Physics First: Precursor to Science/Math Literacy for All? *
Richard R. Hake
I. "Physics First"
The Lederman (1999; 2001a,b) "Physics First" brigade appears to be
attracting recruits: e.g., two sessions on "Physics First" at the January
2002 AAPT meeting in Philadelphia; recent pro-"Physics First" editorials
by AAPT leaders (Chiaverina 2002, Khoury 2001, Hubisz 2001a); a "Physics
First" website (Livanis 2000); and "more than a hundred schools around
the country. . . that have switched the sequence to the rational order" (Lederman
2001b). Lederman (1999) writes:
Our reform thrust, in military metaphor, is toward a weak section
of the barriers to change that surround the school systems. We
have observed that 99 percent of our high schools teach biology in
9th (or 10th) grade, chemistry in 10th or 11th grade, and, for survivors,
physics in 11th or 12th grade. This is alphabetically correct, but
by any logical scientific or pedagogical criteria, the wrong order.
A standards-based science curriculum must contain at least three
years of science and three years of mathematics. And the coherent
order begins with 9th grade physics, taught conceptually and
exercising only the math of 8th and 9th grade; then chemistry, building
on the knowledge of atomic structure to study molecules; then the
crowning glory of modern, molecular-based biology. . . . We stress
that this is a design for ALL students, work- bound, liberal
arts-college-bound, or science-and-technology-bound. The schools
that are "doing it right" report greatly expanded enrollments in
fourth-year electives and Advanced Placement science courses.
Thus, a solid, core curriculum will enlarge rather than . . .
(diminish the pool of). . . future scientists. (My emphasis.)
II. Precursor to "Science/Math Literacy for All"?
But does K-12 education need "Physics First," or "Physics For All?" I
agree with Hubisz (2001a) that both are desirable. However,
considering the appallingly low level of science literacy among the
general population, and society's need to solve the monumental science-intensive
problems (economic, social, political, and environmental) that beset
it (see, e.g., Lederman 1999, Hake 2000) , I would rate "Physics For
All" or, more generally, "Science/Math Literacy for All," as being
by far the more important.
Viewed from that perspective, Lederman's "Physics First" reform thrust
could be an important precursor for more systemic reform such
as that envisaged by "Project 2061" (AAAS 1989,
1993, 1997, 2001, 2002), a long-range effort designed to achieve "Science/Math
Literacy for All." As indicated in AAAS (1989, p. 11), Project 2061 "was
started in 1985, a year when Comet Halley happened to be in the earth's
vicinity. That coincidence prompted the project's name, for it was
realized that the children who would live to see the return of the
comet in 2061 would soon be starting their school years." But I would
submit that "2061" could also designate the earliest year by which
scientific literacy as defined in Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS
1993) might characterize a majority of Americans (even despite
the thorough and thoughtful efforts of Project 2061). My pessimism
reflects the formidable roadblocks to education reform (Section III),
and the monumental inertia of the U.S. educational system.
Considering only the physics aspects of "Science/Math Literacy
for All," the cogent arguments of Hugh Haskell (2001) for "Physics
for All," starting in the very early grades are worth pondering:
I have been saying for years that physics can be taught earlier
than the 12th grade, and it should be, but just dumping physics into
the ninth grade isn't the solution either. . . . It isn't that we
have to "dumb down" physics so that it can be taught as a terminal
course to ninth graders; we need to teach the early concepts to kids
starting as early as they can be expected to grasp them . . . They
need to start learning to ask the question "How do we know that?" .
. ..(Arons 1983). . . and they need to start learning some of the
vocabulary of science. They can also start learning how to draw a
graph, and how to collect things--how to choose what fits into a
desired category, how to decide on categories, in other words, how
to look systematically at the world . . In this way, we can expect
that the students will be able to do certain things when they get
to the ninth grade, and even more by the time they get to the twelfth
grade. But we have put them on a ramp to understanding and not
a cliff. Keeping the cliff but just making it lower because
the kids are starting in the ninth grade is no improvement. .
