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

For the past 20 years there have been some very compelling arguments for
changing the science teaching sequence in high schools so it starts with
Physics, then Chemistry, and concludes with Biology. Theoretically, this
revised sequence makes a great deal of sense. But is it really practical
for most of the high schools in the country to make this change now?

In a typical high school now there is only one or two Physics/Chemistry
teachers and anywhere from 5 to 20 Biology Teachers. Since not every
high school student will complete three or more years of science, there
is a science enrollment dropout along the way. Customarily, every high
school student starts off with almost all of the freshman or sophomore
students enrolled in Biology. Fewer continue with Chemistry, and still
fewer continue with Physics.

If the current sequence of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics is reversed,
it is likely that there will be too few qualified Physics teachers to
handle all of the new physics classes that are created. At the same time
there will be a surplus of Biology teachers to teach the smaller number
of of students who elect to enroll in the senior year Biology course.
How long will it take for the excessed Biology teachers be retrained so
they can provide exciting physics courses?

To compound the problem, there will be an initial shortage of qualified
teachers who are available to teach physics at the freshman/sophomore
level. Where can we obtain enough qualified Physics teachers to staff all
of the new positions that suddenly open? Inservice courses? Colleges?
Universities? Foreign Countries?

Until the above questions are answered, we shall continue to hear that
some isolated schools or small school districts have managed to reverse
the Biology, Chemistry, Physics Sequence with some success. But what has
to be done .... and how long will it take ....... for a significant
number of the high schools in the USA to do likewise? Five years? Ten
years?? Twenty years???
More than 20 years???? Ever ??????????????????

Herb Gottlieb from New York City
(Where we continue to wait for PRACTICAL solutions
for Physics first from Richard Hake, Jim Watson,
Paul Hewitt, John Wasinski, Sheri Donovan, Majorie Bardeen,
Leon Lederman, Olga Lavinis, and the rest of the country)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:26:48 -0800 Richard Hake <rrhake@EARTHLINK.NET>
writes:
Subscribers to both biology- and physics-education discussion lists
have recently expressed interest in putting "physics first" in
high-school science instruction. For example:

A. In his 3/5/2000 BIOPI-L(1) post "Re: Freshman Physics," John
Wasinski wrote: "Dr. Jim Watson at Ball State University, in my
physics course there, was telling us about this nationwide trend -
the rationale is that Physics is more concrete-- more experiential,
and lends itself to the freshman level. Chemistry would be second,
and Biology last because it is the most abstract and complex (think
of the workings of the human body as an example of this.)
'Conceptual
Physics' by Paul Hewitt is an excellent series if you are
considering
teaching Physics at the freshman level, as is the 'Active Physics'
modules on sports, travel, time, etc. I think this is an exciting
trend and it would be very rewarding to be a ground-breaking teacher
in this area."

B. In her 1/20/2000 Phys-L(2) post "physics first?" Sheri Donovan
wrote: "Our high school is considering the shift to 'physics first.'
This means trying to present a meaningful physics course to freshman
students who have some exposure to algebra, but generally not
geometry, and certainly not trig. If you have any experience with
this approach and have an opinion, or a reference to research,
please
let me know."

Olga Livanis maintains a valuable "Physics First" website at
<http://members.aol.com/physicsfirst/>. She lists references,
implementation strategies, and about 130 high-schools with
(evidently) physics-first or integrated-science programs.

Compelling arguments for "physics first" in the high-school
curriculum have been given by Marjorie Bardeen and Leon Lederman(3):

"We argue that there will never be a better time...[considering the
AAAS Project 2061(4) and the National Science Education
Standards(5)
[ed. note: more recently TIMMS(6)]...... than now to construct a
3-year, coherent integrated science sequence, appropriately blended
with 3 years of mathematics. The objective is to build knowledge of
science and the concurrent use of mathematics, following the
hierarchical nature of science as it has unfolded over the past
century. Today students take biology first, then chemistry, and
some
25% of the survivors go on to physics. The subjects are treated as
completely independent and unrelated, to be learned (and forgotten)
in the sequence taken. This is in spite of eloquent voices in the
literature(7-11), who have in vain called attention to the absurdity
of this sequence ..... A group of scientists and science
educators(12) has organized an informal alliance .....(ARISE).....
to
begin the design of a coherent sequence that we call Science I,
Science II, Science III, as a 3-year curriculum to stand alongside
English, mathematics, and the social sciences ...... In proposing
this model of a coherent integration of the sciences, we are keenly
aware of the difficulties of gaining its widespread acceptance. In
this war on ignorance, our nation does not have a general staff to
set strategy. We, in effect, must convince 15,000 school systems of
the principles, at least, by which our model is guided."

Subscribers to Biopi-L(1) and Phys-L who are inclined towards
"physics first" or integrated science programs might scan the
literature(3-12) and consider discussing this issue with their
principals, superintendents, school boards, and fellow teachers.

