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: Less is less



At 23:11 -0400 6/30/02, Steve Clark wrote:

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, I agree with everything you have said here except the last
sentence. I don't think that is what the "less [subject matter] is
more [depth of instruction]" folks are trying to get across. Try
this: "You can teach more, by teaching fewer concepts."

As you said above, the object is to deal with fewer topics but do
them in more depth. Of course the other lesson we need to glean from
the TIMS report is that, up to the 4th grade, we do about the same
thing in science as everybody else, that is not much but a bit of gee
whiz and some collecting. That's about what should be done up to that
point, although I would argue that it needs to be a bit more
organized and focused. But after the fourth grade what does the rest
of the world do in science? They start a systemic spiral approach to
the sciences that leave the students reasonably well-prepared by the
time they leave secondary education. What do we do in science? About
nothing until the 9th or 10th grade, except for a bit of gee whiz and
some collecting. Then in the ninth or tenth grade we wake up, panic,
and try to get all that work done in three years (assuming the
students are that minority that actually takes three sciences), Which
is to say that, educationally, we require that the students climb up
to three cliffs--one in biology, one in chemistry and one in physics.

Now maybe (although I have my doubts), the students can struggle up
enough of the biology and chemistry cliffs to be able to get by, but
when it comes to the physics cliff, only the very best can make it.
The results are what we see in TIMS. As you imply, we *can* have
breadth as well as depth in our science program, we just can't do
both at once. The solution is *time.* Start this process in the 4th
or 5th grade and let the students learn at a sensible rate where they
have time to absorb and internalize the concepts, and by the time
they get to the 9th or tenth grades, those cliffs will not look
nearly so steep, nor will they be. Then we'll be doing the same thing
as the rest of the world, and our TIMS scores should reflect that.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
have to..
******************************************************