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: #6: WOMEN'S WAYS OF KNOWING (final excerpt!)



Mark,

Dewey,

In response to your first message I would make the following
comments and observations:

(1) One only has to do a quick search on the words
"constructivist" and "constructivism" in Alta Vista to see the extent that
"constructivist" thought has dominated curriculum design and development
in the U.S.

While I can imagine that these two words appear often in the search, I
would question whether most of the actual new developments are in fact
consistent with the fundamental principle as described by the Matthews
article you cited before. Furthermore, as we all know, actual curriculum
change for a majority of the students and teachers is _very_ slow if at
all. We can both cite more evidence than not to illustrate that the
curriculum change movements that have occurred in this century have made
little change in how things are taught. So while I would agree that there
has been a lot of noise involving the words, I would not agree that actual
teaching/learning in the schools has changed very much at all and certainly
not in any way consistent with the fundamental difference suggested by
constructivism.


(2) In some of the countries where the participation of women in
math, science and engineering is high, the primary and secondary school
systems are rigidly controlled from a central authority, and teaching
hasn't changed a whole lot over the years.

But, it has been different than in the US, which is the point I was getting
at. On the other hand, when there is central authority sometimes change
actually occurs as opposed to a system where everyone is essentially left
to their own devices. I'm not arguing either is better, but I am arguing
that what goes on in a course in other countries can be very different than
in ours. I think that a large part of the difference might be explained by
the notion that people are treated differently as students and as fellow
professionals. Obviously, if it really is the case that the ratios are
different female to male among the students and the professionals in
physics in other countries, it is worth looking for reasons which might
explain this.

(3) My argument regarding schools of education is an attempt to
understand why the "game is lost" in K-12. I would agree with you that
most (not all) of the prospective K-12 teachers who enter college come in
with poor attitudes about math and science. My experience has been that
the faculty in our majors that do most of the "training" of K-12 and
particularly K-8 teachers (here at Fullerton it "Child Development", which
now serves as an avatar for the old "Education" major (now illegal in
California), do a really good job of confirming and extending the
anti-math, anti-science attitudes of the prospective teachers. We do
produce some secondary school science teachers who have quite positive
attitudes towards math and science. The problem is that most of the real
damage, in my opinion, is done before students even get to high school.

I agree whole heartedly with you on this. The students have well-formed,
confirmed opinions and the faculty they experience in college by-and-large
do little to change this (mainly because they don't even try.)

I tend to disagree with your characterization of the motivation
for the "filtering" that takes place in the lower grades. I doubt that
many K-8 teachers approach science and math teaching with the idea that
they need to filter out all but the best students. Instead, they push the
notion that the only students who NEED to know math and science are those
who are going on to careers in these fields, and that the only people who
would ever consider such careers are 'brainy nerds". The filtering takes
place, in my view, because only the strongest, most highly motivated
students who know that they will need math and science (because they want
to be an engineer or a doctor) persist in a system of education that does
its best to devalue achievement.

I wasn't saying the motivation on the part of the K-8 teachers is so much
'intent to filter', but that the effect of the process _can be described_
as such. I agree that the teachers do not intend the negative side of
filtering, but the effect on society and ultimately the profession of
science is still there. I think the distinction here (motivation or intent
vs. the effect of the process) is crucial if we are going to dissect it
(science/physics education as-it-is) and build something better
(science/physics education as-it-could-be).

While we might object to characterizing ourselves in such a negative light
as filtering and vocational training, I refer the readers of the list to
the editorial in _Physics Today_ last year (I believe) which suggested that
we are looking for as the Marines say "a few good men" and a discussion on
this list a few years ago in which some correspondents decided something to
the effect that "Wimps don't play football and dummies don't do physics."
As I recall while the latter was not univerally agreed with in the
discussion, it had its share of very vociferous supporters. I think there
are many opinions expressed in the hallways of high schools and Physics
Departments by physics instructors which sound to me more like elitism,
exclusivity and filtering than anything else. I'd say that while there are
individual exceptions, it is easier to make the case that as a profession
when it comes to physics teaching we embrace elitism, exclusivity and
filtering in our practices and attitudes than not. I don't like this as I
doubt you do either Mark, but it explains much of what I see in the
majority practice of physics teaching.

Not a pleasant note on which to terminate... but, most of us have come to
relish a challenge. This is one I plan to spend some interesting times on
in the future.

Thanks for your comments.

Dewey

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938.
"Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct
of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence."
--E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958.
"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++