Science in Schools A Program for War and Peace JOHN C. HOGG T h e Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, New Hampshire
INCE the outbreak of war the public has been made acutely aware of the importance of the role of the school in national defense. Numerous articles have appeared in the press; educators, politicians, military and naval officials have expressed themselves freely if not clearly on the subject. In all cases there has been a tacit assumption that changes in the school curriculum are necessary. Much of the publicity has been critical in nature, but some sound suggestions have been offered as a cure for our educational ills. There is no doubt that, as a nation, our academic conscience has been stung by the thought that schools are not making a satisfactory contribution to the war effort. Most of the criticisms have been directed against our weakness in scientific and technical education. AU schools and colleges have heard the call and never before has such concentrated attention been focused upon the curriculum. The result is that some changes have already been made, but these, for the most part, are a palliative rather than a cure. Sterner measures are needed if science is to play the part i t deserves and desires in modem education. As a school subject, science has never offset the initial disadvantage of its late entry into the curriculum. The demand for science teach'mg quite naturally followed the introduction of technical and scientific methods into industq in the early part of the 19th century, but the inclusion of science in the curriculum was ~ossibleonly a t the expense of subjects already well established. The original curriculum was founded upon English, classics, mathematics, and history. Science was not a welcome guest and for many years could maintain only a precarious foothold. Physics was first taught as a school subject in a Boston high school in 1821, but it was not until 1872 that science iinally established its place in the curriculum. In this year, Harvard University accepted physics as a subject for admission and, in 1888, chemistry was given a similar status. This step marked the first academic victory for science in its long struggle for recognition. When science was first admitted to the curriculum i t was limited to one year of instruction spread over a wide field which embraced physics, chemistry, and another science, usually biology. As an educational project this was doomed from the outset, for i t gave a mere smattering of knowledge and served little purpose except to invite criticism. The obvious and easy adjustment was to retain the one-year period but to teach
S
only one of the three branches. Many of our schools have not advanced beyond this stage. There is little of permanent value in one-year courses taken a t breathless pace between September and June. They refute every tenet of the learning process and are the bane of science teaching. Learning must be slow if i t is to endure; ideas must have time to seep in if they are to form part of our mental equipment. In a science course a student learns a great deal through his mistakes, particularly in the laboratory. Verbal correction has little meaning when the student learns through observation. Repetition of experiments unsatisfactorily pedormed is an essential precaution, for it teaches greater precision and closer observation and imparts added confidence to. the student. This slow approach takes time, but there is no substitute for it, not even in wartime: Without the opportunity to learn slowly, teaching becomes a shoddy business. The extension of the one-year courses has become urgently necessary if school science is to play its part in education. Already some schools have offered extended courses for several years, and the experience gained will serve a useful purpose when the measure is more widely adopted. There is, however, a strong sentiment against further expansion on the ground that i t favors specialization. For some reason the term specializetion is applied to the teaching of a science beyond the one-year level. It is not applied to the study of language or mathematics even when these subjects are studied for four consecutive years. There may be sound pedagogic reasons why four years of a language are of greater value than two years of a science, but they have never been clearly stated. Undoubtedly, the more ardent advocates of scientific training have claimed too much for their subject and have conceded too little to the value of literary studies. This prejudice bas damaged the cause and has widened the breach between science and the arts. Changes in the teaching of science, introduced as a war measure, have scarcely touched the fundamental weaknesses of the curriculum. The common procedure has been to add something of a technical nature in the hope that i t will be immediately effective in training our students in some of the techniques of war. Education is being geared to the war effort and an accelerated program, so vital in industry, is being applied to the schools. Aeronautics is one of the war courses recently intro-
