Re: Less is less

[Steve Clark <sclarkphd@MINDSPRING.COM>]

I've got to get my two cents in here, too.

First, there is a significant difference between the philosophy that college
instructors should operate under and that which K-12 instructors should work
from. In the K-12 arena we are not trying to make little scientists
(although many teaches at the high school level seem to be trying to do just
that). We are trying to produce students who "know stuff" (whatever that
really means) and are interested in learning some more. Colleges are trying
to make the scientists (at least in the courses for the majors).

Second, about five years ago the "Third International study in Mathematics
and Science" (TIMS) report came out. In this study, US students were
compared with their counterparts throughout the world. Not surprisingly, our
seniors (18 year olds) faired very poorly when compared to the rest of the
world. There are many reasons for this, for sure, but one fact that the TIMS
researchers pointed out was the design of our curriculum. You see, our 4th
graders were ranked either 1st or 2nd (I can't remember which) when compared
to the rest of the world. The researchers pointed out that the design of the
US curriculum is largely to blame for the lack of knowledge and skills that
our students posses. They used the phrase "an inch deep and a mile wide."
That analogy seemed especially appropriate to me with the Georgia chemistry
and physics curriculum staring me in the face. The content that I am
required to cover is absurd if I am to expect the majority of the students
siting in front of me to truly master it. And y master  mean internalize the
concepts so the content becomes of some use outside of the four walls of my
classroom.

About 12 years ago, I was invited to participate in AAAS's curriculum
project Project 2061. During that time I became convinced that "Less is
More" is the correct way to approach teaching science at the secondary
level. In other words, I can teach more content by teaching fewer topics.

But what I haven't seen in print anywhere is what the "less is more"
philosophy does to student motivation. My experience as well as my
professional judgement suggests that students will be more motivated to
learn the physics if they have TIME to incorporate it into their own
cognitive structures. You see, student motivation depends on two things -
their expectancy to succeed and their value of the content. Motivation
theorists call this the EXPECTANCY X VALUE model of motivation. This model
predicts that a deeper, slower curriculum should produce higher motivated
kids. The slower pace raises the expectancy to succeed and the greater depth
means that the concepts are more likely to be valued as they see them in
their everyday life.

I've used enough bandwidth with my ramblings, but I did have to put in my
bit.

Remember, you can teach more by teaching less.


--
Steve Clark, Ph.D.
Physics Instructor
Starr's Mill High School
193 Panther Path
Fayetteville, Georgia  30215
(770) 486-2710
clark.stephen@fcboe.org

The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better,"
so I bought a Macintosh.

> From: Ed Schweber <edschweb@IX.NETCOM.COM>
> Reply-To: "phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics
> Educators"<PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 15:48:25 -0400
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject: Re: Less is less
>
> John Clement Wrote:
>
> > When I was at Rensselaer in the 60s they taught undergrad physics as a 4
> > semester sequence with different topics each semester.  This was actually
> a
> > good idea in light of current studies about learning, but it was doubtful
> > that they actually achieved the desired goal of improving depth of
> coverage.
> >
>
> Hi:
>
> John's letter caught my eye because I also graduated RPI in the 1960's
> (not the usual route into high school teaching) , although I do not recall
> knowing John.
>
> While I have adopted the "fewer topics in greater depth" for my own high
> school students, physics majors must at some point learn a wide range of
> topics. Perhaps high school physics classes should not just be pint-sized
> college physics classes. There are different goals at different levels.
>
> I came across an RPI catalog two years ago and was strucy by how many
> fewer physics classes their current physics majors had to take than we did.
>
> I raised this issue at the Guelph AAPT meeting with Karen Cutler (?) who
> was describing an innovative approach to physics at RPI. Was there a
> connection between that approach and the decreased breadth? My question did
> not seem to be welcomed.
>
> Another member in the audience leaned over and said that all physics
> departments had to reduce the requirements for majors or risk loosing too
> many students. That, of course, is a problem in itself.
>
> Ed Schweber
> Physics Teacher
> Solomon Schechter Day School
> West Orange, NJ