Tim:
Maybe you did not notice Dick Hake's note of earlier today?
I did. The post noted that an effort was made to get a cross section of
students in every nation in every type of available school. In reviewing
such literature the problems of apple and oranges is immense and is
not easily "controlled." Even if the details of the study
absolutely support the contention of a "fair cross section" (a claim open to
testing) the *systems* are not the same. There are not only different
types of schools but also different types of systems. Systems that teach
very different "things".
Example:
The quote notes how poorly US students did in Physics relative to other
students. Who is surprised? In my work here I gathered data on physics
enrollment in the surrounding 34 public high schools (by phone and visits
to registrars of those schools.) I established that about 11% of the
public school students who graduate (about 12% do not graduate) in this
6 county region take *physics at all* in high school. (This is quite
different than the "estimates" from "mailed surveys".) Most students in
this region take physics the senior year.
The conclusion? Tests indicate that our students don't do well in a subjects
they are not exposed to.
Does that mean they (U.S. students) can't think? Does this mean that other
countries have better problem solvers? better thinkers? more thoughtful
citizens? Does this predict performance in the market place for the next
40 years?
Our struggle is not with ill prepared students. The struggle is with a
system that does not recognize the need for widespread science and math
fluency. Colleges and Universities could require exposure to upper level
math and sciences and following this event the national k-12 system would be
revamped.
I want to confirm that physics (especially) provides opportunity for
students to learn how to discover. It provides a conceptual framework
for the mechanics of all the other sciences. Understanding the physics
of anything is something all students should have an opportunity to do.