The knowledge most worth having: Otis W. Caldwell (1869?1947) and the rise of the general science course

Abstract

In 1860 Herbert Spencer asked the famous rhetorical question ‘What Knowledge is of Most Worth?’ The unequivocal answer was science. Giving greater attention to science and scientific knowledge would not only produce additional scientists; more important, argued Spencer, it would make better parents, better church-goers, better citizens and workers, better artists and better consumers of art. It would lead to a ‘command of fundamental processes’, ‘worthy home membership’, ‘worthy use of leisure’, ‘ethical character’ — the goals of a general education spelled out by Spencerians within the National Educational Association in 1918. Here is our puzzle, then: how are we to interpret a definition of science, one widely accepted both in Spencer's time and in our own, that comes so close descriptively to a commonsensical view of what constitutes non-science? The answer to this question lies in part in the historical relationship between science and general education, a relationship established in the opening decades of this century, when the authority of science and scientific objectivity was in the minds of most educators unimpeachable. The high school general science course, developed in its early stages by the botanist and educator, Otis W. Caldwell, was a potent symbol of this new relationship. Organized around broad, topical issues and claiming to teach the mundane truths of life, general science was more than a loose collection of facts from the various earth, biological, and physical sciences. Its many advocates viewed the new unified science course as pedagogically independent of the specialties yet central to education in general. In 1949, two years after Caldwell's death, 72 percent of the total science enrollments in the United States were in general science and biology, its closest cognate. This paper examines the rise of the general science course and its implications for the reform of secondary school science education. It concludes that while recent reforms may impress students with the personal and social character of science, introducing them to a broad use of the scientific method, they will not necessarily make them more scientifically literate or train them to think about problems in anything like the way professional scientists do. Much less will they introduce students to alternative ways of problem-solving, arguably one of the most important goals of good science teaching.