» » Why Science?

Why Science? epub download

by James Trefil


Want to be scientifically literate without pain?

Want to be scientifically literate without pain? Read Trefil! ―E. D. Hirsch, J. University Professor Emeritus of Education and Humanities, University of Virginia. Trefil, one of the most successful popularizers of science for the masses, now addresses the crucial issue of popular literacy―and just in time!

JAMES TREFIL, Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University, is the author of over 40 books and 100 . His most recent books are Why Science and The Sciences: An Integrated Approach (with Robert Hazen).

JAMES TREFIL, Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University, is the author of over 40 books and 100 articles in professional journals. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the World Economic Forum. He is the recipient of the Andrew Gemant Award (American institute of Physics), the Westinghouse and Subaru Awards (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and the 2008 Science Writing Award (American Physical Society). His most recent books are Why Science and The Sciences: An Integrated Approach (with.

Book Condition: Book in very good condition. Pages are crisp and clean with no markings. Dust jacket in very good condition.

James Stanley Trefil (born September 10, 1938) is an American physicist (P. in Physics at Stanford University in 1966) and author of nearly fifty books. Much of his published work focuses on science for the general audience. Since 1988 he served as Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia and as Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University

With conviction and clarity, prize-winning scientist and bestselling author James Trefil explains why everyone needs to be "scientifically literate" and, therefore, why our schools must teach the fundamental principles of scientific literacy to every student.

With conviction and clarity, prize-winning scientist and bestselling author James Trefil explains why everyone needs to be scientifically literate. With conviction and clarity, prize-winning scientist and bestselling author James Trefil explains why everyone needs to be "scientifically literate" and, therefore, why our schools must teach the fundamental principles of scientific literacy to every student. He lays out these principles straightforwardly, so that educators-and everyone who is interested in education-can understand exactly what they are.

With conviction and clarity, prize-winning scientist and bestselling author James Trefil explains why every . citizen needs to be ""scientifically literate"" and, therefore, why our schools must teach the fundamental principles of scientific literacy to every student

Why science? by. Trefil, James, 1938-. Prize-winning scientist and bestselling author James Trefil explains why everyone needs to be "scientifically literate.

Why science? by. As Trefil sees it, citizens simply cannot participate fully in the democratic process if they don't understand fundamental scientific concepts. And he describes exactly what these principles are, from understanding natural selection to grasping Maxwell's Equation governing electricity and magnetism; from recognizing that the surface of the earth is constantly in flux to grasping the basic concepts of physics and chemistry.

James S. Trefil (born September 10, 1938) is an American physicist (P. Much of his published work focuses on science for the general audience

James S. Dr. Trefil has previously served as Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia and he now teaches as Robinson Professor of Physics at George Mason University. Among Trefil's books is Are We Unique?, an argument for human uniqueness in which he questions the comparisons between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

The Vision Series: James Trefil - Why Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught. in Physics at Stanford University in 1966) and author of more than thirty books. The Vision Series: James Trefil - Why Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught. Weekly Wrap-Up April 30, 2017 30. Transcription.

With conviction and clarity, prize-winning scientist and bestselling author James Trefil explains why everyone needs to be “scientifically literate” and, therefore, why our schools must teach the fundamental principles of scientific literacy to every student. He lays out these principles straightforwardly, so that educators―and everyone who is interested in education―can understand exactly what they are.

Trefil knows that initiating a national scientific literacy program won’t be easy, but he convincingly argues that it is essential to our national future. After reading this book, you will agree that, whatever the cost of teaching scientific literacy, we simply can’t afford not to heed his advice.

In this enjoyable read, Trefil, a well-known critic of the status quo in science education:

Explains why today’s science education is insufficient for tomorrow’s needs. Tackles the key topics of scientific literacy and explains how to teach them. Confronts headline issues, including stem cell research, global warming, cloning, and intelligent design. Shows why science education is essential to an informed citizenry and how scientific literacy is achievable. Suggests a middle way between the two prevailing approaches to science education: “deep and narrow” vs. “broad but shallow.”

Why Science? epub download

ISBN13: 978-0807748305

ISBN: 0807748307

Author: James Trefil

Category: Teaching and Education

Subcategory: Schools & Teaching

Language: English

Publisher: Teachers College Press (November 9, 2007)

Pages: 224 pages

ePUB size: 1636 kb

FB2 size: 1596 kb

Rating: 4.8

Votes: 949

Other Formats: txt mbr lrf rtf

Related to Why Science? ePub books

Freaky Hook
As an environmental biology major in college, and as a volunteer at the local high school district, I have an interest in science instruction in the school system. I have seen science illiteracy on an up close and personal basis and have been striving to improve the number and quality of science courses offered to students at the high school level, hoping it would interest more students in careers in science and technology. So, when this book was offered, I thought it might be of help.

The premise of the book is that as our world grows scientifically and technologically, people will need to be more literate in the sciences in order to be able to properly enter a democratic debate on scientific issues. Stem cell research, global warming, cloning and a host of other issues are offered as proof that we need to understand science (at least at a basic level) in order to make proper policy choices.