BTW, in addition to the resources suggested by Wasinski, high-school
teachers who contemplate teaching physics first might benefit from
an
awareness of refs. 13-19.


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>


REFERENCES (many from ref. 20)

1. Biopi-L is a general biology forum with about 550 subscribers.
The homepage is at <http://www.dsuper.net/~missus/biopi/>, with
archives at <http://listserv.ksu.edu/archives/biopi-l.html>. A
search for "physics first" in the subject slot yields 2 hits, both
in
2/2000. A search for "freshman physics" in the subject slot yields
8
hits on posts devoted to "physics first," all in 3/2000.

2. PHYS-L is a list dedicated to physics and the teaching of physics
with about 650 subscribers, the majority of whom are physics
educators. The homepage is at <http://purcell.phy.nau.edu/phys-l/>,
with archives at <http://mailgate.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>. A
search for "physics first" in the subject slot yields 48 hits; six
in
1/2000, two in 10/99, and forty in 6/96.

3. Marjorie G. Bardeen and Leon M. Lederman, "Coherence in Science
Education,"
Science 1998 July 10; 281, 178-179. See also John A. Moore, Glenn
T.
Seaborg, Leon M. Lederman, and Marjorie G. Bardeen, Science 1998
October 9; 282, 239e.

4. (a) Project 2061 - a long term initiative to reform K-12 science
education nationwide <http://project2061.aaas.org/>;
(b) Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061
<http://project2061.aaas.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.html>;
(c) Blueprints for Reform On-Line
<http://project2061.aaas.org/tools/bluepol/blpframe.html>.

5. National Science Education Standards (Natl. Acad. Press, 1996),
<http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/>.

6. "Global Perspectives for Local Action: Using TIMSS to Improve
U.S. Mathematics and Science Education." (NRC, 1999) See at
<http://www.psrc-online.org/classrooms/classrooms.html>.

7. Uri Haber-Schaim, "High School Physics Should be Taught before
Chemistry
and Biology," The Physics Teacher, 1984, Vol. 22. p. 330.

8. Fred R. Myers, Jr., "A Case for a Better High School Science
Sequence in the
21st Century," The Physics Teacher, February 1987, p. 78.

9. C. R. Nappi, "On Mathematics and Science Education in the US and
Europe,"
Physics Today, May 1990, p. 77.

10. Joseph Palombi, "The Illogic of Teaching Biology Before
Chemistry
and Physics," The Physics Teacher, 1971, Vol. 9, p. 39.

11. Kevin Reel, "Moving to the More Inclusive, Integrated Sequence
for Teaching Science," Science Education, April 1, 1995, p. 31.

12. Project ARISE (American Renaissance in American Education);
information is on the web at
<http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise/arise.html>. See especially the
"Bibliography," "Why Change?", and the suggested "Course Sequence."
Click on "Workshop Whitepaper" to access L.M. Lederman's 72-page pdf
document on ARISE. See also the Lederman Science Center
<http://www-ed.fnal.gov/ed_lsc.html>.

13.. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, "A modeling method
for
high school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606-619 (1995).
See
also at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html>.

14. R.P. Olenick and C.A. Rotter, "Meeting and Setting Standards
with
C3P)," AAPT Announcer 29(4), 84(1999), <http://phys.udallas.edu>.

15. San Diego State: "Constructing Physics Understanding," F.
Goldberg, P. Heller, and S. Bendall, at
<http://cpuproject.sdsu.edu/CPU/>.

16. University of Massachsetts (Amherst): "Minds-On Physics" at
<http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/projects/MindsOnPhysics/default.html>
.

17. NSTA's Scope, Sequence & Coordination Project at
<http://www.psrc-online.org/curriculum/curriculum.html>.

18. University of Northern Iowa, Roy Unruh, PRISMS at
<http://www.prisms.uni.edu/>.

19. See also other listings at the AAPT's Physical Science Resource
Center, <http://www.psrc-online.org/> under "Curriculum"/"High
School
Physical Science"/"Comprehensive Curricula."

20. R.R. Hake, "Research, Development, and Change in Undergraduate
Biology Education: A Web Guide for Non-Biologists (REDCUBE.pdf)"
at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~redcube>. This Adobe Acrobat
portable document file (pdf) gives non-biologists a point of entry
into the vast literature and web resources relevant to research,
development, and change in undergraduate biology education. It
contains 47 biology-educator profiles; 446 references (including 124
relevant to general science-education reform); and 490 hot-linked
URL's on
(a) Biology Associations,
(b) Biology Teacher's Web Sites,
(c) Scientific Societies and Projects (not confined to Biology),
(d) Higher Education,
(e) Cognitive Science and Psychology,
(f) U.S. Government, and
(g) Searches and Directories.
The references and URL's may be generally useful to teachers and
education researchers, and may provide some ideas for hastening
education reform.