were on the quality of the experiences as he designed for achievement of the desirable attributes by prospective teach ers of science. However, beginning in the mid-50's and continuing to the end of the period, he stressed research at all levels of teaching in order to determine the competen cies or attributes of a teacher of science with excellence. With respect to competencies, Richardson referred to Cahoon (his list of competencies), The Ohio State University 165 Faculty in the College of Education (Factors in Competency, 1942), Progressive Education Association writers (the com petency of guidance), Obourn (competency with respect to breadth of education), Hunter (professionalized courses), Bernal (science methods generalized), Powers (competency of helping students solve problems), and Schlessinger (demon strated competency for teacher education programs). Richardson theorized that laboratory work was basic to courses in science and courses in professional studies. This b a sic theorem was based on Dewey’s "learning by doing"; Cahoonfeand Lefler’s position that science facilities are needed to implement a competency of an effective teacher of science; Schlessinger's purporting the dual role of the laboratory,in the academic and in the professional areas; the view collaborated by Howe that laboratory work was necessary in "centers" in order to help the teacher of science design his own high school research laboratory classroom; and, the importance in science education of "investigation" as held by Priestly, Burke, Franklin, Agassiz, Huxley, Whitehead, and other men of science interested in science education. One aspect of his ideas with respect to "science content" courses for the teacher of science, was his desire to humanize science courses—scientists are human beings, too. In 1939, with Cahoon, he wrote about the role of important men of science and in 1967 he wrote th a t science was the most human part of the humanities. He disliked the cold, lifeless 166 science of some teachers of science and leaned toward the Ideas of the "living curriculum" of Bernal, the "science is living" of Wrinkle, the "science in the community" of Powers, and Robertson's position of teaching for the comprehension of the universe and the control of man's destiny. One of the most sensitive areas in the domain of science education is certification of science teachers. Science curriculum (courses) referred to in the certifica tion of teachers should be based on demonstrated competence according to Richardson. The 19^6 Report of the Cooperative Committee supported the position that different science courses for the teachers of science were required than the courses in science designed for the research scientist. Richardson delineated the responsibility. Academic institu tions were to be responsible for courses for teachers of science, but teachers were responsible for their own con tinued growth. Recently Richardson wrote about the obvious lack of institutional interest in the preparation of teachers of science. Surprising to some present-day curriculum makers in the field of science would be the idea of "recent advances" science courses dating back at least to the writings of Cahoon and Richardson in 1939. Some of the recent recommendations of national committees were challenged by Richardson. Richardson looked for other, more imaginative, "science courses" than the "old patterned" ones. He wrote 167 that some college teachers of science lacked Insight Into the learning process, therefore secondary students with new background In high school science were being hindered by out-moded science courses in college. Finally, Richardson concluded that the preparation of teachers of school science depend a great deal on the teacher-scholars In science departments at Institutions of higher education. Williamson recently proposed that this area be researched. Richardson decried the paucity of research in this area. Underlying this concept of different "science content courses" for the teacher of school science is the appeal for curriculum change in the higher educational programs for the teachers of science. Richardson holds that curriculum for science teachers must have "built-in" change and provisions for modifications as one searches to provide "genuine experiences." Bernal underscored this point that improve ment means continuous change. Richardson advised that as one attempts to change "too formal" science courses, he would be impeded by the college science professor who dislikes "new" courses and needs advisory services, the department head who dislikes any new program to administrate, the layman who views "mastery of content" as supreme and has no professional dimen sion in his concept of the fine teacher of school science, and the financial officer who needs to raise the funds for innovations. In his writings with Howe, he advocated 168 provisions for change. Recently he saw on the horizon that "different” science courses were gaining recognition. He desired more research—research with respect to the content of science in a professional educational setting. The above conclusions and generalizations were made by the present researcher in a particular domain of science education—"science content" courses, their role and struc ture. The study of the role of another domain of science education, "Science in General Education," must necessarily include some educational aspects of the social function of science, of the methods of science, and, as indicated earlier in the present chapter, of the content of science. Therefore the formal study of Richardson's concepts with respect to science in general education was appropriately and purposely researched following the previous three domains of science education. The next chapter of the study was appropriately titled, "Science in General Education." CHAPTER V SCIENCE IN GENERAL EDUCATION What knowledge is of most worth?—the uniform reply is—Science. —Herbert Spencer Lectures on Education Down through the ages outstanding men of science— Faraday, Tyndall, Jeans, Huxley—did not view it beneath their dignity to write popular books and present popular lectures for the specific purpose of interpreting science to "the common man in the street." They had a firm faith in the educability of man. They had a sense of mission that bridged the apathy and the short-sightedness of the over specialized man of science. In a more recent and more formal frame of reference, John Sanford Richardson, too, sought to help the citizen understand science. Many times, more than likely, he asked rhetorically, "What does the discipline of science have to offer the student of general education?" The formation of hypotheses, the establishment of basic assumptions, and the determinations of tentative answers and paths of action were distinctive of his professional work during a thirty-year period of the study. His ideas pertaining to the function 169 170 of science in general education became part of one of his most amorphous conceptual schemes. No present day educator will dispute the need for more and better programs in general education at all levels. On what basis are these programs conceived Is the question that must be asked. Harold Taylor,1 in his chapter on "The Philosophical Foundations of General Education," considered the concept of general education to be based on an "absolute-relative" scale. He stated that there are those who believe the universe can be made meaningful by the acceptance of a set of self-evident principles which are understood by a study of Western tradition. Others think that the history of Western man, in all facets, has given man knowledge to be handed down to the young, preserved and expanded by new discoveries, the fruit of man’s imagination. Others believe that "the universe is in a state of process whose outlines can be partially seen with the aid of science and that man, as part of nature, fulfils the responsibility of his humanity by acting upon nature to the benefit of man." Others, Taylor wrote, formulate new systems of thought.3 The discernment of Richardson's position and National Society for the Study of Education, The Fifty-first Yearbook, Part I., General Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), 20-45. 2I b i d . , 45. 3Ib id . 171 basis for his position on science In general education Is one of the reasons for the study and the particular focus of this chapter. Evidence Indicating his early position "Consumer Science" and "A World Picture" served as clues In the search for an understanding of Richardson’s early position regarding science in general education in the secondary school and in college. In one of his first writ ings with Cahoon, Richardson1* based his course recommenda tions on utilitarian purposes—seeing a great need for a given course to function in the lives of students. In his subscribing to the viewpoint that a high school science course should be of value to all students, one may discern that science in the high school meant general education to Richardson. His course in consumer science had aspects of science which would function in the lives of students—con sumer problems. This course would also provide for two of his aspects of general education in science—reflective thinking or the use of the scientific method and the c "laboratory approach."*^ In the publication he advocated that science be viewed in an integrated rather than a compartmentalized way—"A Cahoon and Richardson, "School Science," V-29. 5Ibid., V-29-30. 172 World Picture." This concept, developed to a further extent In his thesis, Included the sociological and economic impli cations of science.** Because Richardson,7 even at this early date, viewed Science In General Education 8 as probably the best current study in the philosophy and place of science teaching, a short discussion of this book and other contemporaneous publications is in order. Meeting needs in the basic aspects of liv in g by problem solving experiences The writers of the Progressive Education Association stated the purpose of general education in terms of personal, economic and socio-civic needs: The purpose of general education is to meet the needs of individuals in the basic aspects of liv ing in such way as to promote the fullest possible realization of personal potentialities and the most effective participation in a democratic s o c ie ty .9 Even though these needs were classified and analyzed in the book,^® for the purpose of the present study it is of greater importance that at about this same time Richard son had worked on another study relative to needs. 6Ibid., XI-1-2. 7Ibid., VIII-6. ®C.S.S.C., General Education. 9Ibid., 23. 10Ibid., 23-57. 173 Redirecting Science Teaching In the Light of Personal- Social Needs^ was a report of the subcommittee on "Needs In Relation to the Science Program." The report served the purpose In assisting cooperating teachers and schools in the study of needs of youth in their own school situations. A checklist of "some functional outcomes of general education toward which science teaching can contribute"^ at an levels from preschool to junior college was developed. This rep o rt was viewed as more than Ju st an accounting by i t s writers. "It is a call to teachers everywhere to make through science teaching the many contributions to better living which the great roles of science in human affairs so clearly suggest."*2 An insight into needs was viewed as the basis for course revision.*3 It is significant that a statement is found in this publication to the effect that an integrative effort by all teachers in a school studying needs and formulating common goals was required if a "core organization" of the curricu lum was to be used."*-1* A corollary was writted by Richardson ^Croxton, Personal-Social Needs, 9. 12Ib id . 13I b ld . l4Ibid., 30-31. 17^ as the concluding statement of his dissertation abstract. It Is the belief of the writer that such a cur riculum which has as a basis the needs of the Individual, not only those of personal' nature but also those arising from a study of the demands and potentialities of his chosen vocation, will be of significance in assuring better prepared teachers for the schools.15 Another subcommittee report, "Philosophy, of the National Committee on Science Teaching, was concerned with science teaching for better living. G. P. Cahoon, Ira C. Davis, Robert J . H avighurst, and Honor A. Webb were members of this subcommittee. The point was made that modern living required functional training in science. "Continuous prac tice in applications of the scientific method to everyday personal and social problems should enable pupils to do better thinking.17 Better thinking would reflect on our democratic life and would result in its expansion, and 18 hence, better living. In the same report, it was pointed out that one of the contributions of the Progressive Education Association was ^John Sanford Richardson, "A Proposed College Cur riculum for the Education of Science Teachers," Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations, No. 40, The Ohio State University, Summer Quarter, 1942 (Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State Uni versity, 1943), 292. (Hereinafter referred to as "College Curriculum.") 1^Neal, Better Living, 1. 