Please excuse the length of this post. Please DON'T HIT THE REPLY
BUTTON and inflict it yet again on suffering subscribers.
In his Math-Teach post of 7 Feb 2003 22:34:11-0800 titled "Physics
First" Joshua Zucker wrote:
"Many reasonably sensible people -- Leon Lederman. . . [1999;
2000a,b; 2001a,b; see also Livanis (2002)]. . . for one, and me . . .
advocate teaching conceptual physics in 9th grade for several reasons:
1) knowing the ideas of physics puts you in much better shape to
understand what's going on in chemistry,
2) teaching physics without math means that the physics course is
about physics. . .,
3) . . . people completing a 12th grade physics class have virtually
no clue about what a force means or does. . . . . . .
I agree with Lederman, Zucker, and many others that teaching
"conceptual physics" (i.e., an emphasis on the CONCEPTS rather than
rote formula memorization and manipulation as in traditional
ineffective (Hake 2002e) U.S. introductory physics instruction) in
the 9th grade is a good idea, for reasons that include those above.
However, in my opinion, conceptual physics and its connection with
math should be taught in ALL pre-college grades starting in preschool
(Hammer 1999). I think Lederman's idea to move the "physics cliff"
(now scaled by only few nerds) from the 12th to the 9th grade is a
good idea only because it should serve to dramatize a crucial but
generally overlooked problem in U.S. education: vis., THE ABSENCE OF
ENOUGH EFFECTIVE SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS [PhysTec 2003, AAAS (2002b),
Jackson (2003), Lewis (2001), Cohen & Krantz (2001), Katz & Tucker
(2003), Hake (2002a) to allow the construction of a "science/math
ramp" from pre-school to grade 12 as advocated by Ken Ford (1989),
Hugh Haskell (2001), and the AAAS (2002a,b) Project 2061.
In the abstract of an article "Physics First: Opening Battle in the
War on Science/Math Illiteracy?" (Hake (2002b) I wrote:
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
It is argued that Lederman's "Physics First" regime, while not an
ideal ramp to science/math literacy for all students, should
nevertheless be vigorously supported as an important opening battle
in the full scale war on science/math illiteracy as envisaged by the
AAAS "Project 2061." This is because 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,
(b) enhance the numbers of physics major and graduate students,
through programs designed to provide a large corps of teachers
capable of EFFECTIVELY teaching physics to vast numbers of students
in the Physics First schools: ninth-graders plus those taking high
school honors and AP physics courses."
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
What's all this got to do with MATH? Lederman (1999) wrote (my CAPS):
". . . . A standards-based science curriculum must contain at least
three years of science and three years of mathematics. And the
coherent order begins with 9th grade physics, TAUGHT CONCEPTUALLY and
EXERCISING ONLY THE MATH OF 8TH AND 9TH GRADE. . ."
The question is: With only the math of the 8th and 9th grade can any
SUBSTANTIVE physics be taught to the average 9th grader? It's not
just a question of algebra preparedness. According to Jerry Epstein
(1997-98) (My CAPS):
EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN
While it is now well known that large numbers of students arrive at
college with large educational and cognitive deficits many faculty
and administrative colleagues are not aware that MANY STUDENTS LOST
ALL SENSE OF MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. . . In
large numbers our students . . . [at Bloomfield College (New Jersey)
and Lehman (CUNY)] . . . cannot order a set of fractions and decimals
and cannot place them on a number line. Many do not comprehend
division by a fraction and have no concrete comprehension of the
process of division itself. Reading rulers where there are other than
10 subdivisions, basic operational meaning of area and volume, are
pervasive difficulties. Most cannot deal with proportional reasoning
nor any sort of problem that has to be translated from English. Our
diagnostic test, which has now been given at more than a dozen
institutions shows that there are such students everywhere" . . . . .
.[even Wellesley (Epstein 1999)].
EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN-EPSTEIN
Why do "large numbers of students arrive at college with large
educational and cognitive deficits," many of them math related?
Although I'm no math education expert, IMHO among the myriad problems
in K-12 MATH education (Kilpatrick et al. 2001) are:
(a) few university research mathematicians have any knowledge of, or
interest in, either K-12 math/science education (Hake 2002a) or
science generally;
(b) there is evidently no MER (Mathematics Education Research)
counterpart to the intensive PER (Physics Education Research) effort
(Redish 2003, Hake 2002e),
(c) many mathematicians seem to be engaged in value-driven (Sowder
1998) rhetoric over traditional vs reform math teaching, rather than
substantive effort to improve math education.
Returning to Physics First, the last paragraph of Hake (2002d) was
(with references compatible with the present list):
". . . the challenge of teaching a substantive physics course to 9th
graders brings to the fore questions regarding the thinking patterns
of young students. . . the impressive work of Shayer & Adey in
England (see, e.g., Adey 1999) seems to indicate that considerable
'cognitive acceleration' may be achieved among students in the 11 to
14-yr age bracket, AGAIN INDICATING THE SUPERIORITY OF A GRADUAL
LEARNING RAMP TO A 9TH GRADE PHYSICS CLIFF (Hake 2002b,c). BUT FOR
NOW ATTEMPTS TO ERECT A PHYSICS CLIFF MIGHT AT LEAST SET THE
GROUNDWORK FOR THE LEARNING RAMP ADVOCATED BY THE CAREFULLY CRAFTED
LONG-TERM AAAS (2002a,b) PROJECT 2061.