For clarification:
"Horton's evidence is based on class average scores on the physics and biology sections of the California Standards Test (CST), but the validity of the former has been questioned by physicist Larry Woolf and others"
Larry Woolf and others questioned a small number of released test questions which, by definition, will never be on the exam again. Questions are field tested before being used and, as on any test, some poor questions sneak by. You quote studies using the FCI as a measurement. Didn't we just witness a 2-week email discussion of a poor question on the FCI on the physshare list? Pot calling the kettle black? Yes, you'll argue that this question has been removed. So have the questions cited by Woolf and others.
"San Diego school board trustee Katherine Nakamura noted that adoption of PF drastically increased the number of students taking science"
This isn't the first time we've discussed this, but it's good to know that the argument hasn't changed even in light of completely contradictory evidence. I couldn't believe it the first time you quoted a board member, I am shocked that you did it again after I showed the evidence that she is completely wrong almost 2 years ago!. I pointed out the last time you used this completely anecdotal and unverified comment (that doesn't even address whether the freshmen learned any physics or not) that (a) the same year that San Diego implemented PF, they also raised the graduation requirement for science from 2 years to 3 years and (b) even still, the rest of the state outpaced San Diego in increases in science enrollment. I provided enrollment data for San Diego and for the State of California to prove my point. You provided a quote from the newspaper. . . and you put it in all capitals.
I pointed out last time that we had this identical discussion that you are not usually so careless in your research and I've come to expect far more from you over the years. And I still hold that opinion with all topics except this one where it appears that your bias for the subject poisons your scientific reasoning.
Here's the first school on your list of "non-elite" schools, "Loyola High School: Los Angeles. All-male, four-year, Catholic college preparatory school conducted by the Society of Jesus (Jesuits)." Tuition: $13,810, Fees $1,000. I don't know what your definition of elite is, but a $15,000 all-male private school is elite in my book.
The second school, Palm Desert High School had 28 freshmen (out of 524 freshmen) take physics. Not one of them is an English Learner and only 3 were economically disadvantaged. These proportions are much lower than the school at large suggesting enrollment based upon previous success. PF has been understood (at least by me) to be physics for all (or at least most) in 9th grade. This is not the case with PDHS and I would argue that they don't even do PF, they allow the top 5% of their students to take physics in 9th grade. That's different than PF.
I must say that I am VERY highly offended by this email. First, you keep repeating arguments that have been crushed previously using data that is easily accessible to anyone. Second, you repeat arguments that even on the page that you cite, you stipulate that I have shown them to be untrue before, but you don't point that out in the email, you state them as true without any qualifiers whatsoever (in regards to your citing that non-elite schools have posted on the physics lists that they have had success). That is unethical and underhanded. I don't think that you are an unethical person, I just think that you are blinded by your bias towards this subject. It's the only explanation that I can think of why a person who normally is so careful in their research could be so careless when it comes to PF over and over again.
I don't get any joy out of being the lone skeptic on the physics-first list. I don't like staying up until 2 am researching schools. But I absolutely abhor claims that are not substantiated by evidence. That's why I stay on the list and that's why I only jump in when someone makes a statement that is either not true or unproven. And I love physics and believe that all students should be exposed to it. But the data show that doing this by imposing physics in the 9th grade for all students has not been successful in schools with average California demographics and certainly not in an entire district. I'm sure that there's a school out there somewhere that is not elite and is having success, but that doesn't mean that it is replicable everywhere and that's what the PF proponents are proposing.
I've posted many times a paper that I wrote several years ago about the perils of PF. It can be found at the bottom of http://scienceinquirer.wikispaces.com/CSTA along with the enrollment data that I collected (in January, 2009) to show that your board member quote was incorrect.
Please do not post this information again as if it were true.
I'm really not interested in arguing PF again in public. With all the BS that has been going around the lists lately, I'm very close to unsubscribing and I don't want to contribute to the same feeling in other list members. But this email really infuriated me and I had to respond.
I'd be happy to discuss any points in this email off-list with anyone interested.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hake
To: PhysicsFirst
Cc: AERA-L@LISTSERV.AERA.NET ; Net-Gold@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:15 PM
Subject: Re:[physicsfirst] Research on Physics First
This is the Discussion List for those interested in Physics First.
If you reply to this long (11 kB) post please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
***************************************
ABSTRACT: Mike Gallagher of the Physics First discussion list wrote: "When someone asks for research in support of physics first, where do you point them. I have heard that there hasn't really been a quality project evaluating the impact."
Carl Martikean responded: "The quantitative studies available, with one exception, do not address how well freshmen learn physics," but has not posted his references.
I refer to some research on Physics First, some of which *does* address how well students learn physics, in "Re: "Physics First Revisited" [Hake (2009)] online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/baO9Hr>.
***************************************
Mike Gallagher, in his "Physics First" discussion list post of 9 Nov 2010 10:46:20-0500 titled "Research on Physics First" wrote:
"When someone asks for research in support of physics first, where do you point them. I have heard that there hasn't really been a quality project evaluating the impact."
