Being And Becoming Scientists Today

Reconstructing Assumptions About Science And

Science Education To Reclaim A Learnerscientist
Perspective Susan A Kirch download
https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-scientists-
today-reconstructing-assumptions-about-science-and-science-
education-to-reclaim-a-learnerscientist-perspective-susan-a-
kirch-5359072

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Being And Becoming Embodiment And Experience Among The Orang Rimba Of
Sumatra Ramsey Elkholy

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-embodiment-and-
experience-among-the-orang-rimba-of-sumatra-ramsey-elkholy-51749794

Being And Becoming A Speaker Of Japanese An Autoethnographic Account

Andrea Simonmaeda

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-a-speaker-of-
japanese-an-autoethnographic-account-andrea-simonmaeda-51814094

Being And Becoming Teachers Of Writing A Meaningbased Approach To

Authentic Writing Instruction 1st Edition Andrew Johnson

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-teachers-of-writing-
a-meaningbased-approach-to-authentic-writing-instruction-1st-edition-
andrew-johnson-57097392

Being And Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists Archaeology And

Indigenous Peoples 1st Edition George P Nicholas Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-indigenous-
archaeologists-archaeology-and-indigenous-peoples-1st-edition-george-
p-nicholas-editor-2492710
Being And Becoming A Field Approach To Psychology 1st Edition Arthur
Combs

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-a-field-approach-to-
psychology-1st-edition-arthur-combs-2539664

Being And Becoming An Exprisoner Diana F Johns

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-an-exprisoner-diana-
f-johns-30204814

Being And Becoming Hausa Interdisciplinary Perspectives Anne Haour

Benedetta Rossi

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-hausa-
interdisciplinary-perspectives-anne-haour-benedetta-rossi-37900144

Being And Becoming Myrna Loy

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-myrna-loy-48944340

Being And Becoming Teachers Of Writing Andrew P Johnson

https://ebookbell.com/product/being-and-becoming-teachers-of-writing-
andrew-p-johnson-57378312
Being and Becoming Scientists Today
Cultural AND HISTORICAL Perspectives On Science education:
Research Dialogs

Volume 7

Series Editors

Catherine Milne, New York University, USA

Kathryn Scantlebury, University of Delaware, USA

Research Dialogs consists of books written for undergraduate and graduate students
of science education, teachers, parents, policy makers, and the public at large.
Research dialogs bridge theory, research, and the practice of science education.
Books in the series focus on what we know about key topics in science education –
including, teaching, connecting the learning of science to the culture of students,
emotions and the learning of science, labs, field trips, involving parents, science
and everyday life, scientific literacy, including the latest technologies to facilitate
science learning, expanding the roles of students, after school programs, museums
and science, doing dissections, etc.
Being and Becoming Scientists Today
Reconstructing Assumptions about Science and Science Education to
Reclaim a Learner–Scientist Perspective

Susan A. Kirch
New York University, USA

and

Michele Amoroso
New York City Department of Education, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6300-347-6 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6300-348-3 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-349-0 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2016 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 In loving memory of Geraldine Chapman Kirch (1941–2012) who
was proud to call her daughter a scientist.

To my wonderful parents Joe and Angie Amoroso, who inspire me to

reach for the moon and smell the roses along the way.
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgmentsix

Introductionxi

Chapter 1: Rethinking Science Education from a Learner Perspective:

A Framework for Being and Becoming Scientists Today 1

Science as a System of Human Activity 13

Conclusion20

Chapter 2: Being and Becoming Scientists: What Does It Mean to

Be|Become a Scientist? Who Can Be|Become a Scientist?
How Do I Be|Become a Scientist? How Am I a Scientist Today? 21

It’s Always Time to Challenge and Reconstruct Ideals 21

Who Can Be|Become a Scientist? Myth and Reality 29
Inquiry Projects and Tools to Support Being|Becoming Scientists 48

Chapter 3: Contributing to Science: What Is Scientific Knowledge?

How Does One Contribute to Science or Scientific Knowledge?
Could I Contribute to Science? 57

Contribution81
Conclusion90

Chapter 4: Representing Scientific Problems and Tools for Thinking:

What Kinds of Problems Do Scientists Work on? Do I Like to Work
on the Problems of Science? Would I Like to Be|Become a Scientist? 91

Topic: Energy Concept 93

A New Lens for Instructional Planning and Curriculum Review 119
Conclusion135

Chapter 5: Classroom Results from a Knowledge and Knowing Study:

How Do I Know What I Know? How Do Scientists Know
What They Know? 139

Establishing Student-Centered Research Activities in Daily

Instruction with the KKS Study 168
Conclusion186

vii
Table of Contents

Our Stories: Our Stories of Being|Becoming Educators and

Learner–Scientists and of How We Met 189

A Q&A Session with the Authors: A Brief Dialog in Response to Two

Questions that Arose after We Finished Writing and Began Sharing
Parts of This Book with Colleagues 193

Glossary201

Appendices205

References217

About the Authors 223

Name Index 225

Subject Index 229

viii
 Acknowledgments

We have been working together, co-teaching and conducting research, since 2003. In
that time we have accumulated a number of people and funding agencies to thank.
First, thanks to Ken Tobin for inviting us to write this book for Sense. His
recognition and support have been invaluable. Since the first invitation we have had
the pleasure to work with Michel Lokhorst, Catherine Milne, and Kate Scantlebury
and we are honored by their commitment to seeing this work published. We are
especially grateful to Catherine Milne who offered superb editorial expertise above
and beyond her typical responsibilities.
We are indebted to the efforts of Moshe Sadofsky who was willing to do everything
from identifying run-on sentences and fact-checking science content statements to
engaging in philosophical discussions about the nature of being and becoming a
scientist. The notion of energy as an accounting tool emerged from one of many
discussions about energy and is credited to Moshe. To ease our fears about grossly
misusing the comma and our perceived inability to identify various errors of style,
we hired Jennifer DePrima for copyediting and we feel lucky to have found her
through our contact at Guilford Press. Even with the help of these careful readers,
we assume all responsibility for any errors of grammar, fact or style readers may
discover.
We are indebted to all the students, teachers, parents, principals, and school staff
who have worked with us over the years as part of various data-intensive research
projects including, but not limited to: Tara Clark, Kerry Decker, Margarita Dhandari,
Jaime Disken, Laura Ingram, Helene Jacob, William Kong, Sabine Kullman, Ian
Lambert, Vivecca Lamourt, Sari Marder, Adrienne Mehan, Shara Miller, Ariel
Ricciardi, Audrey Schmuel, Anastasia Schneider, Patti Scotti, Ilene Silverman,
Rebecca Terrigno, Kaya Wielopoloski, and Cecilia Wong. In the midst of their
busy school lives they were willing to actively participate in various aspects of
the research associated with this work. For some, that included discussions and
classroom observation and for others that included allowing us to record classroom
events and interviews for further analysis. Those recordings made it possible for us
to ground this work in real-world classroom life and feel confident that we were
representing the contributions of participants accurately.
We are grateful for financial support from various sources including: the
Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York (PSC-CUNY 38 to
SK), Steinhardt School of New York University (IDEA Grant 2008 to SK), New York
University (Research Challenge Fund 2008 to SK), and support to SK and MA from
Kenneth Tobin (National Science Foundation Distinguished Teaching Scholar Award,
2004-2006 to KT). The data from the Knowledge and Knowing Study presented in
Chapter 5 was the result of work undertaken by SK as part of the Scientific Thinker

ix
Acknowledgments

Project (STP) and was funded by the National Science Foundation (Principal
Investigator, Susan Kirch; coPIs, Anna Stetsenko and Catherine Milne; DRL
0918533). (Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of any
of the granting agencies or bodies). Sue specifically thanks the entire STP research
team, and is especially grateful for the hard work and dedication of the research
assistants and associates who worked during the project’s development (unfunded)
period (Sanaz Farhangi and Christine Robertson) and during the implementation
(funded) period (Kara Naidoo, Ranyee Chiang, and Laura Paskell-Brown). Special
thanks go to Anna Stetsenko for her intellectual insights, curiosity and support in
addition to brainstorming BBST. Michele thanks the team for recruiting her as a
member of the advisory board.
Finally, we’d like to thank our family and friends whose unending supply of
encouraging words and confidence in us ensured that the darkest days of writing
always had a nightlight. Sue is thankful for: Moshe Sadofsky, Penny Colman, Linda
Hickson, Rudolph “Rudy” Kirch, Frank and Charlotte Sadofsky, David and Teddi
Baggins, Lynne Spevack, Michele, and the encouragement of her Mount Holyoke
College chums. Michele is grateful to: Teresa, Phil, John, and Joe D’Amico, Kenny
Zornmueller, her teachers, co-teachers Sue and Moshe and her parents.

x
 introduction

As the title suggests, this book is about teaching science from a learner or what
we will call a learner–scientist perspective. It presents an approach to being aware
and mindful of learner questions, puzzlements, wonderings, motives, goals, and
experiences. In order to teach from a learner perspective we must necessarily
challenge assumptions about science and science education and we must reconstruct
what it means to be and become a scientist. For example, what do we mean
when we talk about “scientists”? In this book, we are referring to a person who
is interested in understanding the natural world and questioning the status quo by
using, modifying, and creating tools for thinking critically and scientifically—tools
such as questions, explanations, facts, ideas, laws, concepts, theories, schema, rules,
norms, social practices, skills, and even algorithms. In this book, scientists are not
limited to people who are certified career scientists, but include citizen scientists,
science enthusiasts, science educators, and science learners of all ages and from all
walks of life. Broadening more traditional definitions of scientist is not a new idea
(especially for elementary school science teachers), but it has been an uphill battle
since the word was widely adopted in the late 1800s. Just saying everyone is or can
be a scientist isn’t adequate to ensure everyone can learn to be a scientist. In fact the
assertion, everyone is or can be a scientist, often faces many contradictory practices
and assumptions in science education.
First, science education, as an enterprise, presents science from a disciplinary
perspective rather than from a learner perspective. This means that learners are
viewed as people who need to learn (1) canonical explanations of the world, (2)
specific methods of investigation, and (3) the norms and schema for knowledge
production accepted by various scientific disciplines. These top-down directives are
rarely coupled with the bottom-up motivation of the learner who doesn’t understand
why she is being told to learn these explanations, methods, and norms of knowledge
production. How can science educators reclaim a learner perspective and position
students as the primary agents in control of their own learning activities such that
they see purpose and meaning in these aspects of science (knowledge, methods,
norms) deemed important by the enterprise?
Second, the notion of a scientist usually reflects either a historically famous
scientist (e.g., Einstein, Carson, Curie, Newton) or a fictional career scientist who,
according to classroom teachers: “works hard,” “is very smart,” “observes carefully,”
“takes good notes in his notebook,” “waits to talk,” “sits quietly,” “uses evidence to
back up her claims,” and “uses the right science words.” These portraits of scientists
might be appealing to some students, but others might be intimidated, uninterested or
discouraged. As we know, the students in the latter category often start to think they
are not good at science or that science is not for them. How can science educators

xi
introduction

change the images of scientists we create (consciously or unconsciously) and teach

in a way that supports students as already being scientists?
Third, not only is science presented as a career field that recruits and employs
gifted and talented individuals, it is also presented as a static body of knowledge,
an anonymous, authoritative industry, and a standardized process of describing and
explaining how the world works. As a result, learners see scientific knowledge as
facts to be remembered or memorized rather than as tools and knowledge-actions
people can create in collaborative transformative practices for self- and community
development. How can science educators rethink how we conceptualize contributions
to science to be more inclusive of young people who are eager to learn and be what
Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg (1998) refer to as “players” in the world?
Fourth, another difficulty with adopting a disciplinary perspective of science is
how scientific problems are presented. This is related to the second problem. The
lack of social, cultural, and historical contexts in science education often results
in the absence of any connection between knowledge production and a human
story. Alternatively, a focus on famous or genius scientists leads to a single story
of knowledge production. How can science educators represent scientific problems
and tools for thinking in a way that encourages students to expect and seek out
the multiple stories of scientific knowledge production and see themselves in these
stories now and in the future?
Finally, students are rarely put in the position of authentic researchers. We believe
this is primarily because it feels disingenuous to ask students to rediscover a canon
of basic science concepts listed in our school’s science standards for learning. For
example, asking students to research how things move in order to reinvent Newton’s
laws of motion through inquiry is not a trivial instructional goal. More often than
not, it ends with teachers telling students the so-called right answer when students
fail to replicate classroom investigations in a way that demonstrates each of the laws
(which, in the case of Newton’s laws of motion, cannot be replicated in the classroom
or laboratory because they are idealized). Most of the concepts and ideas we expect
students to learn in science took years of dedicated study by many people and often
represent theorized observations and concepts therefore, the form of rediscovery
needs to be carefully planned and managed, and there are few tools to help teachers
do this. How can we position students as researchers in a way that allows them to
lead inquiry projects and free educators to serve as radical listeners and instructional
designers?
These are the contradictions and questions we attempt to address in this book.

The Audience

This book is intended for elementary school teachers (including generalists, special
educators, and science specialists) who want to further develop their own practice
and understandings of classroom interactions and develop ways to uncover the

xii
 introduction

perspectives of the young learners with whom they work. It is also intended for
science teacher educators who want to introduce teacher candidates to tools to help
them be and become scientists and radical listeners. Education leaders (principals,
supervisors) who are considering new and innovative ways to work with their
faculty and staff to evaluate elementary school science program activities may
also find this book useful. Finally, parents may find the text helpful in placing
elementary science education in a broader social, historical, and cultural context and
in providing information necessary to support teachers that want to foster authentic
science activity in their classrooms and in children’s homes. Although many of the
ideas, conclusions, and recommendations in this book are the result of our work with
children approximately 7 to 10 years old, we believe most are appropriate for science
learners of all ages (including their teachers).

The Setting

We (Sue and Michele) began working together in 2003 and have co-taught or worked
in parallel at different schools in New York City since then. We have audiotaped and
videotaped hundreds of hours of classroom conversations (small-group and whole-
class discussions) and research interviews for review and discourse analysis. Sue
conducted research with Michele when Michele was teaching second grade, and has
also conducted research with several other classroom teachers (third through fifth
grade) since then. The populations of the schools where our research and teaching
took place were varied. Our early research took place in a professional development
school (grades preK–8) affiliated with a local university. At the time of our co-
teaching and research, this school had a diverse student population of approximately
250 individuals (it was a new school that had not yet reached its maximum student
capacity). According to census data available at the time, the students categorized
themselves on city registration forms as Black (45%), Asian/Pacific Islander (30%),
Hispanic (15%), White (10%), and American Indian (1%). Three percent of students
were classified English language learners, and 10% of the population was eligible
for special education services. According to the principal, 30% of students qualified
for free or reduced price lunch. Enrollment was determined by a lottery.
Sue’s most recent work (featured primarily in Chapter 5) took place in a public
elementary school classified as Title I eligible. It served children primarily from
the surrounding neighborhood, which included a temporary housing facility and a
nearby housing development managed by the New York City Housing Authority.
Research participants included students (N = 126) and teachers (N = 9) from three
fourth-grade classrooms (9–10 years old) and three third-grade classrooms (8–9
years old). Approximately 17% of classroom participants were eligible for special
education services and 29% were eligible for English as a second language services,
and their predominant language was Chinese (Fukonese or Mandarin). Four general
education elementary teachers each led one of four classes, and two classes were

xiii
introduction

co-led by two teachers: a general education elementary teacher and an elementary

teacher with special education certification. This collaborative team teaching (CTT)
model was common practice in the public schools in the district. According to the
census data at the time of the study, students categorized themselves as Hispanic
(29%), Asian (58%), Black (10%), and White (3%). The majority of students were
from low-income families with about 70% qualifying for free lunch.
What is the point of sharing these demographics? Although our classroom
experiences may not mirror yours, we would like to claim that the ideas we’ve
developed and described here have worked well across these varied populations and
with several teacher–researcher partners.

