PART 1
As indicated in my post "Re: Reading Science Texts," [Hake (2004)],
high-school chemistry teacher John Mackin (2004) asked some excellent
questions on Chemed-L [bracketed by lines "MMMMM. . . . .":
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
As I review this almost-completed year, I recognize that some of my
students came to chemistry class with limited abilities to learn
from a science textbook. This seems to be a more prevalent problem
than in previous years. Several questions come to mind.
1. Are others noticing this trend?
2. Are there any excellent resources available to teach students how
to extract information from science texts?
3. Does anyone know of a pre-test to assess a student's ability to
learn from a science text?
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Is the reading comprehension of students worth commenting on? The
number of responses to my post that reiterated Mackin's questions
were as follows:
AP-Physics. . . . 1
Chemed-L. . . . . 1
Math-Learn. . . 51*
PhysLrnR . . . . 22
Phys-L . . . . . .0
Physhare . . . . 0
POD. . . . . . . 0
TOTAL . . . . .. 75
*Math Learn posts can be accessed by typing "Reading Science Texts"
(without the quotes) into the "Search Archive" slot at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/math-learn/>.To access the archives of
other discussion lists see Hake (2003).
So it would appear that (with rare exception) only subscribers to
Math-Learn and PhysLnrR thought reading comprehension of students was
worthy of comment. Is the apparent neglect of this area by other
subscribers (especially those POD'ers in the university Teaching and
Learning Centers) justified?
That such neglect may NOT be justified is suggested by Mike Zeilik's
(2004) PhysLrnR post. Zeilik wrote [bracketed by lines "ZZZZZZZ. . .
.":
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
1. As the world's oldest living astronomy textbook author, I have had over
25 years of frustration with this issue. My current version (9th
edition). . . [Zeilik (2001)]. . . has a reading level
(Flesch-Kincaid) from 7th to 10th grade, depending on the chapter.
When I asked students one semester what they
thought the reading level of the book was (what grade level), over
30% said "junior-year college level" and higher! Only 10% or so said
something like "high school" in response.
2. My book also includes a section on "How to Study Astronomy" written by
Mark Hollabaugh, who teaches at a 2-year school. I have no evidence that it
helps. My feeling is that it is not read or understood if read!
I really don't think that this problem is much worse than, say, 10
years ago. What concerns me more is that the students by and large do
not understand the wonderful (!) illustrations in the book, after
years of work to make them understandable to novices. I have checked
this by lifting diagrams from the book and placing them on tests and
asking questions about them. Terrible results, usually 30% correct!
If anyone finds #3. . .[a pre-test to assess a student's ability to
learn from a science text]. . . , let me know and I will post on the
FLAG . . .[FLAG (2004)].
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Regarding reading comprehension, Joe Redish (1999) wrote:
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
[Physicists] tend to be highly self-sufficient learners. I once heard
David Halliday, author of a famous textbook, remark that what he
enjoyed most as a student was sitting down by himself alone in a
quiet room with a physics text and going one-on-one with the authors
of the book - trying to understand them and figure out what they were
trying to say. Many of us have similar inclinations. Physicists as a
group seem to be selected for being able to learn on their own. But
in examining my personal experiences of this type, I have decided
that my learning on my own involves an ability to create an
"internalized other" - to take a variety of viewpoints and to argue an
intellectual issue with myself. This does not appear to be a commonly
found characteristic and cannot be assumed in a general population of
students.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
IMHO, the crucial question is not [as some responses to Hake (2004)
seemed to assume] "DO students learn by reading texts?" or "DO
students read texts?" but rather:
"To what extent could the general population of students be educated
to learn on their own through reading?"
Despite the near universal neglect of the pioneering work of Louis
Paul Benezet (1935/36), I think that he was on the right track
towards educating students to learn on their own through reading. To
repeat Hake (2004), regarding Benezet's work, Mahajan and Hake (2000)
wrote:
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Students in Manchester, New Hampshire were not subjected to
arithmetic algorithms until grade 6. In earlier grades they read,
invented, and discussed stories and problems; estimated lengths,
heights, and areas; and enjoyed finding and interpreting numbers
relevant to their lives. In grade 6, with 4 months of formal
training, they caught up to the regular students in algorithmic
ability, and were far ahead in general numeracy and in the verbal,
semantic, and problem-solving skills they had practiced for the five
years before." We conjecture that implementation of the "Benezet
Method" in early grades would drastically improve the effectiveness
of high-school and university physics, science, and math instruction.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Unfortunately, K-12 reading instruction, to an even greater extent
than math and science instruction, is handicapped by a vitriolic war
between two opposing camps in the traditional-versus-progressive
debate. For reading it's "phonics" vs "whole language" with no holds
barred. This uncompromising polarization is deplored both by
direct-instruction champion E.D. Hirsch (1996, pp. 66-67 ) and
math-education researcher Alan Schoenfeld (2003, pp. 27-28).
For those who would like to dig deeper, Emily van Zee (2004) wrote:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Some references that might be of interest:
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for learning:
Nurturing children's minds. Malden, MA/ Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993).
Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of
instructional interventions from reading education and science
education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116-155.
Otero, J., León, J. A., & Graesser, A. (Eds.) (2002). The psychology
of science text comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saul, E.W. (Ed.) (2004). Crossing boarders in literacy and science
instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. . Newark, DE:
International Reading Association and Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association.
Thier, M. & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
The Thier book has an appendix with many specific suggestions for
teaching reading in science contexts in pre-college classrooms.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
BTW:
1. In Hake (2004) I quoted Henry Bent (1989): "To free America of
chemistry conniptions, physics floundering, and math anxiety ...[Bent
had in mind the cartoon by Gary Larson included in Hake (1989) that
I had sent to him]"
A POD'er asked me privately where the Larson cartoon might be found.
It's on page 105 of Larson (1988).
2. The discussion above ASSUMES that science texts CAN be written so
to present science correctly. Of course, this has not been achieved
in most K-12 texts [see e.g., Hubisz et al. (2001)] and even in some
undergraduate texts.