Subscribers who disapprove of cross-posting and/or referencing are
urged to hit the delete button.
In her PhysLrnR post of 3 Apr 2003 10:42:19-0600 titled "What
motivates H.S. girls to take physical sciences?", Jane Jackson wrote:
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
A high school physics teacher - leader wrote me:
"We are establishing a committee to promote female students to take
physical science courses. Do you have any information in the
archives regarding research in the area of recruiting, success, etc?"
I can't answer him. Can you suggest a source of information on
research in what motivates female high school students (ex. 11th
graders - not college students) to take courses in the physical
sciences?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
The committee evidently wishes to induce more pre-college female
students to take physical-science courses. But it's not obvious how
the results of research "in the area of recruiting, success, etc." or
"in what motivates female high school students to take courses in the
physical sciences" could be useful without knowing more about the
specific goals, interests (e.g., does "physical" science mean only
chemistry and physics, excluding biology?), and time horizons of the
committee. Considering only the latter, one might consider three
possibilities:
1. LONG-TERM (several decades). I think most research suggests that
that more females (and more students generally) might be brought into
study of the physical sciences by systemic overhaul of the broken
U.S. K-12 system, including the gradual construction of a K-12
math/science learning ramp, as advocated by the AAAS (2003) "Project
2061," and eloquently argued for the case of physics by Ken Ford
(1989):
". . . . 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. . . (14- or) . . . 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, Snyder 2001). . . , second-graders a little more, and
third-graders still more (Love 2001) . . . [and Middle School'ers
still more (Hubisz 2001 a,b)]. . . Then for the. . .(ninth-). . . ,
eleventh- or twelfth grader, a physics course would be a manageable
step. Some might choose to take it, some not, but few would be barred
by lack of 'talent' or background." (My CAPS.)
2. MEDIUM-TERM (a decade or so). In that case the committee might
consider the anecdotal evidence - hopefully soon to be substantiated
by solid research data - of Leon Lederman (2000) for "Physics First":
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
We hear that after the new sequence is installed. . . [Physics,
Chemistry, and Biology for ALL students in the ninth, tenth, and
eleventh grades, respectively]. . . 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 FROM
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 how has 53% women." I
remember AP physics as having one, two, or no women. What is going
on?"
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
However, IMHO, wide implementation of alternatives "1" and "2" above
would require progress on the most formidable problem in K-12
science/math education: THE DEARTH OF EFFECTIVE K-12 TEACHERS. (For a
review see Hake 2002a,b).
3. SHORT-TERM (a year or so). Aside from incorporating more effective
and more student-friendly science/math courses as advocated by the
science/math reform movements, more women might be induced to take
science/math courses if more female role models were available. As
indicated in Mallow & Hake (2002), some online role-model resources
are: Astronomy Program (2002); AWIS (2002); AWM (2002); Butler
(2002), Byers & Colleagues (2002); Colwell (2000); Howard (2000);
Mentor Net (2002); NAP (1997, 2000); Ride (2002), Tobias (1995);
Wasserman (2000). See also the more recent Tobias (2002).