CCBC-Net Archives
Storied Science
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Monica Edinger <monicaedinger>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:36:42 -0400
Just read a very interesting article, "Storied Theory" by Roald Hoffman on the connection between science and story by a scientist.
=yes).
Here are a few scattered thoughts related to the current topic:
Hoffman's article made me wonder about narrative. Is it generally preferred for children's science books? That is, because they are already comfortable with narrative is it perhaps easier for them to understand something new and different if it is in a narrative form?
What about other ways of telling? Books like David Macaulay's THE WAY THINGS WORK that seem more set up for perusing and for the reader to jump about in a nonlinear way. As a kid and even today I've always had a leaning toward these over more narrative sorts of science books. Perhaps because I"m so visual --- I liked lots of diagrams and images along with the text and didn't care that much about following a story start to finish. Also, there is something appealing about being able to dip in and out of a book. Easier to do when there is not an evolving story in the narrative sense.
What about design? Especially movable books. I have a very, very old pop-up on computers that really helps to explain their workings for kids. At ALA I saw the forthcoming Sabuda Dinosaur book --- is that going to distract or excite kids? (I know, I know....dinosaures...Sabuda... a sure thing.) I know they are expensive to do, but seems to me more of this sort of thing would be great. Particularly as kids DOING science themselves is the best way for them to get it. (I used to teach science and it was so much fun! I don't think there is a lot of hands-on science in a lot of elementary classrooms these days with the tremendous focus on literacy, testing, and all. There may be some memorizing of facts, but not much really mucking about with stuff, sadly.)
And then there are people. I'm thinking about biographies of scientists and other books like the Scientist in the Field series. Love them, but they are about the people more than the science --- as it should be given the title. But is it easier for kids to absorb some scientific information if it comes via a book featuring the scientists themselves?
Finally, I'm wondering if there are more books featuring biological science (esp animals) than physical? Is the latter perhaps more challenging to do? (I really liked Molly Bang's My Light of last year and Carolyn Cinami DeCristofano's Big Bang! of this year --- both, I think, stories:)
Monica
Monica Edinger The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at gmail.com
Received on Thu 14 Jul 2005 05:36:42 AM CDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:36:42 -0400
Just read a very interesting article, "Storied Theory" by Roald Hoffman on the connection between science and story by a scientist.
=yes).
Here are a few scattered thoughts related to the current topic:
Hoffman's article made me wonder about narrative. Is it generally preferred for children's science books? That is, because they are already comfortable with narrative is it perhaps easier for them to understand something new and different if it is in a narrative form?
What about other ways of telling? Books like David Macaulay's THE WAY THINGS WORK that seem more set up for perusing and for the reader to jump about in a nonlinear way. As a kid and even today I've always had a leaning toward these over more narrative sorts of science books. Perhaps because I"m so visual --- I liked lots of diagrams and images along with the text and didn't care that much about following a story start to finish. Also, there is something appealing about being able to dip in and out of a book. Easier to do when there is not an evolving story in the narrative sense.
What about design? Especially movable books. I have a very, very old pop-up on computers that really helps to explain their workings for kids. At ALA I saw the forthcoming Sabuda Dinosaur book --- is that going to distract or excite kids? (I know, I know....dinosaures...Sabuda... a sure thing.) I know they are expensive to do, but seems to me more of this sort of thing would be great. Particularly as kids DOING science themselves is the best way for them to get it. (I used to teach science and it was so much fun! I don't think there is a lot of hands-on science in a lot of elementary classrooms these days with the tremendous focus on literacy, testing, and all. There may be some memorizing of facts, but not much really mucking about with stuff, sadly.)
And then there are people. I'm thinking about biographies of scientists and other books like the Scientist in the Field series. Love them, but they are about the people more than the science --- as it should be given the title. But is it easier for kids to absorb some scientific information if it comes via a book featuring the scientists themselves?
Finally, I'm wondering if there are more books featuring biological science (esp animals) than physical? Is the latter perhaps more challenging to do? (I really liked Molly Bang's My Light of last year and Carolyn Cinami DeCristofano's Big Bang! of this year --- both, I think, stories:)
Monica
Monica Edinger The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at gmail.com
Received on Thu 14 Jul 2005 05:36:42 AM CDT
