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] curriculum reform -- revolutionary, or not



Greetings, I think it is about time that I put in my two cents (plus) worth on the PSSC physics debate. Rather than write it all out here, may I suggest that you go to my website listed below. Select the welcome column, select Site Creator and Manager, then select How PSSC Physics Shaped My Teaching.

You'll find thoughts on why it was successful, why many teachers did not find if successful, and why it finally was no longer useful for the students of the day.

I was able to develop a self paced PSSC program that I use for 15 years. If you go to the More column you'll find this program listed in its entirety.

On the site under the column Honors Physics you will find the course that followed my PSSC era.

My article was written for the 50th anniversary celebration of PSSC at Cornell in I believe 2006.

Enjoy and

Have a Great Day

Dick

Website rheckathorn.weebly.com



On Aug 27, 2015, at 5:09 PM, John Clement <clement@hal-pc.org> wrote:

There is no evidence that PSSC worked better than other textbooks. However
there is actually no solid evidence for any other approaches from that time
period. The current revolutionary approaches do have evidence. From
conversations with teachers who used PSSC and more recent curricula, they
thought that it was too difficult and did not really work that much better.

As to revolutionary approaches students really do not like them either
because they have been brought up with expectations that science courses are
theology taught by rote with practice problems and verification labs.
Teachers have to be trained to do good pedagogy and they have also been
trained in traditional methods so neither want to do revolutionary things.
It took me years to change what I do and to integrate the research into my
classes. Most teachers find change on their own too difficult and
frightening.

The problem with selling textbooks is that neither teachers nor districts
want truly revolutionary texts. The conventional texts promote conventional
teaching and learning so having them in a research based course can kill
some of the learning.

But, since most students never open the books, you can just teach without
them, even if they are mandated. Give students problems that are not in the
book and disguise the source so they can't buy the solutions.

I have encountered strong objections from students, parents and the
administration when I used the revolutionary series "Minds on Physics". I
did my best to convince students that it was a real textbook. It had the
readings in the back with sequenced activities in the front. They wanted a
"real" book even if they never opened it. The MOP book was a must because
they had to do the activities out of the book. Then the DI insisted I
change the book at a new textbook adoption cycle. She was not competent to
understand any of what I do, being an elementary teacher, librarian, and
then director of instruction. At that level, new books just have the same
things as old books, so why change when you have a really good book.

From my very personal, extensive experience, revolutionary researced
pedagogy is resented. The only case where I could totally get away with it
was in computer science. Neither admin, students, or parents really
understood what the course is about. With no prior experience, unlike
science, I could freely set it up as an almost lecture free inquiry class.
Of course I also put in a final fun project which involved making a picture
of their choosing with extra points for animation. Actually I have also done
well in community college with doing Modeling in the intro courses because
the students have transitioned to college with expectations that teaching
might be different. The engineers, however, are more resistant that the
regular students. They "know" courses are supposed to be mainly lecture.
Students in exclusive expensive private schools are are also more resistant.

Actually in CS I used the course to raise their thinking while still hitting
some of the curriculum. 99% of the students would never be a pro in the
field so helping them to learn how to solve problems on their own was the
actual goal. Most of the students ended up in CS because they couldn't get
into the other courses which were oriented around using computer tools or
using canned programs for fancy graphics. I know at least one did become a
professional and he complimented me by coming into CS class and saying "Oh,
it is 7th period and now I have to start thinking agina". He explained he
only did thinking in my first period physics class and my seventh period CS
class.

Teacher training in pedagogy such as Modeling is the key to changing
teaching. This requires $$$. Giving teachers stipends for weeks of summer
training would help swell the ranks of well trained teachers. Inservices
are useless as shown by research, not to mention a waste of time
masquerading as good training to satisfy requirements. Modeling is
spreading, but not as fast as it should. Summer institutes which train
hadfuls of teachers are just a drop in the bucket. There is momentum in the
AAPT, but most teachers/professors do not belong to it. The evidence from
research is that what the teachers do is important, not their "style", but
change is scay and hard.

I don't think there is any research which shows that putting a revolutionary
textbook into a conventional class has any effect at all. But there is
plenty of research that shows that research based teaching works well even
with a conventional text. There is research which shows that "Real Time
Labs" work even when the instructor doesn't understand the pedagogy and is
just told to do them with the students.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



On 08/27/2015 08:22 AM, David Marx wrote:

However, a textbook author would find it difficult to get many
adoptions of his/her book because the majority of teachers will
continue to do what they have always done.


From the point of view of the students, and of the physics
itself, PSSC was probably the best textbook ever written.
However, it did not succeed in the marketplace, and any
would-be reformer would be well advised to figure out why.
I don't claim to fully understand it, but I reckon a big part
of the problem was that the book asked too much of the
teachers. It was too revolutionary. (Students are perfectly
content with revolutionary approaches, and indeed have no
idea what's revolutionary and what's not.)

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l