The development of teaching physics through modeling as pedagogical method in the United States - Essay Example

The Development of Teaching Physics Through Modeling as Pedagogical Method in The United s: A Historical Review In 1821, when the first public high school in America opened, physics was already a part of the curriculum. By1886, Harvard College established a physics laboratory to improve the physics teaching establishment (Hurd, 1969). We may wonder how physics was taught back then. What caused the development of modeling? The purpose of this literature review is to understand the modeling method that is being applied in physics classrooms today, how this method developed and how physics teachers are being trained to have more effective teaching methods into the future. In scientific terms, a model is a representation of a phenomenon initially produced for a specific purpose. As a ‘phenomenon’ is any intellectually interesting way of segregating a part of the world-as-experienced for further study, models are omnipresent. Teaching science as inquiry is among the most important science standards to be passed to future generations. Modeling is part of teaching science as inquiry because it enhances students’ critical thinking skills. For this reason, teachers, such as physics teachers, who play a big role in applying inquiry in the science classroom must be knowledgeable in modeling techniques to encourage students to think critically in areas of inquiry. Modeling constitutes a complete open learning environment appropriate for students 11-17 years old. It supports students as well as teachers during learning/teaching activities. At the same time, modeling provides teachers with the opportunity to model situations studied as part of the national curricula in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Environmental Education and many other interdisciplinary situations. Modeling can also foster collaborative learning in a wider learning community (dimitracopoulou1, et al, 1999). Modeling focuses on essential factors of an inquiry and helps to organize complex information. Scientists build models to facilitate further study as models can be analyzed; validated and deployed (Deakin 2006). The science of physics can be characterized as a complex network of models interrelated by a system of theoretical principles. From this perspective, models can be understood as units of structured knowledge used to represent observable patterns in physical phenomena. Accordingly, ‘physical understanding’ is a complex set of modeling skills, that is, cognitive skills for making and using models. The primary objective of physics teaching should therefore be to develop student’s modeling skills so that they can apply these skills in attempting to make sense of their own physical experience and evaluating information reported by others (Hestenes, 1996). Importance of Applying Modeling in the Classroom The main purpose of Modeling Workshops is to empower teachers with a robust teaching methodology. This includes the cultivation of teacher abilities to critically analyze any given curriculum materials and organize valuable parts into effective instructional units. This process causes the underlying models to emerge as explicit tasks which require a strong pedagogical framework. Modeling abilities are needed to take advantage of accelerating changes in curriculum materials. This need is driven on the one hand by advances in educational research and by new computer technology and software on the other hand (Hestenes, 1996). In recent years, modeling activities have become an important aspect of the curricula in European secondary education. Technology-based modeling environments have enhanced the available possibilities for learning activities in schools, while networking technologies have allowed us to associate promising capabilities for collaborative learning in a wider learning community. (dimitracopoulou1, et al, 1999). The Development of Teaching Physics Teaching physics in the 1950’s The effort to improve the teaching of physics was the first venture in the science curriculum reform movement of the 1950s. Committee discussions began in 1956. The input of thought and subsequent events following these deliberations has had considerable influence upon other science curriculum improvement projects. The 1956 conference was held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The main goals were to redesign the traditional curriculum. This was necessary because at that time, the science curriculum was so overloaded with scientific details that it could not possibly be adequately taught in one year (Hurd, 1969). Therefore, in 1956, the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC Physics) agreed on a new physics course that had a particular pedagogy as one of its major characteristics (Hurd, 1969). Cognitive science grew up in parallel with PER and Modeling Theory. The corresponding development of both teaching physics and cognitive science had a deep impact on developing the methods involved in teaching physics. Thus the PSSC committee concluded that students must be active participants in learning physics. However, the PSSC also pointed out that the lowest enrollment numbers were in the physics classes. This occurred to such a degree that teachers were sometimes required to teach other classes such as prerequisite math courses as a means of justifying their salary. It was believed the high school student would enjoy learning physics more if the subject were taught from an educational perspective rather than from the mature perspective of the physicist (Hurd 1969). It can be concluded that the 1950’s represents a significant era of reform within the educational system. The traditional curriculum was too firm and tough for both students and teachers. Another important issue that required focus was the fact that physics is not a subject for all students. Only the smartest students were able to enroll in physics classes as they were more capable of developing the necessary critical thinking skills required for the class. Finally, the teachers were teaching from the viewpoint of a mature physicist, which often made it very difficult to teach as well as to learn. Scientists gave teachers the physics component and told them to teach it. There was a gap back then in the educational system in that there was not a science educator or a physicist educator available to enhance or improve teaching physics at that period of time. Teaching physics in