17Ibid., 12. l8Ibid. 175 19 Science In General Education. The report summarized the main points of the book by using the following paragraph headings, "1. Teaching Science to meet the Needs of Adoles cents, 2. The Importance of Understanding the Adolescent, 20 and 3. Organizing Materials in Large Units of Experience.11 It was noted in the report that the committee's work "will continue recent trends from the subject-centered science teaching of the past toward the personal-social type of approach with a continuous program adequate to the needs of young people." It is interesting that the committee referred to J. D. Bernal, as did Richardson, when noting that one of the functions of science teaching is to have youngsters understand the scientific method and learn to apply it to the solution of personal and social problems.21 About ten years before the report was published, the 22 Thirty-first Yearbook gave special attention to the role of science in general education. Placing Important emphasis on the teaching of generalizations in science, the report urged that these generalizations be tested with respect to their ability to enrich the life of the student. The ^C.S.S.C., General Education. 20Neal, B e tter L iving, 18-19. 21Ibid., 31. 22NSSE, T hirty-first Yearbook, 57* 176 enrichment actualized as one was able to Interpret the gen eralizations In science In his experiences of l i f e . ^3 Another subcommittee report of the National Committee on Science Teaching, referred to by Richardson and from all appearances had a vital Influence on his ideas, was the report^1* of the Subcommittee on Teacher Education. This committee desired that the teachers know life, and by know ing it make their work functional in the lives of their students.23 Bernal's "Science Teaching in General Educa tion"^ was not only referred to many times by Richardson, but it was quoted in this report. 27 ' Bernal's point of view regarding science in general education was, "it is most im portant that all, and particularly those who are not con tinuing in scientific careers, should learn scientific 2 8 method by practicing i t ." Richardson used the concept of the "world picture" in his early writings. It is interesting to note that regard ing this concept, the subcommittee report expressed the desire that a coherent picture of the world be presented and 23Ib id . 2li Powers, Education. - - 25Ibld., 36. 2^Bernal, "Science Teaching in General Education," 1- 11. 2?Powers, Education, 36-37. .Bernal,28 "Science Teaching in General Education," 4. 177 that young people be helped with the difficulties they en countered when new knowledge was inconsistent with previous b e lie fs In 1916 Dewey wrote, "It is not the business of high school science to pack the cart full—that will come later. It is its business to make such a good Job of the hitching that every pupil who comes under its influence will always find in himself a tendency to turn his crude experiences over into a more scientific form, and to translate the bare science he reads and hears into the terms of his daily life."^ As has been noted earlier in the present study, undergirding much of Richardson's work were the ideas of Dewey. "Dewey concurs that the major responsibility of science is in the way that it affects human living," wrote Richardson^* in his dissertation. His program of general education was based partially on this proposition. Victor H. Noll32 considered Dewey's proposition when advocating functional science courses for teachers in order to have functional courses for their pupils. ^powers, Education, 36. on John Dewey, "Method in Science Teaching," General Science Quarterly, I (November, 1916), 9* 3*Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum, 32. 02 J Victor H. Noll, "Science as an Organized Field of Study," Science Education, XXIII (March, 1939), 125. 178 Richardson also referred to two other authors many times in his thesis. He noted that Obourn,33 with respect to the role of the teacher of science, viewed the teacher as helping the young people understand and adjust to problems of modern life, while Wrinkle^1* wrote that the skills of problem solving were very important. An amorphous concept In his doctoral study Richardson wished to design a curriculum which would prepare the teacher for a construc tive role in a school and his community. To him, it was the science teacher's responsibility to cause the content and method of science to function in the lives of students.^ He realized that an enlighted electorate was necessary for self-government. The Talues or ideals of respect for the personality and cooperative action were characteristic of a democratic school and were therefore desirable for Richardson.38 When one attempts to find Richardson's definition of general education for the teacher of science, one discovers instead that he describes attributes; and he holds that the experiences by which these attributes are acquired may be 33obourn, ''Private-Progressive School," 400-401. 3 W i n k l e , New High School, 150-151. 35Richardson, Proposed College Curriculum , 329. 36lbid., 319. 17S called general education. Strangely these attributes include the knowledge of social, political, religious and economic aspects of the world relationships and of music, literature and the arts; but there was no direct reference to science. He may have been thinking it was not necessary with respect to a teacher of science or it may have been an oversight.37 He repeated this concept in his dissertation.3® However, one can broaden his definition by including other references. In another part of his dissertation he commented on an in te g ra tiv e course in "N atural Science in Modern Life" at the University of Florida, which indicated to the writer that the above definition was not all inclusive. His concept of general education was further expanded by his desire that a student who is planning to be a teacher of science should have experiences in varying phases of our culture. These would include community experience and be vitally concerned with the development of the individual. Another aspect of his amorphous concept of general education was evidenced by his description of the area of general science in his proposed curriculum for teachers of science. This was defined as "those experiences that will 37I b ld ., 186. 38Ibld., 189. 39Ibld., 192. 180 enlarge the student's competence and understanding with respect to science In living."^0 He stated again that the major goal In the general science phase was the development of the "world picture"—a comprehensive concept. The every day application of science must be understood by the Individual.^ His concept of a program of general education for the secondary student could be gleaned from the writings pre viously cited in this chapter and the aforementioned experi mental programs, such as the ones described in the Eight Year Study.^ However, these experimental programs reflected the ideas expressed by him on the social function of science as described in chapter two of the present study. He sub scribed to the idea that science should function in the life of the individual. He seemed annoyed by the unscientific behavior of individuals, and hoped that education could help the layman use the method and content of science. Science was to be taught in such a manner that it helped all of the high school students in finding a solution to their problems of life. He viewed science in the secondary school as 1)3 science for the consumer—science for living. This ^Richardson, "College Curriculum," 291. 4 lIb id . ^W ilford M. Aikin, Eight Year Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^2), 1-24. ^Richardson, "College Curriculum," 286. 181 was based, as he viewed it, on valid philosophical and psychological bases and on the wisdom and experience of others as discerned from the literature. Implementation of the concept In one of his articles published in 19**5, Richard son^1* again advocated that a course In general science In the secondary school, being terminal for so many students, should have as its central point the concept "science for the consumer." He suggested studies in transportation and com munication. According to Richardson, too often the design of the general science course did not adapt the academic to the social function. It bothered him that the teaching of an integrated program of science was hurt by migrating science teachers. The particular aspect of science education which was challenging the educators a t th a t time was the determ in ation of what elements of science were significant from a terminal point of view—general science for the secondary school student. Richardson suggested that in the future the student should integrate his learnings in the various areas of our culture, and make them more directly applicable to the problems of living.^5 These ideas were expressed at the close of World War II. He predicted the direction that programs in secondary ^Richardson, "Trends,” 205-206. 1*5Ib id . ,210. 182 school science were headed. Because of what happened nation ally since World War II in the field of secondary school science, it is interesting that Richardson at that time sug gested a program of 8th grade general science, 9th grade biology, 10th grade and 11th grade physical science and 12th grade general science. His justification was that it would make a maximum contribution to society.^ Hindsight would enable the writer to conclude that the proposed program appears to have been an intermediate step in Richardson's ideal curriculum organization of science for general educa tio n . In his lamentations regarding the possibility of a shortage in the next generation of teachers of science, I1 7 Richardson ' implored America to spend money for peace through education—science and its social contributions. It has become clear that a knowledge of science and its application to human living is fundamental to our ability to live together and to enjoy the resources which this world has. We must be w ill ing to spend more money to learn more about the content of science which should be learned, how it may be used for the benefit of mankind, and how it may be taught in order to be of such use.^8 As another piece of evidence that Richardson's thoughts on general education revolved around the social 1,6Ib id . ^John S. Richardson, "The Next Generation of Science Teachers," Metropolitan Detroit Science Review, VI (Septem ber, 19^5), 9-10, 40. **8Ib id ., 10. 183 aspects of science, the following reference is cited. Dur- 1|Q ing this same year, Richardson 7 indicated that the prospec tive science teacher should think in terms of science areas functional in the life of the individual. One could reason that if the science teacher viewed science in that way, then he would teach for that objective. During the five year period from 19^5 to 1950, Richardson was also concerned with the area of science termed aeronautics. He contributed to "A Guide for Teachers and Students'1^® in the area of teaching aeronautics. Its purpose was to "help to make aeronautics a functional educa tional experience which gives major emphasis to student understanding of the fundamentals of aeronautics."51 The guide had a wealth of experiences, "experiences with the real thing, rather than reading about it. . . . "52 a year later, Richardson was a member of the Ohio Aviation Conference which published a report.53 in this report were two secondary programs in aviation. "The first centers upon general ^Richardson, "Problems," 250. 5°Aviation Education Research Committee, Demonstra tions and Laboratory Experiences in the Science of Aero nautics (New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^5). 51I b i d . , 3. 52I b i d . , 1. 53 John A. Ramseyer, Aviation Education in Ohio (Columbus, Ohio: The State Department of Education, 19^6). 184 education function without too much regard for conventional subject matter lines."-*** Richardson’s role was undetermined with respect to this curriculum. While piloting the activities at the William McGuffey High School, Richardson delineated his program in high school science. In the seventh, eighth and ninth grade, students at the high school were enrolled in General Science two days per week. Tenth grade Biological Science and eleventh and twelfth grade Physical Science or Aeronautics were offered. Problems from the environment at the maturity level of the students were basic to the design of the cur riculum.-*** " I t is the p o sitio n of the school th a t the major function of the science courses at the secondary level is to enable the student to live intelligently and effectively in his environment. The courses are thus functionally organ ized. One can easily discern that his program of studies was based on the needs and problems of the individual. On August 1, 1949, an Instructor's Manual^ was pub lished. It was prepared for the Civil Air Patrol Cadet 5**Ibid., 21. 5^John s.Richardson, "Science in the William McGuffey High School," A Handbook. Oxford, Ohio, 1946, pp. 6-7. (Mimeographed.) 56Ibid., 5. 57C. p. Cahoon and J . S. Richardson, I n s tr u c to r ’s Manual, Civil Air Patrol, Vol. 1, Book III (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1949). Program, but was designed for use in secondary school. Cahoon and Richardson were the authors of the manual and included in it some important outcomes other than facts about airplanes and f l y i n g .58 Richardson quoted Education 59 for All American Youth in the publication. It reflected the position that institutions should be dedicated to the declaration that every youth in the United States of America should have educational experiences such that he will (1) be able to begin work for personal growth and social useful ness; (2) be able to assume a mature role as a citizen, (3) be able to pursue happiness, (^) be able to think crit ically, and (5) be able to understand the ethical ideals of a democracy.80 One can easily conclude that Richardson was strongly oriented toward the objectives of general education when one discovers th is approach in a government manual on aeronautics. Scientific literacy for all By 1950 one discerned that Richardson desired that science programs in general education for both the elementary and secondary school should follow the pattern or organiza tion of the core curriculum. He thought it was at the "cutting edge" of curricular growth in the schools of the 58Ibld., 2. 