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 Content (refocus) PART 1



A recent post of which PART 1 is below was rejected by both Phys-L
and Physhare because it exceeded the 300-line limit. I am therefore
transmitting it in two parts.

Please excuse this cross-posting in the interest of physics
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 Phys-L post of 11 Oct 2002 19:15:30-0500, titled "Re: Physics
First Content (refocus)," John (Texas) Clement wrote:

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. "At the middle school and 9th grade level I would in physics at
minimum attack the ideas of position, velocity, acceleration, and . .
.(Newton's). . . laws. However, this should only be done using 1
dimensional examples. I would look for gain in the FCI/FMCE tests.
A very suitable program is available using. . .(Clement & Camp
1994). . . ."

My quarter-century of university effort (for a bibliography of online
references see the URL's below my signature) to help prospective
elementary-school teachers, pre-meds & health professionals, budding
scientists, future physicists, and even non-physical-science
professors (Tobias & Hake 1990) understand the conceptually difficult
and counter-intuitive laws of Newton suggest that it will not be easy
(even using only 1-dimensional examples) to facilitate the crossover
of 9th grade students to the Newtonian World (Hake 1987).

I am unaware of any 9th-grade normalized gain data on the FCI/FMCE. .
.[Force Concept Inventory or Force Motion Concept Evaluation - see
e.g. Hake (2002) for references]. . . tests, but such information
would certainly be of great interest to both physics-education
researchers and cognitive scientists. IMHO, it would take a lot more
than just use of Clement & Camp (1994), a book intended for
high-school students, to bring 9th grade students to an understanding
of Newtonian's Laws.

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. "In chemistry I would attack the idea of molecules, and suitable
material is. . . . (Haber-Schaim et al. 1999). . . This book is the
only book
considered acceptable for middle school by the Hubisz report."

Two clarifications seem to be required:
(a) Haber-Schaim et al. (1999), although praised by Hubisz in an
interview with Raloff (2001) and favorably commented upon by Hubisz
et al. (2001), was NOT among the 12 popular middle-school textbooks
formally evaluated by the Hubisz committee. This omission occurred
because, according to Hubisz (as quoted in Raloff), ". . . it was NOT
AMONG THE TOP DOZEN SELLERS. . .(so). . . DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT."
According to Hubisz et al. (2001): "The . . . (David and Lucille
Packard). . . Foundation that funded the Hubisz review had an
interest in determining if there might be a link between the quality
of textbooks used, the general public's scientific literacy, and
students' poor performance on the TIMMS tests." Evidently for that
reason the Hubisz committee did not formally review low-selling books
such as Haber-Schaim et al. (1999).

(b) If one wishes to mention low-selling middle-school texts that
were favorably commented upon by Hubisz et al. but not formally
reviewed, s(he) should, in fairness, mention not only Haber-Schaim et
al. (1999), but also the texts preceded by "**" in the REFERENCES
BELOW.

Raloff (2001) wrote:

RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF
Common to the origin of many of these. . .(newer science education
programs). . . is funding from the NSF. Explains Janice Earle, a
senior program director . . .(at NSF) . . . qualifying projects must
now exhibit "a coherent content . . . aligned with national
standards," foster critical thinking and problem solving, and be
grounded in research on how children learn. Moreover, NSF recommends
that any new curriculum be developed by teams of practicing
scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, along with classroom
teachers. "I would be surprised if most textbooks were developed
like that," Earle says.

They aren't. One exception, however, is "Introductory Physical
Science," notes Uri Haber-Schaim, one of this textbook's authors.
Launched in 1967, the book briefly became a top selection for eighth-
and ninth-grade classrooms. Developed with NSF funding, the book was
initially issued by a big publisher, but sales dropped when newer
texts entered the field. In the early 1990s, the company decided not
to publish further editions but permitted Haber-Schaim to pick up
rights to the book. His firm, "Science Curriculum Inc." of Belmont,
Mass., now produces it. Unlike other science texts for early
adolescents, Haber-Schaim says, "we very thoroughly field-tested our
experiments in classrooms over a period of 2 years. We even
field-tested every homework question. . . ."

(Among extollers). . . of the book is John L. Hubisz . . . He would
have liked to include the book in his recent review of science texts.
. .
(Hubisz et al. 2001) "because it would have allowed us to say
something really positive. But since it was not among the top dozen
sellers, it didn't make the cut."
RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF-RALOFF

In the closing paragraph of their report Hubisz et al. (2001) write:
"Our two year search, unfortunately, has led us to say that THE
AVAILABLE TEXT BOOKS ARE NOT THE TOOLS THAT WILL EFFECT A CHANGE IN
THE WAY PHYSICAL SCIENCE IS TAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS OF THE
UNITED STATES." Since Haber-Schaim et al. (1999) IS available, Hubisz
et al. seem to imply that its use will not "effect a change in the
way physical science is taught in the middle schools of the United
States." Perhaps Hubisz et al. should have written something like:
"Our two year search, unfortunately, has led us to say that the
available POPULAR text books are not the tools that will effect a
change in the way physical science is taught in the middle schools of
the United States."

I think the David and Lucile Packard Foundation might perform a
useful public service by funding reviews designed to uncover decent
K-12 textbooks. Fortunately some WERE found in the Packard sponsored
review of high-school texts by Swartz et al. (2000), e.g., PSSC
Physics by Haber-Schaim et al.


33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. "In addition I would consider using the base Thinking Science
modules 1-12 which help the students acquire conservation and
proportional reasoning."

"Thinking Science" probably refers to Adey, Shayer, & Yates (2001).
Regarding texts designed to improve critical thinking, John might
also have mentioned Lochhead (2000), Whimbey & Lochhead (1999), and
Whimbey, Lochhead, & Potter (1999).

For copiously referenced and hot-linked suggestions on science
education in the early grades see Mahajan & Hake (2000). Tables 2, 3,
and 4 show, respectively, possible physics curricula based on Louis
Paul Benezet's (1935/36) mathematics program, suggestions by Cliff
Swartz (1964, 1969, 1993), and the physical science portion of the
National Science Education standards (NRC 1996).


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

See PART 2






<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>

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