Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

There is already a program which pushes up both scientific thinking, and
reading scores.  It is delivered at age 10+ and is called Thinking Science
by Shayer, Adey, & Yates.  It uses a learning cycle inquiry method.

It is doubtful that just a reading program would be successful.  Part of the
problem is that students do not have sufficient cognitive conflict generated
by being told something.  So an interaction with some form of "reality" is
usually needed.  They have to perceive that their predictions about things
do not line up with observations.  Also the observations have to be set up
so that the results are very evident, and small errors do not contribute to
misconcepted conclusions.  This immediately puts it in the realm of science.

The seminal paper by Heather Brasell showed that computer based labs using a
sonic ranger helped students to understand kinematic graphs better than
paper and pencil tasks.  Subsequently Beichner invented a video analysis
program that according to his analysis works better than paper and pencil,
but worse than the sonic ranger experiments.  Despite the large amount of
evidence in favor of the human motion sonic ranger experiments, most
teachers don't do them, even when they have the equipment!

Most of the papers that I have seen do not show a significant effect from
reading material.  While refutational text has some effect it is much lower
than IE.  The only paper that I saw that had a significant effect was
Lawson's experiment where he used a biology passage just rearranged into the
form of a learning cycle.  Students on an immediate comprehension test
scored significantly higher, but because there was no long term
reinforcement, the effect was quenched.  Actually the third part of the
learning cycle, namely application, was missing.  The concept being taught
was also a biological descriptive concept, and not a more abstract concept
such as force.  Essentially some simple biological terminology was being
taught.  And presenting the examples first, then the concept, and finally
the words worked much better than the reverse.  Only the order of
presentation was changed, and the reading passages were almost identical
otherwise.

Unfortuantely more of the same won't work, and science needs to be taught at
all levels using an inquiry based learning cycle approach.  This usually
requires a large change in teacher's paradigms.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> 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.