59e pc , Education for All American Youth, 21. 6oIb id . 186 United States of America. Because the core was oriented toward the achievement of a basic education by all students through learning activities, Richardson stated that it had great promise for helping the "growth of experimental work in the field of science.Richardson used Alberty's definition of the core curriculum, which was "that aspect of the total curriculum which is basic for all students and which consists of learning activities that are organized 6? without reference to conventional subject lines." c Another educator, R. H. Carleton,^ was referred to by Richardson in the article because Carleton saw the neces sity for planning science courses to meet the "felt needs of 6ii students and to serve their general education." Many science educators at that time were using the concept of "needs" as a basis for their programs of science in general education at the elementary and secondary levels. In the'fiftieth Anniversay Volume" of the Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers, Richardson*^ ^Richardson, Experimental Science, 31. Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Curriculum,154. ^Carleton, "Some Suggestions for Research in the Senior High School Sciences," 217. gii Richardson, Experimental Science, 13. 6s ^Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers, A Half Century of Sdlence and Mathematics Teaching, F i f t ie t h Anniversary Volume (Oak Park, 1 1 1 .: C entral A ssoci- ation of Science and Mathematics Teachers, Inc., 1950), 178- 197. 187 reviewed historically the preparation of teachers during the past fifty years. He deduced that at about 1930 "such leaders as Bode, Dewey, and Kilpatrick were raising ques tions about existing theories and practices and stressing the desirability of synthesis rather than analysis and the need for more attention to the learner, his environment and basic drives."66 He suggested some emphases requiring im mediate consideration: 1. Preparation of teachers in both academic con tent and professional experience adequate to the aims and purposes of the best schools and to the needs and development of boys and girls in our evolving society. 2. Preparation of mathematics and science teachers in such related fields as conservation, aviation, atomic energy, and consumer problems, of importance • in the present or immediate future of boys and g i r l s . 67 A book written in 1951 indicated once again that Richardson6® envisioned secondary school science as being concerned primarily with the general education of all young people, giving consideration to the approximate four-fifths who do not go to college as well as those who do. His position was partially based on the writings of the Progres sive Education Association again. He quoted their purpose 66Ibid., 186. 67Ibid., 195. ^®Richardson and Cahoon, Methods, 3. 188 go of general education for youth as written In their book, * Science In General Education.^ Three years later he wrote "that every person who Is to be effective and operate Intelligently In our society must have some knowledge of science and know much of Its application. One of the major needs of our lives Is the characteristic use of the scientific method in our approach to the problems of living."7* He wrote that the role of the core curriculum was well established by that date, and con cluded, "science is Inextricably Interwoven with all phases of the curriculum.1,72 A review written on a general science test by Richardson73 indicated his commitment to the method of science for all students. "This lack of attention to the method of science per se constitutes a weakness of the 117I1 series.' He was also concerned that scant attention was given the fields of conservation and meteorology; conversely, ^C.S.S.C., General Education, 23. 70Richardson and Cahoon, Methods, 4. 7^Guy P. Cahoon and John S. Richardson, "Modern Science Rooms and Laboratories," The Bulletin of the Natlon- al Association of Secondary School Principals, XXXVII, 1$1 (January, 1953), 1 1 0 -1 1 1 . 72I b i d ., 1 1 1 . 7^John S. Richardson, "General Science," review of Cooperative General Science Test by Educational Testing Service, in Oscar Krisen Buros, ed., The Fourth Measurement Yearbook (Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon P re ss, 1953)* p. b37. 7*»Ibid. 189 the field of physics had a preponderance of items. His position is clear, even in a review. Between July 15th and August 12th of 1953, Richardson attended a conference of science educators at Harvard Uni v e rs ity . Their re p o rt, C r itic a l Years Ahead in Science Teaching, c i t e d evidence of the short supply of qualified science teachers. With regard to general education and science there was concurrence that: . . . the prospective teacher have contact with all major areas of human knowledge. Specialization is not enough. The teacher should become aware of the interactions of his major field of study with 2£her fields of human endeavor and creative t h o u g h t .76 About a year later Richardson77 verbally expressed his ideas on science and general education in a speech at Berkeley. He recognized an evolving concept of general edu cation and saw implications for science’s role in the secon dary school curriculum. Even though Richardson desired to use the methods and content of science to meet the problems, needs, and interests of the pupils in the elementary school and the secondary school, he knew that science educators faced the problem of making science an integrative part of the curriculum. He pondered how one would make science "^Fletcher G. Watson and Others, Critical Years Ahead in Science Teaching (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1953), 10. 76Ibld., i»0. 77Richardson, "Professional Discipline," 169-172. 190 contribute in a maximum way to the general education of all youth. He wondered how to distinguish general and special education in science for youth. Explicitly he posed the problem as to how science becomes part of the curriculum for all pupils. As he turned this over in his mind, he con cluded that children must have experiences in science in order for science to be part of their curriculum of study. These experiences must be meaningful, pleasant, personal and different for each student. With the curriculum dif ferent for each pupil, then articulation would be a continu ous problem for each student.78 Richardson’s concept of scientific literacy appeared 79 in his major work'^ as Richardson expressed his restless apprehension for the scientific illiteracy in the United States of America. He not only advocated that educators change their goal for secondary school science from prepar ation for college to science for general education, but he declared that the major function of the secondary school was to serve the needs of young people in all aspects of their living. He answered the question, "Why is science taught?", by citing the need for scientific literacy for each member of our culture. He continued further, "all youth need to understand the method of science, the influence 78Ibid., 172. 79Richardson, Science Teaching, 1. 191 of science on human life, and main scientific facts concern ing the nature of the world and of men."®0 In this writer’s search for Richardson’s definition of general education from this period to his latest writings, he learned that Richardson continually gave expression to his involvement with the achievement of scientific literacy by all as a relevant factor. In his major book Richardson called to the investigator's attention the fact that there were no general agreements as to what general education was at that time. He prescribed the need for further research before one could know with certainty what phases of education are truly general. Near the end of the book he made the point that included in the areas needing research were the problems previously referred to in his Berkeley speech. Because of the repetition of these problems, one can infer that they loomed as a major burden for him; and that he strongly desired that research be done in this area of general education. Even though one is hard pressed to determine a precise definition of Richardson’s concept of general education, a few other aspects of general education and science helped clarify his position. He wrote of three factors that tended to contribute to a student's general education. These 8°Ib ld ., 13. 8lIbld., 357-353. 192 were: (1) the understanding of basic physical resources usually provided by a study in earth science, (2) the in creased role of air travel and communications predicates a study of aeronautics, and (3) all phases of a program of general education are organized by the "core” approach to ftP curriculum building. * The earth science emphasis emerged as a new element* however, the role of the study of aero nautics and the "core" date back to the early part of the p erio d . In May of 1957 Richardson expressed some thoughts with respect to general education. Though unfortunately these ideas did not gain fruition from the great explosion of ideas at the time o f Sputnik, when men were grasping fo r any straws in the science education wind, they were significant. To summarize, firstly, he hoped that the reorganization of physics and chemistry would contribute to general education and revolve around centers of human concern; secondly, he desired that the separate secondary school subjects that serve general education would be properly criticized and that the possibility of using the vehicle of the core curriculum be fully explored; and, thirdly, he wished that the justifi cation for laboratory work would rest on its contribution to general education.8^ It would be very difficult for one to 82I b i d . , M6-48, 51. ®3Richardson,"Science Tomorrow," 311-312. 193 Justify the new science programs following Sputnik on the basis of the above objectives of general education. Sources of some influencing ideas As one researches the material in Richardson’s major book for references which may or may not have affected his writings, one notes the names of Carleton, Rutledge, Stotler, Williamson, Cahoon, Schlessinger, and Stollberg in the list an Oc of names in the acknowledgments. Laton and Powers 0 were referred to regarding a high school course organized with the ’’problem on human living approach" and team-taught by a R teacher of literature and one of science.00ft The core cur- r iculum advocated by Richardson®? was supported by the go writings of Alberty. One also found other references with regard to this domain of science education, such as Thirty- first Yearbook®9(major generalizations of science and the associated scientific attitudes),9® Forty-sixth Y e a rb o o k ^ (functional learning),92 Redirecting Science Teaching in the ®^Richardson, Science Teaching, vi-vii. ®5Laton and Powers, New Directions in Science Teach ing, 93-94. ®®Richardson, Science Teaching, 63-64. 87I b i d . , 51. 88Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Curriculum,167. ®9n SSE, Thirty-first Yearbook, 44. 90Richardson, Science Teaching, 7. 91NSSE, Forty-sixth Yearbook, 143. 92Richardson, Science Teaching, 7-8. 19*1 Light of Personal-Social Needs,93 science In General Educa tion Developmental Tasks and Education^ (the content of the various fields of learning brought to bear on the growth of the individual through developmental tasksand sev eral other references noted In chapter two on science methods and general education.. Dewey's article on "The Supreme Intellectual Obligation" 97 once again supported Richardson's concept of the meaning of "understanding science."9® Rise and eclipse of the neglected gifted student During his discussion with Dr. Harold C. Urey on the Columbus Town Meeting telecast^ 0n May *♦, 1958, Richardson spoke to the point of general education and science. He recommended that all reasonably educable young people take courses in science. These courses must nurture the develop ing interests of the youngsters and provide for their growing ^Croxton, Personal-Social Needs, 11. ^C.S.S.C., General Education, 23. 95Havighurst, Developmental Tasks and Education, 1-5. 96Richardson, Science Teaching, 56. 97pewey, "The Supreme Intellectual Obligation," 3« 9®Richardson, Science Teaching, 3-1*. 99Columbus Town Meeting, T ran sc rip t of Tape, meeting of May 1958. (Typewritten.) 195 needs. He also was disturbed that the United States had at that time a relatively unplanned educational system. His solicitous concern regarding general education In college was centered on the fact that many colleges assumed their introductory courses In the science were sufficient for general education. In his defense of progressive education, Richardson s tre s s e d the fa c t th a t i t was not invented by Dewey, but preceded him. Its basic idea was concerned with the respect for the personality—everyone must be treated as an indi vidual, including the teacher. His position was that the basic idea of progressive education was undoubtedly funda m entally good.1®* It is important to discern that Richardson took a new tack in this talk with Urey. As previously noted, Richardson expressed concernment for the student who was terminal and the college-bound student. In the telecast he noted that the brilliant student was the neglected student in our schools.102 This point proves interesting because not only does this seem to be a major change of position on the part of Richardson, but soon it appears that he will change back. Based on the position that each individual must be given a chance, Richardson supported federal monies for 100I b ld . 