Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

["Rick Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

I would offer an additional concern--certainly becoming one in times of 
tight budgets and serious staffing limitations.  Just who should be 
responsible for the preparation of elementary (science) teachers.  Is it the 
science departments with more (in depth) content knowledge or the education 
departments with more (in depth) methodology knowledge or is science 
education so unique that we need science education departments.  In simple 
staffing terms, should university level science faculty (physicists, 
chemists, biologists) be responsible for the elementary teacher preparation 
in science.  Fully responsible, partly responsible, or leave it to the 
education departments.  This becomes a critical question when it becomes 
difficult or impossible to cover all the traditional courses (science 
majors, engineering majors, pre-meds, general education students) with the 
available faculty.  Put another way--should the science departments be 
hiring faculty (with the proper background in educational theory, child 
psychology, classroom management, AND the science itself) to teach courses 
specifically for education majors (especially el-ed) or should the education 
departments be hiring such people.  Of course, the other question is, where 
do such people come from?  One answer there might be from PER (Physics 
Education Research) programs, but I have questions about that.

PER--is this really a sustainable (even desirable) sub-area in graduate 
physics programs.  Is PHYSICS educational research unique enough from 
SCIENCE educational research and from EDUCATION research to be sustained as 
a separate entity.  When does specialization become too specialized.  Should 
there be programs in Physics Educational Research, Chemistry Educational 
Research, Biology Education Research, Psychology Educational Research, 
History Educational Research, etc.?  I don't know..but it seems too 
extensive, too specialized at first glance when you list out all disciplines 
and ask if each is unique enough to support separate programs.  PER may have 
led the way, but perhaps it is time to fold PER into something more 
general--Science Educational Research for example--or even fold it back into 
general Educational Research.  Again, just a question.

Rick

***************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
******************************
Free Physics Software
PC & Mac
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
*******************************


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@bluffton.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited


> R. McDermott said his daughter is not finding it easy to become employed
> as a K-6 science teacher.  Current administrators and teachers at those
> levels seem to be stuck on strong math and English but not science.
>
> Exactly.  That's what I'm talking about.  Our physical science battle is
> not at the ninth-grade level.  The battle is already lost by then.  This
> is going to be a difficult thing to change.  The math and English
> programs already have all the momentum, and they will fight any
> intrusion of science if time spent on science comes at the expense of
> time spent on math and English.
>
> This is indeed a chicken and egg problem because this attitude will not
> change unless we get teachers and administrators into the schools who
> see science on par with math and English.  Yet how do we hatch these
> science-conscious teachers and administrators in the first place, and
> then how do we get them into the schools, when the eggs are being laid
> by a non-science-conscious educational system?
>
> Those of us at the college level can try to assure our
> science-teacher-preparation programs retain strong content knowledge and
> strong lab experience (if we currently have it), or that we implement
> strong content knowledge and strong lab experience (if we currently
> don't have it).  This is a difficult battle.  Your are up against
> education departments that don't want the intrusion, and you are up
> against an administration that does not want to see enrollments drop
> because the curriculum is perceived as too demanding.
>
> Those of you at the high-school level can notice students who really do
> like science, and may want teach, to pursue a career in elementary
> teaching or middle-school teaching with specialization in science.  You
> may find this difficult because you might be more proud to see your good
> science students go on to careers in medicine or research etc.  Don't
> succumb to that.  Becoming a well prepared and dedicated teacher is one
> of the loftiest goals a person can pursue.
>
> Also, take any opportunity you can to encourage your school system to
> hire teachers who really do have a good preparation in science, and
> really do seem to like science... especially physical science and not
> just biology.
>
> Also, take any opportunity you can to help existing elementary and
> middle-school teachers realize they need to teach physical science, they
> need to teach it well, and yes they can do it and you will help them.
>
>
>
> Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
> Professor of Chemistry and Physics
> Bluffton University
> Bluffton, OH 45817
> (419)-358-3270
> edmiston@bluffton.edu
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l