An Overview of This Book’s Organization

In our own practices we have been reconstructing assumptions about science and
science education from the perspective of the learner–scientist and have written this
book to convey what we have learned so far. In each chapter, we unpack a related set
of questions posed from the perspective of young learners based on our research and
experience. We attempt to provide a commentary that reflects social, cultural, and
historical trends related to questions such as where has elementary school science
been, and where might we go? Most important, we present and explore a variety of
resources for creating elementary school science teaching and learning environments
that respect young learners and honor their eagerness to learn about the world as
guided by these questions.
Chapter 1. Rethinking Science Education from a Learner Perspective: A
Framework for Being and Becoming Scientists Today (BBST). In this chapter
we introduce our framework for science education (BBST) and compare it
to the current dominant views of what science learners can and should do.
We outline the types of questions learners might be expected to ask as they
establish themselves as learner–scientists.
Chapter 2. Being and Becoming Scientists. In this chapter, we address the
learner questions: What does it mean to be|become a scientist? Who can
be|become a scientist? How do I be|become a scientist? How am I a scientist
today?
Chapter 3. Contributing to Science. In this chapter, we consider the learner
questions: What is scientific knowledge? How does one contribute to science
or scientific knowledge? Could I contribute to science?
Chapter 4. Representing Scientific Problems and Tools for Thinking in
Instruction. In this chapter, we consider the Next Generation Science
Standards as we explore answers to the learner questions: What kinds of
problems do scientists work on? Do I like to work on the problems of science?
Would I like to become a scientist?

xiv
 introduction

Chapter 5. Classroom Results from a Knowledge and Knowing Study

(KKS). In this chapter, we present a method to engage students in the research
questions from learners: How do I know what I know? How do scientists know
what they know?
We have organized these chapters around the learner questions proposed in our
framework for science education (see Figure I.1 for an overview of the book).

Figure I.1. A graphic overview of the book’s organization

In addition to the five chapters that make up the central body of the book, readers
will find we included some additional guidelines and reflections. A section at the
end of the book includes a more detailed scholarly autobiography for each of us
(Sue and Michele), a reflection on how we met and a brief dialog in response to
two questions that arose after we finished writing and began sharing parts of this
book with colleagues. We have also provided a glossary for a few key terms used in
the book. In the Appendices, we have included the transcription conventions used
in all of the transcripts featured throughout the text, as well as templates of several
instructional tools for reproduction and classroom use. We are always honored when
colleagues find our work useful, and we hope you share this book with many others;
when you do, all we ask is that you cite our work even if you modify the tools.
Recommended citations are included as part of each tool. Let us know what works
for you. We hope you find here many useful resources, ideas, and recommendations
to use and share.

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Rethinking Science Education from A

learner perspective
A Framework for Being and Becoming Scientists Today

Education should help one make sense of the world. At the same time it should
help students make sense of themselves as “players” in the world. … A good
education should prepare students as researchers who can “read the world”
in such a way so they not only can understand it but so they can change it.
Students as researchers, as we envision them, possess a vision of “what could
be” and a set of skills to uncover “what actually is.”
 —Kincheloe and Steinberg (1998, p. 2)
Anyone who works with children knows they can be adventurous explorers, curious
investigators, astute observers, inference-making “machines,” imaginative arguers,
relentless knowledge seekers, creative interpreters, and meticulous note keepers. All
these strengths with which students enter school can be further developed through a
science education program that supports students as researchers rather than treating
them as skill-less novices unable to learn abstract concepts. In this book we aim to
present a vision of students as researchers that builds on Kincheloe and Steinberg’s
(1998) notion of preparing students who can not only understand the world, but also
transform it, and themselves, in the process of learning. When we adopt a learner
perspective (which we define shortly) it becomes easier to see learners’ strengths
and confusions, but it also becomes more difficult to find instructional resources that
address this perspective. While there are plenty of activities students enjoy doing,
their purpose is often unclear to students, and over time science is seen as a place
where students go to learn and memorize random facts about the world discovered by
an anonymous person or a genius they have no hope of emulating. In this chapter we
present a new vision for science education, one that positions students as researchers
of their world, including what it means to be and become a scientist. First, let’s
consider the status quo.

Science Education from a Disciplinary Perspective

It is common for science teacher educators, instructional material developers, and

authors of science learning standards to represent science as a three-part structure,
including the (1) body of knowledge in science, (2) methods and processes of
generating knowledge in science, and (3) ways of knowing in science—or Nature of

1
Chapter 1

Science (NOS) (Figure 1.1). We called this structure the three-legged stool model of
science, in accord with the metaphor a stool is stable only if each leg is sturdy. When
we first started collaborating and co-teaching, we believed it was necessary students
learn and understand each leg to acquire a useful grasp of science.

Figure 1.1. The three-legged stool model of science reflects the perspective
of the discipline as viewed from the side of the stool (left graphic)
and the top of the stool (right graphic)

We searched for interesting, productive, and efficient ways to bring the three
elements together, but students were usually more interested in doing experiments
and activities and less interested in reflecting on the body of knowledge (content),
methods and processes used in science, and nature of scientific knowledge.
Viewing science as these three interconnected but separate domains limits our
perception of what learners should do and know as well as how the curriculum
should be designed. First, learners are viewed as students who need to learn that
scientists use various methods when they do their research. Second, learners are
viewed as students who need to learn that scientists explain how the world works.
The explanations students need to learn are the canonical explanations scientists
use for natural phenomena. Third, learners are viewed as students who need to
learn that scientific knowledge has particular characteristics. In keeping with these
assumptions about what students should learn in science, many in the field argue that
we design instruction in order to “give” students: the methods career scientists use
and opportunities to practice these procedures (e.g., inquiry standards); opportunities
to learn canonical explanations and explain the world the way career scientists
explain it (e.g., content standards); and exercises to explore the nature of scientific
knowledge. Examples would include salient features of scientific knowledge and
knowledge production based on studies of career scientists (e.g., nature of science
standards).

2
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

Developers of U.S. science education instructional materials are clearly divided

over how we teach these three areas effectively and what is necessary when committed
to science for all. As a result, curricular practices in U.S. elementary schools focus
on one or two of the domains shown in Figure 1.1 and only rarely address all three
domains of the scientific enterprise. For example, much instructional material
development focuses on teaching and learning science content and method with little
to no attention paid to the nature of scientific knowledge. The recent Framework
for Science created by a National Research Council (NRC) Committee states this
problem clearly:
Debates over content versus process are not in step with the current views of
the nature of science …. Science is seen as a fundamentally social enterprise
that is aimed at advancing knowledge through the development of theories and
models that have explanatory and predictive power and that are grounded in
evidence. In practice this means that content and process are deeply intertwined.
(National Research Council [NRC], 2012, p. 127)
In response, the panel that created the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)
suggested a way to achieve the Framework vision:
The Framework emphasizes that students must have the opportunity to stand
back and reflect on how the practices contribute to the accumulation of
scientific knowledge. This means, for example, that when students carry out
an investigation, develop models, articulate questions, or engage in arguments,
they should have opportunities to think about what they have done and why.
They should be given opportunities to compare their own approaches to those
of other students or professional scientists. Through this kind of reflection they
can come to understand the importance of each practice and develop a nuanced
appreciation of the nature of science. (Achieve Inc., 2014, p. 7)
The NGSS recommendations are a shift in the right direction. We agree having
students reflect on what they have done (and why) and having them compare their
approaches to those of others is essential, but it is not enough. What more, then? Our
emerging view is students need immediate access to science that engages them as
researchers in a manner not provided by the three-legged stool.
In the three-legged stool model, students are exposed to an idealized version of
science that ignores, excludes, or rejects their own prior knowledge, methods, and
beliefs about the world. When we started working together we were interested in
teaching students the notion anyone can become and be a scientist. The stool model
of science and its implications for science education, however, proved to be one of
the biggest constraints on our early work because it was ubiquitous and imbued with
authority from the science and science education communities. Its ubiquity made
it difficult to imagine other options, while its authority discouraged any attempt to
seek out alternatives. We did escape, however, and based on our work with teachers

3
Chapter 1

and children over the last decade we developed a concept of science from which
we could imagine forms of instruction providing students with immediate access to
science and being and becoming (herein, being|becoming) scientists.

Science Education from a Learner Perspective

The stool model presupposes the student as an outsider who must master skills and
factual content before entering a mature discipline. Our framework proposes science
should be represented from the perspective of the learner rather than the perspective
of the discipline (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2. The Being and Becoming Scientists Today (BBST)

framework for science and science education

We want to be clear at this point that the phrase a learner perspective does not
refer to observations or ideas about students’ particular interests or opinions (e.g.,
“Many students this age get excited about dinosaurs and outer space”; “Bella is
really interested in how weather forecasting works”; “Aiden has been collecting

4
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

rocks and wants to know how volcanoes work”). In this book the phrase a learner
perspective refers to the questions and goals of science learners. It presumes the
learner is interested in the world around her and is eager for ways to learn how to
learn more about it. The model implicitly acknowledges that a spirit of wonder,
and desire to understand and explain, are necessary to sustain scientific inquiry.
However, our model does not mean the student must or should arrive at these
questions independently or in their own time. What would be the point of being a
teacher if we took this passive view of development? Learning can lead development
and teachers are catalysts in creating the lessons, resources, community, and norms
that make teaching and learning from a learner perspective possible (Vygotsky,
1978). In adopting the framework shown in Figure 1.2, we recognize the goals of
any science learner are to learn how to enter the conversation of science now and in
the future, conduct inquiry in the pursuit of credible information, and be|become a
scientist. Furthermore, the goals of any science teacher are to design instructional
environments and facilitate the transactions that help students accomplish these
goals. In light of these goals, we refer to this framework as the Being and Becoming
Scientists Today (BBST) framework.
If the learner is thought of as someone being|becoming a scientist rather than
as someone who should simply reproduce what others know for the sake of
reproduction, then the representation of science is different and the questions of
science educators change. Instead of posing statements of the discipline (e.g.,
“Scientists explain how the world works”), we pose the questions of a science
learner (e.g., “What kinds of problems do scientists work on?”, “How does one
contribute to scientific knowledge and could I see myself doing that?”, “Would
I like to become a scientist?”). In Table 1.1 we contrast the current disciplinary
perspective of science in the stool model with the perspective of the learner given
in the BBST framework to illustrate how the perspectives address the same three
areas, but from different standpoints.
We see several differences between these two perspectives when compared
this way. The disciplinary perspective (middle column) is top-down and empty of
motivations, history, origins, and purpose. The learner perspective (right column)
turns away from idealized notions of science and toward a notion of learners
being|becoming scientists through being, knowing, and transforming their world.
Our framework, based on a learner perspective, still accepts that the experience and
understanding of the methods of science is very important for success in science,
but further acknowledges the learner must be motivated by questions and problems
that make their investigations relevant. These questions include learning about why
scientists talk the way they talk, do what they do, and whether students enjoy the
work of science. Explanation of how the world works, the body of knowledge, is not
denied in our framework either. However, when students learn about the problems
that engage scientists they also need to learn what interests them, experience what
it feels like to build scientific explanations, and finally, see they too can learn how
to do it.

5
Chapter 1

Table 1.1. Comparison of the core aspects of science (body of knowledge,

methods and processes, nature of science) between a discipline
perspective and a learner perspective of science education

Core aspect Education from perspective Education from perspective

of discipline of learner

Body of Students should learn the canonical What kinds of problems do scientists
knowledge explanations for natural phenomena work on?
as understood by scientists today. Would I like to be|become a scientist?
How am I like a scientist today?
What do scientists know, and how did
they come to know it?
How does one contribute to scientific
knowledge?
What is scientific knowledge?
Do I like to work on scientific
problems?
Methods Students should learn that scientists Would I like to be|become a scientist?
and use various methods when they do How am I like a scientist today?
processes their research and should practice the How do scientists know what they
methods used by scientists today. know?
How do I know what I know?
How does one contribute to scientific
knowledge?
Do I like to work on scientific
problems?
Nature of Students should learn that scientific How do scientists come to know what
scientific knowledge produced by scientists they know?
knowledge today has particular characteristics How do I come to know what I know?
and why. How does one contribute to scientific
knowledge?
Do I like to work on scientific
problems?
What is scientific knowledge?

The idealized stool model of science (the disciplinary perspective) often portrays
abridged, scrubbed histories about the great scientists of the past (e.g., Isaac Newton,
Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Charles Darwin, Rachel Carson). Rather than being
instructive or inspirational, these portrayals might lead students to wonder, “How
can I ever live up to that?” Finally, questions of the nature of scientific knowledge
are situated at the core of our framework, rather than on the fringe or never covered
at all. It is essential students question how they know what they know and how

6
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

scientists know what they know because this introspection is at the heart of all
learning activity in any disciplinary subject. Next, we compare the two perspectives
further using three core aspects of science prominent in the stool model.

Comparing Disciplinary and Learner Perspectives

Content or body of knowledge. In a science education system that subscribes to the

disciplinary perspective (Figure 1.1), much effort is spent designing instructional
materials aligned to the content generated by career scientists with the content of
school science. In an effort to cover as much as possible and ensure students get it
right, science content is typically presented as a stockpile of facts or information
stripped of the social, historical, and cultural aspects of its production. From a child’s
perspective each bit of content (e.g., concepts, explanations, norms, skills) they are
told to learn appears out of nowhere and they come to understand they should take
it on faith the content is true because their teacher said so or some anonymous (or
famous) person or people of high intelligence and great authority said so. Students
focus on memorizing information about the world without understanding why and
how it was generated in the first place or why it might be useful to them now. This
decontextualized, purposeless information is of little use to the learner who often
finds it difficult to recall and apply (Bruner, 1966). It is not too surprising to learn
many students learn to respect science, but have little interest in being|becoming
scientists (Archer et al., 2010).
Alternatively, in a science education system that subscribes to a learner
perspective, content is viewed as a tool for thinking and learning. We elaborate
on tools for thinking in Chapter 3, but, briefly, these refer to information,
explanations, facts, ideas, laws, concepts, theories, schema, rules, norms, social
practices, skills, and algorithms we use to accomplish higher mental functions (e.g.,
mediated perception, focused attention, deliberate memory, and logical thinking)
(Bodrova and Leong, 2007). Part of the process of being|becoming a scientist is
the appropriation and transformation of these tools for various purposes aimed
at learning about, knowing, and transforming our surroundings and experiences,
that is, the world. When children come to understand content as an interconnected
framework of tools, they have permission (and might even be expected) to ask and
to learn who invented a particular tool and for what purpose. Over time, it should
not come as a surprise to students someone can transform the tool for another use
or someone might come along and invent a better tool investigators prefer over
the previous one. By presenting content as tools for thinking we help learners (and
teachers) question their origins, purpose, and utility and see real people interested in
explaining how the world works produce all content within some problem context.
In Table 1.2, we summarize this alignment of the presentation of content from the
two perspectives.

