TSM was developed at Princeton University by the Secondary School Science Project, nd is now being completed at Rutgers University. As described by the present project director, George Pallrand, Time, Space, and Matter consists of nine interrelated investigations which en. able the student to learn something about the nature and history of the physical world through direct observation and inference.

The teacher's folio describes the basic themes of each investigation and suggests an approximate time schedule. About nine to ten weeks is recommended for the first four investigation books, during which some of the basic ideas presented are:

2) Simple analogs are useful in studying complex systems.

3) Information needed to answer questions can be gathered through observation.

4) A theory is a tentative explanation of an event or a phenomenon that cannot be observed directly.

5) An observation is the information gained about an object or event through the senses.

6) An interpretation is an inference based on one or more observations.

7) The information conveyed by the senses may be misinterpreted by the observer.

8) Observations are subject to incorrect interpretation.

9) All descriptions of subjects and events are to some degree approximations.

10) The apparent size of an object is inversely proportional to its distance from an observer.

Unfortunately, the amount of science content derived from the investigations is negligible.

This is the opinion of the author and s the general consensus of TSM teachers with whom the author has conferred.

There is a growing concern among science educators that process is being overly stressed. This enthusiasm about the process approach to learning science has become so great that the pendulum is swinging the other way, and process is beginning to be emphasized at the expense of content.

Some of the new programs are paying little attention to the learning of concepts.

The science content in the program almost completely unstructured, and whatever content that is included is used only as a means of getting the child to learn process.

J. Myron Atkin, (University of Illinois) reflecting on this issue, also offers a cautionary note.

Although the "process" versus "content" controversy in science education is an old one, and many people have thought that the issue is dead because good science programs strongly involve both elements, the topic still seems to be current because of the existence of new projects that appear to be based almost entirely on "process."

In addition, David Ausubel strongly adheres to this position as evidenced by his statement: In my opinion, any science curriculum worthy of the name must be concerned with the systematic presentation of an organized body of knowledge as an explicit end in itself.

It is also completely unrealistic to expect that subject-matter content can be acquired incidentally as a by-product of problem-solving or discovery experience, as in the typical activity program or project method.

The position of psychologist Robert Gagne concerning learning at - the elementary school level is evident from his influence on th course developed by the - American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science - a Process Approach. However, beyond the elementary level he appears to view knowledge as induding content principles as well. "To be an effective problem solver, the individual must somehow have acquired masses of structurally organized knowledge. Such knowledge is made up of content principles, not heuristic ones."

p46 An interpretation of Gagne's position by Edward Labinowich has significance here. "These generalizable process skills would serve as a springboard for more efficient study of the structure (italics mine) of specific science disciplines in the junior and senior high school." Some of the above supporting statements are one extreme of the content-process continuum. In reality a dichotomy does not exist between the two positions. Indeed, there is a wide range of viewpoints concerning the issue. William Labahn refers to the pure content and process "species" of science educators at the extremes, with a developing third type.

A third species is beginning to emerge and come back to reality. They have chosen the middle ground and are saying that the pendulum must not swing too far to the left or right but rather that we must stop the pendulum in the middle and provide a balanced program of "concepts and process." When this is accomplished, then, and only then can we provide a science program which is educationally sound. A case has been made for the structuring of process around an organized body of content, supporting the importance of both. Where exactly does the position of TSM fit into this situation ?

In one of the earlier investigations the students discover through their own experimenting an explanation for the phases of the moon. The objective is learning to use a simple system to explain complex phenomena. By experimenting through the use of models, they acquire such skills as observing, interpreting, recording, and keeping records. Students also are exposed to content such as the terms waxing gibbous, eclipse, and terminator. These facts, however, are not essential and are not emphasized.

This is a fine example of learning both process and content in a science context. Unfortunately, in the TSM course it is the exception, not the rule. Other investigations which utilize items such as a tumbler filled with water, two tumblers with different liquids, an ink solution, and ice water are almost void of science content. In addition, the few concepts and principles that are included are not well structured throughout the course. Some educators subscribe to the notion that process is all that is necessary. If this is true, there is still something to be said for develop- ing process around a content structure. When students discover the reason for the phases of the moon and related information, they feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that they have discovered soinething which they can directly relate to their environment. This has more value to students and occurs concomitantly with the learning of process skills.

p47

On the other hand, when an investigation is centered around a tumbler of water it becomes meaningless. Certainly the differences between observation and interpretation are illustrated. However, could this not be done equally as well when centered around events in the physical world which are more meaningful and perhaps more interesting to the students?

Hans Andersen and James Weigand ( Leyden note: two neat guys from Indiana University ) support this viewpoint. "Science should be taught as a process of inquiry that is well grounded in real scientific problems involving real scientific knowledge."

It is the opinion of the author that students do need experiences in a science context. A former director of the Princeton Project, Frederick Ferris, Jr., reported a revealing encounter.

An interesting reaction of one of the students in the pilot schools last year to the course at this stage was the naive question: "But what have we learned this year ?"

This question finds a striking answer in Part III, which serves as a dimax to the course.

Is the lack of content structure the reason for the failure of the student to see any meaning or direction in the course? Can we expect students to be motivated without knowing what they are learning until the "climax" of the course?

In summary, TSM

has as its general structure the basic tenets of the inquiry and process approach. However, by centering investigations around more meaningful science topics a new dimension can be added to the early part of the program. These preferred topics carry with them certain science content which adds interest, meaning, and coherence. The students should not be forced to learn facts and principles, buf at least in this manner they will be ailowed to acquire concepts, principles and facts within a science context, in addition to acquiring significant process skills. Whether or not one should teach just content or process is not the central issue here.

The objects and phenomena around which the investigations are developed, however, should be within a science context. The author's intent is not to criticize, but to provide feedback and suggested changes for restructuring and improving our science courses. A continuous dialogue among science educators is necessary to insure a dynamic and effective science curriculum.