Site BlogHi everyone, this is Patrick.
Back in January, Doug asked, “Is there a volunteer who will take the lead in developing a useful school subject and topic list?” I volunteered and have been struggling to collect my thoughts and put words and order to them. Before I could regret my decision, Doug sent a file with his preliminary work. He had a lot of great work. (Thanks Doug.)
The goal is to classify reviewed items to help visitors find the reviews. The study of the natural sciences is to be divided into a short useful list of ‘main’ subjects. Then each subject would be broken down further into a short list of topics. Finally, additional keywords can be added. (See Developing a subject-topic index.)
I am still struggling and could use feedback. Below is my latest draft of a subject-topic index. After the outline, I will continue commenting. The subjects are in bold type and the topics in italics.
Astronomy
The Cosmos
Galaxies and Stars
The Solar System
Planets
Earth Science
Structure and Composition of the Earth
Geology & the Earth’s surface
The Atmosphere, Weather and the Climate
The Earth’s Water (The Hydrosphere)
Earth’s History
Earth’s Resources and their use
Ecosystems
Physics
Forces, Motion, Energy & Momentum (Classical Mechanics)
Fluid Mechanics
Heat and Thermodynamics
Waves (EM, Light, Sound, and Water)
Electricity and Magnetism
Non-Newtonian Physics
Matter
States of Matter
Structure of Matter
Molecules & Chemical bonding
Compounds & Solutions
Nuclear decay
Chemistry
Chemical Reactions
Chemical Thermodynamics
Life Science (Biology)
Cells and Their Structures
Classifying Life
Examining Types of Living things
Biological Systems (Physiology)
Ecology
Health/Nutrition
Interdisciplinary Subjects
Earth and Space Science (Includes Earth Science and Space Science)
Environmental Science (Includes aspects of Life Science & Earth Science)
General Science (Includes Studies of most branches of Science)
Nature Study (Includes aspects of Life Science & Earth Science)
Physical Science (Aspects of Physics and Chemistry)
Technology and Applied Science
Scientific Instruments
Inventions
Engineering
Science as Study
Unifying Concepts and Processes
Science as Inquiry
* Scientific Method
* Measurement
Nature /Philosophy of Science
History of Science
Science & Society
Science and Christianity
Science and belief in God
Science and the Bible
Science and Christian theology
Science and Christian practice
The first set of subjects are traditional ‘main subject’ areas of the natural sciences. They are Astronomy, Earth Science, Physics, Chemistry, and Life Science (Biology). There are three odd items that stick out. First, Matter is really a topic for both Physics and Chemistry. It is a small topic in Physics yet a large topic in Chemistry. How should it be treated? Second, Thermodynamics is a topic in both Physics and Chemistry; yet it is replicated! Third, Health/Nutrition is very different from the other topics in Biology.
The ‘Interdisciplinary Subjects’ are added to help find common combinations of the main subjects. Some parents will be more familiar with Physical Science and not think of checking both Physics and Chemistry.
The last three subjects are not ‘main subjects’ of science as they are not about describing nature. These subjects are Technology and Applied Science, Science as a Study, and Science and Christianity.
Science as a Study is about the study of science itself. A few of these topics come from the NSES. Without reading the standards, I would have trouble finding a Unifying Concept. By the way, Unifying Concepts includes such things as cycles (rock cycle, water cycle), scaling (powers of ten), and mathematical models. Similarly, I would have trouble using Science as Inquiry.
This outline started with many of the outlines listed in the last post. Additional topics were added based on course outlines. Then the outline was pruned and pruned to keep it short. Perhaps the outline is too short now.
Alright. What needs to be done to bring this into a final, practical index? What is missing, wrong, or confusing?
1. I would agree that Nutrition belongs solidly in the Life Sciences/Biology classification at the level of Middle and High School texts. This is because at these levels it is more closely tied to the ideas that to live, an organism needs to receive and dispose of both energy and materials. Energy is needed for life, nutrients are needed to make protoplasm in the cell for cell growth and repair,respiration is a way to release energy, and excretion is the way to remove the waste products of metabolism. Nutrition can also serve as a “why is this relevant” bridge to a subsequent chemistry course as students learn (in biology)the structure of nutrients and how to carry out tests for reducing sugars, starches, fats, and proteins. Unfortunately, some confuse nutrition with cooking (a study in chemistry and physics) and gardening, although Nutrition, Cooking, and Gardening would be great elementary subject and a great secondary elective. At the college level, Nutrition studies incorporate more biochemistry and social science. In other words, the subject is rather hard to pin down! I think Nutrition fits best in the Life Science category for primary and secondary education.
