If you reply to this long (10 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
John Denker (2009), in his Phys-L post titled "science education
goals and strategies," wrote [bracketed by lines "DDDDDDDD. . . . .";
my insert at ". . . .[insert]. . . ."]>
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
1) As several people have wisely and accurately pointed out, the
integrated "spiral" approach is obviously best for the students.
Making it happen will be somewhat disruptive, but no more disruptive
than "physics first" or similar proposals that are on the table.
Therefore those proposals are Pareto-inferior . . . . .
[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency>]. . . . . . . and
not deserving of further attention.
2) I would go even further and say that that to my ears, the "physics
first" debate sounds like two people shouting at each other
A: You said 2+2=1
B: You said 2+2=7
A: You're wrong.
B: No, you're wrong.
A: You're totally wrong and I can prove it.
B: No, you're totally wrong and ................
This is literally worse than the proverbial holy war between the
big-endians and the little-endians! That's because when it comes to
eggs, _either_ end will do. But here we have a holy war involving
proposals _neither_ of which will do.
There's more I could say about this, but I forebear. But please
let's not revisit "physics first" anymore. It's an embarrassment to
the entire community.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. In "Physics First Revisited" [Hake (2009)] I
wrote [bracketed by lines "HHHHHH. . . .":
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
". . . my arguments for the support of Physics First are summarized
in the abstract of "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002a)]:
"It is argued that Lederman's 'Physics First' regime, while not an
ideal ramp to science/math literacy for all students . . . . [such as
the "Ken Ford (1989) Ramp" depicted in Fig. 2 of Hake (2002a)]. . .
., 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."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
In my opinion, although Lederman's steep "Physics First" cliff is not
the ideal K-12 "Ford Ramp," the "Physics First (Grade)" of Malone
(2006), or the "presentation of physics early, often, broadly, and
well in the K-12 years" of White (2008), it has the
AAPT(2007)/Lederman(2001)-backed *potential* to enable those goals
by blasting through the major U.S. roadblock to science/math literacy
for all, viz., the dreadful dearth of *effective* pre-college
science/math teachers, as depicted in Fig.3 , page 8 of Hake (2002a),
and as bemoaned (but not meaningfully addressed) by Denker (2009)
himself.
REFERENCES
AAPT. 2007. "AAPT Statement on Physics First," online at
<http://www.aapt.org/Policy/physicsfirst.cfm>: "The Executive Board
of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) recognizes
that teaching physics to students early in their high school
education is an important and useful way to bring physics to a
significantly larger number of students than has been customary. This
approach-which we call 'Physics First'-has the potential to advance
more substantially the AAPT's goal of Physics for All, as well as to
lay the foundation for more advanced high school courses in
chemistry, biology or physics."
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 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/PhysFirst-AJP-6.pdf> (220 kB).
Rejected by the AJP editors on the grounds that it was "just an
opinion." They advised me to cut it way down and submit it as an
"Opinion Piece" but that would have eviscerated the article.
According to Elbert Hubbard
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbert_Hubbard> an editor is a "person
employed on a newspaper. . . [or journal]. . . , whose business it is
to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see to it that the chaff
is printed." [An example of AJP-published chaff is Klein (2007) -
see the cogent response by Atkins (2007). ]
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Physics First: Precursor to Science/Math Literacy
for All?" APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer, 2002; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2002/index.html>. A
severely truncated version of Hake (2002a).
Klein, D. 2007. "School math books, nonsense, and the National
Science Foundation," Am. J. Phys. 75(2): 101-102; online at
<http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/nsf.html>.
Malone, L. 2007. "Water Skiers and SCUBA Divers," APS Forum on
Education Newsletter, Summer, 2007; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2007/malone.html>.
Malone wrote: ". . . .the question of when to teach physics has
stubbornly resisted consensus. For me, however, the answer is
straightforward: physics first. By first, I mean first grade. . . . .
. . .. " " I thank Larry Woolf for alerting me to this insightful
article.