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]

Why Physics First? - Summary - PART 1



The post whose first part appears below was rejected by Phys-L,
Physshare, and Chemed-L because of their respective 300, 299, and 200
line limits. I am therefore transmitting the post in two parts. This
is

PART 1:
Please excuse this long cross-posting in the interest of
interdisciplinary and intergroup synergy to discussion lists with
archives at:

Phys-L <http://lists.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>,
PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,
Physhare <http://lists.psu.edu/archives/physhare.html>,
AP-Physics <http://lyris.ets.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ap-physics>.

In addition, because Lederman's Physics First plan to INVERT the
normal high-school sequence of instruction (biology, chemistry,
physics) would seriously impact the teaching of biology, chemistry,
and possibly mathematics (see the Lederman quote below), I am taking
the liberty of posting this on:

Biopi-L <http://listserv.ksu.edu/archives/biopi-l.html>,
Chemed-L <http://mailer.uwf.edu/archives/chemed-l.html>,
Math-Learn <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/>,
Math-Teach <http://mathforum.org/epigone/math-teach>.


As indicated in Hake (2002c), the recent AAPT (2002a) statement in
support of Leon Lederman's (1999; 2000a,b; 2001a,b; 2002) "Physics
First" program stimulated 40 impassioned pro and con Physics-First
posts on the discussion list Physhare ("Sharing resources for high
school physics").

Although in-depth analyses of the responses might be of interest, for
now I'll simply classify them as pro, con, or NUN (NUN = Neutral,
Uncertain, or Neither pro nor con) regarding Physics First:

Physhare: 40 hits at
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=physhare&q=&s=physics+first&f=&a=October+2002&b=8+October+02>;
13 pro, 9 con, 18 NNU.

Because here and below my pro-Physics-First bias could affect my
classification of posts, others might wish to check my results. The
hit numbers reflect numbers of responses only, and do NOT take into
account the fact that some subscribers responded more than once. For
example, the vehemently anti-Physics-First "M.H" accounted for 7
(50%) of the con-Physics-First Physhare posts totaled below.

The above 40 posts on Physhare, the AAPT (2002a) statement on Physics
First, and my two articles (Hake 2002a,b) prompted my post (Hake
2002c). The latter stimulated a number of interesting responses,
including three pro-Physics-First posts of my own (Hake 2002d,e,f -
like Hake (2002c), NOT included in the hit tallies below). The
responses FOLLOWING my post Hake (2002c) may be reviewed by just five
mouse clicks at the URL's given below (the hit numbers are all as of
15 Oct 2002 12:00:00-0700. I have classified the responses in the
same manner as above:

1. PHYSHARE: 14 hits at:
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=physhare&q=&s=Why+Physics+First&f=&a=October+2002&b=>
3 pro, 5 con, 6 NUN


2. PHYS-L: 38 hits total
(a) 25 hits at:
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=phys-l&q=&s=Why+Physics+First&f=&a=October+2002&b=>.
7 pro, 2 con, 16 NUN

(b) 13 hits at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=phys-l&q=&s=Physics+First++content&f=&a=October+2002&b=>.
0 pro, 0 con, 13 NUN


3. PHYSLRNR*: 12 hits total
(a) 10 hits at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=physlrnr&X=-&q=&s=Why+Physics+First&f=&a=October+2002&b=>.
0 pro, 0 con, 10 NUN

(b) 2 hits at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=physlrnr&X=-&q=&s=physics+first+content&f=&a=October+2002&b=>
0 pro, 0 con, 2 NUN

[PhysLrnR denies non-subscribers access to its archives purportedly
to protect its subscribers from SPAM, but as far as I know ANYONE -
can subscribe to PhysLrnR by taking a few minutes to follow the
simple directions at "Join or leave the list (or change settings)" at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>. Those
who do not wish to overload their mailboxes with PhysLrnR mail, may
subscribe with the NOMAIL option - one receives NO MAIL from PhysLrnR
but, as a subscriber, can review posts at the archives and post when
the spirit moves.]

4. AP-PHYSICS - the primitive and nearly useless Lyris search engine
prohibits a single URL designation for sets of posts.

If you click on the above URL's the hit numbers given will be
slightly higher than those above because the latter do NOT include my
own posts.

The TOTAL hits for each list and the total for all lists from the
above accounting is:

Physhare-54 hits - pro: 16, con: 14, NUN: 24

Phys-L- 38 hits - pro: 7, con: 2, NUN: 29

PhysLrnR-12 hits - pro: 0, con: 0, NUN: 12
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS- 104 hits - pro: 23, con: 16, NUN: 65
Percentages- pro: 22.1%, con: 15.4%, NUN: 62.5%


Thus, judging from this informal survey, there is neither
overwhelming pro nor con opinion among list subscribers regarding
Physics First, with a majority taking a non-committal "NUN" position
(NUN = Neutral, Uncertain, or Neither pro nor con).

Unfortunately the posts, in general, suggest that many of the
overworked subscribers [for the high-school overload see, e.g.,
Stigler & Hiebert (1999)] had not had the time to think seriously
about the issues or review the Physics-First literature [e.g.,
Lederman (1999; 2000a,b; 2001a,b; 2002), Hake (2002a,b), AAPT
(2002b)]. Many of the "NUN" responders discussed problems of K-12
reform only indirectly related to Physics First as a long-term
corrective to the dire shortage of effective teachers, as I had
emphasized in Hake (2002c). Some of these non-teacher-related
problems were discussed in Hake (2002b) (see that article for the
references and an elaboration on each barrier):

HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
A. High-stakes state-mandated tests of reading and mathematics (see,
e.g., AAAS 1997e; Heubert & Hauser 1998; AIP 2001; Amrein & Berliner
2002 . . . .[more recently Elmore (2002)]. . . . Will these crowd out
K-8 science education?

B. State science standards that are antithetic to the National
Science Standards (NRC 1996) and the AAAS (1993) "Benchmarks for
Science Literacy." An outstanding example is the California science
standards (Feder 1998, Woolf 1999).

C. An antiquated K-12 science/math curriculum [AAAS (1997c; 2000b; 2001a)].

D. Science textbooks that are overstuffed, uninformed by education
research, and often riddled with scientific errors (see, e.g., AAAS
2001b; Raloff 2001a,b; Hubisz (2001c). [For a list of
physics-education-research based undergraduate curriculum materials,
including textbooks, see the University of Maryland Physics Education
Research Group site UMPERG (2002)] . . . . . [For suggestions on (a)
on early-grade physics texts see Hake (2002e), (b) middle-school
curriculum materials see Woolf (2002a)]. . . .

Attempts to overcome roadblocks "A" - "D" will require considerable
educational redesign (Wilson & Daviss 1994, AAAS 2001a) as well as
grass-roots political effort. In my view those four roadblocks,
challenging as they are, will be far easier to overcome than the
fifth and most formidable:

E. THE DEARTH OF EFFECTIVE K-12 SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS.
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE

As for the relevance of Physics First to chemists, biologists, and
mathematicians, with characteristic incisiveness Lederman (1999)
wrote:


Continued in PART 2

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