Re: Why Physics First?

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

People!

I just sent to the candidate we (GK and I) support for Superintendent of Public
Instruction the following.  I do hope I needn't have enquired first for correction.

"Candidate O’Connell:

A two decades long revolution continues in the teaching of Physics begun by David
Hestenes at Arizona S.U.  Texas and other states are resisting the institution of
this modeling method.  Mainly by inertia and the institution of incompatible required
texts and tests.  Numerous peer review studies have verified the success of this new
method.  I highly recommend you act to allow it to continue in California.  If you
are ignorant of this highly successful method, I suggest the following web site:
http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html

California teachers are being trained in this method.  For example at CSU, Fresno:
http://www.csufresno.edu/fcept/events/modelingphysics.html

Again, I do hope you will assist the completion of this revolution in California.

BC"

I do hope this is the position of the majority of you.


Thanks,

bc  who tried, but was unable, easily, to remove the passive voice in the third
paragraph.

John Clement wrote:

> Please excuse the cross post, but there are now 2 debates on the same topic
> about both topics.

cut

> Changing the pedagogy to enhance learning is supposed to be solved by
> training teachers better.  The problem of getting different departments
> together at the university level is a well known difficulty.  Beyond that
> most professionals in physical science and math. departments do not endorse
> or use inquiry learning.  Many think that didactic methods are the only ones
> that work, and they will not cooperate in such an endeavor.  In the physics
> community many do not accept FCI/FMCE results and do not accept that the
> Hake survey shows that dramatic improvements in education can be made.  As a
> result prospective teachers are only exposed to inquiry by reading about it
> in education texts and they are not equipped to implement it.
>
> Assuming that it is possible at some universities to have a truce in the
> turf wars and implement inquiry training, another mine field awaits.  Once
> teachers have been taught by inquiry methods, they then have to implement
> them in the classroom.  This is just as big a leap.  Schools often oppose
> it.  Conventional textbooks are mandated, and some schools mandate that
> every teacher in a subject has to be on the same page on the same day.  This
> is now becoming prevalent in TX districts.  Mentor teachers oppose it and
> force the trainees to use conventional didactic methods.
>
> This also does not take into account the high stakes testing which forces
> teachers to teach a scattergun approach so that all topics are covered.
> Frequently principals will mandate constant review exercises which are
> didactic in nature.

cut

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.