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] PSSC +- (c)



Someone else referenced this abstract and there was reply that there could
be a some good studies. But when you look at the abstract, you find that
there was a null result. However there have been some studies by Sadler
that did find factors that matter in college physics. For a while PSSC was
used often enough to be able to do such a study. But in this case, the
wording of the abstract leads one to think it was probably done in England
where students could be tracked more easily.

PSSC may have had beneficial effects, but this particular study did not find
them. Just believing that something has beneficial effects is not evidence.
There is evidence that some curricula work without the teacher understanding
why it works, but the evidence is that a good teacher who does understand
will multiply the effect. Real Time Physics was shown to produce gain, but
less when teacher were not trained in using it correctly.

At the same time PSSC was going, Harvard Project Physics was also a very
good series of books to be used in HS. It also failed, but in this case
because of the cost of acquiring the series.

I never taught from PSSC or had it in class. But from talking to teachers
who actually used it, they considered it to be a disaster.

So by all means embalm the first edition on the web if you wish. But while
many of the instincts used to design it were correct, much of the research
into what you have to do in class followed that edition. The motion
detector experiments of Heather Brasell, and the multiple representation
studies came later. So as a historical reference it is pretty good, and at
least it is accurate compared to many of the things people put on web sites.
But as a text, its classroom merit is unproven. Notice this does not say it
did not produce superior results, just that there is no evidence that I have
seen to show superiority. All of the evidence that I have seen has been
anecdotal, but that is not proof.

MDs may tell you that a particular treatment is unproven. Would you want
them to act on their beliefs, or go by evidence from the existing studies?
An example of this is the use of colored glasses or colored paper to combat
"scotoptic sensitivity". Originally the promoters of this idea said it
would cure dyslexia, and any number of other academic problems. But the
trained psychologists will tell you that it is unproven. The problem is
that the patient knows when the treatment is being used and there can be a
placebo effect. Also most of the studies which showed a positive effect
also had other training for the dyslexic students. One treatment has been
shown to help dyslexia is Orton-Gillingham training. It even can activate
the underused portions of the brain if delivered early enough.

So is there any research evidence that PSSC was beneficial? I suspect its
main benefit was to act as a catalyst. After all at that time science was
much talked about and creating scientists was at a premium, unlike our
current culture which values other professions.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC abstract.
ED041780

This report presents the procedures, results, and conclusions of a study
designed to compare the achievement in beginning college physics of
students
completing PSSC high school physics with students completing a
traditional
high school physics course. Factors of ability and achievement were held
constant while scores on the criterion of marks in beginning college
physics
were compared. Mean achievement in college physics for students with a
background in PSSC physics was not significantly different from that of
students who had traditional physics. However, there were significant
differences in the mean achievement between (1) students who took PSSC
physics and who did not take high school physics, and (2) students who
took
traditional physics and those who did not take high school physics. The
investigator suggests that his findings indicate that chances of success
in
college physics would be improved by taking physics in high school. (LC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the conclusion was that PSSC did not improve achievement in
college
physics. Actually the PSSC textbook is fairly conventional compared to
books like Minds on Physics.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

Aw shucks! This seems to confirm that blue riband instigators, and lofty
ambitions are not enough to allow an didactic work to succeed where it
counts.
Only experimental examinations confirm that promise. And how many PSSC
style initiatives can the World undertake to provide a useful
statistical population?
Reminds me of those other college level blue riband physics books often
mentioned here
which seemed to suffer a similar fate.