Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Science curriculum sequence: Grades 6 - 12

Most of this post makes sense, because the things that are generally taught
do little to improve the thinking skills of the students.

However the lack of physics in HS, while it may be noticeable, but is still
irrelevant. A survey of HS physics courses showed that they had little
impact on the ability to perform in college physics. But the presence of a
calculus course was a better indicator of good performance in college
physics.

Now, what would be a good indicator would be the type of course taught. For
example an active engagement course of the type that Hake found to be
superior should be a good indicator of better success in college. But there
is no way of knowing whether this type of course was actually taught.

While a spiral approach may be appropriate, a much better sequence would be
to use the correct engagement strategies and target the student thinking
skills. A good place to start would be to institute "Thinking Science" by
Shayer, Adey, & Yates as a supplement in grades 9,10. This has been shown
to have a large effect on student thinking, and a big positive delayed
effect on standardized testing in Britain. Other things that would have a
positive effect would be to use IPS (Integrated Physical Science) by
Haber-Scheim in 9th grade instead of the standard texts, and to get teachers
trained in the methodology. Or have the 9th grade teachers trained in 9th
grade modeling at AZ State. In addition there are modeling courses for
physics that would be valuable. I am not sure of the status of chemistry
modeling, but that should be available soon.

There are also other alternatives. Training in the Physics by Inquiry
methodology by McDermott could also improve the science teaching. Since
biology and chemistry do not yet have as well developed programs, those
teachers could learn a physics methodology and adapt it.

There has been a push for physics first, but it will be a failure if it is
taught conventionally. Currently physical science includes physics, and the
concepts are simply not learned. Indeed conventional physics HS courses
have a similar dismal result. Hake in an indirect survey found that HS
physics courses only improve conceptual understanding by 0.1 normalized gain
or 10% normalized gain.

The reason why physics was put last is because the concepts put a large
cognitive load on the students, and teachers found that 9th graders did not
really understand them, or have the math preparation that was considered to
be necessary. On the other hand chemistry and especially biology have a
much large load of descriptive concepts which could be easily memorized.
They became the logical candidates to be first. Now biology is including
more difficult concepts such as the Krebs cycle which are completely opaque
to students because they don't understand current flow ...

In sum, the sequence is not as important as how the course is taught, and
whether concepts are properly connected and motivated.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Rextivius wrote:

My district is considering changing the sequence of science
courses in grades 6-12. I am trying to get a survey of
successful curricula including course levels or tracks, pre-
and co-requisites for specific courses, and grade level
sequences. In our high school presently, we only require 3
years of science. Freshmen take physical science; sophomores
take biology; juniors take chemistry. Physics and AP courses
are elective and usually reserved for seniors. I am afraid
this progression of coursework does not permit all interested
students to take advanced science courses. In addition, we are
anticipating Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA)
in the next few years and need to think about aligning with
Pennsylvania standards.

I'm going to ignore the 6,7,8 part of the question and
address only the high-school part of the question.

First of all, as to the sequencing of chemistry relative to
biology relative to physics: it doesn't matter. There is
a lot of yelling and breast-beating on this topic, but it
all adds up to nothing. Think about it: What do the kids
learn in high-school physics that makes any difference to
high-school chemistry, or vice versa? (Maybe if students
were up-to-speed on college-junior-level physics it would
help with high-school chemistry ... but that's not what
we're talking about here.) I've never seen a HS chemistry
text that assumed any knowledge of physics, or vice versa.

As for freshman physical science, it's hard to have a discussion
about that, because the standards for that differ wildly from
place to place.
-- In some places, it's a serious course, where kids are
expected to learn stuff.
-- In other places, it's little more than study-hall, (aka
babysitting the students for an hour). In such cases IMHO
the kids would be better off taking class in pottery or
music or gardening or almost anything instead.

(If you really want to have a discussion of "physical science",
perhaps a few sentences of explanation about the level and
purpose of the present course might help.)

As somebody who's seen a lot of transcripts, I can tell you
that having freshman "physical science" on a HS transcript
means virtually nothing ... it might as well not be there,
because we transcript-readers have no way of knowing what
it represents.

In contrast, the absence of a physics course on the HS
transcript will attract attention ... unfavorable attention.


Returning to the sequencing issue: News flash: 17-year-old
kids are a lot more grown up than 13-year-old kids. So
whatever gets taught later can be taught at a higher level.

Another bulletin from the keen-grasp-of-the-obvious department:
There is a lot of variation from kid to kid.


Combining all these thoughts, one possible plan would be to
have some sort of spiral, such as the following six-semester
sequence:
-- Chemistry A
-- Physics A
-- Biology A
-- Chemistry B
-- Physics B
-- Biology B

... and I repeat that the details of the ordering are not
important.

On top of that, it would make a certain amount of sense (even
if it isn't politically correct) to
a) have some students start that sequence as freshmen, so
they can take AP second-year physics OR chemistry OR biology
as a senior-year elective, and meanwhile
b) have some students who aren't quite as ready take physical
science or basketweaving or whatever in their freshman year,
and start the real science spiral as sophomores, with less
opportunity for senior-year electives.

======================

Also to address a point that may or may not be in bounds: in
a lot of places, the HS _math_ program has been going to the
dogs. Fixing this would be something to be proud of. I am
specifically referring to the trendy tendency to completely
gut high-school geometry. Hint: geometry isn't about finding
the area of a parallelogram. When was the last time bought a
parallelogram-shaped piece of fabric/lumber/whatever and paid
on a per-area basis? HS geometry is about learning to think
logically, and in particular learning to do proofs.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l