2. Health is even trickier. In many parts of the world, health is a separate subject, but the US is ambivalent. Texas, in fact, discarded its 0.5 credit high school health requirement because ambitious parents protested that it was getting in the way their kids taking “more important” courses for college admissions. Keep it under Life Science for simplicity.
3. Nature Study is tricky also as both Nature Study and Science deal with many of the same subjects but with a different mindset. So, does Nature Study belong within our megasubject “Science”, or is it a separate subject? I argue it is about different methods. Nature Study is about observation in situ and recording those observations. Science is about inquiry and experimentation. Some argue that without experimentation, there is no knowledge thus nature study is suspect. I guarantee you, if I listed Nature Study as a subject on my child’s high school transcript, it would be rejected as meeting Science credit requirements. I argue that Nature Study is a handmaiden of science. Without careful observation in situ, one can waste time in poorly thought out experiments. From a child development perspective, Nature Study should be weighted more in the elementary years and Sciences becomes more predominant in the secondary years. This is because learning moves from the concrete to more abstract. For this reason, I would move Nature Study to Science as Study section and rearrange this section in this order:
***Science as Study****
>Nature Study as Observation
>Science as Inquiry
* Scientific Method
* Measurement
>Unifying Concepts and Processes
(Put Double blank line here)
Nature /Philosophy of Science
History of Science
Science & Society
Would that be too confusing?
4. In fact, I am now wondering whether the whole section of ***Science as Study*** is really a list of “tags”.
As an example: if I am classifying a field guide on wildflowers, it would be Life Science Subject, Botany Topic, and Nature Study as Observation tag. The Handbook of Nature Study would be Life Science and Earth Science Subjects; Botany, Zoology, and Weather topics; Nature Study as Observation tag. Exploring the History of Medicine would be Life Science subject, Health topic, History of Science tag. Does that make sense?
5. Make sure you figure some way to search by grade as a tag or some other method. 3rd. 8th-adult, PreK-2nd, etc.
Kimberly Dawes M.S., R.D. PS- If you have any Nutrition or Nature Study books to review, send them my way.
Good job.
Things I’m not sure are included, but probably are, include:
The periodic table and elements
Heredity
Endangered species and communities
Thanks!
Thanks for the wonderful feedback Kimberly.
RE 1 & 2: Agreed.
RE point 4: Thanks for the ideas about ‘Science as a Study.’ I see that few books would have a subject of ‘Science as a Study,’ but many books would refer to these topics.
Could ‘Science as a Study’ be topics without a subject? (I think that is an implementation question.) If this section is treated as free tags, would users be able to easily find them? Could we keep a consistent set of ‘Science as a Study’ tags or would every review have slightly different tags, such as ‘history of science’ and ‘history of medicine’?
I can think of only one book whose subject is ‘Science as a Study,’ “How to think like a Scientist: Answering Questions about the Scientific Method.”
Other ideas?
Thanks Martin.
Those item were on the third level of my outline before I pruned. Initially, it looked like this.
Matter
Structure of Matter
Atomic theory
Periodic Table & Periodic relationships
Quantum theory
Chemical bonding & Molecules
Crystals
Polymers
Coumpounds & Solutions
Biology
Cells and Their Structures
Biochemistry
Cell Functions
Heredity, Genetics and Evolution
Ecology
Population dynamics
Communities and ecosystems
Global issues
Should some of these ‘thing’ still be topics?
RE 3: I am not certain of the best way to handle ‘Nature Study.’ I see related difficulties with ‘Environmental Science’ which includes social science topics.
I was envisioning Interdisciplinary Subjects to be a ‘see these subjects.’ I do not know if this workable or creates more confusion.
