[Phys-L] Re: Partners in Innovation: Teaching Assistants in College Courses

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

The problem with teaching just memorization courses is that they do not
develop the needed thinking skills for later physics courses.  A much better
solution is to train teachers to teach "simple" science which emphasizes
thinking skills.   In other words they need to teach using a learning cycle
approach.  They also need to be given curriculum materials which can be used
in such an approach.  There are studies that show that giving even
inexperienced teachers the correct materials yields better results than
short term inservices of a couple of days.  Even experienced teachers could
not get concepts across with no materials and several days of inservices.
The optimum solution would be to have extended inservices of 4 weeks with
all necessary materials supplied.

This would require paying teachers extra to take the inservices during the
summer.  Such pay may need to be high enough to compete with summer job
wages, but also not take away the entire summer vacation.

The idea of eliminating physics is fairly good if the other choice is to
teach it badly.  But students need to have tasks that emphasize proportional
reasoning, two variable reasoning, control of variables reasoning...  In
other words thinking skills need to be emphasized.  Lawson has done this
with biology courses and shown dramatic improvement.  In the middle schools
Shayer & Adey's program could be used by displacing about 10% of the science
curriculum to accommodate their tasks.  All of this requires the will to do
it & the money to buy the inservice training.

The ability to handle this type of thinking does not increase automatically
in students just because they are older.  It requires exposure to the
necessary experiences mediated by good teachers, parents, or other mentors.
Without this the potential pool of physics ready students will not increase,
and may tend to shrink.  The shrinkage may be because in former times people
did more things themselves and learned elements of measurement through life
experiences.  Even home economics and shop exposed students to proportional
reasoning.  Now these subjects are mainly gone from the curriculum.
Farmboys learned these things on the farm, but that supply is fairly slim
now.  Remember Einstein learned a lot in his family's factory.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> So instead of turning kids off to physics by having the coach (or someone
> who has an ed degree but never took a lab-based physics course) teach the
> course, why not simply eliminate physics from the primary and secondary
> curriculum. I don't see any possible good coming from forcing kids who are
> not ready for linear reasoning sit through these courses. Let them take
> "sciences" that are basically memorization - like biology or astronomy -
> instead. Physics is a waste of time for most people until they enter
> college. Perhaps an AP course in high school for the exceptional few that
> are ready for it might be acceptable.
>
> Bob at PC
>
> I would say the Dick Hake hit the nail on the head.  Notice that the same
> problem runs throughout the education system.  The HS teachers and
> elementary school teacher have very inadequate training in using
> interactive
> engagement.  And many of them actually have inadequate preparation in
> understanding science.  It is no wonder that interest in science and
> especially physics decreases with longer education.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l