PUM and Modeling Instruction, compared to traditional instruction such as PSI
A post to the
AAPT Physics First listserv in March 2013.
Colleagues:
Below is an open letter to
Bob Goodman, New Jersey founder of PSI, from Eugenia Etkina at Rutgers University.
Eugenia does physics education research (PER), and she directs the physics
teacher education program at Rutgers. She developed ISLE with Alan Van
Heuvelen, and PUM.
We think highly of ISLE (http://www.islephysics.net/), which is
college-level and super-compatible with Modeling Instruction. ASU Professor
David Hestenes, co-founder of Modeling Instruction, lauds PUM (http://pum.rutgers.edu/) as very well thought out. PUM is a physics/physical science
curriculum that strongly links middle school and high school. We recommend
Eugenia's PER group as the best group nationwide for modelers who want to earn
a Ph.D.
-- Jane Jackson, Co-Director, Modeling
Instruction Program,
Department of
Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe. http://modeling.asu.edu
Life member,
American Modeling Teachers Assn: http://modelinginstruction.org
----------------------------------------------
[March 28, 2013]
Hello everyone,
I am not part of
this list but Jane Jackson and Joe Kremer sometimes forward me posts from the
list. I think it is time for me to contribute to the PSI discussion.
Yes, I was Bob
Goodman's dissertation advisor. And yes, at the time I thought his ideas were
very progressive. But a lot changed since Bob got his EdD degree from Rutgers.
And as Joe put it correctly, we do not see eye to eye anymore. Here is why.
When Bob came up
with the idea of using 9th grade physics to help students learn math, he was
teaching physics himself. Bob knows physics very well, he basically
“feels” is with his skin. He knew why certain math equations are
the way they are, where they came from and when they can be applied and when
they cannot. The other teacher using his approach in the same school and
helping develop the materials is also very good in physics. Although even then
I wished there were more experiments involved in constructing the concepts, and
I saw that real inquiry was not present, there were strong points in the
approach that I thought compensated for this lack of experimental
physics.
My disagreements
with Bob started when PSI began to be promoted as a way for teachers to get
certified to teach physics without having physics background. And when PSI
turned into a prescribed set of activities or lesson plans that teachers can
follow directly.
I did not
express my opinion publicly (although I told Bob about my views of training
teachers through PSI) as I thought that NGSS and reforms in AP Physics
curriculum would take care of the issue. Both require teachers to have very
deep knowledge of physics and both promote inquiry as a way of learning and
thinking. But the discussion on your listserv made me write this note.
I understand
that there are many ways to teach physics; some teachers prefer more
traditional approaches, some prefer more inquiry-oriented. But whatever
approach one takes, a teacher should know more physics than the physics her/his
students will learn. And the teacher should have a physics-like mind-set. Both
require years to develop.
Some curricula
take care of the physics-like mind-set naturally (Modeling Instruction is one
of them, another one is ISLE or PUM - see http://pum.rutgers.edu if you are not
familiar with it). PSI does not do it, as there knowledge appears as given. The
same is true for mathematics. Although PSI helps students develop basic math
skills, those are developed as skills
-- to be remembered, not deeply conceptualized.
Physics way of
thinking -- a physics mind-set -- is experiment-based and inherently
challenge-oriented. (Physicists naturally question any human authority and the
ultimate authority are the experiment and the internal coherence of models and
explanations). Experiments in physics serve as a source and a test of knowledge
-- not just application. And when students do not see them this way they are
deprived of the essence of physics. Those of you who use modeling or ISLE (PUM)
know how those curricula start with evidence and help students test their ideas
against evidence. They teach students how to think like physicists, critically
and creatively, constantly reflecting on HOW THEY KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW. PSI does
not do it.
Finally, one
more thought. If you agree that the purpose of physics (as any other science subject)
is to prepare our students for life in the 21st century, then we need to
consider how this century is different from the one before. We live in the
times when those who can create, innovate, question authority, test their ideas
and develop new approaches to problems will succeed. We have curricula that
teach students to do these exact things very well. You are familiar with
Modeling instruction, and at Rutgers we have been developing ISLE as a philosophy of learning and
teaching and PUM as a set of ISLE-based curriculum units. Both Modeling and PUM
have the above goals as central - they are at the very heart of the learning
process. As a byproduct the students will do well on the new AP physics exams,
as those will assess exactly these skills.
In summary I
suggest that if you feel the need to question/improve/revise/change the way you
teach, talk to me about recent developments of the learning theories and their
connections to the Next Generation Science Standards, new science framework,
revised AP Physics courses, etc.
Study the NRC “Framework for K-12 Science Education” and
implement the 8 scientific practices.
PUM and Modeling Instruction are aligned with all eight of them. In
short, inquiry is defined well by eight scientific practices in the National
Research Council's “A Framework for K-12 Science Education.” Models
and theories are the purpose and the outcomes of scientific practices. They are
the tools for engineering design and problem solving. As such, modeling guides
all other practices. PUM (ISLE) and Modeling Instruction have models, modeling
cycles, and model-centered argumentation as central components. You should,
too.
.