Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#3570 09/27/05 03:06 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601487.html?sub=new

The Sept. 17 editorial "Mr. Steele and Education" asked, "[D]oes it really make sense to pay a so-so high school physics teacher more than a fantastic elementary school teacher?"

"I teach elementary school, and while the subject matter may be elementary, the skills and preparation necessary to teach it are not. And without the simple, prerequisite skills I teach, a child would be unable to take high school physics." -Donna Resnik, Columbia

Are elementary educators (and educators in general) paid appropriately; if not then for what purpose? I think that what is learned in elementary school can have a profound influence on the educational/career path one takes later in life.

OTOH, "Many public-school children seem to know only two dates--1492 and 4th of July; and as a rule they don't know what happened on either occasion." Mark Twain.

Are elementary schools just an elaborate baby-sitting institution or is there something more. The problem is that because there are vastly different aptititudes in children, teaching in a one classroom setting, which professes the same information to the varying minds, is ineffective. I do not know how the elementary system is set up now but when I was a child I recall clearly "knowing" which kids "got it" and which kids did not. One child's lack of interest or ability would literally bring the entire classroom's progress to a screaching halt. I am not faulting the child; it is not THEIR fault, they are only children.

Another problem is that teaching Resources are limited for an elementary school teacher. Is it easier to instuct older children because they are (assumed to be) more mature? How can each child be guaranteed the same level of quality devotion and services.? Smaller classroom sizes would be a nice start. My elementary education was outstanding and enjoyable, that is my personal take. Because of my elementary studies I was opened to the marvel of science; this admiration still persists (even if I am not a scientist). Be that as it may, I think that elementary teachers are underappreciated for their contributions, especially given the (often difficult) age of thier pupils. It is a shame, oftenly, that too much attention can be devoted on the few and not the whole; due to inherent flaws in the public educational system (which can tend to focus on quantity and not quality).

To summarize the point of the article:
"[D]oes it really make sense to pay a so-so high school physics teacher more than a fantastic elementary school teacher?" My obiterdictum is, succintly, no. There are qualifications for my reply: This is based upon the assumption that the "so-so" high school physics teacher is opaque and unanble to convey material to their students. This also assumes that the "fantastic" elementary school teacher inspires and enraptures his or her students in the learning process. Whether or not the material presented is relatively more or less difficult is irrelevent. While I agree with TheFallibleFiend that a degree in physics requires keen acumen; it is the role of the teacher to aptly pass forth their knowledge. Furthermore, "so-so" and "fantastic" must be defined in that an annually renewed student population respectively receives the same experience year after year. A great educator leaves his or her students in awe and lusting for more, and does not just go through the motions. That sounds harsh but I have experienced both extremes, from the vantage as student.
Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
It makes a lot more sense to pay HS physics teachers more than elementary school teachers. It takes a lot more effort to learn physics than it does to learn basic science.

Among my greatest criticisms of teachers in general (math teachers in particular) is that
1) Most of them don't seem to know very much more math than what they are teaching, and
2) Most of them haven't really spent a lot of time doing anything other than teaching.

These perceptions are related to another one: context. Teachers often lack context for the stuff they're teaching.

I think some teachers are vastly overpaid, though a good many are probably underpaid.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rather than a meaningless debate that will produce no tangible result ... why not focus on the one thing that will actually improve the next generation of children:

Teaching children physics in elementary school when their brains are pliable and can most easily absorb new concepts?


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
I agree DA, I am sure that many children will take to it readily.


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I've thought about this for a few days. I can't agree - only because I don't see that it would work.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
I've thought about this for a few days. I can't agree - only because I don't see that it would work.
Why not? Many intelligent 10 year olds write great computer programs that require more logic to understand than most maths theorems taught in university.

Real maths is not taught at all in primary and secondary education. When it comes to science we are teaching children some facts but we don't teach them the real thing.

Too much emphasis is placed on hands on learning. That's an infantile way of teaching things. It's appropriate for kindergarten, but not in school. Some experiments are ok, but we do too much and almost no theory at all. And if we don't do experiment we teach them about historical experimental facts which led to certain theories, but that's not a good way to teach these theories.


Take e.g. electromagnetism. The easy way to learn that is via Coulomb's law, electrical field, then special relativity. By demanding that you have consistency with special relativity you get the magnetic field and Maxwell's equations. You shouldn't go through Biot Savart's experiments and Farady's induction experments and laws etc. etc.

Special relativity b.t.w., can be easily explained to 12 year olds. It doesn't involve much more maths than you need to calculate at what time your school bus arrives at school, given the distance and the speed.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Real maths is not taught at all in primary and secondary education."
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Algebra and Calculus are not real math?

"Many intelligent 10 year olds"

It seems unlikely that there are 'many' who do this. The ones who do are extraordinary. Of course provisions should be made for extraordinary kids. I'm not sure that's a case for teaching all students this way.

I agree that schools don't spend much time on theory. I'm not sure that hands-on learning is infantile, but the way it's implemented in the US is pretty stupid. There are lots of ways to teach and learn, but forcing kids to do science fair projects for their grades is one of the more idiotic ideas.

