2. The outrageous length (64 K) of this post. (Please don't hesitate
to DELETE.) If you wish to respond, please DON'T HIT THE REPLY BUTTON
AND THEREBY INFLICT THIS POST YET AGAIN ON LIST SUBSCRIBERS.
The Lederman (1999, 2000, 2001) locomotive "Physics First" appears to
be picking up steam: e.g., two sessions on "Physics First" at the
January 2002 AAPT meeting in Philadelphia; recent pro-physics-first
editorials by AAPT leaders (Chiaverina 2002, Khoury 2001, Hubisz
2001); a Physics First website (Livanis 2000); and a resurgence of
"physics first" posts (21 so far this month) on PHYSHARE.
But does K-12 education need "Physics First," or "Physics For All,"
or "AP Physics"? Leaving aside the beleaguered AP Physics (Lichten
2000, 2001; NRC 2002; Hoff 2002.), I agree with Hubisz (2001) that
both "Physics First" and "Physics For All" are desirable. But
considering the appallingly low level of science literacy among the
general population (Hake 2000a), and society's need to solve the
monumental science-intensive problems (economic, social, political,
and environmental) that beset it, I would rate "Physics For All" as
being by far the more important.
In an earlier post (Hake 2001) of September 2001, I quoted the cogent
arguments of Hugh Haskell (2001a; see also 2001b,c) and Ken Ford
(1989) for "Physics for All," STARTING IN THE VERY EARLY GRADES. But
a survey of posts in the archives with "physics first" in the "Search
for" slot, and Sept 2001 in the "Since" slot:
suggests that the forceful logic of Haskell & Ford made little
impression on list subscribers.
Here's yet another try to get the Haskell/Ford message across:
I. Haskell (2001a) wrote:
HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL
I have been saying for years. . .(see e.g., Haskell 2001c). . . that
physics can be taught earlier than the 12th grade, and it should be.
BUT JUST DUMPING INTO THE NINTH GRADE ISN'T THE SOLUTION EITHER. . .
. It isn't that we have to "dumb down" physics so that it can be
taught as a terminal course to ninth graders; WE NEED TO TEACH THE
EARLY CONCEPTS TO KIDS STARTING AS EARLY AS THEY CAN BE EXPECTED TO
GRASP THEM. . . . They need to start learning to ask the question
"How do we know that?" . . .(Arons 1983). . . and they need to start
learning some of the vocabulary of science. They can also start
learning how to draw a graph, and how to collect things--how to
choose what fits into a desired category, how to decide on
categories, in other words, how to look systematically at the world.
. . . In this way, we can expect that the students will be able to do
certain things when they get to the ninth grade, and even more by the
time they get to the twelfth grade. BUT WE HAVE PUT THEM ON A RAMP TO
UNDERSTANDING AND NOT A CLIFF. KEEPING THE CLIFF BUT JUST MAKING IT
LOWER BECAUSE THE KIDS ARE STARTING IN THE NINTH GRADE IS NO
IMPROVEMENT. . . . it involves much more than just reversing the
order of presentation.. . . IT INVOLVES A MAJOR RETHINKING OF THE
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE PRE-HIGH SCHOOL YEARS. (My
CAPS.)
HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL-HASKELL
II. Ken Ford (1989) wrote:
FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD
". . . . Physics is difficult in the same way that all serious
intellectual effort is difficult. Solid understanding of English
literature, or economics, or history, or music, or biology - or
physics - does not come without hard work. But we typically act on
the assumption (and argue to our principals and deans) that ours is a
discipline that only a few are capable of comprehending. The
priesthood syndrome that flows from this assumption is, regrettably,
seductive . . . . . If physics is not more difficult than other
disciplines, why does everyone think that it is? To answer
indirectly, let me turn again to English. Six-year-olds write English
and (to pick a skilled physicist writer) Jeremy Bernstein writes
English. What separates them? A long, gradual incline of increased
ability, understanding, and practice. Some few people, illiterates,
do not start up the hill. Most people climb some distance. A few
climb as far as Bernstein. FOR PHYSICS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE
FASHIONED A CLIFF. THERE IS NO GRADUAL RAMP, ONLY A NEAR-VERTICAL
ASCENT TO ITS HIGH PLATEAU. When the cliff is encountered for the
first time by. . .(a 14-). . . 16- or 17-year olds, it is small
wonder that only a few have courage (and the skill) to climb it.