101I b ld . 102Ibid. 196 education. He desired the availability of these monies to youths on the basis of a national examination.^3 During this telecast, Richardson answered the question w ith resp ec t to how he became a science educator by c itin g the influence of a very effective professor in the field of philosophy of education. After working four or five years with this professor, he concluded that the most significant contribution in life that he could make would be to find out, in a much better way, how to teach science in secondary 10 li schools, in colleges and in universities. 105 In a keynote address to the Virginia Education Association Science Institute, Richardson voiced many of the same ideas. He said that a functional curriculum was impor tant, that one of the objectives of teaching science was to develop scientifically literate citizens, and that one way to accomplish the general education of Junior high school youngsters was by using the vehicle of earth science. But it is important to discern that he repeated his new tack. In addition to his repeatedly expressed responsibility for the scientific education of all of youth, he pointed out again that the gifted are the neglected people in our schools and there is a need to provide for them.^0^ This point 103Ib ld . 101W -’Richardson, "Putting Quality in a Science Program," 11-15. 106Ib id ., 12-13. 197 proves very interesting because soon he w ill reverse his position on this point. This may be due to the emphasis of the new science programs which were aimed at the upper 25% of the high school population, or it may be due to his phil osophical position regarding a general education for all. In 1961, Richardson edited the second edition of a volume*®? on SChool f a c i l i t i e s . On the f i r s t page of the book one finds statements that paralleled the position of the Cooperative Committee on the Teaching of Science and Mathe- matics 108 with regard to the dual responsibility of science instruction. This position implied that experiences in science should be part of the education of all persons at all levels and in all curricula. All children and youth must come in contact with problems related to science. On the other hand*society needs engineers, technicians and scientists in quantity for future developments to enable the United States to remain in the forefront of scientific and technological advancements. In the book statements expressed the concern for the major problem of science education—the determination of what science experiences and programs were to be a required part of the education of all youth in the community, and *°?Richardson, Facilities for Science, 1. 10®C.C.T.S.M., "The P reparatio n o f High School Science and Mathematics Teachers," 107-118. 10^Richardson, Facilities for Science, 1. 198 what experiences and programs were to be open to election by the students.**® In the Fifty-ninth Yearbook, Richardson wrote an article on "The Education of the Science Teacher"*** with Williamson, Garrett, and others, and one on "The Professional Growth of the Science Teacher"HP with Cahoon, Schlessinger, and others. Relative to science and the purposes of general education, he stressed that the content must have personal and social value to the life of the teacher and his students, enabling them to meet their needs. A basic assumption was that each course must have direct investigation through experimentation and observation. Both depth and breadth were needed in the study of science, and he was favorably im pressed that institutions of higher education were now recognizing the role of science in generaleducation.**^ 114 In March of i960 Richardson lamented about the "pathetic waste of human abilities" common during that period. **°Ibid., 17. ***Richardson and Others, "The Education of the Science Teacher," 258-278. 112 Richardson and others, "The Professional Growth of the Science Teacher," 279-296. 113 Richardson and Others, "The Education of the Science Teacher, 259-262. **^M arjorie Gardner and John S. R ichardson, "The Teachers of Science in Ohio’s Senior High Schools," Educa tional Research Bulletin, XXXIX (March, I960), 65. 199 Cole^5 reported that about two hundred thousand eligible youngsters were not attending college after high school graduation. Richardson charged the school with the basic responsibility for encouraging the development of scientific talent to its fullest aspects by teaching students to under stand the world in which they live. His modified position regarding science education for all was indicated by: The remedies are neither simple nor short-term. But if science education is to be improved, the public must be awakened to the importance and the potenti alities of secondary-school science for both the average student and the academically talented. Also essential are well-equipped science depart ments strongly staffed by teachers attracted not only by their love of teaching but also by alluring incomes and social status.H® During 1962 Richardson was working on a research study.One of the objectives of the study was to bring the experiences of the students together in such a way as to teach the interrelationships of the academic areas. In 1962 Richardson also edited "School Science In Its S ocial Setting.He supported In his writings the posi tion that much of what was appearing in the new curriculum H^charles C. Cole, Jr., Encouraging Scientific Tal ent: A Study of America’s Able Talents Who Are Lost to Col lege and Ways of Attracting them to College and Science Careers (New York: College"Entrance Examination Board, 1956), T 8 T . ll6oardner and Richardson, "The Teachers of Science in Ohio's Senior High Schools," 71* ^•^Richardson and Diehl, Mobile Laboratory, 2. ll8Ibid., 53. Richards on, "School Science In Its Social Setting," 237. 200 developments In science could be attributed to work begun several decades ago. Several years later he documented this position In a talk "The Real Horizons In Science Educa tion."^0 The high point of the aforementioned article was that there was an apparent reversal of Richardson's posi tion regarding a continued emphasis on the neglected, gifted 121 student. He stated: The re-examination has ranged from demands that learners of high ability be identified very early and nurtured at whatever price to others not so patently gifted, to a newer-passivity rationalized on the b a sis th a t the cu rren t emphasis on science is another fad that will soon pass.122 Richardson,12^ as the editor of this issue of Theory- Into Practice, noted that both Williamson and Johnson ip li supported the objective of scientific literacy. Johnson's scientific literacy—knowledge, curiousity, observa tion, interpretation, open-mindedness—was his over arching goal in science education. W illiamson1^ would like scientists to identify the major concepts or conceptual ^■20Richardson, "Real Horizons," 7-18. Richardson, "School Science in Its Social Setting," 237. 122 •t I b ld . 123I b i d . , 238. 1 2I1 Philip G. Johnson, "The Goals of Science Education," Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 239. ^^stanley E. Williamson, "A National Curriculum in Science?", Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 252. 201 schemes. Shannon, 1 Pfi based on his interpretation of the methodology of John Dewey, stated that "our society cannot afford to sacrifice the general education of all persons: scientific literacy is a paramount goal." It was his posi tion that the fundamental role of science in the secondary schools was general education. In Schlessinger's127 ' recom mendations for the preparation of science teachers, one detected a plea for the teacher of science to have a fine understanding of the "broad concepts in science." The primary function of school science When one uses the methods of science in his thinking, he realizes that one of the most creative acts is the state ment of significant problems. Richardson has continually presented the significant problem of scientific literacy and science in general education to many publics. Late in 1965 he presented these major problems in science education to another conference in terms of "process outcomes" and "structure." . . . Shall the central purpose of the science pro gram be the development of process outcomes (criti cal thought) or the memorization and interrelation Henry Shannon, "General and Special Education in Science," Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 256, 258. 127 Fred R. Schlessinger, "The Preparation and Cer tification of Science Teachers," Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 276. 202 of bodies of scientific information? What is scientific literacy, and what is an acceptable level for our society? How can a defensible struc ture of scientific concepts be established? Through what means can such a structure (or struc tures) be developed into the scientific competence necessary for a citizen in our society?^28 One must recall that Richardson did spell out his con cept of ’’scientific literacy’’ rather precisely several times in his writings. In April, 1963, he detailed aspects of his concept in answer to questions posed by Carleton. Briefly Richardson 120 7 stated that a scientifically literate person had adequate knowledge of science to understand his environ ment and an understanding of the rational process underlying these explanations. Objectivity—open-mindedness, critical mindedness and skepticism—are characteristics of this person. He must be aware of aspects of the universe—energy, matter and life—and their relationships. He must be able to read and discuss scientific records and interpret scientific events. He must understand the role of science and technology. Science is a creation of man's intellect. Scien tific literacy is based upon a growing under standing of the relation of man’s intellect to the structure of those processes and products of thinking which constitute science. Richards on and Howe, Centers, 121. •^9john s. Richardson, ”0n Scientific Literacy," NEA Journal, LII (April, 1963), 33* 130ibid. 203 Because Richardson was concerned with the general education of all youth, he was consequently concerned with the education of those teachers who would guide the experi ences of the boys and girls of America. Writing about The Ohio State University’s program of science teacher education, Richardson1^! asserted that to be an educated person one needs a broad education to understand the world. It would follow that he then recommended for the teacher of general education a breadth of knowledge—functional knowledge . 132 In the spring of 1966 Richardson lectured to a group of teachers on the topic, "The Real Horizons in Science E ducation."133 His address was focused on one aspect of general education—investigation. However, Richardson noted that one of the promises for better education in science in our schools was that science would be taught to all of our students. He also desired the ultimate achievement of scientific literacy among all the peoples of our democracy. He thought that there was evidence in our new curricular studies that might be realized to a limited degree. He noted that a primary function of the secondary school was the general education of all pupils, with the preparation for college a secondary function.13** 131Howe and Richardson, "Secondary School Science Education at The Ohio State University," 136-140. 132I b i d ., 136-137. 133Richardson, "Real Horizons," 1-2. 13^Ibid., 2. 204 Fortunately for the present study, Richardson^-35 wrote an article in the fall of 1966 indicating a sense of direction for present programs of school science based on his current positions in science education. In his evalu ation of the high school science programs in the United States of America, he decried the fact that little energy has been employed for a major responsibility of the high school—general education. He again reiterated his position of the importance of general education over special educa tion. His prediction was that basic problems would be in herent in the total science curriculum of any institution (including colleges) if the place of science in general education was not fully understood. The earlier high school years which could be directed toward general education do not serve that func tion, nor do they serve the later specialized courses to 137 any perceptible degree. Profitably, curriculum thinkers could work toward a six-year science program of practical value to the general education function in the junior-senior high school. This proposition and examples of new programs, with the potential of having the laboratory play a central role and having the social function of science as a paramount 135Richardson, "Evaluating," 1 9 2 - 2 0 3 . 136Ibld., 193, 201. 137ib id .l 193. 205 factor, were upper-most in the ideas presented in the article .*38 Recently Richardson co-authored a b o o k * 3 9 fo r th e supervisor of science. Many ideas in this particular work reflected Richardson's current thinking,especially chapter two. It supported the idea "that only a small percentage of p ub lic school stud ents w ill become s c ie n tis ts ; but a l l w ill need to use the scientific processes in facing the many problems of daily living and helping to shape the national policies with respect to the influence of science and its offspring, technology."