Re: California Science Framework

[Joseph Bellina <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

I do.
I think 1 will undercut badly pedagogical design.
2 is laudable but vague and could be the cause of counterproductive
pedagogical design by expecting too much
3 is just plain wrong...a far too simple view of scientific activity
4 is ok, although I personally don't like confusing the definition of
resistance with Ohm's law.

I really worry about number 1 since teachers will be tempted to pick
pieces out of a sequential curriculum and thus violate its design.

for what its worth,

joe
On Wed Mar 2003, Larry
Woolf wrote:

> Below are 4 excerpts from the Introduction to the California Science
> Framework.
> http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/catalog/science-excerpts/introduction.pdf
> I would be interested to know if anyone on the last has opinions on this
> official document that is meant to guide California K-12 science teaching.
>
> 1. "When large blocks of time for science instruction are not feasible,
> teachers must make use of smaller blocks. For example, an elementary teacher
> and the class may have a brief but spirited discussion on why plant seeds
> have different shapes or why the moon looks different each week."
>
> 2. "Science education in kindergarten through grade twelve trains the mind
> and builds intellectual strength and must not be limited to the lasting
> facts and skills that can be remembered into adulthood. Science must be
> taught at a level of rigor and depth that goes well beyond what a typical
> adult knows. It must be taught ?for the sake of science? and not with any
> particular vocational goal in mind. The study of science disciplines the
> minds of students; and the benefits of this intellectual training are
> realized long after schooling, when the details of the science may be
> forgotten."
>
> 3. "In doing their research good scientists do not attempt to prove that
> their own hypotheses are correct but that they are incorrect."
>
> 4. "For example, students might learn about Ohm?s law, one of the guiding
> principles of physics, which states that electrical current decreases
> proportionately as resistance increases in an electrical circuit operating
> under a condition of constant voltage. In practice, the principle accounts
> for why a flash-light with corroded electrical contacts does not give a
> bright beam, even with fresh batteries. It is a simple relationship,
> expressed as V=IR, and embodied in high school Physics Standard 5.b. In a
> laboratory exercise, however, students may obtain results that seem to
> disprove the linear relationship because the resistance of a circuit element
> varies with temperature. The temperature of the components gradually
> increases as repeated tests are performed, and the data become skewed.
> In the foregoing example, it was not Ohm?s law that was wrong but an
> assumption about the stability of the experimental apparatus. This
> assumption can be proven by additional experimentation and provides an
> extraordinary opportunity for students to learn about the scientific method.
> Had the students been left to uncover on their own the relationship between
> current and resistance, their skewed data would not have easily led them to
> discover Ohm?s law. A sensible balance of direct instruction and
> investigation and a focus on demonstration of scientific principles provide
> the best science lesson."
>
> Thanks-
> Larry
>
> Larry Woolf;General Atomics;San Diego CA
> 92121;Ph:858-526-8575;FAX:858-526-8568; www.ga.com; www.sci-ed-ga.org

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr.               574-284-4662
Associate Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556