Re: [Phys-l] Research/suggestions on dividing soph (hs) physical science course into basic/advanced sections?

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

This is a fairly sensible recommendation, but if done conventionally, it
will have minimal success.  The truth is that 75% of HS seniors do not have
proportional reasoning ability, among other thinking skills.  The ability to
do 2 variable reasoning is also low and statistical reasoning is essentially
nonexistant.  Shayer & Adey have shown that it is possible to raise thinking
within a standard physical science course by adding Thinking Science (TS)
modules.  They did it in middle school, but HS or even college is not too
late.  As to just growing up, higher level thinking does not click in
automatically.

There are windows of opportunity to improve higher level thinking, but they
happen at specific ages.  Some major windows are around first grade, age 10,
age 18, and age 26.  The one at age 10 is important for developing things
like proportional reasoning, but the rapid brain development does not make
it click in automatically.  Children have to have the necessary experiences
to make it click in.  We do not know why it seems to be automatic for some
children, but it is very likely that family experience combined with
schooling are the prods that help it click in.  Just time does not improve
thinking without the necessary experiences to promote it.  Notice that
college starts at age 18 and this is probably because of the brain
development at that age which makes college possible.  The various school
transitions are based on the observed changes in thinking that appear to
happen at these windows.

Computer skills are good things to have, but they don't inprove the ability
to do formal reasoning (propositional logic).  The studies using the PLT
(propositional logic test) show that college courses in computer programming
do not significantly improve that type of reasoning.

There is another possibility and that is Feuerstein IE.  When students test
low in reasoning ability, this program can be used to improve it.  But it is
designed as a pull out program and is taught only by trained instructors.
This program when instituted in an Israeli boarding school improved IQ
scores tremendously, compared to a control group that got an equal time
conventional enrichment course.  So any course designed as a physical
science improvement course would probably achieve minimal gains.  But one
which included TS modeules would probably do very well.  The only problem
with TS is that it can not be pushed together into a single year, and it is
not a course, but a series of cognitive enhancement activities which are
"set aside" from the regular curriculum.  They also require teacher
training, but teachers who have trained and understand PER based material
could probably implement TS without the training.  They also have to be
spaced approximately one every 2 weeks for a total of around 30 activities.
But they do not replace the curriculum.

Another possible alternative is to teach the physical science using PER
techniques, but infuse it with TS modules.  Modeling when combined with
emphasis on thinking ability does improve the thinking of college students
according to my data.  But you have to emphasize thinking from day one, and
actively point out examples of thinking.

All of this is probably too late for the meeting, but it may be helpful
after the courses have been outlined.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> Let me mention that there is an Option C, namely to offer distinct
> classes to teach the needed background in math, reading, computer
> skills, et cetera.  These preparatory classes don't pretend to be 
> physical science and don't substitute for physical science, but 
> rather feed students into the regular physics course a year later. 
> Some students need another year of preparation.  Some students just 
> need another year of growing up.