7
Chapter 1

Table 1.2. Conceptualizations of the body of knowledge in science as viewed

from disciplinary and learner perspectives

Discipline perspective Learner perspective

Decontextualized Contextualized
Unquestioned Able to be questioned
Imbued with authority Authority is earned
Final/unchanging/absolute Contingent
Stockpile of facts Tools
Anonymous Human production
Right/correct/only answer Answers of varying utility
True/trustworthy Credibility
Purposeless/unclear purpose Contains purpose, but can be transformed

Method and process. When learners experience school science taught from a
disciplinary perspective, the processes and methods they use every day (e.g., observing,
describing, predicting, inferring, arguing, and explaining) are taught as if they are
something new and foreign. They learn these familiar actions must be coordinated
in a particular sequence called “The Scientific Method,” which means hypotheses
come before observations, which come before data collection, which come before
inferences and interpretations, which come before conclusions and explanations, and
may or may not end with new hypotheses to test. It is usually not clear to students
why this is the right order to use in science class or what happens if they deviate from
this order. Overall, it seems to the student to be a tortuous method just to arrive at an
answer the teacher knew all along. It leads students to deny their own experiences and
observations in favor of the expected outcome of a demonstration lab. In other words,
students quickly learn certain words (those of scientists) are better than others (their
own), as are certain inferences, arguments, and explanations.
Alternatively, when students experience school science intended to capture
a learner perspective, their everyday methods and processes are expanded,
transformed, and deliberately chosen for study. Learners act within the context of
what it means to generate credible information (create tools for thinking) and to use
and test information for decision-making and explanation construction. By studying
their own processes of tool production and their use of these tools in learning actions
or problem solving (e.g., knowledge-acts) we can immediately position students as
researchers of methods and processes for transforming phenomena into explanations.
The term knowledge-acts initially sounds cumbersome. We are trying to capture
the sense that knowledge is not a static truth but rather an activity continuously
being produced through human action. By thinking about acts of knowledge instead
of facts of knowledge, the human activity is constantly made visible. As students
compare their methods to those of others in their community and then to those of

8
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

career scientists, they can begin to see how and why observations and descriptions in
science tend to be mathematized (e.g., to facilitate communication and collaboration)
as well as how and why explanation in science comes in a variety of forms (e.g.,
because they arise from using various methods). Students come to view the variety
of methods and processes used in science as fluid and dynamic guidelines they can
use to answer questions and test assumptions as they try to make sense of the natural
world. This view is consistent with the everyday practices students initially bring
to school science, but students taught considering a learner perspective through
practice, research, and comparison learn to critique, revise, and improve their own
methods and are empowered to coordinate and conduct their own investigations
alone or in collaboration. Table 1.3 summarizes this alignment of the presentation of
method from the two perspectives.

Table 1.3. Methods and processes of knowing as viewed from disciplinary

and learner perspectives

Disciplinary perspective Learner perspective

Everyday phenomena are transformed Everyday phenomena are expanded and

into the unfamiliar theorized
Oriented toward finding right answers Oriented toward finding credible answers
through demonstration labs through various means
There is a correct method to use to Methods are guidelines for planning and
solve a particular type of problem interpretation—there are often several ways to
arrive at the same conclusion
There is a single scientific method There are many types of methods and these are
fluid and dynamic, never repeated the same way
twice by the same person or between people
We do not study our methods, we Our methods are open for study, critique, and
study the world with our methods change

Nature of scientific knowledge. When norms, assumptions, and rules for what
we mean when we say we know something or what we consider to be knowledge
and knowing are taught from a disciplinary perspective, children are likely to see
them as just another set of rules to remember. In fact, they are not far off. One
philosopher of science, Larry Loudan wrote on this topic that, “It is probably fair to
say that there is no demarcation line between science and non-science, or between
science and pseudo-science” (Loudan, 1983, p. 112). Science educators, however,
continue to claim there are significant differences between everyday knowledge and
knowing and science knowledge and knowing. For example, Norm Lederman and
his colleagues (e.g., Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) developed
seven statements about the nature of scientific knowledge quite popular among
science teacher educators for teachers and their students to learn (summarized in
Table 1.4, left column).
9
 Table 1.4. Characteristics of scientific knowledge commonly referred to as the nature of scientific knowledge

10
Discipline perspective Learner perspective
Scientific knowledge is never absolute or certain; it is subject How do we decide we are confident in a claim–evidence conjecture?
Chapter 1

to change How do we decide to question a claim–evidence conjecture and explore

it further?
Scientific knowledge is empirically based; observations are What is the evidence a concept exists in reality? What is the evidence that
distinct from inferences the concept may not exist in reality, but be a useful conceptual tool until
we have a better idea of what reality is?

The myth of the scientific method; there is no single method (See Table 1.3)
that will guarantee infallible knowledge is created
Scientific knowledge is, at least partially, based on and/or Why is creativity important?
derived from human imagination and creativity; functional How do scientists foster creativity?
models of natural objects (e.g., atoms, species, genes) are not What types of creativity have I used when I am working on a scientific
copies of reality problem?
Scientific knowledge necessarily is partially subjective How are facts, laws, concepts, ideas, laws, and theories generated in science?
and can never be totally objective because scientists hold How do my beliefs and prior knowledge influence what I look for
particular beliefs, prior knowledge, training and experience, and what I find when I conduct an explanation and try to create an
which all influence their work explanation?
The relationship and distinction between scientific laws What is theorizing?
and theories. Scientific theories are not guesses, they are How do we describe patterns we see in nature?
inferred explanations for observed phenomena; theories How do we know a law can be universally applied (i.e., is “true”
do not become laws once they have been proven; laws are throughout the universe)?
descriptive statements usually expressed mathematically
Science as a human enterprise is practiced in the context of a Who decides what is worth studying?
larger culture and its practitioners (scientists) are the product What science does the public (the government) fund?
of that culture. Science, it follows, affects and is affected by Who decides what phenomena in the natural environment we are allowed
the various elements and intellectual spheres of the culture in to study?
which it is embedded How does one get to be on a review panel that decides which proposal
receive financial support?
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

First, students should learn scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence—

evidence we have directly or indirectly gathered through our five senses (sight, taste,
touch, smell, and hearing). Knowledge cannot be based on the existence or work
of a supernatural entity (gods, spirits, ghosts, etc.) or the result of superstitious
ritual. This statement about empiricism also means scientific knowledge must be
intended to reflect reality or be accountable to reality. There is nothing wrong with
this statement; it just does not convey its deep meaning to new learners. Questions
they might find more interesting are whether particular conceptualizations of reality
they are studying (e.g., food webs, gravitational fields, kinetic energy, igneous
rock) actually exist in the physical world (i.e., an entity exists that the concept
faithfully replicates) or whether the concept is (purely) a useful representation or
approximation and may not have a tangible or specific equivalent. Also, learners
might enjoy asking, “How was this concept (or idea, theory, law) we are studying
first developed? Was it based on empirical observations or was it inferred from some
experience or both?”
Current presentations of the nature of science teach students theories and laws are
not equivalent kinds of knowledge and theories do not become laws when they are
proven. It is not actually clear why this is so important to know. Like many terms
in science also used in everyday conversation, word meanings change depending on
the context. This is true in the case of laws and theories. In everyday conversation,
laws are typically absolute and cannot be broken without consequences. Theories,
on the other hand, are viewed as guesses. In science, these terms have alternative
meanings. Theories represent well-articulated explanatory models or frameworks
for understanding a phenomenon universally, and they are based (usually) on a large
collection of experiments and other types of investigation. Laws are mathematical
descriptions of natural phenomena that appear with regularity under particular
conditions.
Although helping learners build their science vocabulary is important for
improving their ability to communicate, it may be more useful if learners are asked
to consider and study ideas that underlie these terms, ideas such as universality,
regularity, and conditionality and how these characteristics of knowledge are
determined. For example, how do we know a theory or law is universally true or
that phenomena can be considered regular and, therefore, predictable? The same
critique can be used against all seven statements science students are told to learn
about the nature of scientific knowledge: Why have students memorize blindly this
arbitrary set of statements when simple inquiries can reveal their ambiguity and lack
of universality?
In Table 1.4, we propose some examples of simple inquiries from a learner
perspective that could lead to fruitful investigations into the nature of science. We
agree with Loudan (1983), these inquiries should not be used to demonstrate how
science knowledge is different from other knowledge. Rather, science knowledge

11
Chapter 1

undergoes more scrutiny and critique than knowledge-acts for other purposes. We
are not proposing all of these inquiries be pursued in one episode, but over the course
of 6 to 7 years of science education (K–6) an elementary school teacher team may
discover student interest in these inquiries. Students might be interested in the history
of experimentation and why it is so popular among scientists. Students might want to
know how to identify a model in science or learn how to create a model themselves
and test its utility. Students might like to explore socioscientific issues such as how
policymakers and the public make decisions about how people should be allowed to
live, adapt, and transform their world using information generated by scientists (e.g.,
making decisions about curbing climate change, understanding the various ways
to conduct risk–benefit analyses, whether new weaponry should be developed).
Students might like to explore the mathematization process to understand how
phenomena can and cannot be described mathematically and how they distinguish
between these conditions.
Michael Matthews is a science educator who specializes in how the history and
philosophy of science is, and can be, incorporated into school science teaching and
learning. He suggests the characteristics of nature of scientific knowledge listed on
Table 1.4 should be renamed “Features of Scientific Knowledge,” and he proposes
a variety of topics science students (K–12 and beyond) might research over the
years of their schooling. These include technology, worldviews and religion, theory
choice and rationality, realism and constructivism, feminism, and explanation
(Matthews, 2012).
To conduct this comparative analysis of the disciplinary and learner perspectives
shown on Tables 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, we used a process the feminist sociologist
Dorothy Smith (1987) calls “keeping the everyday world problematic.” As we
mentioned earlier, the discipline perspective, embedded in the three-legged stool
model of science and science education, was ubiquitous when we first started our
work together, and it persists today. This means the stool model represents everyday
educational practice or at least what the science education community wants this
everyday practice to be. Whenever we are faced with the everyday world treated as
a single universal idea unrelated to a particular standpoint, we follow Smith’s lead
and ask, “Is this portrayal partial, limited, located in a particular standpoint and/or
permeated by special interests and concerns?” (adapted from Smith, 1987, p. 20).
Indeed, when we finally examined the three-legged stool with these questions in
mind, we found the model reflected the standpoint of disciplinary experts (career
scientists and science educators). It is permeated by the special concerns and
interests of this group to create a science education that supports the development
and expansion of the professional scientific enterprise through public support as
well as new recruits in the science career pipeline. Each leg is actually a partial and
limited view of the discipline and one that promotes scientific work as complex
and difficult, best left to authorities and experts who will share answers with us as
they are generated. After using an analysis of everyday practice inspired by Smith,
we positioned ourselves as learners (based on our work with children) and began

12
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

constructing an alternative world from a perspective that might resonate with their
interests and understandings and make our jobs as teachers a little bit easier in terms
of helping students take charge of their learning.

Science as a system of Human Activity

Our framework for science education is based on the idea science is a system of
human activity. Science is not synonymous with nature or the world. When pro-
science advocates and enthusiastic educators exclaim, “Science is everywhere!” we
warn you to remember this phrase is shorthand for the opinion “The opportunity
to look at the world scientifically is everywhere” or “The products of scientific
investigations of the world are everywhere.” As teacher educators we often hear
many of our students interpret the phrase to mean the natural world itself is science.
That is, animals are science, phase changes (ice, to water, to steam) are science,
metamorphic rocks are science, glaciers are science, and so on. These objects are not
science because science is a human invention. We recommend a book by Catherine
Milne (2011), one of the editors of this series, for a compelling introduction to the
history of science as a human invention. In other words, science is a human activity.
By activity, we are not referring to everyday activities like brushing our teeth,
baking cookies, playing Frisbee, or commuting to school; these are all goal-directed
actions. We are using the term as it is typically used in cultural historical activity
theory: a system of human actions, interactions, and transactions whereby a subject
(a person, team, or machine) works on an object (e.g., material object or problem-
space) in order to obtain a desired outcome. In order to do this, the subject employs
tools, which may be external (e.g., books, computers, equipment) or internal (e.g.,
concepts, plans, algorithms) (e.g., Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev, & Miller, 2007).
Examples of human activities include science, medicine, law, education, labor and
services, and each has three central aspects: production, distribution, and exchange
or communication.
In science, the primary practice is on understanding and explaining phenomena
in the natural world; therefore, the activity involves producing information and
explanations, distributing them, and exchanging or communicating ideas to facilitate
further production. In another example, the primary practice of medicine is to
understand how to cure or treat people with diseases, and the overarching activity
involves producing the tools and practices for health and wellness, distributing these
products, and exchanging and communicating these to facilitate further progress. The
primary practice of education is on coordinating the processes of teaching, learning,
and human development through curricula and transactional experiences. Broadly,
the practice of education involves producing or forming the learning activity, where
learners become aware of the goals and motives of education and develop an interest
in and an initiative for learning, analyzing, and solving problems and drawing their
own conclusions. According to Harmut Giest and Joachim Lompscher (Giest &
Lompscher, 2003):

13
Chapter 1

Learning activity is a special kind of human activity … [and it] cannot be

reduced to the acquisition (or “construction”) of domain-specific knowledge. It
is a process of acquiring the domain-specific activity itself in all its complexity
as a product of cultural-historical development—according to the level of the
learners’ … zones of actual performance [and] proximal development. A major
task for the teacher, therefore, consists of creating conditions under which the
learning activity makes sense for the students and may be formed according to
the learning object (e.g., science), or organizing the students’ learning activity
as interaction and cooperation, of giving the necessary learning means or
leading the process of finding and further developing them … the teacher has
to guide leaners in such a way that they experience learning as a meaningful,
necessary activity that makes them increasingly competent and independent.
(p. 270)
In other words, the learner must be included in generating the purpose and meaning
of the problem solving they do in school, whether it is learning words can have
multiple meanings, the Earth’s position and tilt relative to the sun can explain the
seasons, or sound is a type of pressure wave. They need opportunities to question
what they are learning (and why) as part of the process of growing their interest,
curiosity, and initiative. In the practice of education, the distribution and exchange
aspects of the activity refer to the institutions we create for education, where tools
for thinking are passed from person to person and from generation to generation.
Using this model of human activity we can think of science as a systematic whole
with a complex meditational structure evolved over several hundred years and
should be thought of as a dynamic system (Figure 1.3) of human interactions.
One way to categorize and study these interactions in our classrooms is based on
the major elements found in the human interactions that take place in any activity:
subjects, objects, outcomes, tools, rules and schema, community, and division of
labor.
The subject is the individual or groups of individuals involved in the activity
(e.g., students and teachers). The object is also the motive of the activity—the
problem-space or material the subject works on. The tools include any resource the
subject uses on the object of the activity (e.g., concepts, equipment, books, ideas).
The rules and schema are any formal or informal regulations that can affect how
the activity takes place. The community is the social group the subject belongs
to while engaged in an activity. The division of labor refers to how the tasks are
shared among the community. The outcome of an activity system is the result
of transforming the object of the activity (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Initially, this
model of human activity feels a bit cumbersome, but once we start using it to
view various activities around us it starts to make sense and we can see how it
might be useful to examine our own classrooms using this systematic approach
to investigating teaching and learning. Let’s look at a traditional notion of the
practice of science through this lens.

