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: Physics First

It seems that the basis for any of these integrated approaches or the
introduction of a physical science in the freshman year is that
meaningful science cannot be learned until a student is well into his
high school years. Under this premise, most students would leave high
school having a most meagre, albeit diverse, exposure to the sciences.
Does this reasoning assume that most students are incapable of learning
the standard topics at a reasonably difficult (or thorough) level or
that the middle school program has no impact on the preparation of
students entering the upper school? My experience negates the latter. I
can present students with a fairly complete presentation and
understanding of the topics of physical science. Again, I feel, it gets
back to the quality of education. Being developmentally prepared is only
a minor facet and applies to only a small fraction of the student body.
Ibelieve this is why there is a rush to take kids out of the public
school and either home school or private school them. And,
consequently, the upper school is left with a program that must begin at
square one.

With regard to a integrated approach, the presentation in many of the
standard courses are offering sections that apply certain concepts to
other areas, like a study of the eye in optics. It seems to me, that any
credible study of a subject, like lenses, would leave very little room
for other areas to be included. And, if they are, might not the study of
lenses become some endless study, killing student interest in the
process? A teacher who in enthusiastic about is subject, is a dynamic
force in the classroom, and who is picking up where other equally
qualified teachers have left off will succeed in teaching the least
average of students a meaningful and long-lasting quantity of science.




Teach integrated science to the non-college bound track. Maybe we will
end up with greater scientific literacy among this group...albeit at a
less quantitative level than we might wish.

For the college bound, how about a two-year integrated program in
freshman and sophomore years followed by "traditional" electives for
upperclasses. The first two years could be taught by generalists but
there would continue to be a place for those of us who were taught as
specialists. We might find the students thus prepared more ready for
our courses. I know I have been impressed with exchange students who
come out of a somewhat similar background in European schools.

But, back to Emilio, the basic question should perhaps be, "What is
(should be) the goal of high school science education?"

Dave


* St. John's Jesuit High School *
* David A. Simmons 5901 Airport Highway *
* <smtc45@uoft02.utoledo.edu> Toledo OH 43615 *


----------
TK McCarthy, PhD Email:mcca6300@spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov