In his PhysLrnR post of 4 Mar 2003 12:12:58-0700 titled "9th grade
science," Peter Sullivan wrote (my CAPS and letters [A] & [B]):
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Currently most students . . .[at my school?]. . . . take life
sciences in 7th grade, earth sciences in 8th grade, pre chem/physics
in 9th grade, bio in 10th, chem in 11th and physics in 12th. We would
like to focus on building skills in experimental design, data
collection and analysis, but also on model development and testing.
I'm wondering [A] WHETHER A PHYSICS FIRST STYLE COURSE WOULD MEET
THESE NEEDS AND IF THERE ARE ANY DEVELOPED MATERIALS.
[B] ANOTHER THOUGHT I HAD WAS BRINGING BACK IPS. . . [Haber-Schaim
et al. (1999)]. . . I was hoping to gather some ideas. Any
suggestions?
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
A. WOULD A "PHYSICS FIRST" STYLE COURSE MEET [SULLIVAN'S] NEEDS?
In Hake (2003) I wrote:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
. . . "Physics First" IS being tried in some schools. Livanis
(2002) lists about 270 schools "that may be broadly described as
teaching Physics First."
Lederman (2001) wrote (my CAPS):
"To my knowledge, none of the pioneer. . .(Physics First). . .
schools has gone back. Our optimism has recently been greatly
rewarded. In the past few months, the school districts of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA . . .[see e.g., Woolf
(2002)]. . ., HAVE OPTED FOR ALL INCOMING STUDENTS TO TAKE PHYSICS IN
NINTH GRADE, followed by a year of chemistry, then biology. THIS IS A
HUGE DOMINO! SAN DIEGO IS THE SIXTH LARGEST SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE
NATION; Cambridge has a small system but an impressive parent body.
So we see some real action."
In addition, some analysis of "Physics First" implementation has been
carried out [(Pesaro (2001); Lederman & Bardeen (2002)], but
evidently not published in the open literature. Pesaro concludes that
"One significant finding is that almost none of the schools has been
collecting quantitative data for self-evaluation." [But see Jackson (2003).]
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Perhaps Larry Woolf, Olga Livanis, or someone in the "San Diego
Science Alliance" <http://www.sdsa.org/> could:
(a) answer Peter Sullivan's question "A" above,
(b) indicate whether or not San Diego schools are collecting any
quantitative data for evaluating the effectiveness of "Physics First."
B. HOW ABOUT "BRINGING BACK" Haber-Schaim et al. (1999) (IPS)
In a PhysLrnR post (Hake 2002) of 13 Oct 2002 I wrote:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
[According to John Clement's PhysLrnR post]: "In chemistry I would
attack the idea of molecules, and suitable material is. . . .
(Haber-Schaim et al. 1999). . . This book is the only book considered
acceptable for middle school by the Hubisz report."
Two clarifications seem to be required:
(a) Haber-Schaim et al. (1999), although praised by Hubisz in an
interview with Raloff (2001) and favorably commented upon by Hubisz
et al. (2001), was NOT among the 12 popular middle-school textbooks
formally evaluated by the Hubisz committee. This omission occurred
because, according to Hubisz (as quoted in Raloff), ". . . it was NOT
AMONG THE TOP DOZEN SELLERS. . .(so). . . DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT."
According to Hubisz et al. (2001): "The . . . (David and Lucille
Packard). . . Foundation that funded the Hubisz review had an
interest in determining if there might be a link between the quality
of textbooks used, the general public's scientific literacy, and
students' poor performance on the TIMMS tests." Evidently for that
reason the Hubisz committee did not formally review low-selling books
such as Haber-Schaim et al. (1999).
(b) If one wishes to mention low-selling middle-school texts that
were favorably commented upon by Hubisz et al. but not formally
reviewed, s(he) should, in fairness, mention not only Haber-Schaim et
al. (1999), but also the texts preceded by "**" in the REFERENCES
BELOW. . . .[Repeated in this post].
. . . . . In the closing paragraph of their report Hubisz et al. (2001) write:
"Our two year search, unfortunately, has led us to say that THE
AVAILABLE TEXTBOOKS ARE NOT THE TOOLS THAT WILL EFFECT A CHANGE IN
THE WAY PHYSICAL SCIENCE IS TAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS OF THE
UNITED STATES." Since Haber-Schaim et al. (1999) IS available, Hubisz
et al. seem to imply that its use will not "effect a change in the
way physical science is taught in the middle schools of the United
States." Perhaps Hubisz et al. should have written something like:
"Our two year search, unfortunately, has led us to say that the
available POPULAR text books are not the tools that will effect a
change in the way physical science is taught in the middle schools of
the United States."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Perhaps Larry Woolf, Olga Livanis, or someone at Project Arise
<http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise/> could indicate what texts in "Physics
First" classes throughout the U.S.:
REFERENCES [The "**" indicates texts that were not formally reviewed
but received favorable comments from Hubisz et al. (2001).]
**American Mathematical Society Staff, American Institute of Physics
Staff, American Chemical Society. 2001. "The Best of Wonder Science:
Elementary Science Activities, Volume 2." Wadsworth Publishing.
**Asimov, I. and R.A. Galant (1973). Ginn Science Program. Ginn &
Company. For elementary schools - many volumes, out of print. Hubisz
et al. (2001) comment: "Has what is missing from most of the books in
this report."
**Dobey, D.C., R.J. Beichner, and S.L. Raimondi (1998). "Essentials
of elementary science." Allyn & Bacon.
**Haber-Schaim, U., R. Cutting, H.G. Kirksey, H. Pratt. 1999.
"Introductory Physical Science," (Science Curriculum Inc., 7th ed.)
<http://www.sci-ips.com/>.
**Hargan, J.D.D. and M.S. Rivkin (1999). "Science Experiences in the
Early Childhood Years: An Integrated Approach." Prentice-Hall.
Hubisz, J.L. et al. 2001. "Report on a Study of Middle School Science
Texts," Phys. Teach. 39(5), 304-309; online at
<http://ojps.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTEAH&Volume=39&Issue=5>. In
the section "Suggestions for Middle School Teachers", some favorable
comments are made on the "**" texts in this list even though they
were not popular enough to warrant a formal review.
Lederman, L. & M.G. Bardeen. 2002. "Implementation Resource Book
Suggestions from the Field"; 0.42 MB pdf at Project Arise
<http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise/>/ "Three Year High School Science Core
Curriculum Implementation Issues", where "/" means "click on." See
especially the sections "Assessment and Student Achievement";
"Professional Development"; and Teachers' Fears/Resistance".
Pasero, S. 2001. "The State of Physics-First Programs: A report for
Project Arise (American Renaissance in Science Education"; online as
2.9MB pdf at "Project Arise" <http://www-ed.fnal.gov/arise/>: ". . .
Another major issue most schools had to address is the necessity that
some teachers teach out of their primary field, especially during the
first two years of the curriculum inversion.. . . ONE SIGNIFICANT
FINDING IS THAT ALMOST NONE OF THE SCHOOLS HAS BEEN COLLECTING
QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR SELF-EVALUATION."(My CAPS.) But see Jackson
(2003).
Raloff. J. 2001 "Where's the Book? Science education is redefining
texts." Science News 159(12), March 24, 2001; online at
<http://www.sciencenews.org/20010324/bob12.asp> (Second in a two-part
series on middle-school science curricula.) This article extols
Haber-Schaim et al. (1999).