2. unconscionable length of this post. Please DON'T HIT THE REPLY
BOTTON and thereby inflict it yet again on suffering subscribers !
In a PhysLrR post of 22 Jan 2003 21:08:08-0800 titled "Re: Deficient
Language Skills - Serious Omission In My Previous Post," (available
at the PhysLrnR archives) I quoted Arons (1993) as follows:
"It is significant, and not accidental, that the best of the new
curricular materials, those with the highest potential for
cultivating concept formation, thinking, reasoning, learning, and
understanding are among the ones prepared for elementary school level
(e.g., Elementary Science Study (ESS); Science Curriculum Improvement
Study (SCIS); Science, A Process Approach (SAPA)" For a review of the
above materials go to Web Support (2003).
IMO, Arons's (1993, 1997, 1998) reviews, as well as Fuller's (2002)
memorial to Berkeley physicist Robert Karplus [founder of SCIS and
QED pioneer (Karplus & Kroll (1950)] are well worth careful study
regarding the early history of science education reform.
Since Arons (1993) may not be easily accessible and [judging from the
national fixation on high-stakes testing (Amrein & Berliner 2002;
Jorgenson & Vanosdall 2002], insight into the root problems of U.S.
education is in short supply, I should like to quote a bit more
extensively from Arons (1993) (EMPHASIS in the original - except for
the last paragraph):
ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS
The high pedagogical quality of the better, hand-on elementary
materials. . .(such as ESS, SCIS, and SAPA),]. . . is rooted in the
fact that they start everything from scratch with no assumption of
prior knowledge or background of the children. The undertake careful,
time-consuming examination of the crucial questions: How do we
know...? Why do we believe...? What is the evidence for...? -
questions which make new concepts, insights, or lines of reasoning
plausible, intelligible, and comprehensible. They operate on the
principle "idea first and name afterwards" and introduce technical
terms only after an insight has been gained through shared experience
that places an operational definition clearly in hand. They tend to
avoid the fetish of "coverage" and allow time for exploration, error,
and genuine learning without insisting on doing too much too rapidly.
Most significantly the progenitors of these curricula have paid
conscious attention to at least some of the small amount of knowledge
we possess about the intellectual development and capacities for
abstract reasoning, and this attention yields notable rewards in the
effectiveness of the materials when they are implemented by teachers
who understand the content.
Careful study of the PEDAGOGICAL approach of these materials by
authors working at more advanced levels (including tertiary level)
would be repaid by a very beneficial influence on their own writing.
Unfortunately, very few authors have the humility, patience, and
awareness to take the trouble to tap this resource and learn from the
experience at the elementary level. . . . .
I am convinced . . .that were such materials effectively implemented
in all kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms, not only could
subsequent science teaching shift to more sophisticated levels and
generate and generated more lasting insights but the overall thinking
and reasoning capacities of children would, on the average, be
significantly enhanced, along with their arithmetical skills and
reading comprehension. In other words, there is reason to believe
that this mode of instruction, when competently implemented, results
in TRANSFER, enhancing performance beyond that in science subject
matter alone [Bredderman (1982); Shymansky, Kyle, & Alport (1983);
Wellman (1978)].
That such a trend is not sweepingly underway is not, to my mind, so
much a result of intrinsic weakness in the materials as it is a
reflection of fact that THE EDUCATION WE PROVIDE OUR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TEACHERS LEAVES THE GREAT MAJORITY WITHOUT ADEQUATE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOST BASIC SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOST
BASIC SCIENTIFIC SUBJECT MATTER AND HENCE WITHOUT THE COMPETENCE AND
SECURITY NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THESE MATERIALS EFFECTIVELY. .
ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS-ARONS
Consistent with the last paragraph I argued (Hake 2002a):
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
Sadly Benezet's (1935/36) curriculum was, . . .(effective elementary
programs of the 60's have been). . . and Kirby Urner's (2003) math
program probably will be, almost totally ignored. IMHO, among the
reasons for such neglect are:,
(a) the glacial inertia of the U.S. educational system (see e.g. Hake
(2002b - Lesson #13),
(b) the failure of U.S. universities [Hake (2002b) - Lessons #10 &
#12; Hake 2002c)] to educate teachers with the "background,
understanding, and security" to EFFECTIVELY teach curricula such as
that of Benezet (1935/36). . . (or effective elementary programs of
the 60's,). . . . or Urner (2003), or even ninth-grade physics (Hake
2002d,e);
(c) the failure of U.S. society to pay K-12 teachers what they are
worth - at least as much as mechanical engineers (Heller 2001,
Langenberg 2000).