Mountaineers, Rock Climbers, and Science Educators Around the 1920s, rock climbing separated from mountaineering to become a separate sport. At that time European climbers developed new equipment and techniques, enabling them to ascend mountain faces and to climb rocks, which were considered unassailable up to that time. American climbers went further by expanding and improving on the equipment. They even developed a system of quantification where points were given for the degree of difficulty of an ascent. This system focused primarily on the pitch of the mountain, and it even calculated up to de- mals to give a high degree of quantification. Rock climbing became a technical system. Csikszentmihaly (1976) observed that the sole interest of rock climbers at that time was to climb the rock. Rock climbers were known to reach the top and not even glance around at the scenery. The focus was on reaching the top of the rock. In contrast, mountaineers saw the whole mountain as a single “unit of perc- tion. ” “The ascent (to them) is a gestalt including the aesthetic, historical, personal and physical sensations” (Csikszentmihaly, 1976, p. 486). This is an example of two contrasting approaches to the same kind of landscape and of two different groups of people. Interestingly, in the US, Europe, and Japan a large segment of the early rock climbers were young mathematicians and theoretical physicists, while the mountaineers were a more varied lot.
This original and unorthodox book summarizes the author’s present thinking about curriculum design and direct work with students. The author draws upon his varied experiences to present a case for the importance of direct engagement with phenomena and materials. He argues that this practice is more than a matter of motivating students to become engaged in inquiry.
The first four chapters lay out different levels of a pedagogical approach and an overall theoretical orientation. The middle chapters focus on what might be called sensory knowledge. These are concerned with the role of different sensory engagement, movement as related to gestural representation and the role of empathy in exploration. The last four chapters are about the role of aesthetic, play, variable exploration and metaphor in their shaping of science education experiences.
Each chapter is introduced with a scenario or case study describing the behavior and talk of elementary or middle school students. The intention of these scenarios is to help the reader stay grounded while considering the more abstract development of research reports and broader philosophical issues.
