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: AAPT WHITE PAPER #4:improve K-12 TEACHER PREPARATION



I want to make an argument against the "white paper" with respect to the
section which I pasted-in below.

I agree with the spirit of this recommendation, but disagree in
implementation. The overall problem stems from lack of cooperation between
Education Departments and Physics Departments. The "white paper" indeed
acknowledges this, but then makes contradictory recommendations. One
recommendation is that physics teachers should have a baccalaureate degree
in physics plus a degree in education. I say "amen" to that, and this is
what we do here at Bluffton College. The contradictory recommendation is to
say that new courses and new programs should be developed for preparation of
physics teachers. That recommendation goes the other direction.

Here's what will happen. (1) If we want the teachers to have a true BS/BA
in physics, the physics departments won't want to exclude or make
substitutions for traditional physics courses... and rightly so. Any joint
education/physics courses stressing "physics content" are sure to be
"watered down" from the typical majors-level courses. (2) The education
department is not going to want to (maybe legally cannot) reduce or make
substitutions for their education courses. Therefore, any new courses would
be in addition to the already required physics-major courses and required
education courses. This would be okay, but could be such an increase that
the program might not even be possible in 5 years. Hence there will be
pressure to cut courses. If the new courses remain, the cut courses will be
traditional physics-major courses... the graduates will not have a "real"
BS/BA in physics.

Here at Bluffton, where we are partly driven by what we feel is correct, but
also driven by State of Ohio licensing standards. Our physics teachers take
the same physics courses as physics majors... they are legitimate physics
majors. They also take the required teacher-education courses including
several "in-service" experiences, one of which is student teaching. They
also take our full general-education requirement. This means the program
cannot be completed in 4 years (8 semesters). It requires 4.5 years (9
semesters) in which the last semester is partly on-campus (methods
instruction specific to science teaching and taught by a college professor
with high-school physics teaching experience) and partly student teaching.
We simply could not fit the student teaching experience into the 8 semester
sequence because students can't take any other courses the same time as they
student teach... that knocks out a whole semester.

The part I object to the most in the "white papers" is the idea we will
create new courses. I believe our program is very good, but we have not
really created new courses. The physics teachers take our regular physics
courses and our regular education courses. The primary change, which was
mandated by the state, and is a good change, is the supervision of the
student teachers and the "methods course". These must now be taught by a
veteran physics teacher. It used to be that the methods for all education
(English, history, science) could be taught by a history teacher talking
about teaching methods in general. Now that course has to have multiple
sections, one for each teaching discipline, and the teacher has to be a
veteran in the particular subject.

We also have an auxiliary program in safety which all science students
complete over a 4-year period which deals with all types of lab safety. The
teachers take all the normal safety training plus an additional section
dealing with safety in high school labs.

Also, as I have pointed out in other posting, Ohio requires physics teachers
to also be chemistry teachers and vice-versa. This means that our
physics/chemistry teachers often have a triple major... physics, chemistry,
education. It is possible to have a chemistry major but not physics, or
vice-versa. In these cases the student is typically one or two courses
short of the other major. Therefore most students go ahead and finish both
majors.

I think the "white papers" are mostly addressed to larger universities where
physics departments often thumb their noses at physics-educations students
as not "real physics majors." Indeed, these students often are not real
physics majors because they might take most of their "science courses" from
the education department. The solution is not to create new courses. The
solution is to make physics teachers take the traditional physics major,
plus take education courses on top of that, and one or two of the education
courses are specifically aimed at physics or physics/chemistry teaching
methods.



Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817


(2) AAPT should work to develop new college courses and programs for the
preparation of future teachers K-18.
(A) Teacher preparation courses should address content, methods, on-the-job
training and observations in real classrooms. Instruction should be
appropriate to the level of students who will be taught. Serious
consideration should be given to providing a thorough understanding of the
intellectual development of the student at each level, and appropriate
hands-on activities should be designed. (Swartz, 1967, 1990, 1991) (Jossem,
2000)
(B) The physics department and the science education department should work
together to design these courses, with the assistance of experienced
classroom teachers. (PhysTec, 2000)
(C) Colleges should be encouraged to design a 5-year degree program,
offering a B.S. in science or physics and a B.S. Ed. in science education.
There are numerous colleges in America which already do this, and their
graduates are far better prepared when they enter the classroom. Most
foreign countries require a degree in the discipline before aprospective
teacher is allowed to enter the teaching profession. (Stevenson & Stigler,
1992) (AAPT USA/Japan/China conference reports)