If you reply to this long (22 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune 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.
*********************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Re: science education goals and
strategies" [Hake (2009)], Dewey Dykstra (2009) made two comments
that might be erroneously interpreted as implying that I: (1) think
that that "the integrated 'spiral' approach is obviously best for the
students"; and (2) blame pre-college teachers the *severe dearth of
effective pre-college science/math teachers*. Regarding implication
#1, it was Phys-L's John Denker, not I, who claimed that "the
integrated 'spiral' approach is obviously best for the students."
Regarding implication #2, I have never blamed pre-college teachers
but instead have been raising my voice (to deaf ears) for about two
decades against the (in Dewey's words) "profound incompetency of the
preparation programs for pre-college science/math teachers," witness
my:
(a) letters to the editors of "Physics Today" [Hake (1990a) and
"Science" [Hake 1990b)];
(b) letter to Indiana Representatives [Hake (1994)];
(c) articles:
"The General Population's Ignorance of Science Related Societal
Issues: A Challenge for the University" [Hake (2000],
"Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on Science/Math
Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002a)],
"Whence Do We Get the Teachers? (Response to Madison)" [Hake (2002c); and
(d) book chapter "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" [Hake (2008)].
*********************************
In response to my post "Re: science education goals and strategies"
[Hake (2009)] Dewey Dykstra made two possibly misleading comments to
which I shall respond in order below.
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Dewey wrote: "I have clipped some of Richard Hake's note (included
below)... First, it seems to be taken as given that 'the integrated
"spiral' approach is obviously best for the students. That it is
taken as given is disappointing, but not unexpected, from folks
conditioned and selected not to look critically at teaching or the
outcomes of instruction."
My experience has been that few discussion list subscribers bother to
read more than the first few lines of any post [for that reason I
have often devoted the first lines of my posts (including this one)
to ABSTRACTS]. A more careful wording in Dewey's first lines might
have helped to avoid the possible confusion that I am the one who
takes for granted that the "spiral" approach is obviously the best
for the students. The following wording might have been less prone
to misinterpretation:
"Hake (2009) in his post "Re: science education goals and strategies"
has quoted John Denker's (2009), statement 'As several people have
wisely and accurately pointed out, the integrated 'spiral' approach
is obviously best for the students.' That the spiral approach is
taken as given is disappointing, but not unexpected, from folks
conditioned and selected not to look critically at teaching or the
outcomes of instruction. "
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Dewey wrote (EMPHASIS in the original): "The ample evidence shows
that generally NO change in understanding is the result of teaching
physics using the widely touted and defended presentation methods.
Which leads me to my second point. The oft and long repeated lament
over 'THE SEVERE DEARTH OF EFFECTIVE PRE-COLLEGE SCIENCE/MATH
TEACHERS'. . . . Why aren't we raising our voices about the PROFOUND
INCOMPETENCY OF THE PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR PRE-COLLEGE
SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS instead of blaming the pre-college teachers?"
Some will probably erroneously assume from the above that in "Re:
science education goals and strategies" [Hake (2009)] I blame
pre-college teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. What
I wrote was:
" . . 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 . . . . ., 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. . . . . "
Contrary to Dewey's implication, I have been raising my voice against
the "profound incompetency of the preparation programs for
pre-college science/math teachers" for about two decades (to deaf
ears) in, e.g. :
a. "What Went Unsaid at Physics Chairs Meeting" [Hake (1990a)],
wherein I wrote: "physics chairs should address the responsibilities
of their own departments to adequately educate prospective
pre-college teachers ...(who)... are required to raise the
appallingly low level of science literacy among the general
population and thereby increase our chances of solving some of the
monumental political-economic-scientific problems which beset us."
b. "Ph.D. Production" [Hake (1990b)], wherein I wrote: "Atkinson's
complaint [R.C. Atkinson, "Supply and Demand for Scientists and
Engineers: A National Crisis in the Making," Science 248, 425 (1990)]
that "few professors pay much attention to teacher training programs
at their university" should be directed to research universities
which "have established a reward structure that severely penalizes
the few idiosyncratic professors who work to improve undergraduate
education."