There is no good reason for this difference of
intellectual topography. FIRST-GRADERS COULD BE TAUGHT SOME PHYSICS .
. .(Hammer 1999). . . , SECOND-GRADERS A LITTLE MORE, AND
THIRD-GRADERS STILL MORE. Then for the. . .(ninth-). . . , eleventh-
or twelfth-grader, a physics course would be a manageable step
upward. Some might choose to take it, some not, but few would be
barred by lack of 'talent' or background." (My CAPS.)
FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD-FORD
The Haskell/Ford arguments are in consonance with:
A. Table II of Mahajan and Hake (2000): "A possible physics
curriculum." [Inspired by the pioneering but virtually forgotten work
of Louis Paul Benezet (1935/36)].
B. Table III of Mahajan and Hake (2000)": "Possible topics for K-12
suggested by Cliff Swartz (1993).
C. The "National Science Education Standards" (NRC 1996).
D. The "Benchmarks of Science Literacy" (AAAS 1993).
E. The "Revolutions in the Goals and Methods of K-12 Science Education"
(Lopez & Schultz 2001).
BUT WAIT! POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS ON THE ROAD TO "PHYSICS FOR ALL" :-( :
1. High-stakes state-mandated tests of reading and mathematics. Will
these crowd out K-8 science education? [See, e.g., Heller (2002).]
2. State Science Standards that are antithetic to the National
Science Standards (NRC 1996) and the AAAS (1993) "Benchmarks for
Science Literacy." An outstanding example is the California standards
(Feder 1998).
3. A dearth of effective K-12 science teachers. Where will the
teachers come from? Arnold Arons (2000), wrote: "This . . .
(consideration of implementing the Benezet (1935/36) method, but the
same considerations apply to "Physics for All"). . . brings us back
to the same old problem: Whence do get the teachers with the
background, understanding, and security to implement such
instruction? They will certainly not emerge from the present
production mills."
Attempts to overcome roadblocks "1" and "2" will probably require
considerable grass roots political effort. Regarding "1", Heller
(2002) writes: "In many places, SCIENCE TEACHING WILL ONLY SURVIVE IN
THE SCHOOLS IF THERE IS AN EFFORT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AND TEACHERS
STRESSING ITS IMPORTANCE FOR CHILDREN. The language of Congress in
both the authorization law and the committee report accompanying the
appropriation law can give weight to those efforts. IT WILL CLEARLY
HELP IF UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE GROUPS IN COLLABORATION WITH SCHOOL
DISTRICTS DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR SCIENCE
TEACHERS THAT ALSO HELP INCREASE MATH AND READING TEST SCORES." (My
CAPS.)
Roadblock "3" is extremely challenging. IMHO, among steps for
alleviating the current shortage of effective K-12 physics/science
teachers are:
a. Support the research, development, and operation of programs to
enhance the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of IN-SERVICE
K-12 physics teachers. For a hot-linked list of 25 such programs see
Hake (2000b).
b. Promote the research and development of effective curricula for
PRE-SERVICE K-12 teachers (Physical Science Resource Center 2002).
Examples are the "CPU Project," "Physics by Inquiry," "Powerful Ideas
in Physical Science," "Science Helper K-8 CD-ROM," and "Workshop
Physical Science."
c. Motivate research universities to discharge their obligation to
adequately educate prospective K-12 teachers (Hake 2002, Lesson 12h;
2000a,b) and to think of education in terms of student learning
rather than the delivery of instruction (Barr & Tagg 1995; Duderstadt
2000, 2001).
d. Form collaborations of physics departments with Schools of
Education to better educate prospective teachers and mentor new
teachers, as in the recently funded PhysTEC (Physics Teacher
Education Coalition) Project
<http://positron.aps.org/educ/undergrad/main-phystec.html>,
<http://www.phystec.org/>, and Stein (2001).