14
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

Figure 1.3. Science is a dynamic human activity of subjects working on objects

with the intention of particular outcomes. This work is mediated by tools, rules,
and schema, conducted within a community sharing the object–motive,
and structured by a division of labor

In science, the main subject is the career scientist. From the perspective of this
scientist what are some of the rules, norms, or conventions that typically constrain
his or her work? When career scientists want to share a claim about how some aspect
of the world works with others, they are expected to provide evidence in support
of their claim. That’s a pretty solid rule. They are also not allowed to appeal to
supernatural entities in their explanations, nor are they allowed to fabricate evidence.
These are two other solid rules. Of course, scientists have broken each of these rules,
but when they do, they are often no longer considered scientists and may eventually
be ostracized from their community. Otherwise, they can invent and defend any
method of investigation they want and explore any aspect of the natural world that
interests them. In other words, when we look closely, there are not too many rules
for the practice of science in general.
The tools of a scientist include physical tools such as scientific equipment used
to take measurements or make observations as well as conceptual tools such as
explanations, concepts, norms, and skills (i.e., all of the information available in
books, journal articles, or presented at meetings).
The community of a scientist can be conceptualized on at least three levels: local,
regional and global. Their local community includes other scientists interested in the

15
Chapter 1

same problem or phenomenon (e.g., the vision of Mexican cave fish). These people
could be in the same research group, classroom, or connected through the peer
review process during dissemination and communication. A larger community might
include anyone working on the biology of the Mexican cave fish or the ecology or
ecosystems of the fish. Their global community would include all scientists working
in any problem-space.
How are labor, power, and status in the practice of science divided among
members? Science today (and in the past) is typically organized, like many other
occupations, as an apprenticeship model. Whether we are referring to formal science
training, crowdsourcing citizen science, or the learning of an individual enthusiast, a
more experienced and productive subject (referred to as an expert in an apprenticeship
model) tends to hold more power and status than a less experienced subject (referred
to as the apprentice in this model). Expert subjects tend to do less of the physical
work (e.g., conducting investigations and experiments) and more of the intellectual
work (e.g., planning investigations; building hypotheses, models, and conclusions)
as well as the broader dissemination and communication work (e.g., writing and
reviewing papers, applying for and reviewing grants, and speaking at conferences).
Apprentice subjects, on the other hand, do more of the physical labor with their
intellectual effort typically guided by, or done in collaboration with, an expert.
Our portrayal of science using the triangle model shown in Figure 1.3 is only one
of many possible portrayals of a traditional view of the activity of science. Does your
view of science match ours, or is it different? How do we differ, and what does this
mean to you? If your interpretation differs significantly from ours, do you think you
still can understand our perspective? If not, what would you ask of us to help clarify
our position?
Even though the activity system diagrams we have drawn appear fixed and static,
its developers insist we interpret it as a three-dimensional, moving, and dynamic
image—ever changing by the constant actions of the subjects and all their interactions
within the system. For instance, as a subject works on an object or problem-space
it may be transformed into an outcome, which then becomes a tool or rule. There
is constant construction and renegotiation within the activity system. For example,
as each object is transformed and a new or modified object replaces it, tasks might
be reassigned and reconceptualized, rules might need to be reinterpreted or bent,
new tools may be needed, and new communities may be necessary. Furthermore,
given the dynamic nature of any system based on interactions, these interactions can
be sites of contradictions and tensions that can create pressures within the system,
which can encourage or inhibit development or become the reason for changing the
nature of an activity.
In our BBST Framework (Figure 1.2), we propose science education should be
centered on a learner perspective and the project of being|becoming scientists. In
other words, learners should view themselves as both subjects and objects of the
system. Not only are they oriented toward transforming a particular problem-space
or material object; they are also oriented toward transforming themselves as they

16
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

learn how to conduct the transformation of the object or problem into an outcome. It
is challenging to explicitly capture the power of each aspect of the activity system in
science education. We propose two possibilities to convey how science and science
education can be portrayed.
First, science education and science can be viewed as interconnecting but separate
systems (Figure 1.4a). One system represents a traditional view of science from the
perspective of the career scientist as the primary subject and the natural world as the
object (Figure 1.4a lower right). This science system is connected at two major nodes
to the system of science education (outcome–subject and outcome–tools). The latter
system represents a traditional view of science education from the perspective of the
teacher as subject and student as object. In this model of science education activity
(Figure 1.4a center left), teachers are responsible for transforming each new class
of students—over the course of a school year (or workshop, or summer, or other
curriculum schedule)—into people who know more scientific facts, information,
and methods than they knew at the beginning of the school year (or other schedule).

Figure 1.4a. Science and science education viewed as interconnected human activities

The primary tools of the teacher are various instructional materials (e.g., lesson
plans, demonstration labs, teacher manuals, curriculum guidelines), standards
for learning, formative and summative assessments, science-related equipment
and supplies, and digital and print resources. Although teachers are cognizant of
the rules and schema used in science, school and classroom rules of conduct and
performance are at the forefront of most interactions. The teacher’s community
varies, but consists of her fellow teachers and other school personnel as well as

17
Chapter 1

any professional developers or scientist partners with whom they work. In other
words, careful attention must be paid to a learner perspective when a teacher
plans what learning opportunities to provide for his or her students and how the
students will engage with them; otherwise science education is typically conducted
from the perspective of the teacher or other experts within the discipline. Design
from a learner perspective foregrounds learner-relevant questions whereas
design from a disciplinary perspective foregrounds expert knowledge—what is
known already and what was learned by someone else in response to the problem
they faced. An important consequence of the separation of the two viewpoints is
teaching about science is necessarily distinct from the actual practice of science.
In an alternative portrayal of how science and science education can be
represented, we consider science education and science from the perspective of a
learner–scientist instead of a teacher or career scientist. From this standpoint, science
education and science can be seen as an inseparable whole, with the subjects in the
system all oriented toward transforming a problem-space that always includes the
subjects themselves (Figure 1.4b).

Figure 1.4b. Science and science education viewed as inseparable human activities

In this model, learner–scientists (i.e., anyone interested in science such as school

students and career scientists) are responsible for not only transforming a particular
natural phenomenon into an explanation, but also for transforming themselves as
they come to understand the natural phenomenon. The primary tools of the learner–
scientist are the various instructional materials provided by a teacher, expert, mentor
or other resource; a resource who acts as a mediator filtering the meaning and

18
 Rethinking Science Education from A learner perspective

creating the norms for knowledge building (e.g., teacher, expert); formative and
summative assessments; science-related equipment and supplies; and various digital
and print resources. The learner–scientist’s community includes others interested
in the same phenomenon (e.g., a learner’s classmates, other learner–scientists
they meet through citizen science projects, or teams of scientists), and the rules
and schema reflect the institutional rules of science as well as those of their local
learning context. When teachers plan learning opportunities for students from the
learner–scientist perspective modeled here it brings their role as mediators to the
forefront and reminds us to position students as active learners (subjects) rather than
as objects. In other words, learning is something we help students do, not something
we do to them.
Now, when we take the model in Figure 1.4b and superimpose the questions
from the BBST framework listed on Table 1.1 as shown in Figure 1.5, we can see
more clearly how a learner perspective can influence not only curriculum decisions
and instructional materials design, but also the types of questions we expect and
encourage learners to ask as they establish themselves as learner–scientists.

Figure 1.5. Questions a learner–scientist might ask about the science activity system

The types of questions we model and propose learners ask were designed to
(1) help the activity of the system remain focused on the human actors and (2) help
students see themselves as subjects. This makes it more likely learner–scientists
will see people like themselves and people they know ultimately create the activity
we call science, not some unrelated, anonymous, famous, or inaccessible group of
unusually smart and intelligent people working tirelessly to make discoveries under
strict rules of knowledge production.

19
Chapter 1

Conclusion

The framework for BSST is our approach to science education. It positions students
as researchers of their world, including what it means to be and become a scientist.
The current three-legged stool approach to science education is difficult to implement
in practice because it separates knowledge, methods, and theorizing into separate
domains, which in practice cannot be separated. This approach also describes “what
is”, according to scientists and science educators, and it constrains our views of
learners as people who need to learn canonical facts, practices, and ways of thinking.
The BBST framework, on the other hand, helps all learner–scientists ask, “what
could be” and positions them, immediately and consistently, as researchers of “what
is” and developers of “what could be.” In the BBST framework there is no separation
between knowledge, methods, and theorizing in science. Instead, these are central
topics for investigation whenever canonical material is presented. A common mantra
in elementary education is to help students make connections between what is being
taught and what they experience in their everyday lives. What better way to make
this connection than to adopt a learner perspective and expand the questions students
already puzzle about?

20
 CHAPTER 2

Being and becoming scientists

What Does It Mean to Be|Become a Scientist? Who Can Be|Become a
Scientist? How Do I Be|Become a Scientist? How Am I a Scientist Today?

In science a beginner will certainly read or be told “The scientist this” or

“the scientist that.” Let him not believe it. There is no such person as the
scientist. There are scientists, to be sure, and they are a collection as various
in temperament as physicians, lawyers, clergymen, attorneys, or swimming-
pool attendants …. Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments
doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors,
classifiers, and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament
and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-
scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics (and even a few
crooks). What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to
have in common? Obligative scientists must be very rare and most people who
are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead.
 — Medawar, 1979, p. 3, emphases in original

It’s Always time to challenge and reconstruct Ideals

Imagine you are a child of 4 or 5 years and have never met a scientist. The only
images of scientists you’ve seen are from popular media outlets such as cartoons,
movies, advertisements, comic books, and TV. These images are almost always of
either great scientists like Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Charles
Darwin, and Marie Curie, or fictional characters that wear lab coats and goggles, and
work with brightly colored, dangerous, bubbling chemicals in a laboratory. These
images are almost always white men or boys. If you are having trouble believing
this assertion, just type scientist in the Google Image search engine and you’ll get
the picture. Now, imagine you go to school and learn scientists are supposed to work
hard, work for the common good, be open and not secretive, be objective, be logical,
and be skeptical of ideas that lack empirical evidence. You might also learn they are
supposed to observe the world carefully, describe what they see in exquisite detail,
and do fair tests and experiments. Through these actions, they are somehow able to
explain how the world works to other people who have not done these things. To a
child, these scientist-people might start to seem powerful, genius, or even a little
strange.

21
Chapter 2

With such clear and detailed descriptions and qualifications of what it means to
be a scientist, and what scientists must do, permeating popular culture and school
science, perhaps it is not surprising some of our students see themselves as scientists
while others do not. Perhaps it is not surprising some teachers with whom we work
treat some students as scientists, but do not treat others as scientists. Perhaps it is
not surprising some students of our teacher candidates may even like science based
on these images and experiences, but still have no desire to be a scientist. What
is surprising is regardless of the efforts made by hundreds of science educators,
teachers, scientists, and students to reconstruct these images and views—they
still persist! Don’t believe the hype. Stop and challenge stereotypical images of
scientists. We show how teacher, parents and students can reject idealized images
and we present an alternative conceptualization of being and becoming a scientist.
As the introductory quote from Peter Medawar (a Nobel prize–winning biologist)
implies, not only is it futile to try to describe the temperament or qualities of a scientist,
there is also no reason to do it. An obligative or ideal scientist is a fiction. Would
we spend much time listing the temperament or character traits of an ideal teacher,
lawyer, nurse, carpenter, shopkeeper, or electrician and believe only people with
those traits can be teachers, lawyers, nurses, carpenters, shopkeepers, or electricians?
Many of us have and do, but this is wasted time for sure. Do we think if we teach
a particular set of character traits then the person will be successful at a particular
occupation (or worse, do we believe someone born with a particular temperament
will be successful)? Many of us do believe this, but it is time to look at people’s lives
and contributions and question this belief. Consider an eighth-grade calculus teacher
who worked highway construction during the summer to supplement his income
and put his children through college. Is he a teacher or a construction worker? How
about the research ecologist who performs in a local chamber music group—is she
an ecologist or a musician? The answer is they are both, and they are each successful
at both, for reasons similar to and different from all other teacher-construction
workers or ecologist-musicians. Furthermore, what makes one a good musician
may not have anything to do with what makes her a good ecologist. What they
all (teacher, scientist, lawyer, nurse, shopkeeper, electrician, carpenter, ecologist-
scientist, teacher-construction worker) have in common, however, is they engaged
in some goal-oriented, object–motive activity in which they grew increasingly
competent and earned some sort of capital (social, cultural, and symbolic), which in
turn granted them entry into these fields of practice, profession, and study. For the
rest of the chapter, we consider what it means to be and become a scientist and who
can do it. The short answer is anyone can be and become a scientist.

Being and Becoming, Learning and Knowing, Transforming and Changing

What does it mean to be someone? What does it mean to become someone? We say
these phrases all the time: I am a teacher. I am a second grader. I want to become
a doctor. She wants to be a police officer. We want to be rich. He wants to be

22
 Being and becoming scientists

successful. You want to be a person who fights racism. I want to be a person who
fights sexism. But what do these phrases mean? How do we become someone? How
do we know when we are someone? We argue being and becoming are inseparable.
In other words, we are always simultaneously being and becoming who we are and
want to be (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Being and becoming are interdependent, simultaneous processes;

we are always being and always becoming

One of our colleagues, a developmental psychologist, Anna Stetsenko (Stetsenko,

2008) defines becoming (and being) as the process by which individuals come to
understand and transform the world and themselves by contributing to the world.
This means there is no gap between changing or transforming one’s world, learning
and knowing one’s world, and being or becoming oneself (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Self-development can be thought of as a collaborative transformative practice,

which refers to the endless, interconnected, and dynamic processes of being and becoming,
knowing and learning, and transforming and changing oneself and one’s environment
(adapted from Stetsenko and Arievitch, 2004)

Unfortunately, most science educators usually think of this single process

(being|becoming) as five distinct processes (learning, knowing, becoming, being,
and contributing), which we conduct in distinct moments in time with clear gaps
between them.

23
Chapter 2

Think about how we (in the United States) often present the process of becoming
a scientist to students. First, students are told if they want to be a scientist (in the
future) then they should learn a lot of information, work hard to be promoted, and
perform well in plenty of math courses to ensure entry into a college that supports
science majors. Second, future scientists should major in a science discipline in
college. If possible, they should get experience on a research project with a team
of scientists in their field of interest. Third, to become an accredited scientist,
students should go to graduate school and earn a master’s or doctorate degree in
their area of interest. Fourth, after completing school and earning a degree in some
area of science, graduates should start working independently as a career scientist
and publish papers, which can be considered original contributions to the field. If
we represent this timeline graphically we might draw a progression like the one in
Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Being and becoming a scientist is typically presented as a linear process
punctuated by some type of postsecondary or graduate certification

There are many ways to represent the processes of becoming a scientist and
being a scientist. The points here are (1) these two processes are often thought of
as connected linearly in time (being a scientist refers to a future time in a student’s
life, while becoming refers to the present actions the students need to take); (2) it
is not clear how being and becoming are somehow related to the separate processes
of knowing and learning; and (3) the outcome of the process is usually a career
scientist. First, there is apprenticeship, a discrete period of nonbeing (e.g., “not a
scientist yet” or “only a student”). Second, there is accreditation, which usually
dictates when the apprentice has earned the ability to make original contributions.
People who violate this sequence are labeled as genius, child prodigy, gifted, or
unusual in some way. This sequence is a human construction designed for exclusion
and exclusivity. Once we recognize this status quo, we can reconstruct it to resemble
a more productive and inclusive reality. We’re not advocating for abolishing
professional licensure requirements (they certainly revolutionized how we protect
the public from charlatans), only for recognizing how these requirements might
unnecessarily limit and dismiss.
In Stetsenko’s model, changing one’s world, knowing one’s world, and
being|becoming oneself are all part of a single continuous process. A linear
progression (like the one in Figure 2.3) is artificial because it is not possible to
separate the lifelong process of human development into discrete stages or periods

24
 Being and becoming scientists

of knowing, being, and transformation. She and Eduardo Vianna (Vianna and
Stetsenko, 2011) explained it this way:
People not only constantly transform and create their environment, they also
create and constantly transform their lives and themselves … there is no gap
between changing one’s world, knowing it, and being (or becoming) oneself
…. All three dimensions emerg[e] and develop synergistically within and
through collaborative transformative practice. (pp. 317–318)
Let’s explore their model further by examining some everyday examples of
being|becoming.