c. Letter to the Indiana Representatives [Hake (1994)], wherein I
wrote (see the letter for the references): "As repeatedly emphasized
for over 30 years by physicist Arnold Arons [7] and more recently by
educator John Goodlad [20], and physics Nobel Laureate Kenneth Wilson
[21], the crucial need is for the proper education and professional
development of all teachers over long time periods extending from
their early education on into their professional years. In my
opinion, such bolstering of the teaching profession must at least
proceed in parallel with programs such as 'Goals 2000', the AAAS
'Project 2061: Science for All Americans,' and the National Science
Teachers Association 'Scope, Sequence, and Coordination' (SSC). It
might be thought that the dire need [2-21] to improve the quality of
teacher education and education generally at all levels would finally
become a high priority matter for research universities. Twenty years
ago physicist Fred Reif [22] then at Berkeley, wrote: 'Universities
must be willing to face the challenge, worthy of the role of a
university, of devoting to education the kind of searching thought
commonly bestowed on scientific and engineering fields, and of
promoting the translation of new ideas into practice.' Unfortunately,
research universities throughout the country *have almost totally
ignored this challenge*."
d. "The General Population's Ignorance of Science Related Societal
Issues: A Challenge for the University" [Hake (2000], based on an
earlier libretto with the leitmotiv: "The road to U.S. science
literacy begins with effective university science courses for
pre-college teachers." The opera dramatizes the fact that the failure
of universities *throughout the universe* to properly educate
pre-college teachers is responsible for our failure to observe any
signs of extraterrestrial (and even terrestrial) intelligence.
e. "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on Science/Math
Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002a)] wherein I wrote: "Among important
roadblocks to science/math literacy are, in my opinion, the
following: . . . . . . . . .[the above four roadblocks,]. . .
challenging as they are, will be far easier to overcome than the
fifth and most formidable: THE DEARTH OF EFFECTIVE P-12 SCIENCE/MATH
TEACHERS. . . . . Among steps that might be taken for alleviating the
current shortage of *effective* teachers are . . . . 1. Motivate
universities to discharge their obligations to. . . .adequately
educate prospective K-12 teachers. . . . . . .
f. "Whence Do We Get the Teachers? (Response to Madison)" [Hake(
2002c)], wherein I wrote [bracketed by lines "HHHHHH. . . ."; see
that article for the references; my insert at ". . . . [insert]. . .
."]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
A major problem with the Benezet Method (1935/36), as well as any
other curriculum reform . . . .[e.g., Physics First]. . . , has been
well stated by the late Arnold Arons (2000): "Whence do we get the
teachers with the background, understanding, and security to
implement such. . .(Benezet-type. . . .[or Physics-First-type]. . .
instruction? They will certainly not emerge from the present
production mills. . ." In my opinion, the enhancement of K-12
teaching should be the FIRST priority of education reform (Hake
2001b,c,d). Sherman Stein (1997) hit the nail on the head:
"The first stage in the reform movement should have been to improve
the mathematical knowledge of present and prospective elementary
teachers. Unfortunately, the cart of curriculum reform has been put
before the horse of well-prepared teachers. In fact, not a single
article on the subject of the mathematical preparation of teachers
has appeared in "The Mathematics Teacher" since the second Standards
volume was published. Because the AMS and MAA presumably agree with
those twelve most crucial pages . . .(pages 132-143 of "Professional
Standards for Teaching Mathematics (1991)". . . these organizations
should persuade mathematics departments to implement the
recommendations made there. If all teachers were mathematically well
prepared, I for one would stop worrying about the age-old battle
still raging between "back to basics" and "understanding". On the
other hand, if mathematics departments do nothing to improve school
mathematics, they should stop complaining that incoming freshmen lack
mathematical skills." (Stein's comments apply as well to science
education reform.)
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
g. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" [Hake (2008)], the abstract of
which is: ". . . . I argue that this irrational bias. . . .[against
formative pre/post testing]. . . impedes a much needed enhancement
of student learning in higher education. I then review . . . . . .
HIGHER EDUCATION'S resistance to change and its related FAILURE TO
IMPROVE THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . . ."
BTW:
1. Denker's claim that "the integrated 'spiral' approach is obviously
best for the students," was contested on Phys-L by John M. (Texas)
Clement (2009a,b).