e. Treat K-12 teachers like the valued professionals they are by
DRASTICALLY upgrading their working conditions (Jones 2001) and
salaries (Heller 2001). Heller suggests that teachers be paid at
least the same as mechanical engineers. Other concrete proposals to
substantially increase salaries of K-12 teachers have been given by
Don Langenberg (1999), the Hart-Rudman Commission (2001b), and
Vladimir Putin [see Daniszewski (2001)] (but NOT George Bush). For a
review of the Heller, Langenberg, and Hart-Rudman proposals see
Lesson #12i of Hake (2002).
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
catastrophe." H.G. Wells
REFERENCES
AAAS. 1993. American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Benchmarks for Science Literacy - Project 2061,"
(Oxford Univ. Press, 1993); see at <http://project2061.aaas.org/>.
Arons, A.B. 1990. (a) "A Guide To Introductory Physics Teaching"
(Wiley, 1990); reprinted with minor updates in (b) "Teaching
Introductory Physics" (Wiley, 1997) [also contains "Homework and Test
Questions for Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley, 1994) along with
a new monograph "Introduction to Classical Conservation Laws"].
Arons, A.B. 2000. Private communication, 30 June 2000.
Barr, R.B. & J. Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning - a new
paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, Nov./Dec.:13-25;
reprinted in D. Dezure, "Learning from Change: Landmarks in Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education from 'Change Magazine' 1969-1999."
American Association for Higher Education.
Benezet, L.P. 1935-1936. The teaching of arithmetic I, II, III: The
story of an experiment, Journal of the National Education Association
24(8), 241-244 (1935); 24(9), 301-303 (1935); 25(1), 7-8 (1936). The
articles were (a) reprinted in the Humanistic Mathematics Newsletter
#6: 2-14 (May 1991); (b) placed on the web along with other Benezetia
at the Benezet Centre; online as ref. 6 at
<http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>. See also Mahajan &
Hake (2000).
Chiaverina, C. 2002. "Physics First: Some Personal Observations,"
AAPT Announcer 32(1): 4.
Daniszewski, J. 2001. "Putin Gives Teachers a Big Boost: Celebrating
nation's back-to-school day, the president pledges to double the
amount of the average instructor's pay," Los Angeles Times, 2
September 2001, page A3.
Feder, T. 1998. "California's Science Standards Slammed for Demanding
Too Much, Too Early," Physics Today, November, 1998, p. 54.
Ford, K.W. 1989. "Guest Comment: Is physics difficult?" Am J. Phys.
57(10), 871-872 (1989).
Hake, R.R. 2000a. "The General Population's Ignorance of Science
Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT
Announcer 30(2): 105 (2000); online as ref. 11 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
[GuelphSocietyG.pdf, 8/22/00, 2100K] (62 References). It is argued
(with tongue only partially in cheek) that the failure of
universities THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE to properly educate pre-college
teachers is responsible for our failure to observe any signs of
extraterrestrial intelligence.
Hake, R.R. 2000b. "Is it Finally Time to Implement Curriculum S?"
AAPT Announcer 30(4), 103; online as ref. 13 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> [CurriculumS.pdf., 3/15/01,
1200K] (400 references & footnotes, 390 hot-linked URL's). This
paper concerns improving the education of undergraduate physics
majors by instituting a "Curriculum S" for "Synthesis." But because
that's a small part of a much larger educational problem in the U.S.
there's a lot of material on the reform of P-16 education generally
(P = preschool).
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108
countries. Volume 5, issue 2
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol5/iss2/index.html> contains a
special feature on "Interactive Science Education."
Hart-Rudman Commission. 2001a. [United States Commission on National
Security/21st Century] "Road map for national security: Imperative
for change, Phase III Report"; online at <http://www.nssg.gov/>.
Hart-Rudman Commission. 2001b. "Journeys through the teacher
pipeline: Recapitalizing American education, Partial cost estimates
for road map for national security"; online at
<http://www.nssg.gov/addedumpage.htm>.
