Re: California Science Framework

[Herbert H Gottlieb <herbgottlieb@JUNO.COM>]

I fully agree with the comment of Joseph Bellina.
The California Science Framework, like the proverbial
camel, appears to be some sort of monstrosity that
was formulated by a COMMITTEE. No single teacher,
"educator", or even a layman off the street could
have done such a poor job by himself or herself
working alone.

*** Here are my comments prefaced with three stars for identification.


The California Science Framework
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:17:12 -0800 Larry Woolf <larry.woolf@GAT.COM>
writes:
> Below are 4 excerpts from the Introduction to the California Science
> Framework.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/catalog/science-excerpts/introduction.pdf
> I would be interested to know if anyone on the last has opinions on
> this official document that is meant to guide California K-12 science
> teaching.
>
> 1. "When large blocks of time for science instruction are not
> feasible, teachers must make use of smaller blocks.

*** It is not clear whether a large block of time is an hour,
two hours, or 10 days or more.  Similarly, is a small block
of time measured in seconds, minutes, or hours?

> For example, an elementary teacher and the class may have
> a brief but spirited discussion on why plant seeds
> have different shapes or why the moon looks different each week."

*** It's commendable when such "brief but spirited discussions"
take place..... but it is not clear how this is an example of the
original premise, above, which discuss breaking large blocks
of time into smaller blocks.

> 2. "Science education in kindergarten through grade twelve trains
> the mind and builds intellectual strength and must not be limited to
the
> lasting facts and skills that can be remembered into adulthood. Science
must
> be taught at a level of rigor and depth that goes well beyond what a
> typical adult knows. It must be taught “for the sake of science” and
not
> with any particular vocational goal in mind. The study of science
disciplines
> the minds of students; and the benefits of this intellectual training
> are realized long after schooling, when the details of the science may
> be forgotten."

*** The above paragraph refers to the "rigors and depth of what
typical adults" know.  This is an interesting thought but has
anyone ever determined what typical adults know or what they remember
about the facts and skill learned in school?  Furthermore, what
or who is a "typical adult" . The adults in this city, country, or
in this world vary so much, it is almost impossible to define this term
to anyone, satisfaction. I challenge anyone to define a "typical
adult" in 5,000 words or less.

> 3. "In doing their research good scientists do not attempt to prove
> that their own hypotheses are correct but that they are incorrect."

*** The above may, or may not, be true. It probly isn't true.
But I fail to see what this has to do with "Standards for
Teaching Science". Does it mean that teachers and elementary
school students should abide by this statement when doing
their own experiments and research.

> 4. "For example, students might learn about Ohm’s law, one of the
> guiding principles of physics, which states that electrical current
> decreases proportionately as resistance increases in an electrical
circuit
> operating under a condition of constant voltage.

*** Ohm's law is an important law of physics but it certainly is not
a "guiding principle of physics". Furthermore it does not hold true
for many electrical and electronic items such as semi-conductors,
varistors, and other items in common usage today.

> In practice, the (Ohm's Law)principle accounts for why a flash-light
with
corroded electrical contacts does not give a  bright beam,
even with fresh batteries.

*** The above statement is only partially true. There are other reasons
that MAY account for flashlight with fresh batteries may not give a
bright beam.
For example, one of the batteries may have been inserted backwards or the

bulb has dimmed or is completely burned out.

> It is a simple relationship,  expressed as V=IR, and embodied in
> high school Physics Standard 5.b.  In a laboratory exercise,
> however, students may obtain results that seem to
> disprove the linear relationship because the resistance of a circuit
> element varies with temperature. The temperature of the components
gradually
> increases as repeated tests are performed, and the data become
> skewed.
> In the foregoing example, it was not Ohm’s law that was wrong but an
> assumption about the stability of the experimental apparatus. This
> assumption can be proven by additional experimentation and provides
> an extraordinary opportunity for students to learn about the scientific

> method.
> Had the students been left to uncover on their own the relationship
> between current and resistance, their skewed data would not have easily
led
> them to discover Ohm’s law.

*** I have tried reading the paragraphs directly above several times
but I am not truthfully able to tell what these paragraphs mean.
For example, Do they mean that:

(1) the student Ohms' Law investigation was a "laboratory exercise"
that failed its purpose because the correct conclusions were not reached?

(2) the students should be given more time to correct the errors that
they make while doing every lab exercise?

(3) or that neither of the above two choices are true and that "the
BEST science lesson (is) a sensible balance of direct instruction and
investigation and a focus on demonstration of scientific principles ."

*** In conclusion, the four exerpts from the California Framework that
Larry Woolf has quoted apparently consist of meaningless phrases and
paragraphs that are pooir excuses for an introduction to a set
of educational "standards".

Herb Gottlieb from New York City
(Where our "standards" have been deteriorating even more than
those of California)






> Larry Woolf;General Atomics;San Diego CA
> 92121;Ph:858-526-8575;FAX:858-526-8568; www.ga.com;
> www.sci-ed-ga.org