Re: Ideocosmology

[Jerome Epstein <jerepst@worldnet.att.net>]

Dr. William Newbolt wrote:

> Gang:
>         It may be that I should have sent this to Jerry by private
> e-mail, but I thought others might like to see the message.
> In particular, Jerry states that "cute" little courses in
> "remedial algebra" will not cure the problem, BUT it can be
> cured.  Does the cure lie in other kinds of "remedial
> courses"?  or does it lie in requiring that students have a
> certain level of understanding before they are admitted to
> college?  Of course, we would all like to see the students
> be successful,  BUT what can we do to help the poorly
> prepared to catch up?  Maybe the only thing that will help
> is to start working to improve the secondary schools.
> Maybe we need to try to help some of our struggling
> secondary-school teachers with some ideas and short
> in-service courses at the universities.
>
> In short, I don't have the answers, BUT I am pretty
> frustrated!                                           WBN

I suppose it is improper of me to self-promote a bit, but here's what
can be done from my experience. I hasten to add that my program is by no
means the only one to have successfully made a serious dent in this
problem. It can be done, it takes about a year to a year and a half to
do it, but it requires INTENSIVE work, quite unlike the typical remedial
offerings in level of commitment, in content and in methodology.

The program I developed at Bloomfield COllege in the early 1980's (with
Dr. George Kolodiy) showed considerable success in improving skill and
cognition, and most important in improving the success rate in later
courses. The program is described in my recent paper in JCST, Dec. 1997.
(Or I can send a copy online -- especially if you have Word for WIndows,
but I can even if you don't, since it has no diagrams.) The program when
implemented at Lehman College (CUNY) also showed a dramatic increase in
pre-test/post-test comparisons and a dramatically improved success rate
in Chemistry. The implementation at Lehman was rather short lived and
never was able to provide the students with more than about 2/3 of the
Bloomfield program. The program now runs at a public high school here in
New York, where preliminary indications also show large gains pre/post.
The high school class started from woefully low levels --some students
not knowing multiplication tables and having to do multiplication by
adding or counting. There were also serious behavioral issues that had
to be faced. That should be the subject of another paper.

At Bloomfield we found pretty consistently that about half the students
would successfully complete the Core program in a year and another
quarter would finish after repeating one semester or the other (the
program had VERY serious exit standards). There are occasional students
who cannot succeed in the program no matter how they try, but that
fraction is very small (~1%).

A few elements are crucial:
	-The program begins where the students lost it, which is almost always
in the fourth grade (fractions). If you don't begin where they really
are, nothing else matters.
	-The program is entirely done in a laboratory using an
inquiry/discovery methodology. There are no lectures.
	-Extensive writing (and speaking) is required of the students.
	-Additional "workshop" time is required, at least in the first
semester, practicing basic mathematical skills and concepts.

There is much more detail I could say, but then I would be rewriting the
paper. The course is not a complete package. It should be paired with
TWO semesters of solid college algebra, beginning at the absolute
beginning of algebra no matter what courses they have passed (if the
diagnostic test shows that they need it). The first semester of algebra
should parallel the second semester of the Core course. Thus the whole
package takes a year and a half, or a year and a summer, but they can be
enrolled in a variety of solid courses after a year, and some even after
a semester.

The students are operating initially at about a 4th grade level. After 4
chapters they are operating at about an 8th grade level, but the early
stuff is not really solid and depandable until around chapter 8 or so.
The material after chapter 8 is college level by any standard, and
serves also to solidify the formal level conceptual  tasks of the middle
chapters. In my opinion, the material on motion (chapters 12 and 13) is
far MORE demanding conceptually than the plug and chug stuff that
emerges from many less sophisticated college courses. The jump in
cognitive ans skill level between the beginning and the end of the
program is HUGE, as anyone will see from looking at it, and there is no
way to navigate the later stuff by memorizing formulas.

If a school wants to make a serious commitment, and will face the
reality of where their students really are, the job is quite doable for
a large majority of the students -- the biggest obstacle is student
attitude. If the school is not willing to make the necessary commitment,
don't even think about it. Trying to do it "half-assed" (pardon my
French) is just a waste of time and effort.

I would also suggest people might want to look into the program of
Xavier University in New Orleans (Carmichael et al), which sends more
minority students into the professions than anyone else. They begin
working with their (prospective) students, both on content and on
attitude and work ethic, IN THE 9TH GRADE! They are highly successful.

There is of course Lillian McDermott's program, originated by one of my
gurus Arnold Arons, at U. of WA. Whben we began at Bloomfield we
seriously considered just adopting this program (Arons' book: "The
Various Language). We found, however, that it presumed a level of
mathematical skill and understanding (basically about 9th grade) that
our students were not close to having. I have no doubt there are many
other quality programs that could be cited. But I emphasize above all
else. YOU MUST FIND OUT WHERE THE STUDENTS REALLY ARE and GO THERE. When
you really inquire, every institution where my test has been given has
been somewhat stunned by what comes out. But you can't build a house on
quicksand, it won't stand for long.

It can be turned around. But no individual teacher, trying to enrich a
standard physics course, can do it. It requires a commitment from a
school or college to really educate the students to a level at which a
serious physics course becomes a real possibility.

Aren't you sorry you asked?
				Jerry Epstein