A History of Ideas in Science Education by George E. DeBoer
Summary of Chapter 1: Science versus Classical Studies
The nineteenth century …began with primitive sanitation and horse-drawn carriages, but also
with a faith in the certainty of the laws of nature and the inevitable progress of the human race.
The century ended with the discovery of previously unimagined forces – radioactive emission,
the internal combustion engine, and the great dynamos of industry – and with uncertainty.
DeBoer’s first chapter details 19th century changes in U.S. education in the form of “gradual but
certain diminishing of the study of classical languages” which were replaced steadily by the
“infusion of the sciences and other modern studies into the curriculum at all levels” (p. 2).
Since the colonial times, one was considered educated if he could read, write and manage simple
accounts. Study of classical literature, history and languages was needed for the clergy and
served to enrich the social graces of the elite afforded this level of education. The changes
captured in the leading quote led to the inclusion and eventual expansion of science education.
The Contributions of Science Study to Mental Discipline
Edward Livingston Youmans – author, lecturer, wrote a chemistry text, started The Popular
Science Monthly magazine (1872) – He wrote and spoke on topics of popular interest in science.
In 1867 edited The Culture Demanded by Modern Life, “a collection of essays by American and
British scientists and educators arguing for inclusion of the sciences in the school and college
curriculum” (p. 4). Youmans argued for the merits of science study (over the study of languages
or mathematics) for developing mental discipline and inductive thought. “According to
Youmans, prevailing educational practice focused too much on useless facts as a way of
increasing a generalized mental capacity. What was needed instead was a process that produced
both useful knowledge and improved mental power at the same time. This was the contribution
that science could make” (p. 6).
The Utility of Science Study
In Europe and the U.S., many nineteenth century scientists joined the campaign to make science
teaching part of the school curriculum.
Thomas Huxley added to the modernization argument: “The humanists had won their victory
during the Renaissance 300 years earlier with the incorporation of the rediscovered Greek
civilization into the curriculum. …What the classicists were forgetting was that there was now a
modern world whose literature, painting, music, and science could compete with the great works
of the Greek civilization. (p. 9). Huxley also emphasized the capacity of science study to affect
intellectual development, noting as did Youmans that mathematics and languages were
deductive in their instructional approach and that “only science was an attempt to discover
relationships based on direct observations of the natural world, and only the study of science
would help one deal more intelligently with the everyday world of observable fact” (p. 10).
Herbert Spencer wrote at this time to promote the relevance of science education over classical
studies. Education: Intellectual, Moral, Physical (1864) was published in the U.S. and argued
that self-preservation in the changing world required the “vital knowledge” of science, not only
in relation to industrialization, but also appreciation of the arts and for moral discipline.
A History of Ideas in Science Education by George E. DeBoer
Summary of Chapter 2: Educational Thought and Practice in the Nineteenth Century
The Role of the Academy
An alternate and more practical form of education was first offered via the American academy
(example: 1750 Ben Franklin’s Philadelphia Academy). These secondary schools grew steadily
through the mid 19th century, and taught such subjects as surveying, navigation, agriculture, and
accounting. These institutions generated well over 100 different subjects, courses often as short
as 6-weeks (algebra, acoustics, astronomy, botany, Chaldee, chemistry, conchology, debating,
U.S. history, English literature, needlework, optics, philosophy, phrenology, waxwork, etc.)
The aim of practical utility was not realized, as most academies “did not provide practice in
developing skill but rather were book-taught intellectual exercises. But, even so, the new
curriculum was an important change from the classical curriculum because it represented a
movement toward the study of the affairs of the present rather than the ancient past” (p. 19).
“The academies reached the peak of their influence around 1850 and then began to decline as
public secondary schools rose to take their place” (p. 21).
European Influence
Pestalozzi – Swiss educator Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi influenced Spencer, Huxley, and
other scientists who argued for the place of science instruction in the schools. Pestalozzi was
inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was first to communicate the whole notion of the
human “sense of wonder” – that “the aim of education was to prepare a child for life by
developing the child’s natural, inborn capacities” (p. 21). Rousseau’s Emile described the merits
of teaching a boy through nature study via observations appropriate to his level of mental
development as opposed to the more formal, authoritarian methods common at the time.
Pestalozzi applied Rousseau’s writings in the creation of a residential school for fifty abandoned
children (1774) where he taught reading, writing, and arithmetic as well as practical experiences
in farming and gardening. “Investigation and experimentation were more important than
memorization, and activity was more important than passive listening. The ultimate objective of
education was the development of independent self-activity. …The teacher’s role was changed
from one of evaluating memorized recitations to one of presenting the child with materials and
ideas that were important, meaningful, and in harmony with the natural mental growth of the
child.” (p. 22).
--Pestalozzian ideas were in the British and U.S. educational literature beginning in the 1820s.
