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: The Good Effects of Physics First - Even For Mathematics Education (was The Good Effects of Physics First. . . "



Justin Park responded to my post "The Good Effects of Physics First
(was The Bad Effects of Physics First)" (Hake 2003) as follows in his
Phys-L post of 1 Dec 2003 08:35:47-0500:

"Let me see if I understand this: Currently there is a shortage of
effective physics teachers in high school. Moving the course to ninth
grade will change this."

Judging from Justin's response, my post (Hake 2003) may not have been
as transparent as I had intended. [Incidently, the cryptic notation
"(Hake 2003)" means that the complete reference with a hot-linked URL
is located under "REFERENCES" at the end of this post at "Hake, R.R.
2003".]

I wrote:

"Attempts to overcome [the four systemic roadblocks to Science/Math
Literacy indicated at A - D below] will require considerable
educational redesign as well as grass-roots political effort. In my
view those four roadblocks, challenging as they are, will be far
easier to overcome than the fifth and most formidable: E. THE DEARTH
OF EFFECTIVE P-12 SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS."

A. High-stakes state-mandated tests of reading and mathematics.

B. State science standards that are antithetic to the "National
Science Education Standards" (NRC 1996) and the AAAS (1993)
"Benchmarks for Science Literacy." An outstanding example is the
California science standards (due to become more retrograde in 2006,
judging from CCCSC 2003).

C. An antiquated K-12 science/math curriculum.

D. Science textbooks that are overstuffed, uninformed by education
research, and often riddled with scientific errors.

Thus my post does NOT state that there is a shortage of effective
physics teachers in high school. Instead it bemoans the shortage of
EFFECTIVE P-12 science/math teachers, where P = Preschool. As
indicated in Hake (2002a), a substantial increase in that number
would be required to implement the P-12 science/math learning RAMP
envisaged by Ken Ford (1989); the AAAS "Project 2061" [AAAS (1989,
1993)]; Mahajan & Hake (2000); and the "National Science Education
Standards" (NRC 1996).

For a cartoons depicting the (hopefully transitional) Lederman (2001)
Ninth-Grade physics CLIFF and the (hopefully by 2061) Ford RAMP see
pages 2 & 4 of Hake (2002a), immediately available as a 220KB pdf by
clicking on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/PhysFirst-AJP-6.pdf>.

Justin, and others, may wonder how the widespread implementation of
"Physics First" could diminish the shortage of effective P-12
science/math teachers.
As indicated in the conclusions to Hake (2002a) [bracketed by lines
"HHHHHHHHHHHH. . . . "]:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Lederman's (2001) "Physics First" regime, while not the ideal RAMP to
science/math literacy, might - if vigorously supported - be adopted
by thousands of U.S. school systems within the next decade. This
would auger well for the eventual attainment of the goal of
"Science/Math Literacy for All" by demanding that serious attention
be paid to the several roadblocks that are common to both "Physics
First" and "Science/Math Literacy for All," most importantly, THE
DIRE SHORTAGE OF EFFECTIVE SCIENCE/MATH TEACHERS. In particular,
physics departments might help to overcome this roadblock and at the
same time enhance their numbers of physics major and graduate
students, through programs designed to provide a large corps of
teachers capable of EFFECTIVELY teaching physics to vast numbers of
students in the "Physics First" schools: ALL ninth-graders plus those
taking twelfth-grade honors and AP physics courses. Then to, once
ninth graders have experienced the excitement of well-taught
conceptually oriented physics they will doubtless flock to enroll in
twelfth grade and undergraduate physics classes, many of them as
physics majors.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>


REFERENCES
AAAS. 1989. "Science for All Americans. AAAS Press; online at
<http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm>.

AAAS. 1993. "Benchmarks for Science Literacy." Oxford University
Press; online at
<http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.htm>.