duced into a large number of our schools. The wisdom of offering aeronautics as a school course, even as a war measure, can be debated, particularly if the essential prerequisites have not been taught beforehand. It is a specialized subject depending chiefly upon mathematics and physics, but, also, to a lesser extent upon meteorology, astronomy, and chemistry. If sound courses of mathematics and physics are required as concurrent studies or prerequisites, the course on aeronautics will correlate these studies and may make a valuable contribution to the war effort. Unfortunately, however, the course is being generally offered without these prerequisites and its efficacy will be seriously impaired. Another factor that has been passed over too lightly is that few teachers are qualified to teach the course. If a teacher is to depend upon a textbook to keep one jump ahead of the class, it is clear that instruction can be neither profitable nor inspiring. Without sound knowledge a teacher loses his main assets, confidence and enthusiasm. Inferior instruction is inevitable in courses that have been publicly acclaimed and which are expected to produce tangible results. Science in the school curriculum does not reflect the importance of science in our modem world. Changes are necessary, but these should be made with vision so as to serve the country in peace no less than in war. Whatever is to be permanently achieved must be won slowly. School science should be an end in itself; i t should not depend upon the college to round it off. Those of us who have grappled with the one-year courses are aware of their limitations. There are places where clear exposition is impossible; tough spots that defy good teaching, wbere even that educational panacea called'motimtion has little or no effect. In physics, we may recall the sketchy and evasive treatment of Newton's laws of motion, the difficultiesin teaching vector quantities, the confusion of the relationship between velocity, wave length, refraction, and dispersion of light, the discouraging efforts to correlate mechanical, heat, and electrical energy exchanges, and the almost complete neglect of the chemical effects of a current. In chemistry the problems are different. Here the student must grasp a great deal of factual and largely unrelated material. He finds little in his previous experience to help him to understand the peculiar behavior of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen. The versatile and unpredictable nitrogen is always a stumbling block. The pedagogue asserts that the "How" must precede the "Why"; be maintains that if the student is first interested in effects he will be self-propelled to seek causes. Presumably, a sound approach to the element sulfur is via the heavy chemical, sulfuric acid. We should 6rst impress upon the student the importance of sulfuric acid in indnstryits use in the manufacture of fertilizers, explosives, and dyes, and in the refining of gasoline. With this preliminary motivation the student is supposedly tuned and eager to learn of the manufacturing process and, in turn, to study sulfur dioxide and, h a l l y , sulfur.
The "Why's" may or may not include such theoretical topics as catalytic reactions, reversible reactions, Le Chatelier's Principle, and oxidation states. The advantage of the ritual (Motivation-How-Why) is that i t is a means of coping with some of the difficulties of the one-year course. It attempts to linkupchemistry with everyday experience and avoids the more rigorous theoretical approach; it exploits the excitement inherent in the magic word "chemistry." The danger is that the method may become an educational frill and form a veneer which hides the sterner stuff that develops the intellect. If physics and chemistry are taught as separate oneyear courses, the inevitable question that arises is, Which should be taught first? Since physics is the more mathematical, i t is argued that this subject should be deferred until the mathematical background of the student is able to cope with it. In other words, chemistry should precede physics. But an equally strong counter argument is that chemistry leans heavily on physicsmuch more than physics leans on chemistry. For this reason, physics should precede chemistry. The result is that both approaches can be justified but that neither approach is pedagogically sound. Indeed, the only valid answer to the question is that neither subject should be taught first but that they should be taught simultaneously. The separation of the physical sciences into physics and chemistry is unfortunate The divison was made originally as a convenience and was not intended as a cleavage. Physics and chemistry are two aspects of the same science. Physics deals with energy and its interrelation in the fields of mechanics, heat, electricity, and light; chemistry deals with the structural changes in matter that result from energy changes. To study one without the other is to get an incomplete picture and the student is seriously handicapped. These two sciences should be integrated and studied together for two years. Such a course would remove many of the difficulties inherent in the separate courses, i t would prevent overlapping and needless repetition, and it would help to banish the one-year course from the cumculum. A possible two-year integrated course is outlined as follows: I. Basic Concepts of length, mass, time, force, density. 11. Concept of Pressure Pascal's Law; Archimedes' Principle; Atmospheric pressure; Boyle's Law. 111. Concept of the Molecule Temperature; Expansion; Gas Law; Measurement of heat; Changes of state; Transfer of heat. Kinetic theory; Vapor pressure. IV. Concept of the Atom Physical and chemical changes; Oxygen; Atomic theory; Hydrogen; Formulas and equations; Water; Weight calculations; Carbon and its compounds. Combmatian bv volume:. Gav . Lussac's Law; Avogadro's Hypothesis. v. Concept of Energy Work; Machines; Friction; Power; Force and motion; Newton's Laws; Conservation of energy; Mechanical equivalent of heat: Chemical energy. Reversible reactions; Equilibrium.