Although we hear how badly we, in the United States, are doing in science literacy, the news isn't all bad. Although high school testing indicates we are at, or near, the bottom, the same cannot be said about the science literacy of adults. The United States posts a 28% literacy rate (or about 75% illiterate), which is second only to Sweden. Many of the countries that beat us as highs school students don't fare as well as adults, probably because of our university systems.

The author proposes a number of solutions, staring with the high school level, and working on up to the college level. While I think he may have a basis for his argument, there are a number of problems, and I question the practicality of his solutions. On the high school level, the author proposes, for advanced students, that they rearrange the course of study to start with the most basic principals (physics) and work toward progressively more complicated principals (biology). While a fine idea, the math needed for physics is not generally completed by most students until their junior year, which nullifies this solution.

The author also proposes, for high school students who are taking only minimum science courses, that the courses be made into an integrated science curricula that will cover the highlights of the most important scientific principals. Some districts are already doing this, and have had success; however the basic principals are not, in my opinion, enough to increase scientific literacy in a statistically significant way.

In addition to a lack of real changes in curricula, the book is densely written and the author is prone to taking detours into areas which are of questionable relevancy. While the book cover states that all school board members should read this work, it is so difficult to ponder through that I can only think of one, on our local board, who has the tenacity to make it through.

I believe the book is a good starting place for a discussion, which is desperately needed, but it hardly provides all, or even many, of the answers. A two star book, three were given for the author's attempt to provide answers.
Freaky Hook
As an environmental biology major in college, and as a volunteer at the local high school district, I have an interest in science instruction in the school system. I have seen science illiteracy on an up close and personal basis and have been striving to improve the number and quality of science courses offered to students at the high school level, hoping it would interest more students in careers in science and technology. So, when this book was offered, I thought it might be of help.

The premise of the book is that as our world grows scientifically and technologically, people will need to be more literate in the sciences in order to be able to properly enter a democratic debate on scientific issues. Stem cell research, global warming, cloning and a host of other issues are offered as proof that we need to understand science (at least at a basic level) in order to make proper policy choices.

Although we hear how badly we, in the United States, are doing in science literacy, the news isn't all bad. Although high school testing indicates we are at, or near, the bottom, the same cannot be said about the science literacy of adults. The United States posts a 28% literacy rate (or about 75% illiterate), which is second only to Sweden. Many of the countries that beat us as highs school students don't fare as well as adults, probably because of our university systems.

The author proposes a number of solutions, staring with the high school level, and working on up to the college level. While I think he may have a basis for his argument, there are a number of problems, and I question the practicality of his solutions. On the high school level, the author proposes, for advanced students, that they rearrange the course of study to start with the most basic principals (physics) and work toward progressively more complicated principals (biology). While a fine idea, the math needed for physics is not generally completed by most students until their junior year, which nullifies this solution.

The author also proposes, for high school students who are taking only minimum science courses, that the courses be made into an integrated science curricula that will cover the highlights of the most important scientific principals. Some districts are already doing this, and have had success; however the basic principals are not, in my opinion, enough to increase scientific literacy in a statistically significant way.

In addition to a lack of real changes in curricula, the book is densely written and the author is prone to taking detours into areas which are of questionable relevancy. While the book cover states that all school board members should read this work, it is so difficult to ponder through that I can only think of one, on our local board, who has the tenacity to make it through.

I believe the book is a good starting place for a discussion, which is desperately needed, but it hardly provides all, or even many, of the answers. A two star book, three were given for the author's attempt to provide answers.
Melipra
Delivered on time. New copy. All good.
Melipra
Delivered on time. New copy. All good.
caif
Even though I'm quite interested in science and explanations of things, this book just didn't hold my interest. It is written mostly for teacher, I believe.
caif
Even though I'm quite interested in science and explanations of things, this book just didn't hold my interest. It is written mostly for teacher, I believe.
Thetalen
Everyone could benefit from the information contained here.
Scientific and cultural literacy very important for our education system.
Strongly recommend!
Thetalen
Everyone could benefit from the information contained here.
Scientific and cultural literacy very important for our education system.
Strongly recommend!
Gravelblade
In my third year of teaching high school science (back in the early 1990's), I came to an epiphany. I had spent two years pushing my students towards the kind of "hard" science that I had spent many years studying and about which I had great passion. I had some success but I wasn't reaching as many students as I'd hoped as an idealistic young teacher. Then, sometime between years two and three, I changed my goal. Instead of trying to turn my students into scientists, I would try to help them become scientifically literate. From that moment, I believe I became a better and more successful teacher.

I tell this story to underline the fact that the concept of science literacy is not a new one. Dr. Trefil has written a wonderful book on the subject but, despite the impression he might give, he is by no means blazing a new trail here. His work with E. D. Hirsch and the cultural literacy gurus gives him a certain cache and it is easy to see how this work grew out of his involvement with that project; however, the question of literacy--cultural, scientific or otherwise--is basically an age-old question: what is it that an educated person should know and when should we teach it to them?

I admire much of what Trefil has done here. The early chapters, in particular, on what science is and is not and his definition of scientific literacy are informative and useful. On the other hand, when he starts to get into the field of education and its impact on scientific literacy, I think his conclusions are much more debatable.

For example, though I agree in principle with his conclusions that we tend towards hysteria in comparing our scientific graduates to those of other countries, I feel strongly that America is behind other countries in many ways. In Trefil's analysis, per capita comparisons are the key. Still, raw numbers play a role. We may be competing with China per capita, but they still have over 200,000 more brains educated in science which gives them more opportunity to come up with the next great new idea. And he doesn't even comment how American-educated internationals are now much more likely to return to their country of origin rather than stay in America as they used to do. We are in a crisis and something needs to be done.

Of course something needs to be done and Trefil has some good suggestions. I like the idea of his "great ideas" approach to scientific literacy though I don't see why his ordering is particularly necessary and I might vary the topics a bit. I'm a bit uncomfortable with his rather high-handed dismissal of inquiry-based learning which, in my experience, is very powerful for students. I'm also not as high on the importance of his "third way"--modeling is important but that does not reduce the value of theory and experiment. But this is where we get down to the brass tacks of that age-old question, don't we? The debate will never end.

When it comes right down to it, I think he falls into the very trap he mentions in his book; that is, Ph.D.s determining what pre-collegiate education should look like without much experience in those types of classrooms. I think much of what he talks about is very appropriate to the college-level. It just doesn't play as clearly in a middle school or high school; at least, not in my experience.

In the end, however, I think Dr. Trefil has done a great service to the cause of scientific literacy. He has provided and excellent analysis of the background of the problem and has made many useful suggestions. Hopefully, many in the field of education will read this book and, even if they don't agree with all of his conclusions, take up the cause. Scientific literacy is something that needs to be examined more closely if the United States is going to remain competitive in the decades to come.
Gravelblade
In my third year of teaching high school science (back in the early 1990's), I came to an epiphany. I had spent two years pushing my students towards the kind of "hard" science that I had spent many years studying and about which I had great passion. I had some success but I wasn't reaching as many students as I'd hoped as an idealistic young teacher. Then, sometime between years two and three, I changed my goal. Instead of trying to turn my students into scientists, I would try to help them become scientifically literate. From that moment, I believe I became a better and more successful teacher.

I tell this story to underline the fact that the concept of science literacy is not a new one. Dr. Trefil has written a wonderful book on the subject but, despite the impression he might give, he is by no means blazing a new trail here. His work with E. D. Hirsch and the cultural literacy gurus gives him a certain cache and it is easy to see how this work grew out of his involvement with that project; however, the question of literacy--cultural, scientific or otherwise--is basically an age-old question: what is it that an educated person should know and when should we teach it to them?

I admire much of what Trefil has done here. The early chapters, in particular, on what science is and is not and his definition of scientific literacy are informative and useful. On the other hand, when he starts to get into the field of education and its impact on scientific literacy, I think his conclusions are much more debatable.

For example, though I agree in principle with his conclusions that we tend towards hysteria in comparing our scientific graduates to those of other countries, I feel strongly that America is behind other countries in many ways. In Trefil's analysis, per capita comparisons are the key. Still, raw numbers play a role. We may be competing with China per capita, but they still have over 200,000 more brains educated in science which gives them more opportunity to come up with the next great new idea. And he doesn't even comment how American-educated internationals are now much more likely to return to their country of origin rather than stay in America as they used to do. We are in a crisis and something needs to be done.

Of course something needs to be done and Trefil has some good suggestions. I like the idea of his "great ideas" approach to scientific literacy though I don't see why his ordering is particularly necessary and I might vary the topics a bit. I'm a bit uncomfortable with his rather high-handed dismissal of inquiry-based learning which, in my experience, is very powerful for students. I'm also not as high on the importance of his "third way"--modeling is important but that does not reduce the value of theory and experiment. But this is where we get down to the brass tacks of that age-old question, don't we? The debate will never end.

When it comes right down to it, I think he falls into the very trap he mentions in his book; that is, Ph.D.s determining what pre-collegiate education should look like without much experience in those types of classrooms. I think much of what he talks about is very appropriate to the college-level. It just doesn't play as clearly in a middle school or high school; at least, not in my experience.

In the end, however, I think Dr. Trefil has done a great service to the cause of scientific literacy. He has provided and excellent analysis of the background of the problem and has made many useful suggestions. Hopefully, many in the field of education will read this book and, even if they don't agree with all of his conclusions, take up the cause. Scientific literacy is something that needs to be examined more closely if the United States is going to remain competitive in the decades to come.
Dancing Lion
The book was interesting. It opened up new thoughts and perspectives towards scientific literacy and science education in America. However, this is not a book I would pick up and read for entertainment value. It did not flow, and I found myself struggling to push through it.
Dancing Lion
The book was interesting. It opened up new thoughts and perspectives towards scientific literacy and science education in America. However, this is not a book I would pick up and read for entertainment value. It did not flow, and I found myself struggling to push through it.