I'm sure you could easily explain SR to some 12 year olds. I'm not sure the average science teacher could do it. Nor am I sure the the average 12 year old (who, in the US, has not yet had algebra I) would feel comfortable with it. In fact 12 year olds, 7th graders, would be taking life science in that year. I suppose one could make a case for moving that up to 9th grade or something and replacing it with a more detailed course in physics to be taught by some as yet non-existent teachers.

Right now my 15 yo is learning programming at school. She's very irritated at the teacher because whenever anyone asks a question the teacher doesn't say "this is the way it IS." Instead he answers, "this is what it's LIKE" and then proceeds to give them a football analogy.
They have this teaching method whereby the students learn about objects by doing this robotics project - without actually understanding what they're doing. The students do the projects and answer the questions, but they don't understand what they're doing or why. This methodology promotes the illusion of understanding without the fact of it. The victims of this kind of education will be able to talk about objects without actually being able to create them.

In this country there was an experiment back in the 60s called "New Math." It wasn't really new, but they tried to teach advanced concepts to younger kids. It was designed not by child psychologists, but by a bunch of math professors. It would have been good if they had at least consulted a book by Piaget, though, as they might have had some awareness that kids are not born with the ability to have perfect abstract reasoning. Rather it develops in them gradually. The program was a disaster in this country. Those of us who were its victims can testify to that. (Fortunately, I figured things out myself eventually, but that's an exceptional case. We oughtn't make a general rule from an exception.)

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
I'm not extraordinarily intelligent. However, by the time I was 11 years old, I understood a reasonable amount of calculus and topology, and enough physics and chemistry to be able to explain how a nuclear explosion occurs and how to create polymers.

This is clearly not a result of any unusual intelligence, but rather simply because I was exposed to such stuff as a child. For example, I remember coming home from a third-grade class all excited that we'd learned about molecules, and in response my dad handed me a slender Time-Life book on Chemistry, full of pictures. There was enough info in that book to give me a high-school level comprehension within a few months of leisurely reading.

Anyway, my point is that if I could figure this stuff out, there's no reason why most other kids couldn't also get the concept, if they're exposed to it and interested.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Don't misunderstand me, Crank. I'm not utterly opposed to the idea. I'm just skeptical, that's all.

You may or may not be exceptionally intelligent, but you are or were exceptionally interested - and that is a very big thing.

Even if you are NOT exceptionally intelligent, you could still be higher than average.

Anyway, as I said I'm not completely averse to the idea. True, I think there are things that are more important to understand than SR for most students, but its worth knowing. Do whatever works. Teach them what they are ready to be taught. But my gut tells me that most aren't going to get SR in elementary school. (For reference, 12 yo is 7th grade which is the start in the US of secondary school.)

For reference, are any of you fellas tutors? Have you attempted to implement this? Perhaps you have successfully conveyed SR to your own children?

I suspect there are schools where a knowledgeable person might be welcome to guest lecture. (I do it all the time at a well-known local HS, in addition to tutoring.)

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
I have some experience as a tutor for university students (second year physics students). Also, I can confirm from my own experience as a young boy that interest is very important. At age 14 I knew enough calculus to pass most first year university exams. I was very interested in maths and in physics, so I studied from my fathers engineering books.


Now it is true that most children won't be interested as much as I was, but physics and maths can be made more interesting to students. If you are going to do the same old sums over and over again then children get bored. I got bored too at school, but because I was so far ahead I didn't need to do my homework smile


If you were to teach languages in the same way as maths and physics is taught, you would end up doing grammar and spelling over and over again and postpone reading literature and writing essays until university.

Children are interested in maths and physics if you challenge them with new problems or show them something which is completely new to them. I remeber that during class someone asked why you can't add up probabilities if you want to calculate probability of X or Y.

Probabilities of independent events can be multiplied, so what you should do according to the textbook is calculate the probability that neither will happen and then subtract that from 1.

But this isn't the same as P(X) + P(Y). Why not, the student asked. The teacher said, well it's not the same as 1 - [1-P(X)][1 - P(Y)].

I knew that there exists a general method that tells you how you can add and subtract probabilities to get the correct answer, the so-called principle of inclusion and exclusion. In the break I explained that to the student, and he was very interested.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
I think one of the problems with the appeal of science to young students is that pupils realize that they have to learn math; and that fact alone sizzles their romantic notions of science. Science is not magic, as most students would speculate, there is very arduous work behind science; this hard work turns off many. How to keep science and math exciting for students can be challenging, e.g. for a teacher. You have varying aptitudes and interests with a class. I recall many students saying, "I will never need to know this (math) in the 'real world'". They could not be more mistaken; I was one of those, at a young age. I was fortunate enough, when I was quite young, to experience Carl Sagan's Cosmos PBS broadcast in the late 70's or early 80's (I don't remember which). This confirmed/affirmed my natural inquisitiveness, as a child, for science.
The challenge is presenting science in an exciting way for young students (let's say elementary school and even middle school) so that they yearn for more, and they learn to apply critical thinking to the pre-conceived notions they may have about life.

Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5