To which Carl Martikean replied:
"I am a doctoral candidate studying just this idea. The quantitative studies available, with one exception, do not address how well freshmen learn physics. If you would like the references let me know."
Mark Schichtel, Tom Donley, and Rachel Zabierek posted requests for Carl's references, but so far Carl has not posted his references on the "Physics First" site.
I refer to some research on the effectiveness of Physics First, some of which *does* address how well students learn physics, in "Re: "Physics First Revisited" [Hake (2009)] online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/baO9Hr>. The abstract reads (see that post for references other than Hake (2002a):
******************************************
ABSTRACT
A long thread "Physics First?" on the Southern California AAPT (SCAAPT) list was initiated by Mary Mogge who asked whether or not San Diego is still teaching Physics First (PF). Mike Horton responded that although the PF mandate had been overturned two years ago, some San Diego schools still employ PF; and that his studies show that (1) PF schools in California have been horrible failures, and (2) PF is successful only in "rich private boarding schools on the east coast."
Point "1" appears problematic because: (a) Horton's evidence is based on class average scores on the physics and biology sections of the California Standards Test (CST), but the validity of the former has been questioned by physicist Larry Woolf and others; (b) San Diego school board trustee Katherine Nakamura noted that adoption of PF drastically increased the number of students taking science; and (c) some SCAAPT posters cited quantitative data (not all from the dubious CST) indicating the relative success of PF.
Point "2" appears questionable considering favorable PF outcomes in classes far removed from "rich private boarding schools on the east coast": (a) the previously cited quantitative evidence from SCAAPT posters; (b) Jane Jackson's reports of pre-to-post test gains on the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) comparable to those of high-school seniors for a Phoenix ninth-grade integrated physics/math class of disadvantaged students, and a high school near St. Louis in which roughly 30% were from the inner city; (c) quantitative evidence of the success of PF-type curricula reported by Mualem & Eylon (2007) and Goodman & Etkina (2008).
In "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on Science/Math Illiteracy?" [Hake (2002a)], I argued that PF might help to overcome a systemic roadblock to science/math literacy of the general population - viz., the dearth of effective pre-college science/math teachers. This in turn might promote [paraphrasing John White (2008)] "the presentation of physics early, often, broadly, and well in the K-12 years," as advised earlier by e.g., Ken Ford (1989), Lewis Love (1999), & David Hammer (1999). . . .[[added on 14 Nov. 2010: and Larry Malone, FOSS co-director at the Lawrence Hall of Science, in the Summer 2007 APS Forum on Education newsletter <http://bit.ly/c4kMJo> as pointed out by Larry Woolf (2009)]]. . . .
******************************************
To appreciate the controversy surrounding "Physics First," scan:
a. the approximately 80-post thread initiated by Hake (2009) on the Phys-L archives for January 2009 at <http://bit.ly/aheq9U> and February 2009 at <http://bit.ly/apSxWB>;
b. the 12-post thread at the above locations initiated by John Denker's (2009) Phys-L post "Science education goals and strategies" in which John wrote ". . . please let's not revisit 'physics first' anymore. It's an embarrassment to the entire community," especially the dissenting Hake (2009b).
"The three-year sequence must include a lot of process in addition to content. How does science work? How did we discover some of these things? Why is science such a universal culture? How do the traits of skepticism, curiosity, openness to new ideas, and the joy of discovering the beauty of nature affect the process of science? Long after all the formulas, Latin words, and theories are forgotten, the process will be remembered. The goal of teachers using the new curriculum would be to produce high-school graduates who will be comfortable with a scientific way of thinking."
Leon Lederman (2001)
REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 14 November 2010.]
Denker, J. 2009. "science education goals and strategies," Phys-L post of 30 Jan 2009 03:15:45-0700; online at <http://bit.ly/9JK342>.
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 but rejected :-(; online as a 220 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/bEEwBa>.
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Physics First: Precursor to Science/Math Literacy for All?" APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer, 2002; online at <http://bit.ly/bFV5Dy>. A severely truncated version of Hake (2002a).
Hake, R.R. 2009a. "Re: Physics First Revisited," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/baO9Hr>. Post of 26 Jan 2009 17:38:11-0800 to AP-Physics, Physhare, Phys-L, & PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Re: science education goals and strategies," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/dbzxhR>. Post of 30 Jan 2009 14:47:55-0800 to AP-Physics, Physhare, Phys-L, & PhysLrnR. See also Hake (2009c).
Hake, R.R. 2009c. "Re: science education goals and strategies," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/asQvt6>. Post of 3 Feb 2009 15:33:01-0800 to AP-Physics, Physhare, Phys-L, & PhysLrnR.
Lederman, L. 2001. "Revolution in Science Education: Put Physics First." Physics Today 54(9): 11-12, September; online at <http://bit.ly/anddW1>.
Woolf, L. 2009. "Re: Physics First Revisited," online on the OPEN! Phys-L archives at <http://bit.ly/a9V457>.
---
You are currently subscribed to physicsfirst as: scitch@verizon.net.