Abstract
It is the very strangeness of nature that makes science engrossing, that keeps bright people at it, and that ought to be at the center of science teaching. I believe that the worst thing that has happened to science education is that the great fun has gone out of it—Very few see science as the high adventure it really is, the wildest of all explorations ever taken by human beings, the chance to catch close views of things never seen before, the shrewdest maneuver for discovering how the world works. (Thomas, 1981)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berenfeld, B. (1994). “Technology and the new model for science education: the Global Lab experience,” Machine-mediated learning. 4(2 & 3), 203–227. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also see ttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/
Thomas, L. (1981). Humanities and science. Presented at the Sloan Foundation's “Conference on new dimensions of liberal education.” Key Biscayne, Florida. New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Weir, S. (1992). “Electronic communities of learners: fact or fiction?” in R. Tinker and P. Kapisovsky (Eds.) Prospects for Educational Telecomputing: Selected Readings. Cambridge, Massachusetts: TERC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tinker, R.F. Student Scientist Partnerships: Shrewd Maneuvers. Journal of Science Education and Technology 6, 111–117 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025613914410
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025613914410