Re: Would Physics First Increase the Number of Physics Majors?

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I am new to the list by way of an online grad course I am taking at U.
> Virginia.I teach all levels of physics on the high school level to
mostly
> seniors and some juniors at Montville High School in NJ.
>
> Vickie Frohne's comment "Why isn't physics taught EFFECTIVELY in grade
> school?"  is an opening of Pandora's box type of question.
>
> In my district, 3 of 8 teachers in the middle school who teach science
> have a science -related degree.  That's pathetic.  It's pobable that
the
> elementary school teachers are no shining stars in science either.
This
> is not a knock on them.  I think that teachers are not properly
trained in
> the elementary, middle school, and even high school level.  I know a
first
> grade teacher who dos not know how to implement science activities in
her
> curriculum.
>
> I attended the modeling physics workshop at ASU this past summer and I
> believe any middle or high school science teacher should take such a
class
> or understand the methods.

This of course is the real problem.  Even when one has good knowledge of
science, this is only necessary for good teaching and not sufficient.
Understanding how to effectively use inquiry coupled with either
training in a well researched program, or available researched materials
is also necessary.

This problem of course extends far beyond the elementary level.  HS
teachers and university teachers also need good understanding of
pedagogy along with an understanding of the subject.  Alas, generally
this understanding is lacking at all levels, so all science/physics
teachers should take such a class.  There are alternatives to Modeling
which are available and work very well depending on the local conditions
and student body.

As I have said before, physics first is NOT the solution.  Good teaching
of physical science first is the solution.  The emphasis on physics
first to the exclusion of good teaching first might cause physics first
to fail and give reformed physics education a bad name.  Notice that
physics first is easy to implement poorly, and as such is likely to be
done that way.  While many of the calls for physics first have also
proposed good pedagogy should go hand in hand, remember that the hard
parts of programs are never implemented along with the easy parts.

However, the previous letter is a real sign of hope.  There are youths
who are embracing reformed pedagogy.  This is precisely what must happen
for a real change in the science teaching paradigm.  The young who
embrace the new paradigm eventually replace the old who oppose it.
Maybe then we will have hope for an educated citizenry that no longer
embraces crack-pot ideas such as teaching creationism in the schools, or
who can not intelligently examine the evidence about whether men were on
the Moon.  We need them much more than more than an increased population
of physicists.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX