Mention has been made of the European system, which has been described as a
"spiral approach." Some people might also call this an integrated approach,
although there can be a spiral approach that is not integrated.
Anyway, I would maintain that we are supposed to be doing this, and we
generally say we have been doing this for quite some time. Science is
supposed to be part of the curriculum from kindergarten all the way through
high school. Students are supposed to see some physics each year with each
successive year building on the former. One problem is that the early
science teachers (not really science teachers) have concentrated too hard on
reading, writing, and arithmetic. They teach very little science and
totally neglect physics. They know almost zero physics themselves; they
never took a physics course... period. So students have never had a true
spiral approach to physics even though the curriculum says they should.
I know elementary school teachers who are supposed to be teaching science,
but actually admit they just leave it out. They do this because they don't
know science. But they rationalize their actions by saying, "my students
are having trouble reading and writing so I have to spend more time on that
because it is more important." I also know teachers who say they are
teaching some science, but it amounts to collecting insects and leaves and
recording the temperature each day.
We are trying to change this, but it is taking time and considerable effort.
In Ohio the new licensing procedure requires that science teachers in grades
4 through 9 must have had a science concentration in college. At Bluffton
College our teacher-education students headed for grades 4-9 science have to
take a year of physics, a year of biology, one semester of chemistry, one
semester of astronomy, and one semester of earth science. The have to pass
these courses with a C or higher. Each course has lab. When these students
become teachers they should be capable of teaching the curriculum properly.
However, these college students are complaining heavily. They can't believe
they need to take this much science in college when they only intend to
teach in grades 4 through 9. Complaints have been so strong that I am
afraid the state might back down. If we can maintain this requirement, and
if the pre-service teachers indeed learn some degree of
freshman-sophomore--level college science, then they ought to be able to
teach some science beyond collecting insects and leaves.
* * * * Slight change of topic * * * *
My problem with continuing an integrated or spiral approach beyond the ninth
grade is I think at some point you have to study just physics or just
chemistry or just biology so you can see breadth and depth of the field in a
systematic approach. This also helps fill in holes that easily develop with
an integrated or spiral approach. I do not think this should be put off
until college. If it is put off until college, I don't see how we can get
students through college in four years. I have a hard time covering
"general physics" in one year even though 9 out of 10 of my students have
had a traditional physics course in high school. If they did not have a
traditional physics course in high school I can't imagine that I would be
able to keep my present pace.
Some have remarked that European students coming to US colleges have
considerable holes in their science preparation. I have noticed this. But
this is not always true, and the better European students often went through
a system similar to ours. That is, not all European schools take a true
spiral or integrated approach throughout "high school." Many do it like we
do... they have a spiral approach in the lower grades (like I described
above) then they have a focused study for one or two semesters on specific
topics such as physics or chemistry or biology. These students do not have
as many holes as those who were integrated all along.
I take considerable time talking to my foreign students. I do this mostly
because I enjoy it, and it helps them feel more at home here. But I also
learn about their country and their educational system. I have concluded
that any superiority that might exist in the science education in foreign
countries is primarily in the earlier grades, not in the later grades.
Indeed, in the later grades the science tends to turn to an
applied/technical approach preparing the students for vocations.
Currently I have a student from St. Petersburg, Russia. He is a good
student, but his training is very engineering/vocational and he has a lot of
theoretical/fundamental holes. He can design an audio amplifier, but he is
actually weak on many aspects of fundamental electricity.
In any event, I have had a fair number of foreign students in my college
physics classes. If they are better prepared, it is only slightly. I also
have to remark that foreign students typically have very little traditional
lab experience. Any advantage they might have in lecture material is
quickly wiped away by extremely poor lab knowledge and poor ability to
handle data.
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