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]

Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited



I think that the most valuable consequence of this posting would be for Steven to enlighten us on the measure he has used to determine
that you now acn "better relate information to your students."
Also, I sincerely hope that Steve is not implying that the purpose of teaching - especially in physics - is to "relate information."
Regards,
Jack

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Bailey, Steven wrote:

I would submit that Schools of Education similar to Schools of Business perform several valuable functions:
1. Research successful schools (high scores on standardized tests? High schools on FCI's?) and again examine for strengths and weaknesses.
3. Research techniques for higher levels of retention of knowledge and determine the curriculum that best presents that technique
4. Research techniques for teaching that will be measurable more successful for a variety of student modalities.
5. Train teachers in methods that will best reach the widest group.
6. How to deal with various knowledge levels at the same time ... etc etc.

I personally have found my pedagogical courses to be extremely helpful to me

in recognizing how to better relate information to my students. Although I consider myself to be reasonably well qualified in content (degrees in math and physics and advanced degrees in engineering) I have learned much about the pedagogical nature related to teaching from my education courses such as data organization and presentation, styles of presentation, group work and group dynamics, lesson plan development, dealing with low ability readers, etc and I generally find it a hoot to see what works and what doesn't.


What is particularly important at the lower grades is how best to teach students to read and to introduce computational skills. Therefore I would want a teacher in K-5 to be very strong in methods classes with a degree in education. One who knows what students can reasonably understand at those levels. And very well versed in child development. He or she doesn't need an advanced math degree (fine it they have one but methods are much more important). I'd be a fish out of water in those classes. As the courses become more abstract in nature and as students mature then content will obviously be a larger factor.

However, I am skeptical when someone says there is no effective method of teaching. That's like saying there are no effective leadership methods. However one method may not work with all groups. So as a teacher I have to adapt (poorly at times but I try). I can always remember teachers where I produced the most and the least. Certainly there are methods that can be applied to become more effective. However implicit within Jack's email is a rightful skepticism with methods that claim to be "the cure for all." Certainly I'm willing to try something new and if it works great and I put it in my arsenal. After all as I tell my students "if you keep doing what you always do then you get what you always get." But the same applies to the teacher; that's what I have to remember.

There is one area within education where I believe that teachers lose creditability, this is in the area of authenticity. Regardless of what method of teaching you use if you are not authentic the students pick up on it. If you only do group work because the department head says too and aren't really engaged then the students will know this and not perform as well. If you are not authentic (or at least appear authentic) when directing an activity in class then the students will know.

And like Jack, I agree with Mike too.

Regards to all.

Steve Bailey
The Gunnery
Science Chair

"All right, the enemy is on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of

us, they're behind us...we will hold" (Chester Puller USMC)




-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:49 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

Hi all-
This is a fine example of the tyranny of labels.
Because there is a department called "Education" in your school,
and people who call themselves "Teachers of Education", we are to assume
that these people can tell us how to teach effectively.
I submit that there is no evidence that such an assumption is
justified. I submit, in fact, that there is no credible evidence that
effective teaching is more or less than an art form. One of the difficulties,
of course, is that there seems to be no objective way, at present, to
identify effective teaching when it occurs - if ever.
Maybe the concept should be replaced by a concept of "effective
learning". That would, at least, put the shoe on the foot for which it
was designed. (I don't want to discuss such pseudo-scientific devices as
FCI's, which are self-reported measures taken under uncontrolled
conditions and may simply amount to self-promotion by frustrated would-be
teachers).

Other than that, I agree mith Mike. We are all responsible.
Regards,
Jack

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Edmist
on, Mike wrote:

Rick Tarara asked who is responsible for the preparation of elementary
science teachers.

The answer is easy... We all are responsible.

The implementation is more difficult. It's pretty easy for the
scientists to accuse the education department of stressing pedagogy over
content. Indeed, what good is impeccable pedagogy if you don't know
what you're talking about? At the same time, the education folks accuse
the science department of stressing content over pedagogy. Indeed, what
good is content knowledge if you are unable to teach it effectively?

This is why we have to work together. I'm not sure Rick believes that
either we (scientists) or they (education faculty) should find
professors who can do it all, but he sort of implies that when he
suggests either education departments hire science specialists, or
science departments hire education specialists.

Why stop there? Let's hire "renaissance people" who are good at
everything, then divide the entering freshman class amongst these
"do-it-all" teachers and let the students stick with a single teacher
for the next four years as if they were in an apprenticeship.

Actually that's not a bad idea, but we know it's not going to happen for
a myriad of reasons.

My area of expertise is physical science. I'm not an expert on pedagogy
or educational research, but I can work with the education folks if we
can avoid fighting with each other. I did not complete an English major
in college, but I can correct grammar and spelling on lab reports, and I
can engage in dialogue with the English faculty about why my students
write so poorly. I did not major in math, but I can correct my
students' math errors, and I can engage in dialogue with the math
faculty about why they are teaching the way they are, and whether we can
collectively improve the curriculum. I did not major in history, but I
can bring the history of science into my teaching, and I can even talk
to the students about the other things going on in the world during the
time period that Newton was doing his thing. I can discuss these things
with the history profs.

Of course I have a significant advantage of being in a small institution
where I daily drink coffee or have lunch with professors from other
disciplines. Even so, the struggle with the education professors over
the science content for elementary and middle-school teachers was
difficult. Turf battles are always difficult, especially in hard
economic times. But once we get the dialogue going, there is the
possibility of agreeing that they can trust me to teach the appropriate
science and I can trust them to teach the appropriate pedagogy. We just
have to keep talking.


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


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley