Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: contribution of mathematics in understanding physics



BUT--in Pennsylvania, and Indiana, and many other states, an elementary-ed
license allows you to teach K-6 AND it lets you teach MATH! I don't care
that you don't need to use Algebra to teach K-4 science, because I agree
with other comments here that TEACHERS needs to understand the science at
least at the Algebra level or else they DON'T understand the science. We
don't let people teach College Physics with a high school degree--we think
(maybe wrongly) that one should understand a subject well beyond the level
at which we teach it (at least up until graduate school). I've discussed on
PhysLrnr my distrust of an educational system that caters to the math phobic
by removing the math and then giving these same people licenses to teach
science and math. I don't really expect elementary-ed teachers to take
algebra level, problem solving physics courses, but I do expect them to be
CAPABLE of doing so. That is too often NOT the case. The tone of some of
the PhysLrnr responses to this thread is 'We have to deal with the students
we get at the math and critical thinking level (or lack of such) the best we
can'. What this amounts to IS, IMO, a surrendering of our responsibilities
as educators and a regrettable trend towards 'dumbing down' the courses.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the value of strong conceptual
understanding and recognize that the old-style courses many of us had
actually required that WE 'construct' our own understanding of the concepts
from the basic facts and techniques taught. Some of us were able to do
that, on our own or through cooperative and collaborative study groups
(organized on our own) but many others really never 'got it' despite being
able to work all the problems. It seems that part of dealing with the
'new' student includes forcing them to study and think within the framework
of the class (and using class time). If this can be made to work (many
studies say it can) then fine, but we need to do more. We do need to foster
the mathematical understanding that illuminates the concepts (differently
perhaps, but importantly), and I think we have an obligation to teach
problem solving (not end of chapter plug-ins, but logical problem solving)
at all levels. The survey I quoted may have been from science degreed
people, but I think if you study the workplace in general, in a wide variety
of fields, PROBLEM SOLVING comes up over and over as a primary (maybe THE
primary) skill needed. Physics, I think, is extremely well suited to such
instruction, and we shouldn't waste the oportunity to provide our students
with truely useful skills. I'm really not sure that a strong conceptual
understanding of Newton's Laws will serve the many
non-science/engineering/education students in our physics classes that well.

As I suggested on the other list, maybe the answer is to certify elementary
teachers in subject areas and have different teachers with different
expertise teach different subject just as is done in middle-school and
beyond. Then we could demand more training and more depth in our science
teachers.

rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Aldrich <laldrich@miseri.edu>


The discussion of the role of mathematics in understanding physics for
future elementary teachers should be based on what is needed to understand
the physics inherent in the above standards for students at the grade
levels of K-4. I would argue that the mathematics used in an algebra based
physics course at the college level is NOT the mathematics needed to be
able to be a teacher in K-4 with the above student goals.

The next grade level of standards from NRC is 5-8, which poses problems in
determining what the needs of elementary teachers are (since these grades
are now considered to be middle school) in Pennsylvania since we have only
elementary (K-6) and secondary (7-12) certification. More mathematics may
well be needed at the 5-6 and particularly the 7-8 grade levels.

Lynn Aldrich