[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: "Effective" teaching methods

[Hugh Logan <hloganPHY@CFL.RR.COM>]

Frohne, Vickie wrote:

> The FOSS kits are great.  The ones I've seen are well thought out, with fantastic student and teacher resources. The only disadvatage that I see is that FOSS kits, as sold, only cover single topics.  IMHO, what's needed is a _good_  science curriculum for each grade which provides research-based materials and resources for the entire year.  This could look a lot like the FOSS kits, but there would be one textbook for the kids with all the topics laid out for the year, and one for the teacher for the year, along with support materials. Reading is taught from a compiled  "basal" curriculum, and something similar is needed for science in order to get the concepts from various topics to fit together.   The FOSS kits are expensive, especially considering that the materials for experimenting often look  a little too disposable for the high price of the kit.  (Yes, I know that one is paying for the excellent curriculum development, and that the lab stuff is meant to be child-safe and teacher-replaceable, and that
Perhaps with some justification? And what is the reaction of the kids if
the equipment does not seem substantial? I am not an elementary science
teacher, but back in the spring of 1976 I was asked to fill in with
teaching one section of sixth grade science in addition to my upper
school courses at a small private school west of Philadelphia. After
attending the AAPT Workshop on Physics and the Development of Reasoning
in New York that year, I had the idea of trying some of what I learned
at the conference. In particular, I heard about the SCIS elementary
science curriculum. (I was already somewhat familiar with Piaget from a
good educational psychology course at Emory University Summer School in
1972.) I also attended a three day lecture series on elementary science
education given by Dr. Arnold Arons at a NSTA meeting in Philadelphia in
1976. Dr. Arons was very supportive of the then newer elementary science
curricula such as SCIS and ESS. The headmaster at the small private
school was agreeable to letting me try some of these materials. I went
to the local lumberyard to buy material for the plywood platforms used
in the frames of reference unit (relativity of position, I believe.) The
school purchased some equipment specifically designed for the SCIS
curriculum. In particular, a number of glass bead microscopes, then
standard for SCIS, were purchased. They were certainly good enough for
the purpose at hand, but the student reaction was very unfavorable. The
sixth grade students were from a wealthy area. One of them, perhaps
somewhat hyperactive and unable to concentrate, announced that the new
microscopes looked like toys. He said that he had already had the
opportunity to look through microscopes used in medical research, and he
questioned why we didn't buy real microscopes. It was difficult to
satisfy him in terms of what was needed in connection with the
curriculum. (Budgets at small private schools are often very slight, and
I felt fortunate to get what I did.) I haven't seen any of the FOSS
materials, but the same company markets the present SCIS3+ materials. I
notice that they sell microscopes separately now, classified according
to grade level -- at least some of them looking more like "real"
microscopes.

Hugh Logan


_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l