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: Why Physics First?



Please excuse this cross-posting in the interest of inter-group
synergy to discussion lists with archives at:

Phys-L <http://lists.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>,
PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,
Physhare <http://lists.psu.edu/archives/physhare.html>,
AP-Physics <http://lyris.ets.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ap-physics>.

In his Physhare post of 9 Oct 2002 23:01:18-0700 titled "Re; Why
Physics First," Donald Simanek wrote:

"I suspect the answer to this problem (Is it a problem? Is there an
answer?) lies in a common-sense approach."

Judging from the remainder of Donald's post it's possible (Donald -
please correct me if I'm wrong) that his ambiguous "this problem" is
the problem of providing early-grade education in science.

Donald offers this "common sense" suggestion:

"Probably most teachers of high school science courses, biology,
chemistry, earth science, physics, would agree that student
preparation is inadequate for what they want to teach. Let them get
together and agree what prior skills and understanding are lacking.
Then find a way to include these earlier."

But how can they "find a way to include these earlier" when most
early-grade teachers are science/math illiterates, thanks in part to
the failure of:

a) universities to discharge their obligations to adequately educate
prospective K-12 teachers, and

(b) society to treat K-12 teachers like valued professionals by
drastically upgrading their salaries, prestige, and working
conditions?

History suggests that educators who suggest or attempt so-called
"common-sense" approaches rarely have any long-term impact on
educational practice. A case in point is the now largely forgotten
work of the great Louis Paul Benezet (1935/36), superintendent of
schools in Manchester, N.H. in the 1930's. Quoting from the abstract
to Mahajan & Hake (2000), under his guidance:

"students in Manchester, New Hampshire were not subjected to
arithmetic algorithms until grade 6. In earlier grades they read,
invented, and discussed stories and problems; estimated lengths,
heights, and areas; and enjoyed finding and interpreting numbers
relevant to their lives. In grade 6, with 4 months of formal
training, they caught up to the regular students in algorithmic
ability, and were far ahead in general numeracy and in the verbal,
semantic, and problem-solving skills they had practiced for the five
years before."

As a related example, it's common sense that there should be a RAMP
to increasing understanding of science that starts in the very early
grades (Ford 1989; Haskell 2001a.b; Hake 2002a,b,c - especially the
cartoons in Figs. 1 & 2 of Hake (2002b). But Ford's (1989) wise words
dropped like a pebble into a wilderness lake to create evanescent
waves that affected no one.

The ninth-grade Lederman physics cliff of "Physics First" does NOT
provide such a common-sense ramp, but I urge its support nevertheless
because the severe problems in its implementation may finally awaken
people to the drastic social need to upgrade the education, salary,
prestige, and working conditions of K-12 teachers.

IMHO, those would be necessary conditions for realization of the
learning ramp advocated by the carefully crafted long-term AAAS
Project 2061 <http://www.project2061.org/>.

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


REFERENCES
Benezet, L. P. 1935/36. "The Teaching of Arithmetic I, II, III: The
Story of an Experiment, " Humanistic Mathematics Newsletter #6, May
1991, pp. 2-14 (reprinted from The Journal of the National Education
Association, Nov. 1935, Dec. 1935, Jan. 1936); on the web
<http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet>. See also Mahajan and
Hake (2000).

Ford, K.W. 1989. "Guest Comment: Is physics difficult?" Am J. Phys.
57(10), 871-872 (1989).

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Physics First: Precursor to Science/Math Literacy
for All?" Summer 2002 issue of the American Physical Society's "Forum
on Education Newsletter" <http://www.aps.org/units/fed/index.html> /
"Forum Newsletters" where "/" means "click on."; also online as ref.
19 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" Submitted to the American Journal of
Physics on 27 June 2002; online as ref. 20 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.

Hake, R.R. 2002c. "Re: Why Physics First?",
Phys-L/PhysLrnR/Physhare/AP-Physics post of 9 Oct 2002 15:46:47-0700;
online at
<http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0210&L=physhare&O=D&P=10518>.

Haskell, H. 2001a. "Re: Physics for Ninth Graders?" Phys-L post of 25
Sep 2001 20:51:32-0400; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=phys-l&P=R36757>.

Haskell, H. 2001b. "Re: Physics for Ninth Graders?" Phys-L post of 26
Sep 2001 13:42:40 -0400; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=phys-l&P=R38101>.

Mahajan, S. & Hake R.R. 2000. "Is It Time for a Science Counterpart
of the Benezet-Berman Mathematics Teaching 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>.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.