“Science in the California State Normal School”

Michael Weismeyer (University of California, Los Angeles)

This paper examines California’s first normal school and specifically analyzes how science education was part of its curriculum. During the first half of the nineteenth century, education in the United States had been undergoing changes as educational reformers had introduced the system of common schools. Then, normal schools were created, providing future teachers a better and more thorough education than teachers had received in the past.

As this paper demonstrates, the California State Normal School, opened in 1862, included much science in its curriculum. The students engaged with science through the school’s cabinet, museum, and herbarium, and also discussions, lectures, and field trips. The institution’s educational mission was to provide an education teachers would disseminate to California’s children, many of whom would likely never attend college. The science taught at the normal school had a potentially far greater reach than science taught at other California colleges.

The normal school’s science education allowed science to be accessible to a wide swath of the California population. The science taught often had a practical purpose in mind, and the collections were California-based, helping students learn native flora and fauna that they could then teach to their future students and increase the state’s scientific literacy. While other California colleges contributed to the state’s political economy, the California State Normal School helped the state’s citizens, starting with its youngest pupils, know more about science and provided an important part of the overall educational system that would make California a more prosperous state.

“A Chemist on Two Continents: Eben Horsford and Early Laboratory-Based Chemistry Instruction in the 19th Century U.S.”

Sarah Reynolds (Indiana University)

Although the development of the instructional laboratory in late-19th century American colleges and universities has often been regarded as an importation and adaptation of European approaches, the laboratory class also had earlier American precedents that served as a significant training ground for American scientists in the mid- to late-19th century. This paper considers the teaching and learning experiences of Eben Norton Horsford, an American applied chemist trained both domestically and abroad, who was responsible for establishing the first laboratory courses in chemistry at Harvard’s Lawrence Scientific School in the late 1840s. Horsford had studied at the Rensselaer School (later Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), where he learned chemistry through student-led, hands-on, practical experimentation approaches pioneered by Amos Eaton. After working with the New York State Geological Survey and teaching science for several years at Albany Female Academy, Horsford became one of the first Americans to study with Justus von Liebig in his famous chemistry teaching laboratory in Giessen, where, he later claimed, “the methods pursued under the guidance of that great Teacher, were in many respects the methods I had been familiar with in the Rensselaer Institute”. By reviewing Horsford’s educational trajectory and exploring how Horsford translated his American and European training into his own laboratory teaching practices at Harvard, I examine the complicated dynamics between differing educational models and ideals that were being resolved within of American instructional laboratories.

“The Association of Scientists for Atomic Education and Public Education in the late-1940s: Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum”

Shawn Bullock (Simon Fraser University)

In 1946, the Association of Scientists for Atomic Education (ASAE) was founded by a small group of scientists, ostensibly for the purpose of educating the public about atomic energy. Minutes from the ASAE’s first meeting list “education of scientists,” “education of adult public,” and “education of school population (high school and public)” as primary activities. A “special project” was dedicated to engaging the 20,000 alumni of the International House of New York (a private residence and program for international university students and academics still in operation to this day) in thinking about atomic energy programs. The ASAE’s activities were enacted through several regional organizations, with main offices in New York. In this paper, I will trace the pedagogical activities of members of the ASAE using the lenses afforded by what educational theorist Michael Apple would call “the hidden curriculum” of the organization’s educational agendas. Apple, in part, argues that a hidden curriculum masks the conflicts that are inherent in the material being taught; thus, what is “hidden” in such educational approaches are the productive uses of debate, organized skepticism, and the political realities of civic discourse. Archival materials – including meeting minutes, memoranda, curricular materials, and letters – will be used to examine how the organization constructed atomic energy as an educational problem and why members of the ASAE considered themselves uniquely suited to this task. I will conclude by suggesting reasons for ASAE’s short, 3-year, tenure.

“Best Foot Forward: An Analysis of Biology Textbooks”

Stephen Dilley (St. Edward's University)

I analyze biology (and evolution) textbooks published in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in North America. In particular, I examine the “evidence for evolution” sections of these books. In a surprising number of cases, many arguments for evolution rely crucially on claims about ‘what God would do’ in organic history. Close analysis of these arguments reveals: first, the theology in question is essential to the arguments in which they appear. That is, the removal of a given theology-laden premise leaves the argument in question logically invalid. Second, the theological claims in question are by-and-large not derived from creationist (or intelligent design) theology. Instead, textbook authors bring their own theology to the table. Third, their theology appears to be quite partisan. It is widely contested by major strains of prominent theological traditions (like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Fourth, textbook authors overwhelmingly fail to provide justification for the truth of their partisan theological claims. Typically, their theology is simply asserted without support of any kind. Fifth, in many cases, the textbooks which include theological claims also assert that science relies solely on empirically-testable claims; yet their own theology-laden premises are not empirically testable. In light of these findings, I suggest that historians may have neglected the importance of theology in biology (and evolution) textbooks published recently in North America. I also suggest that educators avoid teaching problematic theology-laden arguments for evolution and instead expose students to strong arguments for evolution that do not rely on God-talk.