*1*0 One significant pattern in Richardson's writings was that he advocated science for all, but many times qualified his remarks to public education as noted above. To indicate his concernment for all people, one notes that he thought that "any force as powerful and all-pervading as science must be available to all people in order for democracy to remain productive and free."*1** Philosophically, he reflected that an "emerging faith" in the potential individuals of the rational processes was occur ring. He saw this phenomena being demonstrated along demo cratic lines and being "liberated by education." However, *38Ibld. , 193, 199-200. *8^Stotler, Richardson and Williamson, Supervision, P re fac e . ***°I b ld . , 12. Il**lbld., 17. 206 th is basic b e lie f makes the requirem ent th a t fundamental approaches and insights of science can no longer be limited to scientists, but must be integrated and utilized by a l l . 1*2 The problem of determining integrated K-12 programs in science for all youngsters was ever present in his thoughts and as reflected by the statements in the book. He was committed to the achievement of his goal—"scientific literacy for all citizens should be a basic American goal."*1*3 Basic to his goal were laboratory experiences and the teaching of the skills of independent study.Again near the end of the book he wrote in a rather philosophical way. He mused on h is two main goals of science education, (1) to teach the science enterprise to budding scientists, and (2) to teach all citizens to cope with modern problems by being scientifically literate. How can this important merger be hastened? It would seem that those of us in science educa tion are obligated to direct science more nearly into the mainstream of life. . . . Can we do more to create and sustain values and purposes in the liv e s of p e o p le .*46 ll>2Ibld., 47. llt3Ibid., 94. 144 I b id . 11>5Ib id ., 114. I 4 6 i b i d . 207 With a quote from Stfren Kierkegaard he concluded: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward."^7 Summarizing his position on the importance of general education to the high school student and to the prospective lU8 science teacher, Richardson wrote in his latest book that the primary function of the high school was the general edu cation of all of its pupils and that the student's general education in college should be socially integrative and interdisciplinary. He also prescribed that science be con sidered as a process and that the development of a concept is an aspect of science as is its relationship to living.^9 Recent significant references After reading the w riter's previous chapters in the, study and the present chapter, one may conclude that Richard son's concept of general education overlapped and Included some of his other major points of view. It is interesting to note that in his most recent book he leaned very heavily on some new sources as well as some previous references. However, one must seek the basis for his inclusion of the idea of "the development of a scientific concept" as part of llt7I b ld .» 116. ^®Richardson, Williamson, and Stotler, Education, 25. l49Ibid., 27. 208 his discussion of the function of science in general edu cation. In this regard, three significant references that he cited were an article from The UNESCO Courier, "Science and the Common Man,"'1''*0* t h e Harvard Report,^2 The Alms of Education.^3 154 Because Richardson was opposed to "science" in general education consisting of "bits and pieces of content," he recommended Calder’s position for study. Calder1^ stated that because science has developed to the extent that i t has, i t has become th e "so c ia l dynamic" o f our tim es; ignorance by the people, due to lack of explanation, cannot be tolerated in our present day world. In the absence of a proper understanding of the methods and the processes of science and of any social integration of scientific knowledge, the apparent haphazardness of discovery encourages a ^°R itchie Calder, "Science and the Common Man," The UNESCO Courier, XVIII (February, 1965), 5-8, 32. *5lRitchie Calder, "Science and the Common Man (Part Two)," The UNESCO Courier, XVIII (March, 1965), 16-22. ■1‘52Harvar(i Committee, General Education In a Free Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University tress, 19^8), 1^%hitehead, The Alms of Education, 61-62. ^^Richardson, Williamson and Stotler, Education, 25-26. ^■^^Calder, "Science and the Common Man," 5* 209 popular attitude towards science which is mistrust ful and unhealthy. People fear what they do not understand.1^ Calder considered the main problem to be how one can get the mass of people to understand the forces "determining their existence." Science is the "social dynamic" to be understood by mankind. Overspecialization by the scientist or the humanist must not be an accepted excuse for lack of 1*57 progress in this direction. Richardson’s latest definition of general education in this period of thirty years was summed up as "non-vocational." It helped the learner to relate himself to his environment, and to control it in some limited way. He depended on the Harvard Report1^ and Whitehead1^ to further expand on the concept of general education as interdisciplinary and integrative. Whitehead1^1 described three roads that lead toward th e good l i f e where i n t e l l e c t and c h a ra c te r are in th e best of balance: One may go by way of literary, scientific, or 156ibid. 157I b id . 1^®Harvard Committee, General Education in a Free Society, 150-160. ■^Whitehead, The Alms of Education, 61-62. ^•^Richardson, Williamson and Stotler, Education, 24-25. ^■^Whitehead, The Alms of Education, 61-62. 210 technical culture. However, Whitehead warns that no one of these paths can be followed exclusively without the loss of "Intellectual activity and of character." Nor can one merely mechanically mix the three. "The problem of education is to retain the dominant emphasis, whether literary, scientific, or technical without loss of co-ordination to infuse into each way of education something of the other two."1^2 The importance of the interrelationship of science and technology as part of general education is supported by Whitehead’s position. Richardson referred to the Harvard R e p o r t ex_ pand on his ideas of integration. The report states: Science instruction in general education should be characterized mainly by broad integrative elements —the comparison of scientific with other modes of thought, the comparison and contrast of the indi vidual sciences with one another, the relations of science with its own past and with general human history, and of science with problems of human society. lo1* Unfortunately, in modern day education many of these integrative aspects are slighted. Richardson's use of this V reference is a bit unusual, maybe even incongruous. The Harvard Report’s theory of general education includes the perpetuating of common beliefs and the necessity to develop l62Ib id . ■^^Harvard Committee, General Education in a Free Society, 150-160. l61,Ib id., 155. new and "independent insights leading to change."165 Under lying most of Richardson's writings, in this respect, has been an emphasis on the "experimental" way of life rather than the traditional, and an emphasis on "change" rather than "commitment." One sees that taking the position that "the development of a scientific concept" should be taught indicated a shift of his position. The position of the Harvard Report is: Education can therefore be wholly devoted neither to tradition nor to experiment, neither to the be lief that the ideal in itself is enough nor to the view that means are valuable apart from the ideal. It must uphold at the same time tradition and ex periment, the ideal and the means, subserving.-like our culture itself, change within commitment. In his recent writings there have been other men whose writings have been quoted or referred to by Richardson and their ideas were used as a basis for supporting or amplifying his ideas. The following ideas have been used by Richardson in his recent writings: 1. B r u n e r * s ^ 7 concept of readiness for learning— "foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any age in some form." l65Ibid., 46-47. l66Ibid., 51. Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), 12. 212 2. Conant’s^® concept of the "tactics and strategy" of science. 3. Powers'recommendation that the teacher of science engage with his students in discovering meaningful problem s. - - Laton's and Powers'1^ report on the seventeen schools that were trying to determine what knowledge in the field of science was needed for the understanding and resolu tion of problems, and what kind of experiences did teachers need to enable them to lead youth to an understanding of the role of science and society and an understanding of their own interests and needs. 5. Slesnick's and Showalter's^^ cubical model of their unified science program. 6. Hale's and Woodfield's1^ laboratory centered general physical science course. 7. Berzofsky's and Ousler's^^ concept of team teach ing in the junior high school science program. ^®Conant, On Understanding Science, 25-27. l69powers, Education, 39-37. 170 Laton and Powers, New Directions in Science Teach in g , 1-12. ^■^Slesnick and Showalter, "Program Development in Unified Science," 5*1-55. ■^^Hale and Woodfield, "General Physical Science," 24-26. ^^Berzofsky ousler, "Organizing Team Teaching in Science," 30-32. 213 8. L efler's^^ implementation of the humane dimension of science— functional understanding. 9. W illiam son's^-* concept that the position of "science in the general education of all," should be ele vated. Problems resultant from his analysis: general versus special education, social impact of science and technology occupying a central place or not in the curriculum, and first year college science courses versus needs of the col lege student in a general education program. In addition to the above, there were w ritings by men of science down through the years, from Priestly and Franklin to Dewey and W hitehead, who supported the study of the "investigative role of science" in general education. These men of science and their contribution have been previously referred to in the study. Summary One of Richardson’s most amorphous conceptual schemes was his ideas on the function of science in general education. "Consumer Science" and "A World Picture" headed his early attempts to implement his ideas. These grew out of his work with Cahoon and Bernal's ideas regarding the integrative and ^^L efler, "The Teaching of Laboratory Work in High School Physics," 531-533. ■^^stanley E* W illiamson, "Issues and Problems in Science Education," in Richardson and Howe, Centers, 41-47. 214 sociological aspects of science. His commitment to the position that science must be integrated rather than com partmentalized began at the beginning of the period and appeared in various ways throughout the thirty years. His work in this domain of science education was affected by his position that it was the role of the school to meet the needs of the individual in all aspects of living in a democracy by the use of problem solving experiences. This fundamental position was gleaned early in this period from the w ritin g s of Dewey, Progressive Education A ssoci ation, and the committees headed by Croxton, Powers and Neal. Basic to curriculum thinking for Richardson was his insight into the needs of the individual and society. Alberty’s core served as a basis in his thinking of curri culum organization. Richardson’s concept of the "world picture" was predicated on the helping of youngsters to acquire a coherent picture of the world even though it meant the possible subverting of their previous beliefs. The Thirty-first Yearbook’s generalizations were eclipsed by the "functional ism" of the F o rty -six th Yearbook. Braced by Dewey’s emphasis on science’s effect on human living and the problem approach by Obourn and Wrinkle, Richardson described the attributes of general education. The comprehensive "world picture" and "science for living11 seemed to be earmarks of his early concept. When he wrote in the area of aeronautics, he 215 Indicated that Education for All Americans served as one of his guideposts. The concept of "scientific literacy for all," sup ported by Ideas from Johnson, Williamson and Shannon, dom inated his thinking In his domain of science education during the second h a lf of th is period of th ir ty y e ars. Though the concept of what education Is truly general remained amorphous, Richardson advocated research. During the period of the 1950's the words and phrases such as earth science, core, aeronautics, method of science, science and human life, nature of the world, and laboratory work appeared In his writings on the function of science in general education. His writings during the middle of this period of the study indicated the lasting effects of the writings of Alberty, Thirty-first Yearbook, Forty-sixth Yearbook, and Dewey, as well as the immediate affects of Laton's and Powers' new ideas in science curriculum for general education, Havlghurst's developmental tasks, and Schlesslnger's broad concepts in science on Richardson's thought. In more recent years he expressed scientific literacy in terms of explanation, rational processes, process outcomes and Bruner's "structure." An aberration occurred in the late 1950's. For a few short years following Sputnik his emphasis on the "neglected gifted student" seemed to over-shadow his concern for all, though no one would ever question his high regard for the integrity of each Individual. He abruptly departed from his 216 over-concern for the neglected gifted student; it was re placed by a definitive position on the primary and secondary concern of the secondary school. The primary function of the school is general education, and its secondary function is special education was his recent position. In the last few years of this period he saw that the primary function of the school was not being achieved by the new programs of science to any g re a t degree. Though he did not ignore the budding scientist, his commitment was to American's new goal of scientific literacy for all people so that our democracy might remain productive and free. He advocated Calder's "social dynamic," Harvard Report's and Whitehead's "integrative and interdisciplinary science," Bruner's "process," Conant's "tactics and strategy," and Powers’ "functionalism." Included in his writings was an analysis of problems in this domain of science education by Williamson and many ideas of implementation from the writings of Slesnik, Showalter, Hale, Woodfield, Berzofsky, There is evidence indicating his increased concern for values and purposes in life in his most recent, and more philosophical writings on the domain of science known as the function of science in general education. CHAPTER VI REFLECTIONS ON THE EVOLUTION OF FOUR MAJOR CONCEPTS The thing I mean—please forgive me for mentioning it—is love, Christian love, or compassion. If you feel this, you have a motive for existence, a guide in action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty. —R ussell The Impact of Science on Society Through careful consideration of the writings of John Sanford Richardson, a present day leader in science educa tion, it has been the purpose of the study to analyze the growth, development and philosophical basis of the following concepts in four domains of science education: 1. The social function of science in science education. 