| 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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators
[mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu]On Behalf Of John M. Clement
Sent: Saturday, 2 December 2000 12:51
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: What to "cover" (Was dimensionsless units etc.)
Reform can always start at any point in the school system, but
there is one good indicator for starting in middle school. The
TIMMS report showed that US students fared well up to 4th grade.
The major slide starts in middle school. Yes, we do need to
train better teachers in the grades, but remember that most grade
school teachers tend to be concrete thinkers.
A second reason for middle school is that is the age when there
seems to be a window of opportunity due to the rapid brain
development, that is the prelude to development of abstract
thinking skills. This is precisely what Shayer, Adey, and Yates
have been able to do with their curriculum. They are currently
investigating the lower grades, but one fact emerged from their
research. The curriculum that they used seems to be effective in
increasing students thinking skills to where up to 70% achieve
abstract thinking at the end of HS. Similar attempts at earlier
ages seem to be able to advance the development of the higher
stages of concrete thinking, but they do not produce abstract
thinking ability. Their curriculum uses essentially very guided
inquiry methods to build thinking skills. These are the
prerequisites for most of the sciences, especially physics.
Their curriculum also teaches some science as a by product.
I have found that a Piagetian test serves as a very good
predictor for student ability to learn physics concepts. Without
the prerequisite thinking ability, it is not possible to get very
far in physics.