. . it involves much more than just reversing the order of presentation
. . . it involves a major rethinking of the philosophy of science
education in the pre-high school years. (My emphasis.)
Haskell's arguments are in consonance with:
A. The AAAS Project 2061 as indicated above.
B. The National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996).
C. Mahajan & Hake (2000) and Hake (2002a,b).
D. The "Revolutions in the Goals and Methods of K-12 Science Education" (Lopez & Schultz
2001).
III. Systemic Roadblocks to Science/Math Literacy
Among important roadblocks to science/math literacy are, in my opinion,
the following:
A. High-stakes state-mandated tests of reading and mathematics (see,
e.g.; AAAS 1997e; Heubert & Hauser 1998). Will these crowd out
K-8 science education?
B. State science standards that are antithetic to the National Science
Standards (NRC 1996) and the AAAS (1993) "Benchmarks for Science Literacy." An
outstanding example is the California science standards (Feder 1998,
Woolf 1999).
C. An antiquated and dysfunctional K-12 science/math curriculum (AAAS
1997f,g)
D. Science textbooks that are overstuffed, uninformed by education
research, and often riddled with scientific errors (see, e.g., AAAS
2001; Hubisz 2001b). Attempts to overcome roadblocks "A" "D" will
require considerable educational redesign (Wilson & Daviss 1994)
as well as grass-roots political effort. In my view those four roadblocks,
challenging as they are, will be far easier to overcome than the fifth
and most formidable:
E. The dearth of effective K-12 science/math teachers
(APS 2001, AAPT 2000).
IV. Conclusions
The reports of the Glenn Commission (2000), Hart-Rudman Commission
(2001), NSF (1996), AAAS (2002), AAPT (2000), and APS (2001) , and
the "No Child Left Behind Act" (U.S. Congress 2001), all testify to
the current national interest in improving pre-college teaching and
education. On the other hand, there exist very serious systemic roadblocks to
improving K-12 science/math education that may take sixty years or
so to overcome. In the meantime, Lederman's "Physics First" regime,
while not the ideal ramp to science/math literacy, might if
vigorously supported be adopted by thousands of U.S. school systems
within the next decade. This would auger well for the eventual attainment
of the goal of "Science/Math Literacy for All" by demanding that serious
attention be paid to the several roadblocks that are common to both "Physics
First" and "Science/Math Literacy for All," most importantly, the
dire shortage of effective science/math teachers. In particular,
physics departments might help to overcome this roadblock and at the
same time enhance their numbers of physics majors and graduate students,
through programs designed to provide a large corps of teachers capable
of effectively teaching physics to vast numbers of students
in the "Physics First" schools: ALL ninth-graders plus those taking
twelfth-grade honors and AP physics courses. Then, too, once ninth
graders have experienced the excitement of well-taught conceptually
oriented physics they will doubtless flock to enroll in twelfth grade
and undergraduate physics classes, many of them as physics majors.
Richard Hake spent 40 years researching superconductivity and magnetism
at the University of Illinois, North American Aviation, and Indiana
University, together with 25 years teaching physics and researching
physics education at the latter institution. He is now retired and
living in California. He can be reached at <rrhake@earthlink.net>, < http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake >,
and < http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>.
* Partially supported by NSF Grant DUE/MDR-9253965.
Submitted to the APS Forum on Education Newsletter on 31
May 2002. A more complete version of this paper titled "Physics First:
The Opening Battle in the War on Science/Math Illiteracy" is online
as reference 20 at
< http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.
© Richard R. Hake, 5/31/02. Permission to copy or disseminate
all or part of this material is granted provided the copies are not
made or distributed for commercial advantage, and the copyright and
its date appear.
References and Footnote
AAAS. 1989. Science for All Americans. AAAS Press; online at <http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.html>.
AAAS. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University
Press; online at <http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.html >.
AAAS. 1997. Blueprints; especially (a) Research, (b) School
Organization, (c) Curriculum Connections, (d) Materials and Technology,
(e) Assessment, (f) Teacher Education, (g) Higher Education; online
at < http://www.project2061.org/tools/bluepol/blpframe.html >.
