Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

At 13:30 -0500 2/5/09, Jeffrey Schnick wrote:
> Perhaps what is needed is for someone to develop a physics reading
> program for grades 2 through 6.  It could amount to something as simple
> as a set of exercises in which pupils are asked in writing to make a
> prediction and then try it and see what happens.  It needs to be called
> a reading program (a) because it is more likely to be accepted if it is
> advertised as being a reading program and (b) because it is in the
> reading part of their classes that students are placed in groups of
> peers that are at about the same academic level thus making it more
> likely to be successful since each group could be working on the part of
> the program appropriate that group's current intellectual stage of
> development.  It needs to be good so that when a small group of schools
> try it, scores on reading and math tests go through the roof.

I think tying it to a reading program might be a good idea. Just 
learning how to read stories is one thing, but learning how to read 
about things like science or other intellectual disciplines is quite 
another, and it wouldn't hurt to have kids get started on learning 
those differences early on.

But just putting a group together and giving them something to 
"predict" before actually putting their "prediction" to the test is, 
IMO, not a particularly good idea. I have seen what happens when the 
kids are given something to "predict" but on which they have no other 
information. It is pretty much a disaster. They have nothing to base 
a prediction on, so they just randomly guess. The most common answer 
when they are asked why the made such and such a "prediction" is, "I 
don't know." They really learn nothing from such exercises, since 
they didn't have anything to base their initial guess on and as a 
result, the findings of their "experiment" to test their "hypothesis" 
is no particular surprise, and leads to no new thinking. It becomes 
just something more to memorize.

Let their reading program introduce them to some of the ideas that 
they will be testing later, and guide them through some of the 
reasoning processes that they will need to use. Then when it comes 
time to make a prediction, the teachers must insist that the students 
give cogent reasons for their predictions. As a simple example, 
suppose some third graders are testing how objects fall. If one 
student, when asked to predict whether a light object and a heavy 
object will fall together or not, might argue that the heavier one 
will fall faster. That is certainly a cogent (even if incorrect) 
reason, and one that can be tested. When it turns out to be (to a 
certain degree of precision) untrue, they now have a basis on which 
to start to structure a more appropriate prediction.

Creating such a program will not be easy. It would require close 
collaboration between experts not only in the science being used 
(presumably physics), but also experts in early childhood education 
and in beginning reading, as well as child psychology. Such a 
collaboration can not be a confrontational one. those involved must 
be committed to a cooperative approach, but each member of such a 
group must retain a veto capability when the issue is centered on 
their area of expertise (the scientist must be able to veto sloppy 
science, but the reading expert must be able to veto inappropriate 
reading expectations, for example).

Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties in getting the required 
but disparate groups to work together, I think the advantages of 
combining different goals under one subject heading is highly worth 
pursuing. It may be the way to cut the Gordian knot.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they 
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
			--Douglas Adams
******************************************************