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] Conceptual Physics Course



There is no firm research that shows how the activities work when excerpted
or adapted. But their research shows that the activities do work when used
as designed. A school in Arizona turned Thinking Science into a curriculum,
something that it was not designed to be used as. Then the teachers were
not given training in how to use the activities. As a result, it seems to
have been abandoned. There was also research mentioned in Really Raising
Standards where Thinking Science (TS) was used for ages before 10+ and it
didn't work as designed.

Some amount of tailoring might be helpful, but the activities have been
carefully designed. From talking to Adey, he indicated that one might skip
some of the very early activities for an older set of students. The big
problem is how to make them work well for a different group of students.
Anyone who already understands and uses PER might be able to adapt, but
someone new to PER should not do this. The activities are not scripted so
the teacher has some freedom. They are carefully designed to work as a
sequence and they have two components, the experiments and a follow up
"homework". The teacher is given freedom as to how to use the "homework".
But the experiment is laid out in the same way the Real Time Physics is laid
out. Actually, the sequence is similar to RTP in that there is an
experiment followed by homework.

Really Raising Standards is their first book, and it gives references to all
of their published research in addition to providing the same information in
their early 90s papers. But the Thinking Science modules have to be in your
hands to get a better idea of what they are doing. Again, if it is to be
adapted you would need to use an evaluation such as Lawson plus student
observations to make sure that the adaptation has not killed the
effectiveness. In other words you would need to do the research. All too
often people think they can adapt something that is effective, and they
don't know how to do it. So I always recommend initially following the
intended sequence. Then adapt after you have seen how it works.

This sort of problem comes in when doing the published ILDs. They are
tricky in that it is possible to kill the improved learning. I would say
that anchor and bridging analogies also need to be followed closely.
Adaptation is what teachers often do when they encounter a new method of
teaching. They usually turn it into what they are used to doing, and that
kills the effectiveness. Modeling retains its effectivenss because teachers
are given the materials and trained in their use. After experiencing the
results, teachers can then adapt the materials. But this is usually done in
consultation with other Modelers.

Medicine has many fixed regimens that are not adapted, for very good
reasons. MDs usually stick to the prescribed sequences. They prescribe
antibiotics for a fixed definite term. When patients adapt this, they end
up with antibiotic resistant germs. So be very careful with adaptation.
Education has been done by the seat of the pants for too long, and now we
have some methods that work very well. So be careful. The fact that you
are reading Really Raising Standards is possibly an indication that you
could use the TD materials in an intelligent fashion.

Shayer & Adey are of the opinion that teachers need training in using TS,
and they highly recommend this. But they have openly published their
materials. Feuerstein's Instrumental Enrichment similarly requires
training, and the materials are nearly impossible to obtain without
training. Shayer & Adey have not to my knowledge extended their materials
to older ages, but Feuerstein does have sequences for older or younger
children. Actually Shayer & Adey extended their research to lower ages and
have a follow up book "Learning Intelligence".

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

If you really want to improve thinking skills you could get
"Thinking
Science"
by Shayer, Adey, & Yates. Then follow some of the
activities exactly
as they
are designed. They are not strictly physics, but cross scientific
boundaries.
You would not use them all, and they should only be used
every 2 weeks
or
so.

It is interesting that you should mention these authors. I
am reading a
book entitled Really Raising Standards by Adey and Shayer. The advice
that you give that one follow some of the activities "exactly as they
are designed" raises red flags for me. Is there evidence
that tailoring
the activities to the audience and situation at hand renders the
activities less effective?