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: What to "cover"



Contributors to this thread made good suggestions that David
Hestenes has thought deeply about. Among the concerns:
John Clement: "The "ultimate" solution is to promote middle school
curricula which promote better thinking ability." (Nov. 30)
Herb Gottlieb on expanding physics to earlier grades: "let us first make
plans for training a sufficient number of qualified teachers to cover these
additional
classes." (Dec. 1)
Rick Tarara on content-driven reform that seeks to start with modern
physics, vs. pedagogically focused reform that reduces content but focuses
on mechanics (Dec. 1)
Hugh Haskell: would be great if "math classes (algebra and geometry) would
deal with some of the topics that we have to deal with that are essentially
applied mathematics" (Dec. 1)
Tim O'Donnell: "We would have to revamp the whole school curriculum which
is probably not a bad idea, but what enormous effort and commitment and yes
money would it take?" (Dec. 1)
Hugh Haskell: "our umbrella organizations (AAPT, APS, AIP, all of which
have education objectives) need to get together and start beating the drum
for a national curriculum" (Dec. 1)

This is a big issue! Below is an abridged excerpt of a recent
report by Hestenes on these concerns.
David Hestenes, by the way, is a rare breed among physicists; a
practical visionary. He's a natural systems builder; he's been building
cognitive and intellectual systems during his entire 35-year career. His
ideas are usually workable, and they are flexible enough to be revised when
necessary.
He works hard and long at systemic science education reform,
because it's crucial!
A year ago David proposed to AAPT and APS leaders that a National
Center for Physics Education be established to assist universities to form
and maintain university - high school partnerships for K-12 science
education reform. AAPT and APS members need to further this effort. I
encourage you to express your concerns and desires (see my posts on AAPT
White Papers, 11/26, 27, 28) by writing them in comment boxes at
<http://www.aapt.org/planning/future2k.html. Or e-mail your comments
directly to President Ruth Howes at rhowes@gw.bsu.edu.
Cheers,
Jane Jackson

David Hestenes recently wrote as follows. (These are quotes, but some
sentences are omitted to keep it short,for courtesy to phys-L readers. See
the references at the bottom of this post).
-----------------------
The sorry state of K-12 science education has been documented in
many prominent reports (e.g. A Nation at Risk, Shaping the Future, TIMSS).
This has led to sweeping K-12 science education reform as a priority in
national science policy.
Ultimately, all reform takes place in the classroom. Therefore, the
key to reform is to cultivate teacher expertise. The need is especially
critical for high school physics and chemistry teachers, because they are
in the best position to set the level and tenor of science in their
schools. The vast majority of physics teachers are under-prepared, isolated
and overworked. However, they are also dedicated, able, excited about
science and hungering to learn more. Above all they need opportunities for
professional growth and a supportive school environment.
Lifelong professional development is as essential for teachers as
it is for doctors and scientists. It takes at least ten years to reach a
high level of expertise in any profession. Few teachers have adequate
opportunities for sustained professional development, and many have an
inadequate background in science to start with, so most remain far from
reaching their full potential as teachers.
Schools and school districts are ill-equipped to conduct
professional development on their own, because they lack the necessary
expertise in science and technology as well as the resources to keep
up-to-date with advances in science curriculum materials and pedagogy.
Those resources reside primarily in the nation's universities, especially
in the science, engineering and education faculties. Without participation
of research scientists, science education reform is doomed to mediocrity,
for research is the life-blood of science.

Reforms are needed along four main lines:
* Pedagogical reform to meet or exceed the National Science Education
Standards (NSES). New evaluation instruments have documented serious
deficiencies in conventional physics teaching methods as well as
considerable improvements from research-based instructional designs.
However, these advances have not yet been widely diffused or deeply
assimilated by most physics teachers. Deeper reforms in curriculum and
instruction are continually emerging from educational research, but
adequate mechanisms to move them into the classroom are still lacking.

* Technology infusion. Electronic technology is rapidly becoming an
integral part of modern society. It is therefore imperative to incorporate
technology into science curricula at all grade levels. Educational research
has established that computers do little to enhance student learning
without carefully designed adjustments to the curriculum implemented by a
well-trained teacher. This is particularly true in physics courses, where
students need to learn how to use the computer as a scientific tool for
data acquisition, analysis and problem solving. The computer can enhance
pedagogy, but not replace it. Therefore infusion of computers into science
classrooms must be coupled to reform in science pedagogy and teacher
professional development.

* Incorporating contemporary physics. The main accomplishment of 20th
century physics is arguably: unraveling the atomic structure of matter.
This unifies physics and chemistry into a common science of the structure
of matter and its properties. It also provides the foundation for
electronic technology, molecular biology and astrophysics. Little of this
astounding science has penetrated the K-12 curriculum except in occasional
"gee-whiz" tidbits. More is not to be expected without participation of
research scientists in the professional development of teachers and
curriculum reform. As a gateway to the wonders of 21st century science, it
is essential to establish an integrated science curriculum that initiates
students into physics of the atomic world in high school.

* Cultivating physics teachers to lead reform. Physics teachers are
especially well suited to serve as leaders of local science education
reform with technology infusion. This has been established in the
NSF-supported Modeling Workshop Project. Though only about a third of
inservice physics teachers have college degrees in physics, the vast
majority are enthusiastic about learning and teaching physics and confident
in their abilities to do so. Though most have had little opportunity to
integrate the scientific use of technology into their teaching, they are
eager and unafraid to do it. In short, physics teachers are eager and able
to take full advantage of professional development programs to cultivate
them as leaders of science education reform.
...
------------------------------------
David has described a systematic program to implement these reforms
in "A Working Proposal for a National Center for Physics Education" and
"Partnerships for Physics Teaching Reform: a crucial role for
universities", both downloadable at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu>.

Jane Jackson, Co-Director, Modeling Instruction Program
Box 871504, Dept.of Physics & Astronomy,ASU,Tempe,AZ 85287
480-965-8438/fax:965-7331 <http://modeling.la.asu.edu>