If you reply to this long (9 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.
My post "Re: PER Review Article? #2" [Hake (2011) initiated a 10-post
thread on the Dec 2011 Physoc archives at <http://bit.ly/wpj8Na>.
Among the posts was one by Art Hobson (2011) who wrote:
"PER is great so far as it goes, but physics educators also need to
pay attention to scope and sequence. A good place to experiment with
scope is in courses for non-scientists. These can be more flexible
because they needn't satisfy specific pre-requisites. Yet such
courses often plod along in the same pattern as standard professional
courses. We need to try new topics. Physoc supports teaching all
sorts of social topics. Another area is modern/contemporary physics.
We're living in an ideal age for physics education, what with all the
NEW IDEAS AND POSSIBILITIES IN COSMOLOGY, HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS,
QUANTUM PHYSICS, etc. Yet our intro courses focus almost entirely on
Newtonian mechanics and classical E&M."
Priscilla Laws (2011) responded to Art in a Physoc post "In Defense
of PER," writing:
"I agree with the criticism that conventional introductory course
topics leave a lot to be desired. These courses often are
unmotivating for students and usually fail to do a good job with the
societal relevance issues that Art Hobson addresses so admirably.
But, a major reason that intro courses are so conservative regarding
topics covered is that they feel that they are serving the
Engineering Education establishment with calc-based into courses and
the Medical School establishment with algebra-based courses. The PER
community has its greatest pool of students to test on concepts from
the conventional courses."
Yet another reason that PER-inspired courses generally don't feature
Art's favored "new ideas and possibilities in cosmology, high energy
physics, quantum physics, etc." is cogently argued by Bruce Alberts
(2012a) in a recent "Science" editorial "Trivializing Science
Education."
Alberts wrote [my CAPS]:
"I have spent 30 years of my life working out the mechanisms that
allow the DNA in our chromosomes to replicate. The entire DNA story
is a beautiful one that should produce aesthetic enjoyment in the
student when first learned. . . . . . . Unfortunately, MOST STUDENTS
TODAY ARE TAUGHT ABOUT DNA AT SUCH AN EARLY AGE THAT THEY ARE FORCED
TO MERELY MEMORIZE THE FACT THAT 'DNA IS THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH
GENES ARE MADE,' A CHORE THAT BRINGS NO ENJOYMENT OR UNDERSTANDING
WHATSOEVER. Much later, when they do have the background to
understand both the structure of the DNA molecule and its explanatory
power, I fear that the joy of discovery has been eliminated by their
earlier memorization of boring DNA facts. We have spoiled a beautiful
story for them, by teaching it at the wrong time."
Along the same lines the late Arnold Arons (1997, p. 362)) wrote [my CAPS]:
"An essential criterion . . . .[[of education]]. . . is that STUDENTS
MUST NOT END UP REGURGITATING SECONDHAND PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE
NATURE OF PROCESSES OF SCIENCE WITHOUT EVER HAVING ARTICULATED ANY
SUCH INSIGHTS OF THEIR OWN INTELLECTUAL EXPERIENCE WITH SUBJECT
MATTER THEY CAN ENCOMPASS. Without some participation in
comprehension and interpretation of scientific concepts, theories,
and philosophy, students learn no more from secondhand statements
about science than they learn for a commentary on poetry without
having read the poetry, or a discussion of the methods and philosophy
of history if they lack knowledge of the history of anything."
In a sequel "Science" editorial "Teaching Real Science" Alberts (2012b) wrote:
"In this issue of 'Science', we are publishing the first of 15
winning entries. . . .[[Jackson, LAWS, & Franklin (2012)]]. . . for
the 2011 Science Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction. . .
[[<http://bit.ly/AcOrGC>]]. . . . . a laboratory module entitled
"Light, Sight, and Rainbows." Created for introductory college
science courses, each module can be readily used in many different
settings and schools. The winning modules were selected by a jury of
more than 70 scientists and science teachers, and the subjects
include physics, math, chemistry, geology, molecular biology, plant
science, and evolution. Throughout 2012, each will be published as a
two-page printed synopsis supplemented by online material that
contains the details needed to teach it."
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
Academia: <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
27 January 2012.]
Alberts, B. 2012a. "Trivializing Science Education," Science 335
(6066): 263, 20 January, a summary is online s at
<http://bit.ly/wu4O7l>. See also the sequel Alberts (2012b).
Alberts, B. 2012b. "Teaching Real Science," Science 335(6067): 380,
27 January, a summary is online at <http://bit.ly/zETFJD>. Science's
example of "teaching real science" is "An Inquiry-Based Curriculum
for Nonmajors" [Jackson et al. (2012)], a winner of the "Science
Prize for Inquiry-Based Instruction" <http://bit.ly/AcOrGC>.
Arons, A.B. 1997. "Teaching Introductory Physics." Wiley, publisher's
information at <http://bit.ly/jBcyBU>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/bBPfop>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Re: PER Review Article? #2" online on the OPEN! :-)
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/tkmXe0>. Post of 1 Dec 2011
15:54:48-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the
complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and
are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/vtBOtE> with a
provision for comments.
Jackson, D.P., P.W. Laws, & S.V. Franklin. 2012. "An Inquiry-Based
Curriculum for Nonmajors," Science 335(6067): 418-419, 27 January, a
summary is online at <http://bit.ly/xmO4UZ>.
Laws, P. 2011. "In Defense of PER" online on the CLOSED! :-( Physoc
archives at <http://bit.ly/xssAZz>. Post of 6 Dec 2011 18:16:44+0000
to Physoc.