Video

The History of the Atom – Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr

Since the time of the ancient scholar Democritus, we’ve toyed with the idea of the atom.  But it wasn’t until the work of John Dalton in 1803 that we had atomic models supported by experimental evidence. In our latest video, we trace the history of the atomic model – starting with John Dalton’s model (1803), to JJ Thomson’s model (1897), to Ernest Ruthford’s model (1909), to Niels Bohr’s model (1913).

Our current model of the atom, the “quantum mechanical model,” will be discussed in a separate video.

Please share, and subscribe so you don’t miss a single video from Socratica!

KHH

 

Related Articles:

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements
Video

You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.

 

 

 

Can anything be sweeter than the chance to honour your heroes?  Our latest “Great Thinkers” biography is about Jane Austen. Darling, brilliant Jane.  Jane Austen (1775- 1817) was the author of six novels: Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, Emma, Northanger Abbey, and Persuasion.  Despite Austen having little formal education and enjoying only limited exposure to society, Austen’s work is renowned for its keen social commentary and sparkling wit.  And we love her, unabashedly.

KHH

 

English: Back View of Jane Austen, Watercolor

English: Back View of Jane Austen, Watercolor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Don’t forget to subscribe so you don’t miss our next Great Thinkers video.   Let us know in the comments whom you’d like to see us feature next!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Quote

Too Little, Too Late, Too Pink

Tulipa Liliaceae

I’d like to share a great blog post I found while rummaging around on a STEM education Google+ community.  It’s from “Listing Towards 40,” written by Kim Z. Dale.  She discusses, with several real-life examples, the “pinkification” of STEM education foisted on so many girls growing up (and the boys are seeing this, too, of course, and coming to their own conclusions).

Dale writes,

Girls are underrepresented in STEM fields, but how can we get more girls interested in science, technology, engineering, and math? To date many STEM education initiatives have taken the sex ed approach. Girls are isolated from the boys and given their own, gender-specific, introduction to coding, building, and problem solving. The intentions are good, but segregation keeps girls cast as outsiders in STEM fields.

Do we really need to dress up science and technology education to hide the bitter taste like it was so much arugula?  Do we need to exclude boys from “special” programs intended to draw girls in?  It all feels terribly wrong.

 

STEM education for girls:  Too little, too late, too pink

KHH

 

Related Articles:

Girls and Software, by Susan Sons (Linux Journal)

GoldieBlox Ad Encourages Girls to Try Engineering (US News and World Report)

Enhanced by Zemanta