--Elizabeth Mayo’s book of “object lessons” did much to spread the ideas of Pestalozzi.
Herbart – Johann Friedrich Herbart, German educator whose General Pedagogy (1806)
captured the attention of American educators in the 1890s. Herbart viewed the mind less in terms
of inherited biological capacity, and more as a set of ideas built upon each other and richly
interconnected. Thus, he communicated an educational purpose of constructing for each learner
an arrangement of ideas, and believed that all knowledge must be acquired by the individual (in
direct conflict with the traditional notion that education should be used to discipline mental
faculties such as memory. “Ideas were considered to be the fundamental building blocks of the
mind… The purpose of education was not to exercise the mind but to create conceptual
structures that would enable a person to live a well-rounded, moral life (p. 25).
Herbart was first to communicate the ideas of conceptual understanding and interest.
Herbart’s four-step model of teaching (pp. 26-28):
1) Stimulate pupil’s interest – via direct experience and/or social interactions
2) Concept Formation – perceptions must be associated into organized principles
3) Direct Instruction – teacher systematically explains what student could not discover alone
4) Application – pupil must do something to demonstrate acquired knowledge
American Influence
Eliot – Charles W. Eliot, president of Harvard University from 1869 to 1895, did much to
advance the teaching of science in U.S. colleges, secondary, and elementary schools.
He espoused the teaching of science with “objects and instruments in hand – not from books
merely, not through memory chiefly, but by the seeing eye and the informing fingers” (p. 30).
See his critique on page 33 regarding text-based science teaching of 1898.
--“Although the pace of change was slow when measured against the standards set by Eliot and
other advocates of science teaching, by the end of the 19th century, science was being taught, and
increasingly the laboratory method was being used.” (p. 33).
Rice – J. M. Rice was a writer of the 1890s who wrote a series of articles for The Forum that
were compiled into a book published as The Public School System of the U.S. (1893) in which
Rice “described how some schools had begun to use scientific principles in their teaching, but
how many still followed the mechanical practices of the past. Rice described the mechanical
school as one whose function was the “crowding into the memory of the child a certain number
of cut-and-dried facts – that is, giving the child a certain amount of information” (p. 35). In
contrast, he exhorted educators to follow a new approach “to lead the child to observe, to reason,
and to acquire manual dexterity as well as to memorize facts – in a word, to develop the child
naturally in all his faculties, intellectual, moral, and physical” (p. 35).
“Rice was appalled by the mindless, meaningless recitations, the harsh discipline, the absence of
active thought on the part of the children, and the excessive use of textbooks in place of realworld experiences” (p. 36). See quotes from Rice’s 1893 classroom visits, on pages 35-37, and
consider these observations in relation to what you see in your current school and classroom.
A History of Ideas in Science Education by George E. DeBoer
Summary of Chapter 3: The Turn of the Century and the Committee of Ten
Secondary school population enters period of explosive growth:
1890, only 360,000 14-17 year olds attended high school (6.7% of the age group).
1920, 2.5 million 14-17 year olds attended high school (32.3% of the age group).
The Committee of Ten – headed by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard University
July 1892, to make college entrance requirements more uniform, a committee of 7 university
presidents and 3 secondary principles was appointed at the annual meeting of the National
Education Association (NEA). This committed thus had great influence on the public secondary
curriculum subjects and how they would be structured in the academic year. This committee
formed 9 other committees (or conferences), one for each major area of the curriculum – Latin,
Greek, Math, Literature, Modern Languages, History, and the Sciences.
-eventually passed a resolution that science should make up 25% of the high school curriculum.
See recommendations from sub-committees (NEA, 1893) and evaluate significance:
Conference on Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy p. 42
Conference on Natural History p. 43
Conference on Geography p. 45
Science Conference Reports show that in the 1890s “science educators believed that science
education should be based on direct experience with the physical world rather than the words of
teachers or textbooks” (p. 48).
The Committee of Ten’s Report offered sample courses (classical, Latin-scientific, modern
languages, English) that infused science in these non-science subjects, which when added to the
science subjects, suggested that overall one-fifth of a student’s total time in high school would be
devoted to the study of science.
The report was influential as people read and created programs in schools across the U.S. Over
time, there was a reduction in the number of subjects that were taught in schools. A smaller
number of subjects areas developed, tending toward those recommended by the Committee of
Ten as science enrollments grew rapidly between 1890 and 1910.
Oddly, the committee work done by the science conferences was not offered in an organized
form in the Final Report of the Committee presented at the NEA conference in 1899 (see quote,
top p. 51). Nevertheless, the intention of the science group was met in that “the programs of
study laid down by the committee were expected to serve as norms for secondary schools, and
colleges were expected to accept satisfactory completion of these programs for college
admission” (p. 51).
So around 1900 we see the beginning of a movement to make science courses more applied and
relevant to the everyday lives of the students, a force that would continue to grow in the years
ahead.