VI. Electrical Energy Magnetism; Electrostatics. Current electricity; Resistance; Magnetic effects; Power and energy; Induction; Generator; Motor; Trausfotmer. Ionization; Electrolysis; Electmchemical equivalent; Acids, bases, and salts; Neutralization. VII. Concept of the Electron Oxidation-reductionby electron transfer; Primary and storage cells. Sulfur and its mmpounds. Periodic dassification and atomic structure. Halogen family; Nitrogen and its compounds; Metals. VIII. Concept of Wave Motion Speed of light; Refiedim; Refraction; Optical instruments; Dispersion. Transverse and longitudinal waves; Sound; Radiations beyond the visible spectrum.
TABLE1 Physics Grade 12.68 Grade 11,31 8 Grade 10. Chemistry Grade 12, 32 Grade 11. 35 Grade 10. 5 Physical ~cie& (fist year) Grade 11, 13 Grade 10.38 -
107 students
72 students 51 students
still in the 11th grade, whereas the majority of the students in the separate courses are in the 12th grade. And, in spite of the handicap of one year in age, the "two-year" student is superior. Some schools have been loath to adopt the physical In one school a two-year integrated physical sciences sciences course because students must commit themcourse has been taught for the past seven years, The selves, at the outset, to two consecutive years of a separate one-year courses have also been given so that This attitude reflects a fundamental weakness it has been possible to compare the achievements in the m school science teaching. So long as a two-year intetwo cases. Probably the most striking thing about the inte- grated course is regarded as an intellectual hazard there grated course is the maturity which the student de- is little hope of improvement. with a a three-year* and velops in his second year. The first year is marked by the usual dificulties inherent in any new course, But possibly a four-year, science course could be made availthe ideas seep in and continue to seep in, even during the able to all students. Such a four-year course (grades long summer vacation. It is a common experience for 9 to 12) might be arranged as follows: weak students in the first year to show -astonishmg Grade 9-A general science c a m e . liere the student would pick up some of the language and advances in the second. Moreover, some interesting ideas of science and receive his fist introduction to deductive results have been revealed by examinations (objective reasoning. tests) given just before and after the summer vacation. Grades 10 and Il-The integrated physical sciences course. Almost without exception the later examination shows Grade I 2 The fourth year should allow considerable choice for the a gain in knowledge. Contrary to the common opinion, science teacher. Biology, for instance, is enriched if it follows the vacation is a maturing rather than aforgetting period, rather than precedes the physical sciences. An alternative a potent factor in educational growth that is completely course would he industrial physics and chemistry or, if a college neglected in one-year courses. preparatory class, physical chemistry. This final year is Toward the end of the second year the student in also the natural place for "war" courses. With a background of physical sciences the student could readily take up aerothe combined course takes the same final objective nautics, radio communicatiou, and wrious aspects of chemical tests as those in the one-year course. In other words, warfare. he is expected to maintain a "double front" throughout Although the war has made us acutely aware of our the year. Statistics show that the class median is higher in the case of "physical sciences" than in the responsibilities, only makeshift changes have been separate studies. This is no mere trick of interpreting made and these have been heralded with fanfare. Now figures, for the same tendency is shown year after year is the time to act boldly and effectively. At present with the regularity of clockwork. The students in the there are too many independent groups attacking the two-year course show considerably less "spread" than problems of the curriculum. There is obviously a the one-year students. In other words, relatively few sincere desire to act efficiently, but no centralized comreach the "A" group and, on the other hand, they are mittee has been appointed to coordinate the divergent eliminated from the "Engroup. views into a common policy. There is a danger that Probably the most startling comparison, however, is this activity may be only a passing phase and that we that of age. Since the integrated course simplifies the may again revert to a policy that has proved so inefapproach, it offerslittle difficulty even to boys of grade fective. The teaching of science in our schools is a 10. An analysis of the enrollment (1943-44) in the national problem and should be examined by our leading educators and scientists. Only in this way can our courses compared is shown in Table 1. In other words, the bulk of the studentsin "physical present curriculum be overhauled and revised and made sciences" complete the second year of the course while more representative of our modem age.
science.