2. Teaching the method(s) of science. 3. "Science content" courses for teachers of science. 4. Science in general education. In Chapters 2, 3, **, and 5, respectively, a detailed consid eration of these topics has been presented concentrating on the basis for each concept and its subsequent evolution as traced through the literature. 217 218 The literature penned by Richardson had been written during the past three decades. However, the literature which served as a basis for some of the concepts ventilated by him in science education dated back to many centuries ago. The unfolding of h is ideas during the period 1939 to 1968 and his basic sources were carefully considered. Three questions were addressed to the writings of Richardson during the period of thirty years of the study relative to the four domains of science education. 1. What position did Richardson take on each relationship? 2. How did his position statements evolve? 3. What w ritin g s con tributed to the growth of his major concepts? The social function of science in science education A primary consideration in Richardson's writings throughout the years was the social function of science in science education. Specifically in writing about the educa tion of the science teacher, he saw the effective science teacher as being so educated as to make science an integral, functional part of the lives of his students. Essentially education was philosophically viewed by Richardson as life, and the philosophy of education was hence the philosophy of life. The experience approach of Dewey was duly emphasized, as was his ideas on the nature and function of the scientific method in education and life. Curriculum recommendations grew out of a careful consideration 219 of the characteristics and needs of boys and girls and the social concerns of our democratic society. The ideas developed early in his career on the teach ing of the sociological aspects of science were advocated and to a degree implemented prior to Sputnik. Continually he stressed in public and professional groups the fact that science teachers lacked an understanding in this area. Relative to this concept he reflected that the technological developments of science altered our way of living. The com munity had great potential in the learning of science for the student, and conversely the student could serve his com munity . Richardson viewed science curriculum thinking and design with its center being human activity. His major work summarized his early position. Near the end of these three decades there was a noticeable change of direction in the new programs of science in secondary schools, and a sense of urgency was expressed in Richardson's writings. Following Sputnik the need for proficiency in a scientific society dictated a greater emphasis on subject matter by other designers of cur riculum in school science, and different points of view on curriculum—including a concern for the social aspects— occupied a position of lesser importance. Richardson’s concept of the science-society relation ship acquired broader dimensions through the years. His 220 early concern with the effects of technology on society and the scientific method developed into a broader concern for the enlarged, complementary viewpoint regarding science and society. Near the end of the period of thirty years, the concept of research, not for resultant "technological" benefits, as earlier advocated, but as an essential part of the intellectual framework of every citizen, was set forth. Science education is International in scope, with present science educators collaborating more in their efforts on an international scale. Near the end of the period Richardson emphasized that all mankind must be so educated as to be truly scientific in spirit and endeavor. An international scope not seen heretofore came into view. R ichardson’s personal r e s p o n s ib ilitie s as a member of the President's Committee and his work with UNESCO during the second half of the period doubtlessly was somewhat respon sible for the broadening of his emphasis. The writings of Bernal had profoundly affected him in his own thoughts on "science and society" in education. S. Ralph Powers' ideas on the integration principle, the emphasis on solving the problems of life, and the selection of material from science based on a social criterion served as basic ideas in the contemplations of Richardson. G. P. Cahoon's "competencies" in teacher behavior became an early and sustaining focal point for Richardson. Croxton helped surface Richardson's commitment to the centrality of the 221 needs of the Individual and society in curriculum thinking in science. In addition, E. S. Obourn's ideas complemented some of Richardson's ideas during this thirty-year period and Havlghurst's concept of developmental tasks occupied a reflective place in Richardson's schema. A lasting Influence on the "fun- ional aspect" of Richardson's philosophy was gained from the writings of the National Council on Science Teaching, Progressive Education A ssociation, early fac u lty members who were colleagues of Richardson and the writers of Yearbooks in science education. Teaching the method(s) of science In the first consideration one noted the problems of living as one of the main focal points around which Richardson's recommendations in science education revolved. Would it not logically follow that another counterpart would be the method that one would use to help in the solution of the problems of living? The most effective method for problem solving in the opinion of Richardson was the scien tific method, and this emphasis on the scientific method or methods permeates his writings on science education. His early view Included a leaning toward the view of one scientific method with a series of chronological "steps" employed to "find meaning." Later he soundly refuted the arbitrary sequence of stages and polarized totfard the direc tion of teaching methods^ of science, though the words method and methods were used Interchangeably by him. Near the end 222 of the period he came to the final conclusion that formal steps are a barrier to learning. Concurrently, his concept of the "scientific attitude" and its pressures, including one in opposition to superstition and one favorable to honesty, evolved. Throughout the thirty-year period Richardson's writ ings evidenced a concern with the experiences of the indi vidual which were necessary for learning the greatest intellectual method of all—the scientific method. The problem solving approach and the role of the laboratory played an important part in the achievement of the methods of science and the scientific attitude for Richardson. Near the end of the period he evidenced a clear commitment to the concept of learning science through planned investigations of an original nature. All resources should be used to solve problems was one of his axioms. In curriculum organization "the core" was recommended by him for consideration early in this period. Recently he supported more investigations referring to "unified science"; early ideas regarding the concepts of "investiga tion" and "unified science" predate Richardson's professional career in science education. A main theme surfacing occasionally was his opposition to the emphasis on "teaching facts." In his opinion utili zation of the "processes of science" in discovery was more important than the memorization of facts or laws of science. 223 He concluded that the progress of society ultimately depends upon the initiative, problem solving skill, and integrity of its citizens. The philosophical roots of Richardson in this domain of science education were traced to many sources. Johnson may be attributed with a partial influence in Richardson's moving from the teaching of the method of science to teaching the methods of science. However, in his early views roots may be traced back to Keeslar's views on "steps" and writers of the Progressive Education Association. Wrinkle and writers of the PEA may have been the sources from which he gleaned his ideas on the teaching of the scientific attitude. And, the idea that experiences of the individual were necessary to learn the greatest intellectual method of all reflected the writings of John Dewey. Although not mentioned in the above paragraphs> objective test construction in the area of reflective thinking grew out of this consid eration. In this matter the previous work of Tyler, Fawcett and the Progressive Education Association writers paved the way. Advocates and writers of the problem solving approach and its use in all areas of living were numerous. Ideas were quoted from Obourn, Powers, Barnard, Bernal, Progressive Education Association writers, Twiss, Cahoon, Wrinkle, Ohio State University faculty in education during the forties, and many more. His disdain for "teaching of facts" may have 224 originated with a less polar view of Cahoon. Regarding the teaching of "investigation," Cahoon, Dewey, Agassiz, Bernal, Carleton, writers of the yearbooks in science education, Schaefer, Lefler and men of science down through the ages were influential. In curriculum thinking the "core" was supported by Alberty and "unified science" was recently researched by Slesnick and Showalter. Others contributing to his thinking in this domain were Whitehead, Conant, Schlessinger, and Williamson. "Science content" courses for teachers of science That the formal education of science teachers played an important role in the professional life of John S. Richardson during the th ir ty -y e a r period from 1939 to 1968 has already been established. Bearing up this fact one herein notes that his thesis was titled "A Proposed College Curriculum for the Education of Science Teachers." His most recent book was titled "The Education of Science Teachers"; and in the second major consideration of the present study one noted Richardson's desire for science teachers was that they be so educated as to make science an integral, func tional part of the lives of their students. Notice was also given to the importance of "competencies in teacher behavior" in the beginning of the period. Hence these ideas appeared again in some form as one examined the concepts of Richardson 225 with respect to the development of his ideas on "science content” courses for teachers. From his list of competencies in 1939 to his criteria for. general education in 1968, Richardson asserted that ’’science content” courses were needed for the preparation of teachers of science both in breadth and in depth. The general course in science recommended by Richardson evolved very little with respect to the funda mental character of the functional background in science. His latest criteria included the idea that science should be related to problems of living. Paralleling this development was his emphasis in this general course on the scientific method. The development of this concept has previously been discussed. A conclusion may be drawn that an area of depth in science for the teacher of science has always been the recom mendation of Richardson, but the emphasis within this area changed from a mastery of the scientific method and academic respectability to an emphasis on research and research participation with men of science. An effort was made continually during this thirty-year period to break down boundaries and compartments with respect to science courses and to achieve an internal and external integration with other sciences and disciplines. By this complete Integration he envisioned an understanding of the whole and a resulting position relative to the values and purposes of life. 226 A central aspect In this consideration was Richard son’s concept of "professionalized science content" courses. In this respect it was his thinking that science