the 1960’s The need to teach physics and strengthen the teachers’ ability to teach the science was the main topic at a conference supported by the National Science Foundation in 1963 (Hurd, 1969). In addition to reforming the physics curriculum, there was a new focus on preparing teachers for teaching physics effectively. To this point, teachers were trained in universities to teach physics, but not within a working environment. This proved to be an ineffective means of teaching the teachers as the teachers were then unable to apply their knowledge to the working model they were expected to teach their students. “No teacher in an art school would show a new technique or set students to work on a new problem without first trying the work through himself” (Nuffield, 1966- p 14). Nuffield suggested providing general teaching notes from successful teachers to other teachers as a means of teaching by example. It can be seen that teachers were the central part of establishing these types of modeling workshops such as the one at Arizona State University. Through exchanged lesson notes and workshops, the Nuffield physics program encouraged the development of a number of experiments and kits designed to serve the needs of teaching physics at high schools. Teachers were asked to follow the provided directions exactly when using those kits (Nuffield, 1966) rather than deviating to meet the requirements of their specific classroom. Modeling in the 1980’s: Program for teachers in the story of Teacher Malcolm The 1980s saw the birth of scientific literacy. It was the era when the STS ( society- technology-science movement) had taken place. STS science teaching was influenced by the development of new technology and the increasingly affluent lifestyle of American society (Aikenhead, 1999). Traditional science class content was transformed to a more applied science project process and was remodeled to fit in with the new style of ‘active’ education. During this decade, Arizona State University emerged as a leader in science education reformation under the leadership of Teacher Malcolm. Teacher Malcolm Teacher Malcolm’s career was launched with a significant assist from the PSSC and the Harvard Project Physics teacher workshops which took place during the heyday of the Sputnik space-race fever. His influence on future science education was indelible. From the 1980s forward, Malcolm has been a ‘hands-on’ teacher and has continued to enthusiastically build his own apparatus of science education. At the same time, he is consistently open-minded for simple models to help demonstrate complex theories of deep physics. Through the energy of the workshops and the reformation of the 1980s, Malcolm also managed to retain a ‘spirit of adventure’ in the classroom and a ‘spirit of kinship’ with his fellow physics teachers. He was among the first science teachers to use computers in high school physics and did not wait for someone else to tell him how to do it. As soon as the Apple computer was made available, Malcolm was writing his own programs and designing activities for his students to learn with it. Malcolm developed enough computer programs to teach a complete high school physics course to prove the pedagogical value of his activities and, more generally, how to establish sound principles for using computers in the physics classroom. He was hard-pressed to come up with a suitable plan for his research until he was shocked by a sudden revelation about his own teaching in 1983. Modeling Method. There are several reasons for adopting a modeling approach to physics instruction. First, modeling should be used in the classroom because it brings instruction closer to emulating actual scientific practice. Second, modeling should be used in the classroom because it addresses serious weaknesses in traditional instruction. Malcolms modeling method as it had been developed at the close of his doctoral work (1986-87) can be described as cooperative inquiry with modeling structure and emphasis. He retained the general features of his original cooperative inquiry approach, including all the lab activities, to which he again devoted 70% of class time. The instructional difference resided in the systematic emphasis on models and modeling. The learning cycle was elaborated into a modeling cycle. Though it remained unobtrusive, teacher guidance was strengthened by focusing on a modeling agenda informed by the ‘misconceptions taxonomy.’ Consequently, student investigations and presentations were more coherently structured and physics instruction was deemed more effective. Modeling in 1990’s Standard era and teaching physics for teachers What had developed in the Modeling workshops in ASU Modeling in the new millennium a close look at Arizona State University program This lack of modeling remains the biggest problem in most science and math classrooms today especially at the lower level “elementary and kindergarten”. Teachers hold the textbook in front of them, lecture from behind the text and assign reading and questions from the text. Maybe the students perform a “canned” lab experiment where they follow the steps and answer a few questions that pertain to the material. There is no story line for students to build upon Conclusion Cognitive thinking theory in the late 1950’s and the reform of the traditional science curriculum caused the establishment of teaching science as inquiry. The process of modeling was not overnight progress rather than it was developing and reforming while other aspects in the society, education system and universities are reforming as well. rough references proceedings of the international conference on undergraduate physics education (college park, august 1996) modeling methodology for physics teachers david hestenes department of physics and astronomy arizona state university tempe, arizona 85287-1504 a. dimitracopoulou1, g. fessakis, b. gallego2 & r.meléndez2 1 learning technology and educational engineering laboratory,department of education, university of the aegean, (1) 1, av. democratias, gr85100 rhodes, greece. (2) schlumbergersema, albarracín 25, 28037 madrid, spain. e-mail: {ruth.melendez, belen.gallego}@madrid.slb.sema.com e-mail: {adimitr, gfesakis}@rhodes.aegean.gr hurd, p. d. (1969). new directions in teaching in secondary school science. chicago: rand mcnally& company. joann deakin buena high school, sierra vista, arizona action research summary, submitted in june 2006 for the master of natural science degree at arizona state university Read More