2. The "spiral approach" is not ALL bad. For example, the late
Arnold Arons (1983) wrote [bracketed by lines "AAAAA. . . . ."];
"*.........*" indicates emphasis in the original; my inserts at ". .
. .[insert]. . . .]:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Experience with learning difficulties encountered by students in
introductory science courses suggests the existence of a number of
basic patterns (or processes) of thinking and reasoning which
underlie almost all learning and understanding. It is my conviction
that helping students become explicitly conscious of those patterns,
and giving them *repeated* opportunity to practice and exercise such
modes of thought in successive, *different* contexts of subject
matter, greatly enhances their grasp of concepts and principles as
indicated by gradually improving ability to analyze physical
phenomena and to make predictions in new and altered situations. In
other words, helping students cultivate reasoning processes such as
those to be described in this paper increases their capacity to learn
still more. . . . . . . . .It must be emphasized, however, that
*repetition* is an absolutely essential feature of such instruction -
repetition *not* with the same exercises or in the same context but
in continually altered and enriched context. . . Experience with the
modes of reasoning I will be illustrating must be spread out over
weeks and months and must be returned to in new contexts after the
germination made possible by elapsed time. Starting with only a few
students being successful, each repetition or recycling sees an
additional percentage of the class achieving success, usually a
leveling off somewhat below 100% of the total after approximately
five cycles. . . . [According to Jim Minstrell (private
communication), Arons calls his 5-cycle rule the "rule of hand,"
rather than the "rule of thumb."]. . . . . .(These are empirical
facts which I have observed but for which I have no explanation.)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
For more of the wisdom of Arnold Arons see the AJP rejected :-( "The
Arons Advocated Method" [Hake (2004)].
. . . I know from both experience and research that the teacher is
at the heart of student learning and school improvement by virtue of
being the classroom authority and gatekeeper for change. Thus the
preparation, induction, and career development of teachers remain the
Archimedian lever for both short- and long-term improvement of public
schools."
Larry Cuban. 2003. "Why Is It So Hard To Get Good Schools?"
Teachers College Press.
Benezet, L.P. 1935/36. "The teaching of arithmetic I, II, III: The
story of an experiment," Journal of the National Education
Association 24(8), 241-244 (1935); 24(9), 301-303 (1935); 25(1), 7-8
(1936). The articles were: (a) reprinted in the Humanistic
Mathematics Newsletter #6:2-14 (May 1991); (b) placed on the web
along with other Benezetia at the Benezet Centre; online at
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>. See also
Mahajan & Hake (2000).
Dykstra, D. 2009. "Re: science education goals and strategies,"
PhysLrnR post of 1 Feb 2009 13:04:52-0700, online at
<http://tinyurl.com/d75jf9>. To access the archives of PhysLnR one
needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> and then
clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're
busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous."
Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post
messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Hake, R.R. 1990a. "What Went Unsaid at Physics Chairs Meeting," Phys.
Today 43(2): 158 (1990). Letter to the editor commenting that
"physics chairs should address the responsibilities of their own
departments to adequately educate prospective pre-college teachers
...(who)... are required to raise the appallingly low level of
science literacy among the general population and thereby increase
our chances of solving some of the monumental
political-economic-scientific problems which beset us."
Hake, R.R. 1990b. "Ph.D. Production," Science 249, 611 (1990), letter
to the editor pointing out that Atkinson's complaint [R.C. Atkinson,
"Supply and Demand for Scientists and Engineers: A National Crisis in
the Making," Science 248, 425 (1990)] that "few professors pay much
attention to teacher training programs at their university" should be
directed to research universities which "have established a reward
structure that severely penalizes the few idiosyncratic professors
who work to improve undergraduate education."
Hake, R.R. 1994. Letter to the Indiana Representatives Lee Hamilton,
Frank McCloskey, Tim Roemer, and Legislative Assistant Molly J.
Moran," 9 May, following a visit of 21 April 1994 during the
Washington meeting of the American Physical Society; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Congress1994c.pdf> (16 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2000. "The General Population's Ignorance of Science
Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT
Announcer 30(2): 105; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GuelphSocietyG.pdf> (2.1 MB).
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).
See also Hake (2002b).
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).
Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. "Is it time for a physics counterpart
of the Benezet/Berman math experiment of the 1930's?" Physics
Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education, online at
<http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512202>.