‘This curriculum (10 lessons) [written by Rebecca Leece] focuses on matter. Understanding matter is the basis for all sciences, and if students don’t have this background, they are limited if what they can understand in biology, earth sciences, and space sciences. These 10 lessons offer a strong foundation for all other science learning. For example, a thorough understanding of photosynthesis is dependent on students understanding atoms, molecules, elements, chemical formulas, and chemical reactions. All of this is covered in this lesson set.
‘The first goal is that students see that they can (and should) apply their own observations to what we discuss in class. It’s also meant to connect the often abstract study of science with concrete, recognizable phenomena relevant to students’ lives. All of science is built on observing things happening in the world, and asking questions about how or why those things happened the way that they did. The Richard Feynman reading, “The Making of a Scientist,” addresses this in a charming way.
‘The second, less direct goal is that students to begin the study of science with confidence that they already understand a few things. Science strikes me as a field that presents itself as all-knowing, dropping a 40-pound textbook in your lap and expecting you to just memorize what the geniuses have figured out. This has made a lot of us feel pretty dumb in the past. In this curriculum, I want the students’ first activity in science to be something that they could do with some confidence.
‘Connected to this, I hope that this curriculum offers a more humane view of the field—that science is just the (often flawed and limited) current understanding of how things work in our world. It’s unfinished, it’s often wrong, and it’s ongoing. At some point, it’s worth mentioning a few things that have been revised, like the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe or that smoking was good for your health. The revision to these beliefs is not to imply that “we’ve got it all figured out now,” but rather ask the question, “What will we revise and understand better 100 years from now?”’
From the introduction by Rebecca Leece