Being|becoming a bird watcher. When students learn a bird’s call or song, they
will say they now hear it everywhere. They became attuned to a phenomenon always
present, but previously below their conscious awareness. One of our first responses
to learning something new is to teach it to someone else. We might now say, “Oh, did
you hear that? It sounded like a cardinal!” Another response is to learn more: “Do
cardinals have more than one song or call?” “When does the bird make that call?”
“What does the call mean to other birds?” “Do birds hear what I hear or do they hear
something different?” “How might we answer these questions?” Another response
may be to notice as much about the call/song as we can: “How does it sound do us?
Can we describe its rhythm, tone, pitch, or repetition?” “How does it make us feel?
Is it pleasant, annoying, easy to ignore, captivating, or painful?” We transformed our
environment the moment we distinguished the bird call from other sounds, for this
changed us and our consciousness and we are part of the environment interacting
with this bird. Another moment of transformation was when we learned from another
person (a teacher, friend, guide, book, recording) the name of the bird that makes
that particular call because this changes what we look for (a perching bird with red,
brownish-red plumage over its entire body, red beak, black face and neck mask) and
how we see or “read” the world. We are now someone who can identify a cardinal by
call and by sight; we can teach others; we can use this tool to make observations and
conduct investigations; we can seek out others who are interested in learning more;
we can reflect on our interactions with this creature and learn more about ourselves
and our interactions. If we took action and did one or more of these things, a teacher
or researcher might say we were doing science or talking scientifically.

Being|becoming a person who keeps a science journal. When we, or our students,
keep science journals we record impressions of the world—what we see and what
we think—in the form of drawings, pictures, photos, diagrams, notes, narratives,
tables, and charts. As we create the journal pages we are/become people who
keep journals. Both the habit of keeping a journal and the physical journal entries
structure how we view the present, revisit the past, and change how we manage
our time and activity in the future. In other words, as we learn or know the world,

25
Chapter 2

we transform the world and how we look at it, which in turn has the potential to
change what we want to do, who we are, or who we want to be. For example, in a
unit on food webs, we asked our students to assess their initial claims or hypotheses
about the relationships between various living organisms through a review of the
evidence they had gathered. Subsequently, they generated even more sophisticated
and investigable questions about food webs than they had generated without this
reflection.
When we document our learning and knowing of the world in a science journal
we transform the world into our own language and make the world familiar and
predictable. Through reflecting on our documentation process, however, we can
identify the lenses we use to view and interpret the world and the inherent limitations.
We challenge ourselves to invent alternatives, explore other perspectives, and ask
new questions. When children keep science journals (of their own creation) and
begin to rely on them, they can become more conscious of past actions, the power of
reflection, and become oriented toward future goals.

Being|becoming aware of environmental consequences of personal actions. By

choosing to drive our cars into the city instead of taking public transportation, we
initiate numerous changes in the environment, which in turn change us because
we are part of the environment. For example, we produce far more greenhouse
gases when we take the car, which in turn contribute to climate change, which will
eventually dictate our future responses to the environment (where we live, what
we eat, what we wear). We usually read when we ride on the subway or bus. When
we drive, however, we often rant. In other words, our choices affect our mood and
physical health. When we drive we add to the vehicular load of the city—we displace
residents from their parking spaces, we add particulate matter to the air, increasing
the smog, which in turn contributes to the higher asthma rates of our students. As
we learn more about the ramifications of our choices, it changes how we view the
world. If we change our decisions based on what we have learned and know about
the world we are/become people who have made our decision making conscious and
reflective.

Being|becoming ecologists. In elementary school ecology lessons, when we build

food webs with children and look at the effects such as changing the amount of
food (prey), number of predators, types of prey/food, types of predators, and number
or amount of decomposers, we learn about perspective and system connections.
From whose perspective is there an apparent benefit from the change? From whose
perspective is there a risk or loss from the change? Structuring and investigating
the world in this way has the potential to change how a student sees individuals—
viewing them now as part of a larger, interdependent, connected system. Identifying
systems and our place within a particular system can shift our mind-set from
viewing ourselves as individual humans to viewing ourselves as members of a larger

26
 Being and becoming scientists

collective of interconnected living and nonliving things. In other words, we can shift
how our actions and choices indirectly and directly affect others in profound and
potentially unanticipated ways.
***
What do each of these examples of being|becoming have in common? In addition
to illustrating the irreducible interconnections between being, knowing, and
transformation, they also illustrate examples of being and becoming scientists.
The moment we wonder about our actions or other phenomena and begin to
question, compare, document, or measure these actions and phenomena or conduct
experiments and investigations to explore and explain them is a moment when we
are being|becoming scientists.
Through these examples, we attempted to illustrate Stetsenko’s claim there is no
gap between changing one’s world, knowing it, and becoming oneself. Instead, we
should view these as three dimensions of an expansive collection of collaborative
transformative practices necessary for human development. All human activities
(including education) represent contributions to collaborative transformative
practices: “These practices are those in which people come to know themselves and
their world as well as ultimately come to be human in and through the processes
of collaboratively transforming the world in view of their goals” (Stetsenko, 2008,
p. 472). These practices are contingent on the past and the vision for the future
and are imbued with ideology, ethics, and values. For example, when we notice
and discriminate a birdcall for the first time we might attempt to see the source
and create a description, which gives us access to a proper name (invented by a
predecessor), which gives us further access to all we think we collectively know
about this bird. These tools we use are part of our collective past (tools generated
by others in an effort to understand this bird) and can be marshaled for our future
goals (e.g., to learn more about this and other birdcalls or to learn to discriminate
a variety of calls from this bird). How this knowledge further transforms our
interactions reflects our values, ethics, and commitments. For example, in the
process of learning about this bird’s song we may learn this bird prefers to nest
in dense thickets, so we might think twice about clearing that patch of yard that is
a bit of an eyesore to us, but looks attractive to the bird. Alternatively, we might
encourage others in our community to consider how to create this type of habitat
in areas favored by the birds. Ultimately, noticing and learning about a local bird
constitutes a contribution achieved through collaborative transformative practice:
knowing, becoming, and transforming our world and ourselves. This practice can
be applied to any problem space in the natural world, such as our understanding
of the impact of humans on the environment (e.g., how we consume and conserve
water, air, and carbon resources), our understanding of the origins of the universe
and life, our understanding of human systems of governance and economics, or any
other area of interest. In Box 2.1, we’ve provided an example of an organizer you

27
Chapter 2

can use to apply the collaborative transformation practice to any area of interest.
This will help you to stop thinking of becoming and being as discrete processes and
to reimagine the process of being|becoming a scientist as the endless, simultaneous,
interconnected, and dynamic process of being and becoming, learning and knowing,
and transforming ourselves and our world.

Box 2.1.

Applying the BBST framework for collaborative transformation practice

Instructions: Pick something in the natural world you enjoy learning about.
Use the table below, based on Figure 2.2 to map as many
events, ideas or scenarios related to the topic onto the three
aspects of collaborative transformation practice.

Topic: Rock cycle – Erosion

Activity: Observing local schoolyard embankment erosion

Being|becoming Knowing|learning Changing|transforming

• Interested in • Water flowing or • Consulted with
monitoring local trickling across school maintenance
erosion loose soil will move supervisor about
• Aware of cost and fine particles farther causes and possible
damage across the sidewalk repairs.
• Curious about than larger particles • Maintenance
effects of erosion (pebbles, rocks) department is
on sewer system • When a higher considering a
functioning volume of water combination of
flows down the netting and bushes
embankment (as in as a possible
a heavy rainstorm), solution to the
more soil washes embankment
onto the sidewalk erosion.
and into the street.
Smaller particles are
still carried further
than larger particles,
but everything
travels further

28
 Being and becoming scientists

Now we want to expand on this idea and argue teaching and learning science
constitutes a contribution to these broader practices as a whole. All of these
examples illustrated being|becoming a scientist, and these are the reference models
we promote in our classrooms. But these are not the images typically presented to
science students in any grade, kindergarten through graduate school. Where did the
traditional notions of scientists as professional experts come from, and what images
are popular among schoolchildren?

Who can be|become a scientist? Myth AND reality

History and Origins of the Word Scientist

In 1962 Sydney Ross, a professor of chemistry and science historian, wrote an

essay for the Annals of Science that shed some light on the origins of our concept
of scientist (Ross, 1962). In it, he explained William Whewell invented the
word scientist relatively recently in his 1834 anonymous review of one of Mary
Somerville’s books (On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences). Somerville was
a polymath, science advocate and one of several female science writers working
the in the 1830s. These prominent women wrote reviews and syntheses of research,
which were undoubtedly sources of new ideas for budding and working natural
philosophers of the day. For example, Michael Faraday was an avid reader of Jane
Marcet’s books and was inspired to study the natural world as a result. Marie-
Anne Pierrette Paulze (a.k.a. Madam Lavoisier) was instrumental in interpreting
and translating Lavoisier’s work so it could be understood by his contemporaries.
And Somerville’s writing influenced James Maxwell’s work and led John Adams
to look for Neptune. A year after Connexion was published, Somerville was one
of the first women elected to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1835 along with
Caroline Herschel. In Connexion, Somerville had brought together in one textbook
the latest developments in the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, botany, and
geology. She explained “The progress of modern science, especially within the
last five years, has been remarkable for a tendency to simplify the laws of nature,
and to unite detached branches by general principles” (Somerville, 1834, preface).
Around the time Somerville was writing, members of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science were starting to complain that philosopher was too
broad a term to be used to describe themselves and they had no word to describe a
person who pursued science. Whewell introduced the word scientist in his review
of Somerville’s recent book by analogy with artist, economist, atheist, and sciolist
(someone who talks with pretended expertise). Apparently, he was joking (as
indicated by sciolist), but despite its unofficial introduction, the word quickly spread
and it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary as a new word in the same year
of its introduction (Oxford English Dictionary [OED], 2014b). In 1840 Whewell
proposed it again (this time seriously) as a new and necessary word to describe “a
cultivator of science in general” (Ross, 1962). In the years after it was introduced,

29
Chapter 2

however, Whewell’s new word faced harsh criticism from prominent British citizens
such as Michael Faraday (a British bookbinder and self-taught chemist and physicist),
who refused to use the word and continued to refer to himself as an “experimental
philosopher”; Lord William Kelvin (a Scottish mathematician and physicist), who
instead attempted to promote the use of naturalist to reflect the work of “a person
well versed in natural philosophy” (1890); Sir John Lubbock (a British banker,
philanthropist and polymath), who suggested we retain the old word philosopher
(1894); and a popular writer of the time, Grant Allen (a Canadian science writer
and science fiction novelist), who suggested most publishers preferred to use man
of science over scientist—as was the case between 1894 and the early 20th century
(ca. 1914) (Ross, 1962).
Objections were raised to the use of the term scientist for many reasons, but not
perhaps for the reasons we might hope. According to Ross (1962), for some, the
word implied the practice of science could be used to earn a living. At the time,
educational reforms had already begun to place the learned professions (e.g.,
physician, clergyman, and lawyer) on par with technical professions (e.g., factory
worker, mechanic). It was argued adding scientist to the list of career options
would lessen the stature of all those labeled scientists. For others, the word was a
Latin-Greek hybrid and, therefore, not a legitimate word. In other words, the Brits
objected to the authenticity of the term. Another related and popular objection was
the mistaken belief Americans had adopted it; their approval automatically implied it
must be an unseemly word. In fact, an American had not invented the word. It wasn’t
until 1849 that an American was credited with using the word. American astronomer
Benjamin A. Gould proposed it and Ross explains Gould was unaware he was not
the first to do so (Ross, 1962, p. 73).
No one, however, objected to the notion scientist was a word invented to be an
“exclusive title held by a small group of professional men” (Ross, 1962, p. 75).
Nor did anyone object to the implication that the knowledge of this group of men
would be superior to all others whose knowledge would be “deemed no better than
nescience [lack of knowledge or awareness] or ignorance” (Ross, 1962, p. 75). By
the early 20th century, the name was viewed as an honorific title soon to be sought
after by many. Quickly, scientists were viewed as the only producers of true belief
about the world and how it works (i.e., truth or true knowledge), and educational
institutions were regulating who could be a scientist and how they became one.
In other words, knowledge about the world generated by all other scholars (and, it
goes without saying, laypersons) including philosophers, writers, artists, historians,
and theologians, was considered faulty, untrustworthy, wrong or pointless. The
belief among some that science could answer all of life’s questions would prove
to be a persistent worry for many. One of the major concerns with the invention
and expansion of the modern scientist in Britain was whether the new professional
scientists would “promote safe religious belief or a dangerous secular materialism”
(Holmes, 2008, p. 450) in their attempts to answer all of life’s questions including
those about origins, existence, divinity, and the afterlife.

30
 Being and becoming scientists

Regulating Being and Becoming a Scientist

The creation of the professional title of scientist meant now any student (well,
European males) could aspire to be career scientists and universities could provide
the coursework and certification (e.g., a college degree) to achieve it. Generally,
once an official route to acquire a professional title is created regulation eventually
follows and, in the case of science, such regulation can affect not only the possibilities
of being and becoming scientists, but also:
• The number of workers.
• The demographics of the workers.
• The access and entry routes for workers.
• The income of workers.
• The public perception of science and scientists.
• The division of labor within a particular field of science.
Since the bulk of professional research in the United States is currently supported
almost entirely by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science
Foundation, the Institute of Educational Sciences of the Department of Education,
the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense and these grants are
only available to applicants who are employed at colleges, universities or research
institutes, or (in some cases) businesses. It is within this system that access and entry
pathways are constructed.

Access and entry. Through regulation, the educational process of being|becoming

a scientist was separated into discrete events. Becoming was viewed as training on
the road to an endpoint of being an economically active scientist (i.e., earning a
living wage through science) (Figure 2.3). This linear and compartmentalized path
has existed for about a century and a half (it is only now starting to change a bit), and
has been recently dubbed the science career pipeline. We could not trace the origins
of the pipeline analogy, but it refers to the narrow scientific career track we use in the
United States for scientific training, from elementary school to initial employment.
Students pass through a series of transition points such as completing coursework
and apprenticeships at various levels before reaching the final level when they are
certified as scientists and can contribute to the field through independent work and
publication. The pipeline analogy refers to positive aspects of the certification system
(steady flow and assured delivery of career scientists), but it also refers to negative
aspects of the same system. As Henry Etzkowitz, Carol Kemelgor, and Brian Uzzi
(2003) explain, “A pipeline also connotes a narrow, constricted vessel with few if
any alternative ways of passage through the channel” (p. 6). If for some reason you
are ejected or rejected from the pipeline it is difficult to regain access, because at
each educational level the entries become fewer and more restrictive. In other words,
the linear path of becoming and being a scientist supports the belief scientist should
be an “exclusive title held by a small group of professional men” (Ross, 1962).