Heller, K.J. 2002. "No Child Left Behind? Teaching Science and the
Department of Education Budget - Good Intentions, Political
Realities, Unintended Consequences." APS Forum on Education
Newsletter, Spring; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/spring2002/index.html>
Khoury, B. 2001. "Physics First, Physics for All, Physics for the
Best," AAPT Annnouncer 31(4): 6.
Langenberg, D.N. 2000. "Rising to the challenge. Thinking K-16"
4(1):19; online as "Honor in the Boxcar"; online at
<http://www.edtrust.org/main/reports.asp>.
Lederman, L.M. 1999. "A science way of thinking." Education Week, 16
June; 1999 <http://www.edweek.org/ew/1999/40leder.h18>: "A
21st-century person must be armed with a science overview to be able
to adapt to these extraordinary events, to be employed by or
otherwise profit from the new industries that will emerge, and to
participate in the decisions that society must make as to the pace
and direction of this revolution. We must also be aware of the darker
sides of technology. One, most relevant to our concerns, is the
inequitable distribution of the benefits of technology that increases
the gap between rich and poor. Equal access to knowledge would seem
to be essential to address this problem. The key is clearly in how we
adapt our educational system to this unsettling new world: nuclear
tests, tobacco, DNA, AIDS, global warming, population, genetically
engineered foods, gene testing, gene therapy, creationism, pollution,
energy, education, Internet, Microsoft. Where will the wisdom emerge
that will sort out the emotional from the rational? Is there a future
for democratic consensus, or must we surrender to 'experts' to steer
the ship of state away from the shoals of disaster toward the calm
waters of health and prosperity? Again, the key is education. The
goals of education in democratic societies must be responsive. . .
Lest our sermon be misunderstood, the changing nature of our society
increases the need for our students to absorb some of the wisdom of
the humanities and the experiences and lessons of the social
sciences. The school reform we are proposing will serve to lower the
barriers between physics, chemistry, and biology and seek the
unifying strands. But we dream also of doing the same for the
separations between the sciences, the arts and humanities, and the
social sciences. The more science we know, the more feasible the
dream appears. Why is this important? If we are successful and our
students/citizens have comfortable access to the knowledge base and
to the processes whereby this base is expanded, that still would
leave us seriously incomplete. The schools also must address the
social and cultural adjustments that the millennium epoch requires.
Our students must understand what it means to live in a democratic
society. 'Wisdom,' a wise man said, 'makes itself manifest in the
application of knowledge to human needs.' "
Lederman, L.M. 2000. "Project Arise," online at
<http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise/>: "More students need more science!
How about a three-year program where learning science is something
ALL students do, not something that is done to them? Where ALL
students:
(a) develop scientific knowledge and habits of mind through inquiry?
(b) need opportunities for an in-depth engagement in science?
Let's turn the course sequence upside down. Making it hang together
from one year to the next will educate a student who is more
comfortable with science, technology and the science way of thinking."
Lichten, W. 2000. "Whither Advanced Placement," Education Policy
Archives 8(29); online at <http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n29.html>:
"This is a review of the Advanced Placement (AP) Program. In
disagreement with claims of the College Board, there is firm evidence
that the average test performance level has dropped. The College
Board's scale and claims for AP qualification disagree seriously with
college standards. A majority of tests taken do not qualify. It
appears that 'advanced placement' is coming closer to 'placement.'
This article recommends that the College Board's policy of
concentrating on numbers of participants should be changed to an
emphasis on student performance and program quality."
Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. Is it time for a physics
counterpart of the Benezet/Berman math experiment of the 1930's?
Physics Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education; online
as ref. 6 at <http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>.
NRC. 2002. National Research Council, "Learning and Understanding:
Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High
Schools," National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074401/html/>.
Physical Science Resource Center. 2002. American Association of
Physics Teachers. Online at <http://www.psrc-online.org/> /
"Curriculum" / "College-University Physical Science" / "Pre-service
Teacher Education" where "/" means "click on the following text."