Thanks again, Patrick, for working on this list. Here are some quick comments:
1. My immediate reaction was to notice that there were several topics missing from certain subjects (e.g., Evolution in Life Science). Martin picked up on the same thing, and you responded by providing a longer, pre-pruned list. I like that list better, as it lets more traditional, familiar names of specific topics stand as is. But it could be even longer. For example, Earth Science needs Rocks and Minerals, the Rock Cycle, Plate Tectonics, etc. Each of those are topics for which there are certainly many resources, videos and books on just that topic. Perhaps you could generate a second draft that errs on the side of being too long, and we can help suggest which specific topics are not needed.
2. I also don’t have a problem with double-listing topics in two subjects. So, all those Matter topics could be double-listed in both Physics and Chemistry. Therefore, a website visitor would find resources about the “States of Matter” by browsing starting with Physics or with Chemistry. This fact removes the need to agonize about whether Health counts as Life Science or not. If it’s likely that a significant number of people would think of Health as Life Science, then the topic should be listed there even if it is also listed in some other subject.
3. If you agree that we can and should double-list topics, then we can either (a) get rid of most of the “Interdisciplinary Subjects” or (b) keep those subjects but double-list the topics that would apply there and in the specific subject.
OK, that’s enough for one comment.
–Doug
Thanks Doug.
2. I agree that matter should be listed for both chemistry and physics. Should chemistry-matter be different from physics-matter? In other words, is there one matter in the database which populates both chemistry and physics, or is the chemistry-matter list and different list of resources than physics-matter?
(My answer: For K-7 one ‘matter’ makes more sense, as the subject is really ‘physical science.’ For high school, two lists make more sense, as ‘matter’ is studied differently. OK, that’s not much of answer.]
3. Yes, double listing topics makes the most sense. I would hope that parents would know to look at ‘chemistry’ and ‘physics’ if they are looking for a ‘physical science’ text. Personally I would not need ‘interdisciplinary subjects’, but my concept was (b).
Hi Patrick.
Re: 2. I think it would work to have one “States of Matter” topic for both chemistry and physics. Because subject and topic are two different data fields, it will be possible to do the following:
Say there is a book about states of matter in general (i.e., both physics and chemistry aspects). We would classify it as both subjects (physics, chemistry) with the topic “states of matter”.
On the other hand, if there is a book that really is primarily devoted to the physics aspects of “states of matter”, we would only classify it as a member of the physics subject.
Does that make sense?
It just occurs to me that we should have a topic category called “General” or “Comprehensive”, which we would apply to textbooks that more or less cover an entire subject. I don’t think it makes sense to list all topics within a subject for such resources. Would you agree?
–Doug
For what it’s worth, the whole topic of ‘matter’ and all the sub-topics are treated in any typical high-school chemistry text for 11th graders. While 12th grade level physics texts will repeat parts of this content with more mathematical rigor, it is still basic conceptual material of any chemistry text. Having said that, your collective suggestions to include it in both (as a search tool, anyway) seems sound. But if you were to choose, I would look in chemistry first for those things.
–Merv
Thanks Merv.
Implementing Subjects and Topics:
(Doug 2011/03/27 at 8:13 am)
I like your suggestion, but it has implementation consequences. I am thinking in terms of set theory or databases.
I have been approaching the topics as subsets of the subjects. (Doubled topics would be a union to which they belong.)
Your suggestion is that topics be independent from subjects. Users/parents would see an intersection of the topics and subjects. They would be easier to implement and maintain, but could allow “Biology — States of Matter” to appear. Basically it would require more work and diligence to classify a book.
General Science (or Comprehensive)
‘General Science’ would be beneficial in multiple regards. First, it works perfectly with Kimberly’s idea about ‘Science as a Study.’ Namely, the rare book which is about methodology, or the history of science would have a main subject. Second, it can reduce the number of subjects for a single text.
Should the subjects (Space, Earth, Physics, Chemistry, Biology) also be topics? Treating them as topics would make sense for lower level general science books.
This raises a concern of mine. What should the ideal number of topics for a book be? Maybe a topic for each unit unit 4-6? Or maybe a topic per chapter 18-36?
Hi Patrick:
Yes, I do consider subject and topics to be two, independent data fields. And each one CAN contain more than one value. In WordPress, data fields are called Custom Fields.
Although this does not absolutely prevent addition of nonsensical combinations, we content editors will always proof-read any reviews submitted by contributors, so I don’t think these data fields will be abused.
–Doug