31
Chapter 2

Public perception of scientists. With regulation, a mythology began to emerge

about the disposition, temperament, and personality required for being a scientist
(e.g., Medawar, 1979). Whewell himself defined a scientist as “a cultivator of
science in general,” but the Oxford English Dictionary added a scientist was “A
person who conducts scientific research or investigation; an expert in or student of
science, esp. one or more of the natural or physical sciences” (OED, 2014b). The
term evolved over time and eventually it referred to a person with distinct mental
attitudes (e.g., skepticism of authority, dispassionate description of phenomena)
who uses techniques developed by practitioners of physical science (e.g., framing
hypotheses capable of being tested, measuring the limits of reliability of data).
For example Robert Merton, a sociologist studying science, outlined four sets of
values and norms to which men of science subscribed: universalism, communalism,
disinterestedness (or no conflict of interest), and organized skepticism (Merton,
1973, pp. 268–278). Character traits such as curiosity, persistence, open-mindedness,
serendipity, integrity, and intelligence are often suggested as common to any positive
scientific attitude. According to Ross, by the 1960s a dangerous view of a scientist as
an omniscient authority was popularized as a “new figure of authority, corresponding
to the priest or witch doctor of a more primitive culture, whose scientific statements
can be accepted with child-like reliance” (Ross, 1962, p. 83).
Around the same time, government agencies investing in science education were
interested in the public perceptions of science. Margaret Mead and Rhoda Métraux
(1957) were commissioned by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) to find out what high school students thought about scientists,
including what kind of scientist students would like to be (or not to be) if they chose
to become scientists themselves. At the time, the AAAS had invested in creating
positive attitudes to the idea of science (e.g., funding the Traveling High School
Science Library Program). The assumption operating in this and similar programs
was if students learned positive attitudes to science in general (by learning about
real scientists), then they would consider careers in science. Mead and Métraux
investigated this assumption. They distributed the following prompts to 35,000
students at 145 high schools, many of which were participating in an AAAS-
sponsored library program:
If you are a boy, complete the following statements in your own words:
1. When I think about a scientist, I think of …
2. If I were going to be a scientist, I should like to be the kind of scientist who …
3. If I were going to be a scientist, I would not like to be the kind of scientist who …
If you are a girl, complete the following statements in your own words:
1. When I think about a scientist, I think of …
2. If I were going to be a scientist, I should like to be the kind of scientist who …
OR If I were going to marry a scientist, I should like to marry the kind of scientist
who …

32
 Being and becoming scientists

3. If I were going to be a scientist, I would not like to be the kind of scientist who
… OR If I were going to marry a scientist, I would not like to marry the kind of
scientist who …
We hope you noted the way the questions were altered for participating girls, and
we’ll return to the issue of sexism in science and science education in the section on
regulating demographics.
After the authors selected and analyzed a subset of the responses, they found the
official image of the scientist given by participants (i.e., what students probably felt
was the correct answer) was a very positive image.
Science in general is represented as a good thing: without science we would
still be living in caves; science is responsible for progress, is necessary for
the defense of the country, is responsible for preserving more lives and for
improving the health and comfort of the population. (Mead & Métraux, 1957,
p. 384)
However, when participants were asked about the kind of scientist they would
choose to be (or not to be), their image of a career as a scientist was overwhelmingly
negative. We wonder whether heroic biographies like those available through the
Traveling High School Library Program may have exacerbated the problem, but
this hypothesis was not investigated as far as we can tell. On Table 2.1, we created a
graphic model of the authors’ original composite images of the positive and negative
sides of being a scientist as expressed by student-participants.
The kind of scientist the students wanted to be (i.e., their positive image) still
reflected a bleak picture of life as a scientist. Even though the positive image
sounded noble and good, it wasn’t very appealing. For example, students reported
if they were a scientist they would want to be one who was a genius or almost a
genius, serious, selfless, hard working, self-sacrificing, responsible, and invested
a lot of time and money in becoming a scientist. The authors argued these positive
qualities were not qualities most students were interested in developing. Participants
did not wish to “commit themselves to longtime perspective, to dedication, to single
absorbing purposes, to an abnormal relationship to money, or to the risks of great
responsibility; and these requirements “[were] seen as far too exacting” (Mead and
Métraux, 1957, p. 387). Mead and Métraux argued the positive and negative images
both represented extremes—“too much contact with money or too little … confined
work indoors, or traveling far away; talking all the time in a boring way, or never
talking at all”—and all were “deviations from the accepted way of life, from being
a normal friendly human being, who lives like other people and gets along with
other people” (Mead and Métraux, 1957, p. 388). Furthermore, any career seen as
antithetical to that contemporary set of values would “repel male students” from
choosing it as a career and repel females students from supporting it as a career
choice for their husbands. For these reasons, the authors argued students could hold
stereotypical, albeit positive, images of scientists in general, but also have no interest

33
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 zeven Zwaben in stomme verbazing bracht. Zouden de
Marsbewoners zich onderscheiden door zulk eene
verbazende lichaamskracht, zouden het wellicht een soort
Athleten zijn.

„Wat hebben die menschen een prachtig ontwikkelde

borstkas, bekijk die eens goed,” met deze woorden wees
Piller naar de arbeiders.

„Het is mij van morgen al opgevallen, dat deze menschen

zoo mooi gebouwd en zoo breed van schouders zijn. Ook de
kinderen onderscheiden zich in dat opzicht van die der
aarde.”

„Dat is pas een ras, dat door zuivere kultuur, ijzersterke

longen heeft gekregen, en bijna niet vatbaar is voor tering,”
ging Piller voort.—Inmiddels was Brummhuber naar de
arbeiders gegaan, en had getracht een der marmerplaten op
te lichten.

„Het komt mij voor, dat het marmer bijzonder licht is, zou
het misschien eene geheel andere soort zijn dan bij ons,”
riep hij zijne tochtgenooten toe. Deze kwamen nieuwsgierig
geworden nader en onderzochten de steenen.

„Neen, het is uitstekend marmer, bekijk die fijne korrel

maar eens, en die zacht gekleurde aderen, die er door heen
loopen,” antwoordde Piller, nadat hij den steen aan een
zorgvuldig onderzoek had onderworpen.

„En deze prachtige roode steen hier, is van het fijnste suevit,
of ik moest in het geheel geen begrip meer hebben van
mineralogie,” bracht professor Hämmerle in het midden, die
op verschillende plaatsen den steen had beklopt.

„Laten wij eens probeeren om dien steen te lichten!”

„Juist, die schijnt hier boven van minder soortelijk gewicht
te zijn dan bij ons. Nu begrijp ik, waarom deze menschen
zulke lasten zoo gemakkelijk kunnen opheffen. Hoe komt
dat? Weet gij dat misschien, Stiller?”

„De oorzaak ligt mijns inziens in de dichtheid van Mars, die

0,7 van de aarde bedraagt,” antwoordde Stiller.

„Nu begrijp ik ook, waarom heden bij het diner de bokalen

en het zilveren tafelgereedschap mij zoo verbazend licht
toescheen,” voegde Thudium er aan toe. „Ik had echter geen
tijd om hierover na te denken, want de muziek boeide mij te
veel!”

„Dat was ook met mij het geval,” bevestigde Stiller.

„En hoe staat het met de dichtheid der Marsatmosfeer?”

vroeg Frommherz. „Hierin gevoel ik geen verschil met die
van onze vaderlandsche lucht in den zomer. Integendeel, ik
adem hier lichter en gevoel mij vroolijker dan daar!”

„De luchtlaag, die deze planeet omgeeft, is aanmerkelijk

minder hoog dan die van onze aarde. Denkt u zelf bij ons op
eenen berg van middelmatige hoogte, dan zal die ijlere lucht
ongeveer overeenkomen met deze. Onze aardbarometers
zijn helaas niet zoodanig ingericht, dat wij ze op Mars
kunnen gebruiken, om tot absoluut zekere vergelijkingen en
conclusiën te kunnen komen,” antwoordde Stiller.

„Doch dat daargelaten, uit uwe woorden kan ik mij

volkomen de buitengewone ontwikkeling van de borstkas
van onze vrienden op Mars verklaren: de longen zijn
overeenkomstig de behoeften. Op dezelfde eenvoudige
wijze zullen zich ook wel alle andere eigenaardigheden der
Marsbewoners laten verklaren, die wij nog wel eens hier of
daar zullen ontmoeten,” hernam Piller, terwijl hij doorliep,
en de andere heeren zijn voorbeeld volgden.
„A propos!” vroeg Piller al doorwandelende, „is het u ook
niet opgevallen, dat onze Marsbewoners zulke
buitengewoon mooie oogen hebben?”

„In grootte en glans, steken zij zeer zeker bij de onze af. Er
gaat van de spiegels der ziel dezer Marsbewoners eene
buitengewone schittering uit.”

„Juist gezien, Stiller! Ik heb nog nooit zulk eene prachtig

blauwe iris gezien; het is de ideaal-kleur voor een edel oog,
en dan dat weelderige krullende haar! Het zijn ware Zeus-
en Junogestalten! Frommherz had vandaag gelijk met zijne
vergelijking.”

„Niet waar?” riep deze uit, verheugd over die opmerking.

„De Marsbewoners schijnen mij zoowel lichamelijk als
geestelijk, hoogstaande menschen te zijn.”

„Voor deze streek schijnt uw oordeel juist te zijn, afgaande

op hetgeen wij heden hebben ondervonden,” hernam Stiller.

Daar de zon was ondergegaan, besloten de heeren uit

Zwaben, voor heden hunne wandeling te staken, en terug te
keeren naar hun tehuis, waar zij het bezoek wilden
afwachten van den grijsaard, die hen naar de sterrenwacht
brengen zou. Zij waren nog onderweg, toen de nacht zijne
donkere vleugels over het landschap begon uit te spreiden.
In het oosten werd het al lichter en lichter. De Maan kwam
op en wierp haar zilver licht over de stille, vredige
landstreek.

„Dat is de groote Marsmaan, Deimos genaamd, die daar

schijnt,” verklaarde professor Stiller aan zijne
tochtgenooten. „Over eenige oogenblikken zult ge den
tweeden wachter van Mars zien, waarmede wij den vorigen
nacht, gelukkig slechts in zeer oppervlakkige aanraking zijn
geweest.”
Juist, daar daagde ook de kleine Phoebus aan den horizont
op.

„Welk een prachtig schouwspel!” riep Stiller verrukt uit.

„Waarlijk de Marsbewoners hebben ’s nachts geen
kunstverlichting noodig! Zij hebben niet alleen iederen
nacht helderen maneschijn, maar worden behalve dat, nog
door twee schitterende hemellichamen beschenen.”

„Dat is zeker, Mars is eene merkwaardige planeet,” merkte

Piller op, terwijl hij een oogenblik staan bleef om te kijken
naar de beide wachters, die een licht verspreidden dat bijna
gelijk stond met daglicht, en dat prachtige schaduwen te
voorschijn riep.

„Het is alsof een sprookje werkelijkheid is geworden. Dat

zou voor u weder eene prachtige reden zijn om te drinken,
Piller!” spotte Dubelmeier.

„Wel ja, waarom niet, oude jongen, waarom niet! Te

oordeelen naar alles wat wij vandaag gezien hebben, geloof
ik dat er op Mars nog veel zal te bewonderen zijn, en de
aanleidingen tot drinken tot een bedenkelijk aantal zullen
stijgen. Mijn lijfspreuk echter is die van den ouden
Griekschen wijsgeer: van niets te veel!”

Dubelmeier lachte.

„Lach toch niet zoo dwaas, gij watersnip, en volg zelf liever
ook zijn voorbeeld met uwe overdreven waterdrinkerij! Dat
is een goede raad, dien ik u als dokter geef.”
„De manen hier, komen mij aanmerkelijk grooter voor, dan
bijvoorbeeld onze wachter daar beneden,” merkte
Frommherz op, met deze woorden een einde makende aan
de stilte, die na Pillers laatste woorden was ontstaan.
 „Dat is maar gezichtsbedrog, mijn waarde,” verklaarde
Stiller, „de manen van Mars zijn aanmerkelijk kleiner dan
de maan van onze aarde, maar ze staan veel dichter bij de
hoofdplaneet dan dit bij onze maan het geval is. Phoebus is
van Mars slechts 9000 kilometers, en de groote Deimos niet
meer dan ongeveer 23.520 kilometers verwijderd. Daardoor
komt het, dat deze wachters van Mars zoo ontzettend groot
schijnen.”

Onder deze gesprekken waren de heeren bij hun vorstelijk

verblijf aangekomen. Daar wachtte hen reeds hun
opmerkzame gastheer, van wien zij dien dag reeds zooveel
goeds en vriendelijks hadden ondervonden. De hooge
gestalte van den grijsaard, scheen hun in den maneschijn
nog statiger dan bij daglicht, het lange golvende grijze haar
nog meer zilverachtig en glanzend.

„Ziet hij er niet uit als een Patriarch uit den joodschen tijd,
toen eenvoud en reinheid van zeden, de schoonste deugden
des volks waren?” vroeg professor Stiller zachtjes aan zijn
collega Frommherz.

„Waarachtig, gij hebt gelijk! Laten wij onzen ouden heer,

wiens naam wij nog niet kennen eenvoudig Patriarch
noemen. Die naam past uitstekend voor hem, temeer waar
hij ons heden in zijn vaderlijke bescherming heeft
genomen.”

Na eene korte stomme begroeting, geleidde de grijsaard de

zonen der aarde, naar het huis met het koepeldak. De weg
daarheen voerde door een soort bosch met hooge goed
verzorgde boomen, op wier donkergroene, glanzende
bladeren, de trillende stralen der maan hun grillig spel
dreven. Millioenen van lichtgevende kevertjes gonsden in
de zoele nachtlucht onder de boomen, en de blauwe schijn
van deze zich snel bewegende diertjes gaf den indruk van
 snel ronddraaiende sterretjes. Lustig kabbelende beekjes,
wier oevers door sierlijke bruggen waren verbonden,
kruisten den weg.

De eigenaardige schoone wandeling had ongeveer een uur

geduurd. Het in den vorm eener rotonde opgetrokken
gebouw, was beneden versierd met eene rij borstbeelden op
rood marmeren zuilen. Zij schenen de mannen voor te
stellen, die hier in het observatorium hadden gewerkt.
Breede trappen voerden naar het eigenlijke observatorium
waar eenige mannen reeds in hunne stille studie verdiept
waren. De patriarch moest reeds met hen gesproken hebben,
want zoodra de vreemdelingen binnentraden, stonden zij op,
en noodigden met eene vriendelijke handbeweging deze uit,
hunne plaatsen in te nemen.

Stiller was verrast over de grootsche pracht der geheele

inrichting. Hoe armzalig leek hem, hierbij vergeleken, zijne
eigen sterrenwacht, daarginds op de Bopserhoogte bij
Stuttgart! Hij trad op een der reuzentelescopen toe,
onderzocht hem even, en moest erkennen, dat de lenzen aan
scherpte niets te wenschen overlieten, ja zelfs alles
overtroffen wat hij tot dusver van dien aard had leeren
kennen. Wat een rijkdom van verstand, moest hier op Mars
vertegenwoordigd zijn, om zulk fijn optisch werk, dat op
zeer wetenschappelijke nauwkeurige berekeningen berustte,
te kunnen uitvoeren.