AAAS. 2001. Project 2061 Textbooks Evaluations: middle grades
mathematics, middle grades science, algebra, high-school biology; online
at
< http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/research/textbook/default.html >.
AAAS. 2002. Project 2061; online at < http://www.project2061.org/ >.
AAPT. 2000. White Paper on Teacher Preparation,
L.M. Adair & C.J. Chiaverina, "The Preparation of Excellent Teachers
at All Levels," online at
< http://www.aapt.org/governance/ >.
APS. 2001. American Physical Society, "Policy Statement
on K-12 Science and Mathematics Education"; online at </apsnews/0201/020101.cfm >.
Chiaverina, C. 2002. "Physics First: Some Personal
Observations," AAPT Announcer 32(1): 4.
Feder, T. 1998. "California's Science Standards Slammed
for Demanding Too Much, Too Early," Physics Today 51(11):
54.
Glenn Commission. 2000. Before it's too late: A
report to the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching
for the 21st Century; online at <http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/toc.html >.
Hake, R.R. 2000. "The General Population's Ignorance
of Science Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT
Announcer 30(2): 105 (2000); online as ref. 11 at < http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/ >.
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education
reform effort." Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online
at < http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28 >.
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Comment on 'How do we know if we're
doing a good job in physics teaching?' by Robert Ehrlich [Am. J.
Phys. 70(1), 24-29 (2002)]," Am. J. Phys., accepted
for publication.
Hart-Rudman Commission. 2001a. [United States Commission
on National Security/21st Century], "Road map for national security:
Imperative for change, Phase III Report;" online at < http://www.nssg.gov/ >.
Haskell, H. 2001. "Re: Physics for Ninth Graders?" Phys-L
post of 25 Sep 2001 20:51:320400; online at < http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=phys-l&P=R36757 >.
Heubert & Hauser, eds. 1998. "High Stakes: Testing
for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation," Committee on Appropriate
Test Use, National Research, National Academy Press; online at < http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6336.html >.
Hubisz, J.L. 2001a. "Physics? Yes, but when?" AAPT
Annnouncer 31(4): 8.
Hubisz, J.L. 2001b. "Report on a Study of Middle School
Physical Science Texts," Phys. Teach. 39(5): 304-309.
Khoury, B. 2001. "Physics First, Physics for All, Physics
for the Best," AAPT Announcer 31(4): 6.
Lopez, R.E. & T. Schultz. 2001. "Two Revolutions
in K-8 Science Education." Physics Today 54(9): 44-49;
online at < http://physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p44.html >.
Lederman, L.M. 1999. "A science way of thinking." Education
Week, 16 June; 1999 < http://www.edweek.org/ew/1999/40leder.h18 >
Lederman, L. 2001a. "Physics First," APS Forum on
Education Newsletter, Spring 2001; online at < /units/fed/spring2001/index.cfm >.
Lederman, L. 2001b. "Revolution in Science Education:
Put Physics First." Physics Today 54(9): 11-12; online
at < http://physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p11.html >.
Livanis, O. (2000). Physics First Home Page; < http://members.aol.com/physicsfirst/ >.
Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. "Is it time for
a physics counterpart of the Benezet/Berman math experiment of the
1930's?" Physics Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education;
online as ref. 6 at < http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/ >.
NRC. 1996. National Research Council, National Science
Education Standards. National Academy Press < http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html >.
NSF. 1996. Advisory Committee, Shaping the future:
new expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology; online at <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf96139 >.
U.S. Congress . 2001. Public Law PL 107-110, No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001; online at < http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02 >.
Wilson, K.G. & B. Daviss. 1994. Redesigning
Education (Henry Holt, 1994); description online at < http://www-physics.mps.ohio-state.edu/~kgw/RE.cfm >.
Woolf, L. 1999. Science Education Petition of 22
December 1999; online at <http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/ > / "22
December 1999 Science Education Petition."
|
