“Enjoyable Geometry: Père Castel’s Pedagogical Flair and Legacy”

Jean-Olivier Richard (Chemical Heritage Foundation)

The Jesuit Colleges of the early modern era are generally considered to be scientifically conservative institutions, the main task of which was the formation of well-rounded gentlemen and future priests, not the transmission and fostering of cutting-edge knowledge. It is true that throughout the seventeenth and the eighteenth-century, most French colleges considered the teaching of physics and mathematics a low priority. In this context, it may come as a surprise to find one of the most innovative approaches to the teaching of mathematics developed in that period within Louis-le-Grand College in Paris. This presentation explores R.P. Louis-Bertrand Castel’s (1688-1757) various contributions to pedagogy and the history of science education. The main focus will be Castel’s mathematical curriculum and related courses he published for the education of the public. This paper argues that his focus on improving teaching methods for children was a milestone in the history of didactics. His chief insights were that mathematical language had to be made accessible to the lay reader and contextualized from the start by the use of concrete examples. He proposed that traditional learning methods be made more playful and more appealing to the senses and the imagination of students, so that they develop a taste for advanced studies. Though somewhat idiosyncratic, Castel’s project was influential and reflective of a broader effort, on the part of Jesuit and non-Jesuit teachers of the post-Newtonian era, to adapt their teaching to the growing public need for mathematically trained natural philosophers, engineers, and craftsmen.

“What Do Textbooks Do? Changing Audiences and Aims of Nineteenth Century Pedagogical Texts in Anatomy”

Carin Berkowitz (Chemical Heritage Foundation)

What do textbooks do? This paper attempts to address that question through an historical examination of British anatomical texts of the nineteenth century. It first looks at pedagogical practices in anatomy prior to the advent of the anatomical textbook, the latter an invention, I contend, of the late nineteenth century. Examining the work of anatomists like William Hunter, John Abernethy, and Charles Bell, alongside London-based court cases surrounding anatomy lectures as a form of property, I argue that pedagogical texts of the early nineteenth century were understood as a part of, rather than distinct from, the research and teaching endeavors of their writers; they were not products of consensus. Like lectures themselves, they were regarded as the work of an author-lecturer who was situated in a particular local, national, and disciplinary context. They were full of what might be deemed valuable original ideas or castigated as unproven thoughts. The role of the anatomy folio, for instance, was undividedly pedagogical, scientific, career-making, and artistic in ways that were deeply related. When anatomical atlases suddenly were standardized in a smaller, pedagogically oriented, composite form and their use made routine and dispersed, most notably in England in the form of Gray’s Anatomy, it was because the worlds of pedagogy, of scientific and medical careers, and the landscape of the sciences itself had changed. The relationship of research to teaching, and the makeup of the audience for a scientific education, had changed as well.

“Industrial Paternalism goes to School: Scientific and Technical Education in American Company Towns, 1840-1910”

Steven Walton (Michigan Technological University)

Industrial paternalism, the philosophy of control over the social life of one’s workers, has attracted considerable attention from labor, landscape, technological, and cultural historians but less so from historians of education and science. But industrial paternalism shaped the choices about scientific and technical training in the towns industrial magnates built for workers. Many indict paternalism’s imposition of will upon their workers, but in the case of science and technical education, it is harder to criticize the movement. Scientific and technical education in 19-20th -century secondary schooling has a modest literature (the literature for higher ed. abounds), including a prehistory of the Mechanics Institute and normal school movement, and science and technology education is reasonably well understood in the British context, but less so for the U.S., which picks up with Dewey’s pedagogical and philosophical reforms in the 1910s. Given the relation between perceptions of science and invention, the expansion of public education in general, and the explosion of industry, the ground was well tilled when industrialists in America set out to educate in their own company towns. The education systems and curriculum in the corporate towns—for this study, Lowell, MA (textiles; 1840-80), Calumet, MI (copper mining; 1860-1920), Pullman, IL (rail cars; 1880- 1920), and Gary, IN (steel; 1900-20)—reflect what the corporate paternal system developed for their workers. To date, only the “Gary System” has received sustained attention from historians of education, but in the other towns the curriculum has never been studied.

“Viewers Like You: Seeing Science Education on Television”

Ingrid Ockert (Princeton University)

Could a television set be the ideal science teacher? Educators and television producers have asked themselves that question for almost 70 years. Television’s alluring promise is that it offers educators a more engaging platform than a dull textbook. Not surprisingly, educators and producers have had different ways of approaching this medium and creating long-running science television programs. In this paper, I compare two American television programs, Watch Mr. Wizard and 3-2-1 Contact! These shows aired almost thirty years apart and took dramatically different approaches to science education, from format structure to teaching philosophy. Watch Mr. Wizard, which began in 1951, proved that science shows could be fun and educational for children. Charismatic Mr. Wizard enchanted Baby Boomers and their mothers alike as he demonstrated the science of everyday household objects. His approach was keeping with other children’s programs of the era like Ding Dong School House and Captain Kangaroo. Thirty years later, Baby Boomers were raising their own children on programs like The Muppet Show and M*A*S*H. In 1981, the creators of Sesame Street and The Electric Company launched Watch Mr. Wizard’s successor, 3-2-1 Contact! More streetwise and savvy, 3- 2-1 Contact! dismissed adult intermediaries and placed children at the forefront of its episodes. It actively promoted a vision of science inclusive of all, regardless of race or gender. By the 1980s, the designers of science education television programs had reimagined the ideal child viewer and, consequently, the ideal American scientist. The television teacher was tuned into the changing times.