De professor sloeg opmerkzaam den hemel gade. Hier en

daar ontwaardde hij hem bekende sterrenbeelden en sterren,
ver in het westen stond een opvallend groote rood
schitterende ster, die in hooge mate de aandacht van den
professor trok. Dat kon slechts eene planeet zijn, die daar
fonkelend in het onmetelijk hemelruim zweefde; wellicht
was het, de opvallende nabijheid in aanmerking genomen,
de aarde wel. Hij stelde daarom den reuzenkijker zeer
 nauwkeurig in. Het vermoeden van professor Stiller bleek
juist te zijn. Dank zij de voortreffelijke scherpe lenzen, en
de reinheid van de Marsatmosfeer, herkende hij duidelijk
Moeder Aarde. Hij kon de verschillende zeeën en
werelddeelen onderscheiden. Van den Noordpool
zuidwaarts gaande, was het zelfs mogelijk de omtrekken
van enkele landen langs de IJszee, en langs den Atlantischen
Oceaan vast te stellen, en daar, ja, daar had hij het, wat nu in
den kijker duidelijk zichtbaar was, daar moest zijn
vaderland, daar moest, naar den omtrek te oordeelen,
Duitschland liggen.

Vroolijk opgewonden, deelde Stiller de gedane waarneming

aan zijne reisgenooten mede, en noodigde hen uit, door den
kijker een blik te werpen op het verre, dierbare vaderland.

De een na den ander gaf aan deze uitnoodiging gehoor.

„Het is ongeloofelijk, maar waar! Dit vergezicht is

inderdaad eenig in zijn soort! Voor de eerste maal zien wij
op verren, verren afstand de aarde en ons vaderland!” riep
Hämmerle vol geestdrift uit.

„Dat gezicht is werkelijk grootsch!” zeide Thudium.

„Dat is het,” bevestigde Piller.

De sterrenkundigen van Mars en de patriarch keken ook

beurtelings door den telescoop. Zij wisten immers reeds,
vanwaar die zonderlinge vreemdelingen in den vroegen
morgen gekomen waren, en konden uit hunne
opgewondenheid bij het gadeslaan van een bepaald deel der
verwijderde planeet, wel opmaken, dat het deel, dat zich op
het oogenblik in het gezichtsveld van den telescoop bevond,
het vaderland der gasten zijn moest.
 „Het is verbazend jammer, dat wij niet met onze collega’s
kunnen spreken! Wat zou dat een leerzaam onderhoud zijn!”
zei Stiller tot zijne metgezellen, toen zij na een stommen
groet het observatorium verlieten.

„In de eerste plaats moeten wij zoo spoedig mogelijk de taal

der Marsbewoners leeren. Die te kennen is voor ons
onderzoekingswerk de „conditio sine qua non,” sprak
Hämmerle.

„Dat is een waar woord, heer taalgeleerde!” liet Piller er op

volgen, en ook de andere heeren knikten toestemmend.

De beide wachters van Mars stonden als volle manen aan

den hemel, toen de heeren huiswaarts gingen. Als twee
geweldige lichtgevende bollen, zweefden zij in het
luchtruim en wierpen hun zilver licht over het stille
landschap. Terwijl Phoebus, de dichtst bijzijnde en kleinere
maan, zich snel van het Westen naar het Oosten bewoog,
trok de grootere verder verwijderde Deimos, die minder
haastig was dan haar gezellin, kalm en statig in omgekeerde
richting. Het was een schouwspel, zóó wonderschoon, zóó
eenig in zijn soort, dat de zonen der aarde in luide
bewoordingen lucht gaven aan hunne bewondering over
dien betooverenden nacht. Langzaam wandelden zij naar
huis, en genoten met volle teugen van de wonderen van een
nacht op Mars.
HOOFDSTUK V.
 LUMATA EN ANGOLA.
De volgende weken gingen voor de gasten van den
Patriarch in gezellig verkeer met hem en de Marsbewoners
voorbij. De vreemdelingen gaven zich alle moeite, om zich
voor hunne nieuwe vrienden verstaanbaar te maken en
tevens deze te verstaan. Ze schreven daarom voor allerlei
dingen de namen op zooals zij die hoorden uitspreken.
Daarop brachten zij deze dingen in verband met het doel
waarvoor zij gebruikt werden, en de eigenschappen,
waardoor zij zich onderscheidden, en kregen zoo op de
meest eenvoudige wijze langzamerhand den sleutel tot de
taal zelve.

Al vlotte ook in het begin het gesprek slechts zeer

langzaam, toch deed het hun veel genoegen, dat zij
langzamerhand de welluidende taal begonnen te begrijpen,
waarin zij de belooning vonden, voor de groote moeite, die
zij zich bij hunne studie moesten getroosten.

In de menschenwereld gaat alles slechts langzaam vooruit;

nergens gaat de ware vooruitgang met zevenmijlslaarzen.
De waarheid van die woorden ondervonden de zeven
Zwabensche geleerden niet alleen voor zichzelf bij hunne
studiën, maar konden zij ook bij de Marsbewoners
waarnemen. Ofschoon zij eerst korten tijd daar vertoefden,
en hunne waarnemingen zich tot eene betrekkelijk kleine
ruimte hadden beperkt, waren zij toch reeds tot de
overtuiging gekomen, dat de bewoners van Mars een zeer
hoogen trap van beschaving hadden bereikt, die slechts het
product kon zijn van eene eeuwenlange geestelijke
ontwikkeling.
 Naarmate de heeren de hen omringenden beter konden
verstaan, nam hunne bewondering en waardeering voor
deze hoogstaande menschen toe.

Meer en meer vestigde zich bij hen de overtuiging, dat de

Marsbewoners, tenminste die, wier gasten zij waren, op de
meest ideale wijze—als menschen datgene vervulden, wat
op aarde slechts de besten en edelsten, dus altijd slechts
enkele individuën presteerden.

Wat zij zelf daar beneden op aarde hadden gedroomd van

alles wat schoon, waar en goed was, vonden zij hier in
werkelijkheid terug, want overal en in alles openbaarde zich
de heerlijkste harmonie, alles ademde schoonheid, goedheid
en waarheid, en het geheele leven droeg den stempel van
kalme werkzaamheid.

Ongetwijfeld moest eene wijze regeering hier aan het hoofd

van den Staat staan, ofschoon de heeren van
overheidspersonen, die in hun vaderland zoo talrijk waren,
hier niets hadden gemerkt.

Zou dit leven vol licht en schoonheid ook zijne schaduwen,

zijne donkere zijde hebben? Deze vraag werd herhaaldelijk
geopperd, wanneer de heeren ’s avonds in de groote
bibliotheek van hun tehuis onder elkander zaten te praten.
Een afdoend antwoord werd hierop nooit gegeven—want
gewoonlijk werd men het daarover eens, dat men, alvorens
een oordeel te kunnen vellen, eerst de taal volkomen
meester wezen moest.

Hierboven op Mars, was alles zoo heel anders als daar

beneden op de aarde.

De zeven Zwaben voelden zich in hun nieuw verblijf zóó

uitermate thuis, dat zij in het geheel niet meer aan een
 mogelijken terugkeer schenen te denken; tenminste door
geen der heeren werd daar ooit over gesproken.

De Marsieten, zooals zij de Marsbewoners noemden,

behandelden hen als lieve oude vrienden, geheel als huns
gelijken, en men bewees hun op eene zoo fijn gevoelige
wijze gastvrijheid, dat deze niets drukkends had en zij
integendeel daarvan een vroolijk dankbaar gebruik maakten.

Ook de Argonaut was op praktische wijze onder dak

gebracht; in alle stilte had men op de weide, waar de ballon
was neergedaald, eene ruime loods gebouwd van plaatijzer
en met glas overdekt. Daar was het luchtschip in geborgen.
De defecten die de ballon had bekomen, waren door de
Marsieten zóó meesterlijk hersteld, dat Stiller erover
verbaasd stond. De handigheid en vaardigheid, in zake de
grootste moeilijkheden op het gebied van
luchtscheepvaartkunde, dwongen hem bewondering af.
Waar de technici op Mars bij het repareeren van den
Argonaut blijk hadden gegeven van zooveel praktische
bekwaamheid, hoe groot moest dan wel hunne theoretische
ontwikkeling zijn! Wat konden zijzelf hier nog veel leeren!

Dit vooruitzicht was zóó aanlokkelijk, dat Stiller nauwelijks

den tijd af kon wachten, waarop hij en zijne vrienden in
nauwere aanraking zouden komen met de mannen der
wetenschap, hunne collega’s op Mars.

De vraag, hoe zij de hun bewezen gastvrijheid zouden

vergelden, hield de zeven Zwaben dikwijls bezig, want het
was hun duidelijk, dat zij die maar niet altijd konden blijven
aannemen, zonder daarvoor iets in de plaats te geven. Zij
besloten daarom, om later op de eene of andere manier ieder
naar zijne kundigheden den Marsieten van dienst te zijn, en
op gepaste wijze uiting te geven aan hunne dankbaarheid.
Het hoe, dat stond hun nog niet duidelijk voor den geest,
 doch zou zich waarschijnlijk te eeniger tijd van zelf
uitwijzen.

De tijd verliep; ze deden velerlei ervaringen op, en sloegen

meermalen een blik in de eigenaardige nieuwe wereld,
waarin zij leefden. Allereerst hadden zij uitgemaakt, dat
hunne woonplaats zich bevond op het Noordelijk halfrond
van Mars en wel op 15° breedte. Daar de breedte der
keerkringen van Mars de helft bedraagt van die der aarde,
lag de 15° noorderbreedte hier reeds in de zuidelijke heete
luchtstreek. De gematigde luchtstreek van Mars strekte zich
zoowel noordelijk als zuidelijk tot op 35° breedte uit.
Daarboven en daaronder begon de koude luchtstreek.
Terwijl deze, zooals aan de geleerden werd medegedeeld,
slechts zeer dun en door een bepaald soort Marsbewoners
bevolkt was, leefde het meerendeel der Marsieten binnen de
35° breedte noordelijk en zuidelijk van den equator. Het was
dus slechts betrekkelijk een klein gedeelte van de planeet,
dat bewoond en productief gemaakt werd, maar het was
volkomen voldoende, om de tweehonderd en vijftig
millioen, waarop het aantal bewoners van Mars geschat
werd, een goed bestaan te verzekeren. Dat dit bestaan
verband hield met de reuzenkanalen, was reeds lang
vermoed, naar aanleiding van de waarnemingen door
professor Stiller en andere natuurkundigen gedaan. Deze
vermoedens werden zekerheid, nu professor Stiller in de
gelegenheid was, om de allereerste levensvoorwaarden op
Mars, persoonlijk te leeren kennen.

De atmosfeer van Mars kwam met die der aarde overeen;

maar daar er op Mars slechts kleine oceanen en binnenzeeën
waren, bevatte de dampkring die deze planeet omringde,
minder waterdamp en vocht dan de atmosfeer der aarde. Het
natuurlijk gevolg daarvan was, eene wonderlijk heldere
doorzichtige lucht, waardoor de verst verwijderde
voorwerpen dichtbij schenen, een diep donkerblauwe
 hemel, maar tevens ook gebrek aan flinke regenbuien.
Weliswaar dauwde het in de heerlijk koele nachten zóó
sterk, dat planten en boomen hunne natuurlijke frischheid
behielden, maar deze vochtige neerslag alleen gaf niet
voldoende water voor de behoefte der plantenwereld. De
Marsbewoners waren dus in den strijd om hun bestaan
genoodzaakt, aan dit gebrek in de natuur door kunst te
gemoet te komen. Op deze wijze ontstonden de kanalen, die
zich tot in de koude luchtstreken uitstrekten, en die het
water, dat daar in den zomer ontstond door het smelten der
enorme ijsmassa’s, naar alle richtingen voerden.

Reeds alleen de grootsche uitvoering dezer eeuwenoude

waterwegen, duizenden kilometers lang, die hier en daar
samenvloeiden in kunstmatige bassins, reuzenmeren gelijk,
en de wijze waarop deze met de grootste zorgvuldigheid
werden in stand gehouden, wezen op den hoogen trap van
ontwikkeling der Marsbewoners, hun hoogen graad van
beschaving, en hun sterk ontwikkeld gemeenschapsgevoel.
De regeling van het water was volkomen in
overeenstemming met het jaargetijde. Dank zij deze
inrichting en het onmetelijk aantal watertjes die naar alle
richtingen stroomden, was er op Mars nooit gebrek aan
vocht. Het gevolg daarvan was de weelderige en prachtige
plantengroei, die de Zwaben weer telkens opnieuw moesten
bewonderen. Daarbij kwam de totale afwezigheid van wilde
dieren, vergiftige slangen en gevaarlijke insecten. Het was
een eldorado, waar de zonen der aarde waren terecht
gekomen.

Deze talrijke kanalen waren tevens de beste en eenvoudigste

verkeerswegen der Marsbewoners. Geen wonder, dat hier
dan ook eene levendige scheepvaart was. De schepen, die
zich op de waterwegen bewogen, bedierven de heerlijke
lucht niet door rookende schoorsteenen. Alle vaartuigen,
zoowel voor personen- als voor goederenvervoer, werden
 door electriciteit bewogen en maakten een rustig en snel
verkeer mogelijk.

Met deze vaartuigen, die even doelmatig als gemakkelijk en

sierlijk waren ingericht, hadden de zeven Zwaben reeds
menige groote reis gemaakt. Zij hadden het overige land en
zijne bewoners, daarbij echter slechts vluchtig leeren
kennen, daar die tochten hoofdzakelijk werden ondernomen
met het oog op de algemeene oriënteering. Wat zij echter
zagen, versterkte slechts hunne eerste goede indrukken, en
bevestigde hen in hunne overtuiging dat zij zich in een
grootschen Staat bevonden die voorbeeldeloos werd
bestuurd. Niet alleen waren de Marsbewoners van de
verschillende luchtstreken overal dezelfde—d. w. z. zij
spraken dezelfde taal, en schenen onder dezelfde sociale
verhoudingen te leven, als hunne broeders in Lumata,
zooals de kolonie heette, waar de heeren uit Zwaben waren
aangeland,—maar ook viel op de verschillende plaatsen, die
de vreemdelingen bezochten, eene zekere gelijkheid van
bezit op, en deed hun de totale afwezigheid van werkelijke
armoede aangenaam aan.

De geologische gesteldheid van Mars kwam vrijwel met die

der aarde overeen; ook hier vond men steen-formatie, en
verschillende aardlagen, in nagenoeg dezelfde volgorde als
op aarde. De geologische ontwikkelings-geschiedenis van
Mars scheen dus met die der aarde overeen te stemmen;
alleen had Mars blijkbaar de verschillende
ontwikkelingsperioden sneller en vroeger doorgemaakt.
Daarvoor getuigde het totaal ontbreken van werkende
vulkanen. Daarentegen was Mars rijk aan allerlei heete
bronnen; ook was er geen gebrek aan Fumarolen, (d. w. z.
openingen in den bodem op vulkanischen steengrond,
waaruit waterdampen opstijgen, die dikwijls met allerlei
chemische dampen zijn bezwangerd), noch aan Moffetten
(gasbronnen waaruit koolzuur stroomde).
 Groote steden, zooals zij in de zoogenaamde beschaafde
Staten der aarde te vinden zijn, waren op Mars niet; er
bestonden alleen kleinere of grootere huizengroepen, die
ieder op zich zelf geheel vrij lagen, meestal in het groen.
Alleen aan een groot meer, twee dagreizen zuidwaarts van
Lumata, hadden de Zwaben iets gevonden, wat eenigermate
op eene stad leek. Dat was eene grootere kolonie, met
talrijke mooie gebouwen, die straatsgewijze waren
opgetrokken. Een stad van paleizen scheen het wel, die zich
onderscheidde door eene zekere deftige kalmte, door
overgroote reinheid, en de pracht der publieke tuinen. De
zonen der aarde konden met hunne zeer gebrekkige
spraakkennis, slechts te weten komen, dat deze plaats,
Angola geheeten, het hoofdverblijf was van de stammen der
Wijzen, der Vroolijken, en der Ernstigen. Maar wat waren
dat voor stammen?

