Re: What to teach (was: American students do poorly)

[Tim Burgess <tburgess@jaguar1.usouthal.edu>]

Dr. Hake wrote:
> poorly), Tim Burgess writes:
> =20
> =93Our struggle is not with ill prepared students.  The struggle is with =
a
> system that does not recognize the need for widespread science and math
> fluency....=94
> =20
> I agree with the second sentence but not with the first. Over the course

I disagree with myself. To quick to quip correctly? The first sentence is=
=20
the result of the second. To treat the first sentence is to treat a=20
symptom.  I recognize that treating a symptom is better than no treatment=
=20
at all. (We all do struggle with the symptoms). The long term solution is=
=20
to focus on the cause.

Thanks for the additional data. I do not have ready access to the web pages=
..
I certainly credit the researchers who took the care to isolate and compare
as is indicated in your post.=20

It is informative that when controlled for coursework exposure the US
students were not "out of the ball park."  I appreciate the posting and
references.

Tim




> =20
> =20
> REFERENCES
> 1. A.B. Arons, "A Guide To Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley, 1990);
> reprinted with minor updates in Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley,
> 1997), see esp. Chap. 1 =93Underpinnings.=94=20
> =20
> 2. J. Epstein, =93Cognitive Development in an Integrated Mathematics and
> Science Program,=94 Journal of College Science Teaching (JCST), Dec. 1997=
,
> Jan. 1998, p. 194; =93Why Do We Do This,=94 letter to the editor, JCST Ma=
y
> 1996.
> =20
> 3. J. Epstein, =93What Is the Real Level of Our Students, or What Do
> Diagnostic Tests Really Measure?=94 preprint, 1998.=20
> =20
> 4. A.B. Arons,  "Toward wider public understanding of science," Am. J.
> Phys. 41, 769 (1973); Addendum , ibid. 42, 157 (1974); "Uses of the
> Past: Reflections on United States Physics Curriculum Development, 1955
> to 1990," Interchange 24(1&2), 105-128 (1993): =93although substantial
> improvements were achieved in the development of hands-on primary and
> secondary curricula,  their effectiveness was in large part negated by
> logistic problems and DEFICIENCIES IN TEACHER PREPARATION."  (Our CAPS.)=
=20
> =20
> 5. J.I. Goodlad, =93Teachers For Our Nation's Schools =93 (Jossey-Bass,
> 1990) : "Few matters are more important than the quality of the teachers
> in our nation's schools.  Few matters are as neglected..........A
> central thesis of this book is that there is a natural connection
> between good teachers and good schools and that this connection has been
> largely ignored.....IT IS FOLLY TO ASSUME THAT SCHOOLS CAN BE EXEMPLARY
> WHEN THEIR STEWARDS ARE ILL-PREPARED."  (Our CAPS.)
> =20
> 6.  L. C.  McDermott, "A perspective on teacher preparation in physics
> and other sciences:  The need for special science courses for teachers,"
> Am. J. Phys. 58, 734-742 (1990).
> =20
> 7.  K.G. Wilson and B. Daviss, =93Redesigning Education=94 (Henry Holt,
> 1994). See also at <http://www-physics.mps.ohio-state.edu/~kgw/RE.html>.
> =20
> 8. "Shaping the Future:  New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in
> Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology," Advisory Committee
> to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Services, 1996, available
> at <http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/DUE/documents/review/96139/start.htm> or
> as a hard copy by request to <undergrad@NSF.gov>; "Preparing for the
> 21st Century:  The Education Imperative," National Research Council,
> 1997, available at <http://www2.nas.edu/21st>.  =20
> =20
> 9.  R.C. Hilborn, "Guest Comment:  Revitalizing undergraduate physics:
> Who needs it?" Am. J. Phys. 65, 175-177 (1997).
> =20