Benezet, L.P. 1935/36. "The teaching of arithmetic I, II, III: The
story of an experiment," Journal of the National Education
Association 24(8), 241-244 (1935); 24(9), 301-303 (1935); 25(1), 7-8
(1936). The articles were: (a) reprinted in the "Humanistic
Mathematics Newsletter" #6: 2-14 (May
1991); (b) placed on the web along with other Benezetia at the
Benezet Centre; online at
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>. See also
Mahajan & Hake (2000).

CCCSC. 2003. "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional
Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption," California
Curriculum Commission Science Committee (CCCSC). Outlined from
CCCSC's serial listing by R.R. Hake on 10 November 2003; online as
ref. 33 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>: "Instructional
materials suitable for adoption must provide: a table of evidence. .
. demonstrating that the California Science Standards can be
comprehensively taught from the submitted materials WITH 25% OR LESS
OF THE SCIENCE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME DEVOTED TO HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES. . .
.(and). . . a program organization that supports pre-teaching of the
science content embedded in any hands-on activities . . . .(and). . .
Clear procedures and explanations, in the teacher and student
materials, of the science embedded in hands-on activities. These
activities, where provided, must include suggestions for how to adapt
the lesson to DIRECT INSTRUCTION METHODS of teaching."

Ford, K.W. 1989. "Guest Comment: Is physics difficult?" Am J. Phys.
57(10), 871-872.

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "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. 29 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> as a 220 KB pdf. See also
Hake (2002b).

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Physics First: Precursor to Science/Math Literacy
for All?" APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer 2002; online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2002/index.html>.

Hake, R.R. 2003. "The Good Effects of Physics First (was The Bad
Effects of Physics First)," post of 30 Nov 2003 16:16:12-0800 to
Phys-L, PhysLrnR, Physhare, and AP-Physics; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0311&L=phys-l&O=D&P=58027>.

Lederman, L. 2001. "Revolution in Science Education: Put Physics
First." Physics Today 54(9): 11-12; online at
<http://physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p11.html>: "Out of these
[Fermilab] workshops came an outline or framework for a three-year
science curriculum designed for all students, in which the subject
order is reversed: 9th grade, physics; 10th grade, chemistry; and
11th grade, biology. We insisted that the standards propagated by NAS
and AAAS required a minimum of three years of science and that the
order does matter. The recently released National Research Council
report, "Physics in a New Era" (NRC 2001), puts it beautifully:
"Because all essential biological mechanisms ultimately depend on
physical interactions between molecules, physics lies at the heart of
the most profound insights into biology. . . . The math and science
teachers must work together in collegial professional development so
that the connections of the disciplines are emphasized and the
coherent elements emerge. . . . FOR THIS AND ANY SERIOUS REFORM OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION WE NEED TO IMPROVE THE RECRUITMENT, TRAINING,
RETENTION, AND EVOLUTION OF OUR TEACHER WORKFORCE. A broad knowledge
of science is an essential part of the rational ordering. If our
leaders--presidents, governors, congressmen--are serious, the federal
government can surely support a revolutionary change in our
educational system." (My CAPS.)

Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. "Is it time for a physics counterpart
of the Benezet/Berman math experiment of the 1930's? Physics
Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education
<http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~rstein/perc2000.htm>; online as ref. 6 at
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>. We suggest a
K-12 science curriculum inspired by and compatible with the virtually
forgotten land-mark mathematics education research of Benezet
(1935/36) [See the Benezet Centre
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>.]

NRC. 1996. National Research Council, "National Science Education
Standards" online at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html>. See
also NRC (1999) and
NRC (2000).

NRC. 1999. National Research Council, "Improving Student Learning: A
Strategic Plan for Education Research and its Utilization"; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6488.html>.

NRC. 2000. National Research Council, "Inquiry and the 'National
Science Education Standards': A Guide for Teaching and Learning";
online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html>.

NRC. 2001. National Research Council, "Physics in a New Era: An
Overview"; online at <http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10118.html>.