In his DEWEY-L/PHYS-L/PHYSLRNR/Math-learn/Math-teach post of 16 Nov
2002 23:27:44-0700 titled "Re: Professional Worldview (was 7th IHPST
Newsletter 1)" Lou Talman wrote (my CAPS):
TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN
I would like to suggest that CONCENTRATION ON THE CORE ISSUES OF ONE'S
SPECIALTY, as opposed to the issues of delivering that specialty to
beginners, is a natural stage of development that healthy scholars pass
through if allowed. As such IT IS HEALTHY FOR BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL
PASSING THROUGH THE STAGE AND FOR THE DISCIPLINE IN QUESTION. What is
not healthy is institutionalization of that stage of development as the
primary desirable state a scholar should be in -- any more than it would
be desirable to institutionalize two-year-old behavior as a social norm.
Society has been intelligent enough to avoid the latter; academia seems
to be somewhat different. We seem to take positive action, as the quote
given by Professor Hake indicates, to squelch any further development in
our professional scholars. In fact, THIS EFFORT MAY REPRESENT ONE OF
OUR MORE EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS."
TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN-TALMAN
In an earlier post of 15 Nov 2002 00:36:36-0700, Lou wrote:
"Why is it always so?" . . . [that most academics turn to education
only late in their careers (if at all)]. . . Maybe it's because human
beings are famously, even notoriously, slow to mature, and interest
in *effectively* passing on what is known trumps the narrow
specialist's interest in creating new knowledge only after one has
begun to mature - at, say, 50 or so for the precocious."
If I understand Lou correctly, for physics his view would appear to
translate thusly:
1. Delivering physics more effectively to beginners is NOT a core
issue of physics.
2. It is healthy for physicists under the age of 50 (and older if not
precocious) to concentrate on core issues and avoid effort to improve
physics instruction to beginners, since that concern can be left to
those who "mature - at, say, 50 or so for the precocious."
3. One of our most effective educational efforts is to:
(a) discourage physics faculty who are under age 50 (older for the
non-precocious) from pursuing any interest in improving the
effectiveness of K-12, undergraduate, or graduate education, and
(b) squelch attempts to institute PhD programs in physics education
research (PER) such as those listed at UMd-PERG (2001) because they
cater to physicists under age 50 who would be better off devoting
themselves to core issues.
Unfortunately, most non-precocious research-university physics
faculty under age 70 would probably agree with the above 3 points.
The ruinous effects of such attitudes on education (NSF 1996) and
society (Hake 2000) have become apparent to some.
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2000c. "The general population's ignorance of
science-related societal issues - a challenge for the university,"
AAPT Announcer 30(2): 105. online as ref. 11 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
NSF Advisory Committee. 1996. "Shaping the future: new expectations
for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology; online at <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf96139>:
"Many faculty in SME&T. . . . (Science, Math, Engineering, and
Technology) . . . . at the post-secondary level continue to blame the
schools for sending underprepared students to them. But,
increasingly, the higher education community has come to recognize
the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all
people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in
situations in which SME&T PROGRAMS HAVE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH
THEIR VITAL PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE QUALITY OF AMERICA'S
TEACHERS." (My CAPS.)
UMd-PERG. 2001. Univ. of Maryland Physics Education Research Group,
listing of physics education groups with web homepages: online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/homepages.htm>.
This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.