I did not intend for my last post to contain either invective or sarcasm.
I do find it interesting that the learned college professor who so
labeled my post did not have his cyber sensibilities aroused when his
collegiate colleagues were offering post after post claiming high school
physics education to be ineffectual and inappropriate. However, when
someone dares to elucidate the obvious about the university environment
feathers are ruffled and we are chastened to maintain a less invective
tone.
If we want to truly change physics education then we must understand that
this change has to be systemic, not just a topical application of another
panacea.
The top priority for a university today is to survive. Like any
organism, preservation is a strong and pervasive force at the
foundation of the organization. In order to survive, ways to maximize
revenue rate of return is paramount. This leads to the current condition
where students are herded into large lecture halls. I hear in person and
read in the pages of The Physics Teacher over and over that given the
"necessity" of large lecture groups the application of strategies like
modeling, activities based learning, socratic dialog and other innovative
and IMHO better methods of instruction are not possible. The need to
maximize roi is the number one driver of behavior within any competitive
organization.
This need also leads to the erosion of admissions requirements and
matriculation requirements. While listening to the laments of how poorly
prepared today's high school graduates are when entering college when
compared to N years ago (pick your own large integer for N) I can only
point to the obvious question. Why did you allow these people to
enroll? N years ago these individuals did not have either the
motivation, work ethic or ability to do college level work. Nothing has
changed except now we allow....neee encourage these individuals to
continue their education in college. More revenue, more tuition payers,
better roi.
If we are to change the state of physics teaching in the high schools
then one of the necessary (but not sufficient) areas where such change
has to take place is in the way we train these teachers in college and in
our requirements for certification. I know that certification is a very
touchy area as many of our best teachers did not have a "strong"
background in physics. The common element in all of their anecdotes
however is that they worked hard to learn while on the job and became
better teacher who still strive to improve. Many indicated that their
preparation was not the "best". Perhaps we should demand that
certification require the "best" preparation. The difficulty is that
this conflicts with the business need for return on an investment. Many
"teachers" colleges would have to add calculus based courses and expand
the variety of physics courses which they offer. A hands on lab based
optics course, a history of physics course, a course in effective
communication geared to science teaching etc etc. These would be low
enrollment, high contact hour courses which by definition involves less
return on investment.
If we continue to teach physics via rote lecture and uncoordinated lab
activities by professors who rotate the "burden of teaching" (this is a
quote from one of my profs in college) so that they can minimize the
impact of this classroom responsibility on their research interests then
we will only reap what we sow. We will continue to turn out teachers who
have no model of teaching except the one in which they were taught. If
they stick with it long enough (and have the interest and passion to
become better at teaching) then they will eventually discover a better way.
(standing now on two soapboxes it is getting a little wobbly)
IMHO we stand at the crossroads. The preponderence of of evidence indicates
that there is an ensemble of strategies, tools and curricula innovations
which points to a more effective way of teaching this thing we call
physics. We see hotbeds of activity centered around activities based
learning which relies on guided experiential exposure to phenomena,
building with integrated labs, an occasional large group presentation and
resulting in measurable improvements in student learning while other
institutions eschew the need for such labor intensive, high contact hour,
equipment using costly modes of instruction. Our students can come away with
some life long appreciations, some respect for the discipline and beauty of
physics, some tools in their own toolkit which will serve them well in
whatever discipline they choose and yes they will perhaps even develop a
more sophisticated understanding of the universe and a more skeptical
approach to problems which confront them.
Legba stands before us offering us the easy path in return
for the souls of our students. We can blame the structure of the school...
the scheduling, the "requirement" to have large lecture groups.
We can rationalize the purpose of the university to skew it towards
research, leaving the students in their traditional second class citizen
role. We can whine about the need to have an roi. We can transfer the
criticism to those who taught the students before us. Complain loudly
about students who have a high school physics experience but still can't
do "X" (all the while knowing that if the students who leave their
classrooms were asked about "X" one year later whoever did the asking
could continue the series of complaints. All are wonderful
self serving rationalizations on the parts of those who practice them.
I am running out of breath so I am standing down from the soapbox now.
Bruce Esser
Physics Teacher Something witty
Marian High School Should go here
Omaha NE http://marian.creighton.edu