[Phys-L] Re: Is Science/Math Literacy A Concern of Higher Education?

[Richard Hake <rrhake@EARTHLINK.NET>]

In his PHYSOC post of 4 Mar 2005 oddly titled "Re: [spam] Re: Is
Science/Math Literacy A Concern of Higher Education? (was Re:
Research Based Instruction) Jim Borgwald (2005), wrote [bracketed by
lines "BBBBBBBB. . . .":

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>  At 14:49 -0700 7/25/04, Richard Hake wrote:
>  >
>  >If the general population IS scientifically illiterate, isn't that
>  >the fault of the defective K-12 system? Why criticize the
>  >universities?
>  >
>  Because it is the university schools of education that prepare those
>  teachers in the K-12 schools who are doing such a bad job of
>  promoting scientific literacy.
>
>  Hugh

I agree in part with Hugh's comment, but in addition, we are often the last
people who teach science to future teachers in K-12 schools.  (Some of them
will have development activities, but this seems to be haphazardly.)  Since
I spend a great deal of time teaching general education science courses, I
worry about this problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

As is typical of the posts of reply-button pushers [bane of
discussion lists (see e.g., Hake (2004a)], Borgwald fails to identify
the specific posts that he quotes. The material preceded by ">" is
from Haskell (2004). The material preceded by ">>" is from Hake
(2004b).

The latter quote from [Hake (2004)] is taken OUT OF CONTEXT in such a
way that it completely misrepresents the point I attempted to make in
my post. A more complete quote that correctly represents my view is
[bracketed by lines HHHHHHHH. . ."; see that post for the references]:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
If the general population IS scientifically illiterate, isn't that
the fault of the defective K-12 system? Why criticize the
universities?

1. According to an NSF Advisory Committee chaired by Melvin George
[NSF (1996)]:

"Many faculty in SME&T (Science, Math, Engineering, & Technology) at
the post-secondary level continue to blame the schools for sending
underprepared students to them. But, increasingly, the higher
education community has come to recognize the fact that teachers and
principals in the K-12 system are all people who have been educated
at the undergraduate level, mostly in situations in which SME&T
programs have not taken seriously enough their vital part of the
responsibility for the quality of America's teachers."

2. In the same vein, Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust
<http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/> wrote:

"Higher education. . . (unlike Governors and CEO's) . . . has been
left out of the loop and off the hook . . . . (in the effort to
improve America's public schools since release of "A Nation at Risk"
in 1983). . .  Present neither at the policy tables where improvement
strategies are formulated nor on the ground where they are being put
into place, most college and university leaders remain blithely
ignorant of the roles their institutions play in helping K-12 schools
get better - and the roles they currently play in maintaining the
status quo . . .  How are we going to get our students to meet high
standards if higher education continues to produce teachers who don't
even meet those same standards? How are we going to get our high
students to work hard to meet new, higher standards if most colleges
and universities will continue to admit them regardless of whether or
not they even crack a book in high school?"

3. Goodlad (1990) set before deaf ears this statement: "Few matters
are more important than the quality of the teachers in our nation's
schools. Few matters are as neglected . . . . A central thesis of
this book is that there is a natural connection between good teachers
and good schools and that this connection has been largely ignored. .
. . IT IS FOLLY TO ASSUME THAT SCHOOLS CAN BE EXEMPLARY WHEN THEIR
STEWARDS ARE ILL-PREPARED." (My CAPS)

IMHO, as long as university faculty and administrators ignore the
science/math illiteracy of the general population and assume no
responsibility for its existence, their will be little hope of
overcoming the monumental science/math intensive problems (economic,
social, political, and environmental) that beset us.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Two BTW's:

1. I think Hugh's comment that:

[one should criticize the universities because] "it is the university
schools of education that prepare those teachers in the K-12 schools
who are doing such a bad job of promoting scientific literacy"

is a half-truth at best:

Question: Where are most K-12 teachers exposed to the science they
are entrusted to communicate to their students?

Answer: In the generally ineffective passive-student lecture courses
of the departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology,
physics, etc., NOT in the schools of education; and teachers tend to
teach as they are taught.