courses for research scientists are not adequate for teachers of science. Science education was viewed by him as a hybrid made up of s o c ia l and n a tu ra l sc ie n c e s. Richardson’s continual concern was for quality ex periences designed for the education of teachers of science and the desired attributes being achieved by teachers. Be ginning in the mid-50's and continuing to the end of this period, research was stressed at all levels of teaching in order to determine the "competencies" of teachers. Labora tory work was established as basic to courses in science and courses in professional studies. He implemented this concept with various courses, including modifications of the practlcum . One aspect of his concept, with respect to "science content" courses for the teachers of science, was Richardson's desire to humanize science courses. In 1967 he wrote that science was the most human part of the humanities. He dis liked the cold, lifeless science directed by some teachers of science and leaned toward the ideas of the "living curriculum,""science in living" and "science in the commun ity" reflected by other educators in this field. Croxton, Hunter, Powers and Hurd defined and des cribed "professionalized" academic courses in science for 227 the teachers of science. However, influence in the devel opment and growth of concepts in this domain of science may be attributed to many men. Some of these were: Agassiz, Bernal, Burke, Conant, Cahoon, Croxton, Dewey, Franklin, Hunter, Huxley, Lefler, Noll, Obourn, Priestly, Schlessinger, Whitehead, Williamson and Wrinkle. Also, the Ohio State University faculty in the College of Education and the Col lege o f Engineering, the members o f the J o in t Commission and the writers for the Progressive Education Association were not without influence in this consideration. Science in general education The study of the role of science in general education, the next consideration, must of necessity include some edu cational aspects of the social function of science, of the. methods of science, and, as just considered, the content of professionalized science. Therefore the formal study of Richardson’s concepts with respect to science in general education was appropriately and purposely researched follow ing the previous three domains of science education. Down through the ages outstanding men of science endeavored to make science understandable to the "common man in the street." Richardson, too has had this as his goal throughout his professional life. Richardson's ideas on the function of science in general education was one of his most amorphous conceptual schemes. "Consumer Science" and "A World Picture" were part 228 of his early attempts at implementing his ideas. Again the iteration of his position that science must be integrated rather than compartmentalized appeared at the beginning of the thirty-year period and reappeared in various forms throughout that period. He hoped that the youngsters would achieve a comprehensive picture of the world. In this particular domain of science education his work was affected by his position that the school*s role was to meet the needs of the Individual in all aspects of living in a democracy by the use of problem solving experi ences. Basic to curriculum thinking for Richardson was his insight into the needs of the individual and society. "The Core" served as a basis in his thinking of curriculum organi zatio n . The concept of "scientific literacy for all" dom inated his thinking in this domain of science education during the second half of the thirty-year period. What edu cation was truly general remained an amorphous concept; however, Richardson strongly advocated researchT Words and phrases such as earth science, core, aeronautics, method of science, science and human life, nature of the world and laboratory, appeared in his writings during the fifties on the function of science in general education. Writings during the middle of the period of the present study indi cated deep influences on Richardson's thought by the writings of Alberty, statements in the yearbooks in science education, 229 Dewey, and the immediate effects of Laton's and Powers' new ideas in science curriculum for general education. Other influences may be traced back to Havighurst and Schlessinger. In more recent years scientific literacy was expressed by him in terms of explanation, rational processes, process outcomes and Bruner's "structure." For a brief time following Sputnik Richardson over shadowed his primary concept of general education with an emphasis on the neglected "gifted student." Shortly, however, he departed from this emphasis and restored his previous perspective and broadened it somewhat. Though he did not ignore the budding scientist, his commitment was to America's new goal of scientific literacy for all people in order for the republic to remain productive and free. He advocated Calder’s "social dynamic," Harvard Report's and Whitehead's "integrative and interdisciplinary science," Bruner's "Process," Conant's "Tactics and Strat egy," and Power's "Functionalism." His writings included an analysis of problems in this domain of science education by Williamson and many ideas of implementation from the writings of Slesnik, Showalter, Hale, Woodfield, and Berzofsky. Implications for further research Throughout the study one noted growth, modification and the actual changing of ideas and concepts held by a distinguished science educator. In the investigation the desire was to contribute to the understanding of the present 230 ideas in science education by a review of a portion of the immediate past. It is important to the implementation of new programs in science that the development of the ideas of influential science educators be researched, as well as the b a sis fo r th e ir id eas. Many "new ideas" have, as was demon strated, their origin several generations in the past. This in no way minimizes the fine work of great men who have made lasting contributions to life by standing "on the shoulders of giants." One of the attributes of a fine research study is that it is fruitful—that is, it begets other ideas. It should stimulate other research; it should engender reflec tive thought. Investigations should lead invariably to new investigations. Progress is made by cumulative knowledge and an increasingly comprehensive reference frame. In the domain of science education, the investigator desired to stimulate further study of the evolution and source of its major concepts and the men that created them. It is desired that the historical, philosophical approach will be more evident in investigations in science education in the future. One researcher,obviously, is not able to thoroughly analyze all the ramifications inherent even in one domain of science education. More research is needed. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aiken, Wilford M. The Story of the Eight-Year Study. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19427 Alberty, Harold. Reorganizing the High School Curriculum. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947• Aviation Education Research Committee. Demonstrations and Laboratory Experiences in the Science of Aeronautics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c ., 194*>. Bernal, J. D. The Social Function of Science. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939. Bode, Boyd H. How We Learn. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1940. Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, I960. Cahoon, Guybert Phillips and Richardson, John Sanford. Instructor’s Manual, Civil Air Patrol. Vol. 1, Book III”. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1949. Croxton, W. C. Redirecting Science Teaching in the Light of Personal-Social Needs. Washington: American Council of Science Teachers, 1942. Commission on Secondary School Curriculum. Science in General Education. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938. ______. Mathematics in General Education. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1940. Conant, James B. On Understanding Science. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1947. Dale, Edgar. Audio-visual Methods in Teaching. New York: The Dryden Press, 1946. 231 232 Educational Policies Commission. Education for All American Youth. Washington: National Education Association, I5WT ______. Education for All American Youth—A Further Look. Washington: National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, 1952. ______. The Unique Function of Education in American Democracy. Washington: National Education Association and the Department of Superintendence, 1937* Fawcett, Harold P. The Nature of Proof. Thirteenth Year book, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. New York: The Columbia University, 1938. Ford, Charles A. Comptonfs Illustrated Science Dictionary. New York: David Stew art Publishing Company, 1963. Garrett, Alfred Benjamin; Richardson, John Sanford; and Kiefer, Arthur S. Chemistry: A First Course in Modern Chem istry. Boston: Ginn and Company, 19&1. * ______; Richardson, John Sanford; and Montague, Earl J. Chem istry: A F ir s t Course in Modern Chem istry. Hev. ed. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1966. Goodlad, John I. School Curriculum Reform in the United States. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 19611. Harvard Committee. General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19^5. Havighurst, Robert J. Developmental Tasks and Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19MB. Hunter, George W. Science Teaching at Junior and Senior High School Levels"! New York: American Book Company, 1935* Joint Commission on the Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Improving Science and Mathematics Pro grams in American Schools. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educa tion, I960. Koelsche, Charles Lewis and Richardson, John Sanford. Facil ities and Equipment Available for Teaching in theHlgK Schools of Ohio, l95b-5tH Toledo, Ohio: University of Toledo Research Foundation, 1959. 233 Miami Workshop. Working Together for Ohio’s Schools. A Report of the Second Miami Workshop, June 8-20, 19^5* Kent, Ohio: Miami Workshop Committee, 19^5. National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Guidelines for Preparation Programs of Teachers of Secondary School Science and Mathematics. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1961. National Society for the Scientific Study of Education. The Third Yearbook, Part II, Nature Study. Chicago: Ihe University of Chicago Press, 1904. National Society for the Study of Education. Thirty-first Yearbook, Part I, A Program for Teaching Science. Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing Co., 1932. ______. Forty-sixthYearbook, Part I, Science Education in American Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago P ress, 191»7. ______. Fifty-firstYearbook, Part I, General Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952. ______. Fifty-ninth Yearbook, Part I, Rethinking Science Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, i960. Obourn, Ellsworth S. Science as a Way of Life. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, l96l. Neal, Nathan A. Science Teaching for Better Llvlng--A Philosophy or Point of View. Washington.d 7 c.: American Council of Science Teachers, 19*12. Noll, Victor H. The Teaching of Science in Elementary and Secondary Schools. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1939• Parsegian, V. L.; Meltzer, A.; Luchlns, A.S.; and Klnerson, K. S. Introduction to Natural Science—Part I--The Physical Sciences. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 19687 ------Pearson, Karl. The Grammar of Science. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1892. 234 Ohio State Department of Education. Science Education for the Elementary Schools of Ohio. Curriculum Bulletin, No. 3« Columbus, Ohio: The State Department of Education, 1945* Powers, Samuel Ralph. The Education of the Science Teacher. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Science Teachers, 1942. Preston, Carleton E. The High School Science Teacher and His Work. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, In c ., 1936. Progressive Education Association. Evaluation in the Eight Year Study. Bulletins 1-6. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1936. ______. Material Prepared by Participants in the Science Group of the Progressive Education Association Summer Workshop. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1947. Ramseyer, John A. Aviation Education foOhlo. Columbus, Ohio: The State Department of Education, 1946. Richardson, John Sanford. A Proposed College Curriculum for the Education of Science Teachers. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1942. ______. Introduction of Experimental Science in the Elemen tary and Secondary Schools of the United States. Paris, France: U.N.E.S.C.O., 1950. ______. Science Teaching in Secondary Schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 195?. ______, and Cahoon, Guybert Phillips. Methods and Materi als for Teaching General and Physical Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1951. ______, and Diehl, T. Handley. The Development of a Mobile Laboratory for the In-Service Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics"! Research Foundation Project 945. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1961. ______, and Howe, Robert W. The Role of Centers for Science Education in the Production. Demonstration, and Pis- semination of Research" U.S. Office ot Education, Cooperative Research Project No. Y-002. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University,1 9 6 6. 235 ______; Williamson, Stanley E.; and Stotler, Donald W. The Education of Science Teachers. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e rrill Publishing Company, 1968. ______, ed. Resource Literature for Science Teachers. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1957. ______. Resource Literature for Science Teachers. 2nd ed. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1961. ______. School Facilities for Science Instruction. Wash ington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1954. ______. School Facilities for Science Instruction. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Associ ation, 1961. Schaefer, Robert J. The School as a Center of Inquiry. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Steelm an, John R. Manpower fo r Research. Science and Public Policy, Vol. IV. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 19**7. Stotler, Donald W.; Richardson, John S.; and Williamson, Stanley E. The Supervision of School Science Pro grams . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Books, Inc., 1967. Tyler, Ralph W. Constructing Achievement Tests. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1931*• Watson, Fletcher G., and others. Critical Years Ahead in Science Teaching. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity, 1953. Whitehead, Alfred North. The Alms of Education. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929. Workshop on Teacher Education. A Program for Teacher Educa tion in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Uni versity £ress, 19*10. W rinkle, W illiam L. The New High School in th e Making. New York: American Book Co., 1937. 236 Articles and Periodicals Agassiz, Louis. "Methods of Study In Natural History." The Atlantic Monthly, IX (April, 1862). American Association for the Advancement of Science Cooper ative Committee on Science Teaching. "The Prepara tion of High School Service and Mathematics Teachers." School Science and Mathematics, XLVI (February, 1946), 107- 118. Barnard, J. Darrell. "Teaching Scientific Attitudes and Methods in Science." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, XXXVII TJ'anuary, 195577 17H-1BJ; ------Bernal, J. D. "Science Teaching in General Education." Science and Society, IV (Winter, 1940), 1-11. Berzofsky, Max and Ousler, Joseph C. "Organizing Team Teach ing in Science." The Science Teacher, XXXI (October, 1964), 30-32. Cahoon, Guybert Phillips. "A Professional Laboratory Course for Science Teachers." Science Education, XXIV (February, 1940), 64-67. ______. "Competency in Science Teaching—Not Credit Hours," Part 1, Science Education, XXVII (February, 1943), 1- 6 . ______. "Competency in Science Teaching—Not Credit Hours," Part 2, Science Education, XXVII (March, 1943), 55-60. ______. "Important Abilities and Knowledges for the Teach ers of Secondary School Physical Science in the Use of Apparatus, Materials, and Tools for Laboratory, Demon stration and Shop." Science Education, XXII (Febru ary, 1938), 88-92. ______. "Providing Pupil Experiences in Thinking." Science Education, XXX (October, 1946), 196. ______. "Using Demonstrations for Providing Pupil Experi ence in Thinking." Science Education, XXX (October, 1946), 196-201. ______, and Richardson, John Sanford. "Modern Science Roans and Laboratories." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, KXXVlI (January, 15)53), llO -llo . 237 ______. "The Preparation of Teachers." A Half Century of Science and Mathematics Teaching. Fiftieth Anniver sary Volume. Oak Park, 111.: C entral A ssociation of Science and Mathematics Teachers, Inc., 1950. Calder, Ritchie. "Science and the Common Man." The UNESCO Courier. XVIII (February, 1965), 5-8, 32. "Science and the Common Man (Part Two)." The UNESCO Courier. XVIII (March, 1965), 16-22. Carleton, Robert H. "Physics Hazard, Math Hazard, or Teacher Hazard?" The Science Teacher, XXII (September, 1955). 173-175. ______. "Some Suggestions for Research in the Senior High School Sciences." Science Education, XXXI (October, 19^7), 217-219. Committee of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching on the Training of Science Teachers. "Pre liminary Report of the Committee of the National Asso ciation for Research in Science Teaching on the Train ing of Science Teachers." Science Education, XXII (November, 1938), 283-293. Croxton, W. C. "The Twelve-year Science Program from the Viewpoint of Colleges Training Teachers for Towns, Villages and Rural Schools." Science Education, XXII (February, 1938), 59-64. Dewey, John. "Method in Science Teaching." General Science Quarterly, I (November, 1916), 3-9. "Method in Science Teaching." The Science Teacher, XXII (April, 1955), 119-122. "The Supreme Intellectual Obligation." Science Education, XVIII (February, 1934), 1-4. Garrett, Alfred B. "Recommendation for the Preparation of High School Teachers of Science and Mathematics—1959." School Science and Mathematics, LIX (April, 1959)* 281-289.------Gardner, Marjorie and Richardson, John S. "Teachers of Science in Ohio's Senior High Schools." Education Research Bulletin, XXXIX (March, I960), 65^71. 238 Hale, Helen E., and Woodfield, Charles W. "General Physical Science." The Science Teacher, XXXI (March, 196*0, 2 *1- 2 6 . ------ Howe, Robert W. "Centers for Science Education in Colleges and Universities: Functions and Designs," The Role of Centers for Science Education in the Production, and Dissemination of Research Cooperative Research Program! Edited by John S. Richardson and Robert W. Howe. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1966. ______, and Richardson, John S. "Secondary School Science Teacher Education at the Ohio State University." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (1965). 136-140“ ------61 Hunter, G. W., and Spore, L. "The Objectives of Science in the Secondary Schools of the United States." School Science and Mathematics, XLIII (October, 1943), &33- Hurd, A. W. "What is Professionalized Subject Matter in Teacher Training?" Science Education, XVI (February, 1932), 238-243. Johnson, Philip G. "Some Implications of Scientific Methods for Secondary Education." School Life, XXX (July, 1948), 3-6. ______. "The Goals of Science Education." Theory into Practice, I (December, 1962), 239-244. "The Meanings of Science." The Science Teacher, XVII (November, 1950), 161-163. Keeslar, Oreon. "The Elements of Scientific Method." Science Education, XXIX (December, 1945), 273-278. Lefler, R. W. "The Teaching of Laboratory Work in High School Physics." School Science and Mathematics, XLVII (June, 1946), '53I-53tf. "Use Your Science Lab Scientifically." NEA Journal, (February, 1954), 83-84. Noll, Victor H. "Science as an Organized Field of Study." Science Education, XXII (March, 1939), 119-125. Obourn, Ellsworth S. "A Teacher of Science in a Private- Progressive School." Education (March, 1939), 400-402. 239 ______. "An Analysis and Check List on the Problem Solving Objective." Science Teaching Service Circular, No. 481. Washington: U.S. Department of Health^Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 1956. Powers, Samuel Ralph. "Thirty-first Yearbook in Retrospect." Science Education, XXXVII (February, 1953)* 33-35• ______. "Improvement of Science Teaching." Teachers Col lege Record, XL (January, 1939), 273-28Y. "Research in Science Teaching." Teachers College Record, XXX (January, 1929), 334-342. Richardson, John Sanford. "A Proposed College Curriculum for the Education of Science Teachers." Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations, The Ohio State University, No7 40. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1943. ______. "Announcing the NSTA Silver Anniversary Obser vance." Science Teacher, XXXV (May, 1968), 43. ______. "Evaluating a High School Science Program." North Central Association Quarterly, XVI (Fall, 1966), 192- 203. ______. "Experimental Science—Brief History and Present- Outlook." The Science Teacher, XVII (November, 1950), 164-166, 197. ______. "Human Rights, UNESCO, and the Science Teacher." The Science Teacher, XXXIV (October, 1967)* 54-55. "Improvised Rotator." Science Education, XXIX (October, 1945), 207-208. "Introduction to a Workshop." Educational Methods, (O ctober, 1939), 7-9* "On Scientific Literacy." NEA Journal, LII (April, 1963), 33. ______. "Professional Discipline and the Teaching of S cience." The Science Teacher, XXII (November, 1955), 169-172. ______. "Putting Quality in a Science Program." Virginia Journal of Education, LII (October, 1958), 11-15. — - 240 "School Science in Its Social Setting." Theory Into Practice. I (1962), 237-238. "Science Tomorrow." NEA Jo u rn a l, LVI (May, 1957)* 311- 312. . "Some Problems in the Education of Science Teachers." Science Education, XXIX (December, 1945), 249-252. . "Storage of Pamphlets and Charts." School, Science and Mathematics, LV (November, 1945), 757-765. . "Teaching Report." Science Education. XXIX (December, 1945), 265. . "The Next Generation of Science Teachers." Metro politan Detroit Science Review, VI (September, 19&5T, 9-10 ," 46. . The UNESCO Division of Science Teaching." XXXV (May, 1968), 51-52. ______. "Trends, Deficiencies, and Challenges Related to General Science." School, Science and Mathematics, XLV (March, 1945), 202-210. ______, and Barnard, J. Darrell. "Methods and Materials in the Teaching of Science.” Review of Educational Research, XVIII (October, 1948), 323-326. ______; Cahoon, G. P.j and Lefler, Ralph W. "Facilities for Science Teacher Education." American School and Uni versity, 1952. 24th ed. New York: American School Fubllshlng Co. ______; Cahoon, G. P.; and Rutledge, James A. "Materials in the Teaching of Science." Review of Educational Research, XXI (October, 1951), 279-2B9. and Schlessinger, Fred R. "A Center for Science and Mathematics Education." The Science Teacher, XXVII (February, I960), 6-9. ______, "Ohio State University." Description of One Labor atory in "Science Teaching Centers Emphasize Labora tories." Science Education News, VII (July, 1964), 2. Robertson, T. Brailsford. "Science as a Vehicle of Educa tion." Science and Social Change. Edited by J. E. Thorton. Washington: Brookings Instltutlon, 1939, 111-113. 241 Schlessinger, Fred R. "The Preparation and Certification of Science Teachers." Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 271-276. Shannon, Henry. "General and Special Education in Science." Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 253-258. Slesnick, Irwin L., and Showalter, Victor. "Program Develop ment in U nified Science." The Science Teacher, XXVIII (December, 1961), 54-55. Twiss, George R, "A Plan for Rating the Teachers in a School System." School and Society, IX (June, 1919)* 748-756. ------Williamson, Stanley E. "A National Curriculum in Science?" Theory Into Practice, I (December, 1962), 245-252. ______. "Issues and Problems in Science Education." The Role of Centers for Science Education in Production, Demonstration and Dissemination of Research. Edited by John S. Richardson and Robert W. Howe. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1 9 6 6. Book and Test Reviews Richardson, John Sanford. "Book Reviews." Review of From- Head to Foot, Our Bodies and How They Work, by Alex Novlkoff. Science Education, April, 194b, p. 221. ______. "Book Reviews." Review of S tudies o f T eachers* Classroom Personalities, III, by Harold H. Anderson, Joseph fe. Brewer, and Mary Frances Reed. Science Education, April, 1948, p. 222. ______. "General Science." Review of Cooperative General Science Test, by Educational Testing Service In Oscar Krlsen Buros, ed., The Fourth Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Fryphon Press, 1953, P. 637. ______. "General Science." Review of Read General Science Test, by World Book Company in Oscar Krlsen Buros, ed., The Fourth Measurement Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1953, p. 640. . "Readings." Review of Modern Science Teaching by Blwood D. Helss, Ellsworth S. Obourn, and Charles W. Hoffman. Educational Research Bulletin, April 18, 1951, p. IW. 242 "Readings." Review of Reflections of a Physicist, by Percy W. Bridgman. Educational Research Bulletin, March 14, 1951, pp. 78-79" "Readings." Review of Teaching Biology for Appre- ciation, by Alfred F. Nixon. Educational Research b u lle tin , March 14, 1951, pp. 83-84. "Readings." Review of Youth After Conflict,by 'Goodwin Watson. Educational Research B ulletin, September 15, 1948, p. 165. Unpublished Materials Cahoon, Guybert Phillips, and Richardson, John Sanford. "Handbook for Student Teachers of Secondary School Science." Columbus, Ohio, n.d. (Mimeographed.) ______. "Secondary School Science Teaching." Columbus, Ohio, 1939. (Mimeographed.) Center for Science and Mathematics Education, "A Selected List of Free Materials for Science Teachers," Colum bus, Ohio, I960. College of Engineering. "Short Course in Engineering Funda mentals lbr High School Science and Mathematics Teach ers." Outline and Schedule of summer school course at The Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio, 1956. Columbus (Ohio) Town Meeting. T ran scrip t of Tape, meeting of May 4, 1958. (Typewritten.) Richardson, John Sanford. "Science in the William McGuffey High School." A handbook. Oxford, Ohio, 1946. (Mimeographed.) . "A Bibliography of Materials on Science Facili ties." Columbus, Ohio, n.d. (Mimeographed.) ______. "The Education of Science Teachers." Columbus, Ohio, n.d. (Mimeographed.) ______. "The Real Horizons in Science Education." Columbus, Ohio, n.d. (Mimeographed.) ______, and Schlessinger, Fred R. "Science Education at The Ohio State University." Columbus, Ohio, 1961. (Mimeographed.)