Abstract
THE report of the Board of Education on the above subject (see NATURE, May 4) contains many expressions of opinion with which I heartily agree. But I must beg respectfully to differ from the authors as regards the limitations, they propose to put upon the use of everyday phenomena in science teaching. The report says:—“They should, of course, be introduced as illustrations, that is to say, when, and only when, they may happen to be wanted to give point to the teaching”. This dogmatic statement ignores the fact that many well-known teachers strongly prefer the opposite mode of procedure. Upon their view a practical problem should be made the starting point, so that the development of the scientific method should follow instead of precede; e.g. from a study of the crane the class should discover the triangle of forces. The main argument for this procedure is that the boys actually want to know how a crane works, whereas interest in abstract principles does not, as a rule, outcrop until the age of sixteen or seventeen years. My own experience is distinctly in favour of the appeal to the utilitarian rather than to the scientific motive, except in the case of exceptional boys or of those above the age of seventeen.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
DANIELL, G. The Teaching of Science in Secondary Schools. Nature 86, 484 (1911). https://doi.org/10.1038/086484b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/086484b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.