Epstein, J. 1997-98. "Cognitive development in an integrated
mathematics and science program." J. of College Science Teaching
12/97 & 1/98:194-201.
Epstein, J. 1999. "What is the real level of our students?" unpublished.
Ford, K.W. 1989. "Guest Comment: Is physics difficult?" Am J. Phys.
57(10), 871-872: ". . . . 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 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 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.) For cartoon versions of
Lederman's 9th grade physics cliff and Ford's K-12 science/math ramp
see Hake (2002b).
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Whence Do We Get the Teachers (Response to
Madison)". PKAL Roundtable on the Future: "Assessment in the Service
of Student Learning, Duke University, March 1-3; updated on 6/17/02;
online as ref. 16 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/>. Contains cartoon versions of
Lederman's 9th grade physics cliff and Ford's K-12 science/math
ramp.See also Hake (2002c).
Hake, R.R. 2002e. "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.
Katz, V.J. & A. Tucker. 2003. "Preparing Mathematicians to Educate
Teachers (PMET)," Focus, March, to appear; online at
<http://www.maa.org/pmet/focus.html>: ". . .the Glenn Report (2000)
concluded that 'the most powerful instrument for change, and
therefore the place to begin, lies at the very core of education -
with teaching itself.' "
Kilpatrick, J., J. Swafford, and B. Findell, eds. 2001. "Adding It
Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics." National Academy Press,
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9822.html>: " 'Adding it All
Up' explores how students in pre-K through 8th grade learn
mathematics and recommends how teaching, curricula, and teacher
education should change to improve mathematics learning during these
critical years."
Krantz, V.J. & A. Tucker, 2003 "Preparing Mathematicians to Educate
Teachers (PMET)," Focus, March, to appear; online at
<http://www.maa.org/pmet/focus.html>: "The Glenn Report made only a
few straightforward points, but it made them urgently and
insistently. In particular, the report concluded that 'the most
powerful instrument for change, and therefore the place to begin,
lies at the very core of education - with teaching itself.' "
Lederman, L.M. 2000b. "A Plan, A Strategy for K-12," in NAP (2000),
pp. 7- 11: "We hear that after the new sequence is installed,
increases take place in fourth-year science electives, enrollment in
AP science courses zooms up, college successes are recorded, and
then, here is the funny thing, THERE IS A DRAMATIC EFFECT ON WOMEN
AND MINORITY STUDENTS FORM POOR FAMILIES WHO COME INTO HIGH SCHOOL
WITHOUT A STRONG POSITIVE SCIENCE AND MATH EXPERIENCE. Many of these.
. .(new sequence). . .schools tell us things like 'AP physics now has
53% women.' I remember AP physics as having one, two, or no
women.What is going on?" (My CAPS.)
Lewis, J. 2001. "Spotlight on Teachers," Notices of the AMS 48(4):
396-403' online as a pdf at
<http://www.ams.org/notices/200104/200104-toc.html>: "But despite all
the other suggestions for how to improve our schools, one idea recurs
frequently - good teachers matter. This idea is often combined with
the viewpoint that our colleges and universities are not doing enough
to produce high-quality teachers." For two diametrically opposed
reactions to Lewis's article see Cohen & Krantz (2001).
NAP. 2000. National Academy Press. Committee on Women in Science and
Engineering. "Who Will Do the Science of the Future? A Symposium on
Careers of Women in Science;" online at < http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10008.html >. See especially the
contribution by Lederman on pages 7-11.
PhysTec. 2003. "About PhysTEC" <http://www.phystec.org/about.html>:
"PhysTEC is a program to improve the science preparation of future
K-12 teachers. It aims to help physics and education faculty work
together to provide an education for future teachers that emphasizes
a student-centered, hands-on, inquiry-based approach to learning
science."
Redish, E.F. 2003. "Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite." Wiley.