Science curriculum in high school

[Lizz612]

I just got back from an amazing lecture by Leon Lederman. He's a particle physicist and won a Nobel Prize in 1988 and was awarded the Enrico Fermi Prize in 1993 by Clinton. I attended a lecture by him this afternoon about particle physics, but this evening was about how science is taught in high schools.

Currently students take biology freshman year, and then chemistry sophomore year and those who like science take physics junior or senior year. Lederman argues that, based upon the idea that science build on top of each other, the order should be reversed. Conceptual, not math based, physics freshman year ending with the atom. That leads to a smooth transition into chemistry which would end with organic molecules and how they were formed on primordial earth. This transitions to a biology that heavy in molecular and evolutionary biology.

I was amazed. I had never thought that the order in which the classes are taken could make such a difference.
And I bought his book and he signed it! Cool.

So I want to open it up to any other 'theoretical' educational reforms. Lets keep it more curriculum based; we all agree that schools are underfunded.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. We rejiggered....

...the science scope-and-sequence at the school where I teach in just this way, and I think you'll see it more and more.

The math-intensive traditional physics is in year 4.

Chemistry is tough. Presently it is in year 3, but is scheduled for a move -- it's a tough call exactly where to put Chem.

If you take a strong quantitative approach to chemistry, it makes sense to put it off until students have the strong math tools needed to tackle it that way. On the other hand, it makes little sense to teach modern biology before chemistry -- moleculary biology is so important.

Our freshman physical science course -- notice it is not called physics -- is very popular with some people, and very unpopular with others. "Ha! A year of 'F=MA', and 'you can't push a rope', and you call that 'physical science'."

[Lizz612]

3. How well is it working do you think?

eom

[Catshrink]

11. We do the same thing...

9th grade science is called "Physics First" and is a conceptual physics class. This was our first year doing it and we've concluded that we need to look at the math content again.

The plan is to have chemistry next year for 10th graders, then Bio for 11th grade. Kids then have the option, if they really like science, to take "real" physics as seniors or anatomy and physiology.

ASU has a program called Physics Modeling Instruction that's really big on this. I've taken two of the courses but haven't decided yet whether to pursue the Masters in Natural Sciences for HS Science Teachers through the program. Their website is modeling.asu.edu.

My main issue this year has been the maturity level of the students. Part of my difficulty has been my naivete -- it's my first year teaching. I need to do a better job of helping them transition to high school. I was too "nice" at the beginning of the year and it's come back to bite me in the butt.

Live and learn.... next year will be better.

[Lizz612]

12. Hats off to you!

Man, I was such an ass freshman year. You are doing an unappreciated job thats for sure! I'm sure next year will be better. Don't let them get you down, most kids are really annoying brats at that age.

[mulethree]

2. Definitely

Besides physics is more fun than the others.

My biggest peeve is defining "excellence" in teachers as simply having more training in their "specialty". I'd rather have a teacher with a BS in science and a BA?S in education than one with a MS in science and no studies in education.

[Lizz612]

4. More fun!

I think bio is more fun, but I'm a bio major so I'm more than a little biased! But, seriously, a conceptual physics, heavy with experiments and easy on the formulas would have been very good freshman year of high school.

[gristy]

7. But trying to teach physics without math (i.e. formulas) would be

like trying to teach English without teaching the rules of grammar. Math is such a foundation to physics. Though much of it isn't too tough, freshman year is just too early, IMO.

[Lizz612]

9. He admitted that this was the weak point

That the kids would need a pretty solid math background coming in. He also advocated more integration, so that what the kids were learning in Algebra I would get tied into the physics class, in a way that strengthened the ideas in both classes.

[gristy]

10. Yes, I agree that synchronizing the math and science is very important

They did a pretty good job of that in my high school.

[Ms. Toad]

13. Actually, it can be very beneficial...

It has been a long time since I taught physics, but there used to be a wonderful course called "Project Physics" which does not require much past 9th/10th grade math. It is project based - photographing strobed moving objects and making measurements on the photographs to study trajectory, speed, acceleration, momentum, drawing the orbit of a planet, based on Kepler's second law.

Starting this way is more fun, and you get a good solid understanding of the basic principles. If you go on to physics later all of the high school physics is repeated anyway (albeit much more quickly). Your solid experiential understanding of the conservation of momentum, or of sweeping equal areas in equal times makes it a lot easier to integrate the upper level math that is needed to derive the 9th/10th grade formulas that explain the physical phenomena. It also eliminates the struggle many seniors experience associated with learning both physical principles and calculus at the same time. If you don't go on to study physics, you probably come out of it with a lot more than you would remember from a calculus based program.

Unfortunately, the course is pretty expensive because of the equipment required so it probably isn't very widespread.

I don't know about flipping it entirely around, but there's no math-based reason to wait until your senior year.

[gristy]

5. I still think the traditional order, which is the order I took them in,

is the best. Biology->Chemistry->Physics->AP(Physics, Chem, or Bio). The math and general difficulty goes up each year in that order, I think.

on edit: I also want to say that doing a good job of teaching science to high school kids seems to me to be a very difficult job. I tip my hat to all science teachers.

[Lizz612]

6. Can I ask

when you took them? (Just a general decade if you don't want to say how old you are.) Because biology has changed a lot, the molecular emphasis is getting bigger and bigger each day. Biochemistry is a huge Field and high school biology has too fit that in with all the other environmental subjects.

[gristy]

8. I took high school biology in 1973

You do the math. :D

[CRK7376]

14. The school were I

taught has been doing science that way for about 7-8 years now. We recognized that kids needed the basics first and flipped the order on several classes. Helps some, then others it doesn't matter, tehy will never track well in science....

