Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] [physicsfirst] Research on Physics First



Excellent point. Similar things have happened with whole language and hands-on science in K-12 schools. A true application of whole language does not mean one forgets about spelling and punctuation, but that's how many teachers perceived it and it was doomed to failure. Way too many teachers interpret hands-on science as discovery learning, in which you just give the students a bunch of things to play with and they'll somehow come up with the laws of physics. I recall a simulation in my HS history class that went terribly wrong. Separate teams were supposed to come to the conclusion that their businesses couldn't survive unless they joined forces, leading to monopolies. In the hands of a substitute teacher, we didn't come close to that conclusion. I'm sure the substitute concluded the simulation was bad, when in fact she didn't understand how to implement it.

So, we evaluate innovations without investigating how they have been implemented.

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.


On Nov 15, 2010, at 2:22 PM, John Clement wrote:

The previous mail to this had some discussion by a physics first doubter,
but I felt it was too long to repeat here.

The issue unfortunately is not just physics first, but also how it is
taught. I am a doubter that physics first by itself will be any more
effective than IPC was, which included physics. The problem is not what is
taught, but how it is taught and whether the student thinking is improved.
The standard first science course in HS, either IPC or biology, generally do
not improve thinking. The reason for physics last is when the curriculum
was established the fact based biology courses were easier than the concept
laden physics courses. Biology traditionally had descriptive concepts which
are easy for concrete operational thinkers. But now biology has a huge load
of concepts such as evolution that are at a very high level of thinking.
Students come out without even knowing the function of flowers on plants.

There have been some good results in physics first on the Modeling web site.
Modeling.asu.edu ,but this is physics first done in a PER fashion rather
than by traditional instruction.

So I feel that pushing physics first and forcing it on schools which do not
have research based physics education, will be a failure. This will then
give the idea of reform another black mark. But when it is implemented by
teachers who have trained in reformed physics education, it will probably be
successful. Modelers have the training, and have access to curriculum
material for physics first.

I would like to see results from pre and posttesting using the Lawson test
to see if thinking rises. But one would have to compare with schools that
are currently giving IPC or biology to freshmen, and possibly note whether
these courses are research based or traditional.

So in a traditional school I do not see that physics first will have any
greater success than IPC had. If it were stripped down to the basic
concepts and were taught in a PER fashion, it probably can work. But even
worse, it will probably be taught by the IPC teachers many of whom do not
even have a good grasp on physics.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l