Toen zij thuis waren gekomen, vroegen zij daar den

Patriarch naar; deze glimlachte op eene eigenaardige wijze
op die vraag en antwoordde de nieuwsgierige heeren, dat hij
later zelf eens met hen naar Angola zou gaan, om hen met
zijn broeders dáár bekend te maken, die echter reeds lang op
de hoogte waren van hunne aanwezigheid in Lumata, hun
afkomst en hunne reis naar Mars.

In den beginne werd al de tijd van de Tübinger heeren in

beslag genomen door het opschrijven hunner dagelijksche
waarnemingen en der ontvangen nieuwe indrukken en het
aanleeren der taal. Langzamerhand echter begonnen zij toch
te verlangen naar hun vroeger beroep, dat hun tot eene
tweede natuur was geworden, en dat zij met zoo gunstig
gevolg in hun vaderland hadden uitgeoefend. Aan ernstige
en voortdurende bezigheid gewend, scheen hun het
aangename, ideale, heerlijke leven op Mars meer en meer
als een verblijf in een soort luilekkerland toe. Hoe langer zij
op Mars waren, hoe meer de moeilijkheden, waarmede zij
op de heenreis hadden te kampen gehad, op den achtergrond
werden gedrongen.

Er was reeds een vol jaar verloopen, sedert zij van de

Cannstatterweide hun tocht waren begonnen. Terwijl daar
beneden de winter met sneeuw en koude voor de deur stond,
heerschte hierboven in Lumata eene eeuwige lente,
ofschoon de Marsieten het jaargetijde waarin zij zich
bevonden, eveneens vergevorderd noemden.

Was het slechts toeval, dat de zeven Zwaben ook op Mars

bij gewichtige aangelegenheden het heilig zevental
terugvonden? Ook Stiller kon daarvoor geen verklaring
vinden, en stelde zich tevreden, het feit te hebben
vastgesteld.

Op Mars werd het jaar in zeven deelen verdeeld, die allen

betrekking hadden op de werkzaamheid en de rust in de
natuur. Volgens de berekening der aarde stond zulk een
tijdsverloop gelijk met ongeveer twee en vijftig dagen. Deze
perioden heetten:

1 de tijd van het ontwaken,

2 de tijd van het zaaien,

3 de tijd der knoppen en bloesems,

4 de tijd der vruchten,

5 de tijd der schoven,

6 de tijd van het oogsten of der vreugde,

7 de tijd der ruste.

 Langzamerhand hadden de zonen der aarde groote
vorderingen in de Marstaal gemaakt, zoodat zij nu ook
eenig inzicht kregen in de staatsorganisatie van het
Marsvolk. Zij kwamen hoe langer hoe meer tot de
overtuiging dat zij hier te doen hadden met een hoogstaande
reusachtig groote demokratische gemeenschap, die niet
berustte op geweld, maar in stand werd gehouden door den
vrijen wil des volks, en den band van gemeenschappelijke
belangen. Ieder individu maakte zijn eigen welzijn aan dat
der gemeenschap ondergeschikt, en diende deze met al de
kracht die in hem was. De geheele Staat vormde een
weliswaar groote, maar nauw verbonden familie, waar
volkomen vrede en eendracht heerschte. Aan het hoofd van
den Staat stond de stam der Wijzen of de handhavers van
het gezag.

De bevolking van Mars werd in de volgende zeven

stammen onderscheiden:

1e de stam der Wijzen of de handhavers van het gezag.

2e de stam der Vroolijken (beeldende kunsten: schilders,

beeldhouwers en componisten).

3e de stam der Ernstigen (geleerden op elk gebied).

4e de stam der Opgewekten (uitbeeldende kunsten: musici

en tooneelspelers).

5e de stam der Zorgenden (akker- en tuinbouwers en

bedienden).

6e de stam der Ondernemenden (handels- en

verkeersmenschen).

7e de stam der Vindingrijken (industrieelen).

De laatste zes stammen waren volkomen gelijk in aanzien.
De eerste stam bestond uit de meest ervarene, de oudste,
maar vooral de meest geachte mannelijke en vrouwelijke
individuën der overige zes stammen.

De grootste stam, die in aantal de andere verre overtrof, was

die der Zorgenden.

Omtrent de toelating tot een der stammen, die der Wijzen

uitgezonderd, besliste alleen neiging en bekwaamheid.
Overgang van den eenen stam naar den ander was op
bepaalde tijden, na afgelegd examen mogelijk. Niemand
was gebonden, en juist dit volslagen gemis aan dwang
scheen hierboven de hoofdoorzaak te zijn van den hoogeren
trap van ontwikkeling, waarop de verschillende beroepen
stonden.

Eene natuurlijke, verstandige eerzucht, om alles zoo goed te

doen als maar mogelijk was, bezielde alle Marsbewoners,
en deed niet alleen ieder op zich zelf alle krachten
inspannen, maar was tevens oorzaak, dat zij daarin maat
hielden en voor overdrijving bewaard bleven.

Daar er op Mars geen geld in omloop was, heerschte er ook

niet, dat afschuwelijke gehaast en gejaag, dat lichaam en
geest beide afmat, om dat te verdienen; zooals dit beneden
op de aarde het geval was. Geldzorgen waren op Mars
onbekend. Wat de een voortbracht werd omgezet in
dagelijksche behoeften voor de zijnen.

Tot het levensonderhoud werd ook gerekend eene zekere

mate van levensvreugde, die zoowel de beeldende als
uitbeeldende kunsten te genieten geven.

De hoogste roem en de grootste eer bestond in de

algemeene erkenning en waardeering, en deze kon ieder
zich verwerven door trouwe plichtsbetrachting. Voor alles
 wat gepresteerd werd boven den gewonen verplichten
arbeid, dus daar waar de eigenlijke verdienste tegenover de
gemeenschap begint, ontvingen de Marsieten eene
tevredenheidsbetuiging van den stam der Wijzen, en werd
hun openlijk hulde gebracht, terwijl zij hierdoor op
hoogeren ouderdom het recht hadden deel uit te maken van
dezen stam, die zoo hoog in aanzien stond.

Het gemeenschapsleven op Mars was in zijn eigenaardigen

vorm slechts daardoor mogelijk, dat allen zich solidair
voelden. De algemeene stelregel, dat ieder individu op zich
zelf alles moet doen wat der gemeenschap van nut kan zijn
en alles moet nalaten, wat den medemensch kan schaden of
verdriet doen, werd hier reeds sinds onheugelijke tijden in
praktijk gebracht. Daardoor werd de eigenliefde, een
gezond en geoorloofd egoïsme, niet vernietigd. De
natuurlijke drang tot zelfbehoud van ieder mensch op zich
zelf, werd krachtig in stand gehouden door de erkenning der
eenvoudige stelling: dat van het wel en het wee van den
naaste, ook eigen wel en wee afhangt, dat het bloeien en
gedijen van anderen onafscheidelijk is verbonden met eigen
bloeien en gedijen, en dat anderer ellende ook vast en zeker
eigen lijden met zich brengt.

Deze eenvoudige en natuurlijke moraal, die de grondslag is

der reinste naastenliefde (altruïsme), en die ieder geestelijk
normaal mensch er toe brengt, om als bij instinct het goede
te doen en het kwade na te laten, werd op Mars in haar
vollen omgang toegepast. De oorzaak van alle kwaad op
aarde, de lage zelfzucht, die daar beneden allerlei wetten en
verordeningen noodzakelijk maakte, werd op Mars niet
gevonden. Naastenliefde, waarheid en eene groote mate van
opgewektheid, sloten zelfs de gedachte aan laag egoïsme
uit.
Het volk hierboven scheen een bond van broeders en zusters
die, ontwikkeld, waar, vrij en goed, het ideaal van den
reinen mensch verwezenlijkten.

Hoe klein kwamen zich de zonen der aarde hier voor, toen
zij langzamerhand de grondbeginselen leerden kennen,
waarop het staatswezen zoowel als het openbare en
privaatleven der Marsieten berustten; en deze
grondbeginselen waren voortgekomen en voortgeplant door
een uitstekend geregelde algemeene en vrije opleiding der
Marsjeugd. De ideale school der toekomst, zooals professor
Hämmerle zich die in Tübingen had gedroomd,—bleek hier
op Mars reeds eene oude inrichting te zijn, waarvan de
goede resultaten reeds lang waren gebleken.

De stelregel der Marsieten was, de jeugd zoowel lichamelijk

als geestelijk, goed te ontwikkelen, want hoe beschaafder en
tevens lichamelijk krachtiger een individu is, des te beter is
hij in staat de plichten te vervullen, die als mensch en als
burger van den Staat op hem rusten.

Het onderwijs bepaalde zich daarom niet tot eenvoudige

elementaire onderwerpen, maar strekte zich uit tot de
geschiedenis en de kennis der staatsinrichting, tot de
wetenschap van de wetten der natuur, en de kennis van de
meesterwerken der Marsliteratuur zoowel in proza als in
poëzie. Hand in hand daarmede ging het onderricht in de
algemeene lichaamsbouw- en gezondheidsleer, die in
overeenstemming was gebracht met den leeftijd der
leerlingen.

De namiddagen, waarop geen onderwijs werd gegeven,

waren gewijd aan allerlei gymnastische spelen. Na verloop
van een bepaalden schooltijd, werden wedstrijden
gehouden, en die daarin de overwinning behaalden, werden
tot eene hoogere klasse bevorderd. Op deze eenvoudige
wijze kwam eene duidelijke scheiding tot stand tusschen de
scholieren die werkelijk talent hadden en hen die minder
begaafd waren. Voor de eersten stond dan de weg open tot
de kunstscholen of andere inrichtingen van hooger
wetenschappelijk onderwijs. Die hoogere ontwikkeling was
gemeengoed van het geheele volk, en geen aanmatigende
middelmatigheid kon op Mars tot aanzien komen.

„Wij, aardbewoners, zijn toch ongelukkige stumpers,

vergeleken bij die prachtkerels hierboven; wat is het leven
daar beneden op aarde vergeleken bij het leven hier! Hier,
reine heldere zonneschijn, daar beneden donkere sombere
nevel. Wat staat die zoo hoog geprezen beschaving der
meest ontwikkelde natiën ontzettend ver achter bij die van
het volk op Mars!”—zeide op zekeren dag Brummhuber,
terwijl de heeren aan tafel zaten.

„Reeds daar beneden op onze planeet vermoedde ik dat wij

hier menschen zouden vinden, die de volmaaktheid nabij
kwamen, maar ik moet erkennen, dat mijne verwachtingen
in elk opzicht zijn overtroffen,” antwoordde Stiller.

„Wij kunnen de menschen hier niets, totaal niets aanbieden,

en dat drukt mij persoonlijk zeer,” merkte Thudium op.

„Wat hebben wij hun aan te bieden? Misschien ons

pessimisme, onze afschuwelijke zelfzucht, of de
onwaarheid, die ons leven vergiftigt; alle kenmerken van
onze hooge beschaving!” riep professor Piller uit.

„Gij hebt helaas maar al te zeer gelijk, Piller,” bevestigde

professor Stiller. „Op Mars vindt men reeds datgene wat
waarschijnlijk eerst na verloop van eeuwen den menschen
op aarde zal ten deel vallen.”

„Zouden zij het wel ooit zoover brengen,” zuchtte

Frommherz.
 „Daaraan valt niet te twijfelen,” hernam Hämmerle. „Mars
heeft zonder twijfel eens dezelfde, althans dergelijke phasen
van ontwikkeling moeten doorloopen als de volkeren op
aarde, maar de beschaving hier, dateert van veel vroeger.”

„Ja zeker! Van duizenden en duizenden jaren. De vraag is

maar, of wij in verband met de ontaarding van ons ras—ik
leg bijzonderen nadruk op die ontaarding—of wij wel ooit
in staat zullen zijn, een zelfden trap van ontwikkeling en
beschaving te bereiken als de Marsbewoners. Ik voor mij
twijfel er aan!” riep Piller uit en trachtte zijne
opgewondenheid te bedaren met een slok wijn.

„Piller, gij zijt pessimist, en onrechtvaardig als altijd!”

merkte Dubelmeier op.

„Ik, pessimist en onrechtvaardig! Wat bedoelt gij

daarmede?”

„Daarover wensch ik niet met u te redetwisten.”

„Zoo, zoo, gij wilt mij dus beleedigen?”

„Ik denk er niet aan, daarvoor houd ik veel te veel van u, en

acht ik u veel te hoog, mijn oude alcoholist! Maar mijns
inziens is het pessimistisch en onrechtvaardig, wanneer gij
maar zoo botweg verklaart, dat de volken der aarde
ongeschikt zijn voor verdere ontwikkeling en beschaving.”

„Ik ben het met vriend Dubelmeier eens,” bracht professor

Stiller in het midden. „Daar hebt ge nu bijvoorbeeld ons,
Piller!”

„Neen maar, prachtige voorbeelden!” bromde Piller, die

door een flinken slok wijn zachter gestemd scheen.
 „Zeker, voorbeelden van menschenkinderen, zooals ik,
zonder al te groote zelfverheffing, durf beweren,—wij
vertegenwoordigen tot op zekere hoogte de toekomst. De
algemeene beschaving en de ontwikkeling van het zedelijk
bewustzijn, waarvan wij op het oogenblik de dragers zijn,
zal later meer en meer het eigendom worden van alle
beschaafde volken der aarde.”

„Geloove dat, wie wil!”

„Ik geloof het niet alleen, ik ben er vast van overtuigd, en

wel op grond van de ontwikkelings-geschiedenis der
menschheid.”

„Stiller, ik zal u niet tegenspreken, want ik wil mij niet nog

meer boos maken, maar mij er integendeel in verheugen, dat
ik hierboven in dit heerlijke Lumata mag zitten.”

„Dat is een verstandig woord, waarvoor u alle eer toekomt.

En nu vrede, waarde vrienden!” riep Frommherz.

„Akkoord,” riep Brummhuber uit.

Eenige dagen waren na dit gesprek verloopen. Toen

verscheen Eran, de patriarch uit den stam der Ouderen,
weder eens in de woning zijner gasten, en noodigde de
heeren uit, langs den kortsten weg met hem naar Angola te
reizen. Allen juichten dit plan toe. Ditmaal zouden de
Zwaben officieel te Angola door den stam der Wijzen
worden ontvangen.

Deze was geheel voltallig, daar men buitendien nog

verschillende vragen wenschte te behandelen. Ook de stam
der Ernstigen kwam opdagen, om in een vergadering, zooals
af en toe gehouden werd, over eenige wetenschappelijke
onderwerpen van gedachten te wisselen.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com