In his PhysLrnR post of 22 Nov 2003 04:58:31-0600 titled "The Bad
Effects of Physics First," John Texas Clement wrote:
"If physics is moved to 9th grade from the senior year, this [a
mandated 'scripted' curriculum to enhance performance on high-stakes
tests] will happen to physics. We will lose all of the intelligent
physics teachers, and the subject will be taught by unthinking
drones. This is actually happening in some schools where all
teachers must be on the same page at the same time. At present the
senior year physics course is immune from this madness because it is
an elective and not considered worthy of notice by the high stakes
tests."
John has called attention to a possible BAD effect of Physics First,
but there may be GOOD effects that outweigh the bad. The abstract to
Hake (2002a) reads (bracketed by lines "HHHHHHHH. . . . . ":
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
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.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
In Hake (2002a) I listed four systemic roadblocks to Science/Math
Literacy. Omitting most of the references, they were:
A. High-stakes state-mandated tests of reading and mathematics.
B. State science standards that are antithetic to the National
Science Standards and the AAAS "Benchmarks for Science Literacy." An
outstanding example is the California science standards [CCCSC
(2003), Feder (1998), Woolf (1999)].
C. An antiquated K-12 science/math curriculum.
D. Science textbooks that are overstuffed, uninformed by education
research, and often riddled with scientific errors.
In Hake (2003a) I then wrote :
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Attempts to overcome roadblocks "A"-"D" will require considerable
educational redesign 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 P-12 SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Among steps that might be taken for alleviating the current shortage
of EFFECTIVE teachers are (in my judgment of approximate order of
importance):
1. Motivate universities to discharge their obligations to:
a. Adequately educate prospective K-12 teachers.
b. Vigorously pursue R & D directed towards the development and
implementation of effective methods of instruction.
c. Think of education in terms of student learning rather than the
delivery of instruction.
2. Lobby legislators and school boards to treat P-12 teachers like
the valued professionals they are by drastically upgrading their
salaries and
working conditions. Heller suggests that teachers be paid at least
as much as mechanical engineers. Other concrete proposals to
substantially increase salaries of P-12 teachers have been given by
Don Langenberg, the Hart-Rudman Commission, and Vladimir Putin (but
not George Bush).
3. Form collaborations of disciplinary departments with Schools of
Education to better educate prospective teachers and mentor new
teachers, as in the recently funded "PhysTEC."
4. Promote the research and development of effective curricula for
pre-service P-12 teachers. Examples from physics are the CPU Project,
Physics by Inquiry, Powerful Ideas in Physical Science, Science
Helper K-8 CD-ROM, and Workshop Physical Science.
5. Support the research, development, and operation of programs to
enhance the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of in-service
P-12 science/math teachers.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
REFERENCES
CCCSC. 2003. "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional
Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption," California
Curriculum Commission Science Committee (CCCSC). Outlined from
CCCSC's serial listing by R.R. Hake on 10 November 2003; online as
ref. 33 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>: "Instructional
materials suitable for adoption must provide: a table of evidence. .
. demonstrating that the California Science Standards can be
comprehensively taught from the submitted materials WITH 25% OR LESS
OF THE SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME DEVOTED TO HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES. . .
.(and). . . a program organization that supports pre-teaching of the
science content embedded in any hands-on activities . . . .(and). . .
Clear procedures and explanations, in the teacher and student
materials, of the science embedded in hands-on activities. These
activities, where provided, must include suggestions for how to adapt
the lesson to DIRECT INSTRUCTION METHODS of teaching."
Feder, T. 1998. "California's Science Standards Slammed for Demanding
Too Much, Too Early," Physics Today 51(11): 54.
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" Submitted to the American Journal of
Physics on 27 June 2002; online as ref. 29 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>, See also Hake (2002b).
Woolf, L. 1999. Science Education Petition of 22 December, online at
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/petition.html> : "the California Science
Standards are based on neither the spirit nor the letter of the
National Science Education Standards developed by the National
Academy of Sciences or the Benchmarks for Science Literacy. . . many
are incorrect, misleading, ambiguous, and age-inappropriate . . . the
California Academic Standards Commission has approved a policy that
EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITS THE ADOPTION OF SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE,
THOROUGHLY TESTED, AND HIGHLY REGARDED KIT-BASED SCIENCE CURRICULA, .
. . (and) . . . has approved a policy that allows the adoption of
materials that have never been thoroughly tested in classrooms." (My
italics.) Material related to the petition is online at
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/>. Woolf's petition was signed by
330 Californians, among them: Andrew Sessler, past president of the
APS; James Langer, then president of the APS; Jerry Pine, co-director
of the Cal
Tech Precollege Science Institute; Wendell Potter, vice chair of the
Physics Dept., Univ. of California at Davis; Helen Quinn of the
Stanford Linear Accelerator; Richard Shavelson, Professor of
Education and Psychology at Stanford; J.M. Atkin, Chair of the
Committee on Science Education K-12 at the National Research Council;
Fred Goldberg, Professor of Physics, San Diego State University;
Angelica Stacy, Professor of Chemistry, Univ. of California-Berkeley;
and many California science teachers and
educators from elementary-, middle- and high-schools.