In his/her? Physhare post of 9 Oct 2002 15:24:26-0400 titled "Re: Why
Physics First?" Marty wrote (slightly edited):
"Dr. Hake's (and I presume Dr. Lederman's) positions seem to be taken
from an assumption that may be held more by college and university
professors: that we can mandate physics first simply by the stroke of
a pen, and then, possibly more importantly, automatically have the
teaching staff already available, prepared, and waiting to teach
physics to 9th graders."
I can't speak for Leon Lederman, but Marty's statement is:
(a) a totally incorrect assumption regarding my position (Hake 2002a,b);
(b) diametrically opposed to the abstract of Hake (2002b) as quoted
in my Physhare post (Hake 2002c). There I state:
". . . a widespread first physics course for ALL ninth graders
might: (a) help to overcome some systemic roadblocks to science/math
literacy of the general population - MOST IMPORTANTLY THE SEVERE
DEARTH OF EFFECTIVE PRE-COLLEGE SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS. . . ."
This point is made more completely with careful referenced arguments
and even cartoons in Hake (2002b). For example I state (slightly
truncated - see the article for the references):
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
The late Arnold Arons (2000), wrote:
"This . . . (consideration of implementing the Benezet (1935/36)
method, but the same considerations apply to "Science/Math Literacy
for All") . . . brings us back to the same old problem: WHENCE DO WE
GET THE TEACHERS with the background, understanding, and security to
implement such instruction? They will certainly not emerge from the
present production mills." (My CAPS.)
The shortage of effective K-12 science/math teachers has recently
been emphasized by the National Science Board (NSF 2002, Dawson
2002), and by Hake (2002c) with reference to "assessment in the
service of student learning."
Among steps that might be taken for alleviating the current shortage
of EFFECTIVE teachers are (in my judgment of approximate order of
importance):
1. Motivate universities to discharge their obligations to:
b. Vigorously pursue R & D directed towards the development and
implementation of effective methods of instruction [Reif (1974); Wilson &
Daviss (1994); AAAS (1993, Chapter 15; 1997g); Redish (1999); NRC (1999);
Duderstadt (2000, 2001); Shavelson & Towne (2001); Pelligrino et al. (2001);
Hake (2002a,b).
c. Think of education in terms of STUDENT LEARNING rather than the
delivery of instruction (Barr & Tagg 1995).
2. Lobby legislators and school boards to treat P-12 teachers like the valued
professionals they are by drastically upgrading their salaries
(Heller 2001) and working conditions (Jones 2001) [especially in the
inner cities (Kozol 1992)].
3. Form collaborations of disciplinary departments with Schools of
Education to better educate prospective teachers and mentor new
teachers, as in the recently funded "PhysTEC" (Physics Teacher
Education Coalition) Project
<http://positron.aps.org/educ/undergrad/main-phystec.html>,
<http://www.phystec.org/>, and Stein (2001).
4. Promote the research and development of effective curricula for
pre-service P-12 teachers (AAPT 2002). Examples from physics are the
CPU Project, Physics by Inquiry, Powerful Ideas in Physical Science,
Science Helper K-8 CD-ROM, and Workshop Physical Science.
5. Support the research, development, and operation of programs to
enhance the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of in-service
P-12 science/math teachers. For a hot-linked list of 25 such programs
in physics see Hake (2000b, Section IIIC). See also the resources at
the APS "Education and Outreach" website <http://www.aps.org/educ/>.
6. Revitalize moribund science-major programs. Physics departments
might consider improving deficient programs for their majors (Wilson
2002) by implementing the 1960's "Curriculum S" (Jossem 1964, Ford
1987, Hake 2000b). A very effective Curriculum-S type program appears
to be in operation at Rutgers (Lindenfeld 2001).
7. Implement (a) Master's Degree programs related to teaching and
education, such as two-year Professional Master's Degree physics
programs (Norton et al. 2002) and MAT (Master of Arts in Teaching)
degrees (for a discussion see Hake (2000b, Section IIIE); (b) Ph.D.
programs in education research such as now exist for physics in about
20 different departments (for a discussion see Hake 2002a, Lesson #4).
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
I would urge Marty and others of like persuasion to consider Hake
(2002b) before unleashing further unwarranted criticism of those
naive college and university professors.
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Physics First: Precursor to Science/Math Literacy
for All?" Summer 2002 issue of the American Physical Society's "Forum
on Education Newsletter" <http://www.aps.org/units/fed/index.html> /
"Forum Newsletters" where "/" means "click on."; also online as ref.
19 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" Submitted to the American Journal of
Physics on 27 June 2002; online as ref. 20 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.