2. Borgland wrote: "Several years ago, I had a brief discussion with
Jay Pasachoff on this subject [science illiteracy] following an
astronomy education session at a national AAPT meeting. . . There
were several talks on strategies of teaching students concepts that
are difficult for many students.  One was on the cause of the Earth's
seasons, and one was on the cause of lunar phases.  One talk
concluded that in order to correct misconceptions on the subject, you
might have to devote a week of classes to it. . . .  Pasachoff
(author of a popular standard introductory astronomy text) was
outraged that college and university faculty might be spending
extended periods of time on subjects like these when they should be
taught before students get to college. . . ."

Pasachoff (2002) has stated his position as follows:

"The wonderful "Private Universe" film . . .  is a symbol of this
controversy. That movie shows Harvard students in their graduation
robes giving false or inadequate answers to questions about phases of
the Moon and the cause of the seasons, as well as high-school
students repeatedly misunderstanding the phenomena. SADLER AND OTHERS
SEEM TO HAVE CONCLUDED THAT SINCE STUDENTS DON'T UNDERSTAND PHASES
AND SEASONS, EVEN AFTER BEING TAUGHT THEM, THERE IS NO GOOD TO
TEACHING ANYTHING MORE COMPLEX. In particular, they seem not to be
willing to teach contemporary astronomy, since they claim students
just won't understand it. I disagree strongly with that position."
(My CAPS.)

For my own take on "The Private Universe and the Seasons" see Hake
(2003a,b). For a 72-post (!!) Phys-L thread  "In the Private
Universe" see the February 2005 Phys-L archives at
<http://lists.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>, especially Woolf (2005).


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
Borgwald, J. 2005. "Re: [spam] Re: Is Science/Math Literacy A Concern
of Higher Education? (was Re: Research Based Instruction)" PHYSOC
post of 4 Mar 2005 09:48:10-0600; online at
<http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0503&L=physoc&T=0&F=&S=&X=3DAD8F41DDE1204671&Y=rrhake%40earthlink.net&P=3236>.
The encyclopedic URL indicates that PHYSOC is one of the few
discussion lists whose archives are closed to non subscribers :-( -
WHY ??. However, it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by
following the simple directions at
<http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/physoc.html>/ "Join or leave the
list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If you're
busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous."
Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post
messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!

Haskell, H. 2004. "Re: Is Science/Math Literacy A Concern of Higher
Education? (was Re: Research Based Instruction)," PHYSOC post of 29
Jul 2004 12:26:16-0500; online at
<http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0503&L=PHYSOC&P=R2002&I=-3&X=5B7B635B907C4A4A1F&Y=rrhake%40earthlink.net>.

Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Re: Private Universe and the Seasons," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=pod&P=R10760&I=-3>,
post of 18 Sep 2003 17:13:39-0700 to AP-Physics, Phys-L, PhysLrnR,
Physhare, and POD.

Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Re: Private Universe and the Seasons - Correction
& Comments" online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=pod&P=R11711&I=-3>,
post of 20 Sep 2003 15:55:46 -0700 to AP-Physics, Phys-L, PhysLrnR,
Physhare, and POD.

Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Is Science/Math Literacy A Concern of Higher
Education? (was Re: Research Based Instruction)," online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0407&L=aera-j&T=0&O=A&P=6722>.
Post of 25 Jul 2004 14:49:09-0700 to AERA-J, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, POD,
and PHYSOC.

Hake, R.R. 2004b. "Thirteen Posting Suggestions," AERA-K post of 26
Jan 2004 16:44:44-0800; online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0401&L=aera-k&T=0&O=D&P=3392>:
Indicate the SPECIFIC post (date, discussion list, title, and name of
poster) to which you are responding. With such information the
archives can immediately yield that post . . . "

Pasachoff, J.M. 2002. "What Should College Students Learn? Phases and
Seasons? is Less More or Is Less Less?" Astronomy Education Review
1(1) October 2001-October 2002; online at
<http://aer.noao.edu/AERArticle.php?issue=1&section=4&article=3>.

Woolf, L. 2005. "Re: In the Private Universe," Phys-L post of 23 Feb
2005 21:41:43-0800; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=phys-l&O=A&P=42920>.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l