[Lizz612]

15. Thats true

doesn't make it any less sad though (/inner bio geek) I'm sure they do well in other things though. I know plenty of people who can not do well in science classes but kick butt in English or history.

[salvorhardin]

16. IPS

Back when i was in high school (early 1980s) we had a course called Introductory Physical Science that was taught in freshman year. Actually, given the age of the text books I think it had been taught since at least the mid 1960s.

It was basic conceptual physics and chemistry, along with basic laboratory skills. The scientific method and experimentation were stressed. The thing I most remember about this course is that when weighing objects we didn't use precision weights but rather little metal beads. Their individual weight was small enough to make measurements acurate for the stuff we were doing. This wasn't because our school was cheap (it was, in fact) but the course was actually designed this way. For some reason, these little beads have always occupied a happy little corner of my mind.

The other thing I have fond memories of from that course are the instructor's hydrogen filled coke bottles. Mr. Peplinski kept a lit bunsen burner on his lab table at the front of the room all the time. On the shelf underneath he had these coke bottles filled with hydrogen with rubber stoppers in the top. Whenever someone in the class was falling asleep he would whip one of his coke bottles out and stick it over the bunsen burner flame causing a very loud explosion and the cork to go flying across the room at a good velocity. Somehow I think this would be discouraged today.

The last I knew IPS was discontinued about 12 years ago when Mr. Pep. retired. What a shame, because it really laid the groundwork for a great science education.

[fujiyama]

17. Interesting idea

but the main problem is that math curriculums are usually quite weak at the junior high/ middle school level.

Unfortunately when I went to HS, they required our freshman (9th grade) year to be wasted on "earth science", which was sort of a geology course, with some astronomy, weather, etc. I found it to be dull as hell (except for the astronomy).

10th was Bio, and we had the option of either taking a more molecular based approached, or a more broad based approach. Ultimately I took the harder one (molecular based), and screwed up my GPA a bit. Looking back I might have taken the easier one...though these classes definetely had their advantages in preparing me for college, considering the class had a similar structure.

However, it was good in another way -- My chemistry class in 11th grade wasn't too difficult, because the conceptual approach was similiar to bio the semester before.

Our senior year offered either Honors Physics or regular physics. Most of the students in the Honors physics were also taking calculus I concurrently, though the physics itself was not calc based.

Ultimately, I ended up taking most of that stuff again at the college level for my BS in engineering....and looking back I'd say this...

I think a case can be made to switch the bio and chem courses around. I don't recall the chemistry course being too terribly mathematically intensive. One advantage of having chemistry before bio is that biochemistry can be focused on more heavilly, as can molecular based evolution, etc.

I would ultimately still probably keep physics at the junior or senior year, considering many aren't prepared mathematically.

It really depends on a students' math background. If they are in precalculus by the time they are taking a non calc based physics course, they should be ready.

[Tims]

18. The biggest problem

with science education is not the order in which the sciences are introduced, but the fact that in way too many schools the science teachers are ill equipped to teach the subject, science text books are poorly written and there is a growing trend toward "science as entertainment". Too much "wow" and "gee wiz" flashy demonstrations and not enough real teaching and understanding. It's true that if you can't get students attention, they won't learn, but too often all we get is the attention - the learning part gets lost. If science is taught well in the primary schools, student will go to high school with an innate interest in the subject and not require the theatrics. Unfortunately we have our primary schools filled with elementary education majors who overwhelmingly exhibit a personal aversion to math and science. Most of these teachers avoided these subject as best they could throughout their college careers. (this tendency is well documented) In such an environment, is it any wonder that students enter high school dreading science and math and being ill prepared.

I have a few friends who are public school science teachers and, though they are very enthusiastic about their job, I'm glad I never had them as teacher's myself. The old adage that those who can do and those who can't teach applies doubly to science teachers. Anyone even modestly skilled in math and science can earn three to five times the best public school teacher's salary and with half the actual hours. Yes, there are always a few gifted people who, despite it all, will choose to teach, but a student has to be lucky to land in one of these classes.

I'm an engineer by profession and have a deep personal interest in the natural sciences (I was enrolled in a graduate biology program several years back also) so I feel I am well versed in the sciences. But I also spent quite a few years in the public schools (quite a few different ones and many well rated academically) teaching music lessons to Jr High and High School students. My own curiosity would lead me to ask my students about their science classes and I would also look through their text books. Though I was often bothered by what they said about their teachers teaching techniques, I did realize that this was second hand information through the eyes of a student. What appalled me most were the text books, especially the biology books. You could not read a page without finding at least one major technical error. Most information was presented in a "Dicovery Channel" superficial manner. Though the textbooks were new, most of the information was outdated even though they would take pains to include the latest "discoveries" but never bothering to update the core material.

We have systemic problems with our science educations that simple ordering of course material will not address. Schools must be willing to pay teachers more than simply survival wages - wage levels comparable to those of people with similar education and responsibilities in the private sector. We must give them decent hours and the support they need to do their jobs. We also must admit to ourselves that teachers in the more technically demanding subjects will have to be paid even higher wages if we are to even begin to interest those with these skills to teach. (Actually if we just paid all teachers what we now pay high school football coaches we would probably solve the problem).

School funding is not the issue, an out of control bureaucracy is. I have watched the size of public schools administrative staffs grow in the last thirty years from one administrator for each 12 to 15 teachers to ratios approaching 1 to 1 . On top of that, teachers are always trying to get into administration possition because the pay is substantially better. Even small rural schools in my area have administration buildings as large as their individual schools and that's just to house the administrators who don't have offices at the actual schools. We spend more per student in the US than just about any nation, but we pay our teachers the most poorly in relation to the general population. Is it any wonder our students always rank at the bottom in world academic standards.

Pay the teachers - fire the bureaucrats. Attract the best and the brightest. Let them be in charge because they will know what to do.