Remodeling science education

David Hestenes 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85282, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 13-22. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9382
OPEN ACCESS   1437 Views   990 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Radical reform in science and mathematics education is needed to prepare citizens for challenges of the
emerging knowledge‐based global economy. We consider definite proposals to establish: (1) Standards of science and
math literacy for all students. (2) Integration of the science curriculum with structure of matter, energy, models and
modeling as unifying themes. (3) Pedagogy promoting scientific inquiry and argumentation. (4) Sustained professional
development and support for teachers. (5) Institutional support from local universities for continuous upgrades in
curriculum and teaching practices. Physics plays a central role in all these reforms.

CITATION

Hestenes, D. (2013). Remodeling science education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9382

REFERENCES

  • Arons, A. (1997). Teaching Introductory Physics, New York: Wiley.
  • Alonzo, M., and Finn, E., An Integrated Approach to Thermodynamics in the Introductory Physics Course, The Physics Teacher. 33: 297‐310 (1995).
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993), Project 2061 Benchmarks Online. http://www.project2061.org/tools/bench/bo/frame.html.
  • Brewe, E. (2003), Energy Thread in Introductory Physics, PhD. Thesis, ASU. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html
  • Cresswell J. & Vassayettes, S. (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris,
  • France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/
  • Desbien, D. (2002). Modeling discourse management compared to other classroom management styles in university physics. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
  • Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting Mathematics Education. China Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Freudenthal, H. (1993). Thoughts on Teaching Mechanics, Didactical Phenomenology of the Concept of Force. Educational Studies in Mathematics 25, 71‐87.
  • Hestenes, D. (1997). Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers. In E. Redish and J. Rigden (Eds.), The changing role of the physics department in modern universities. Part II (pp. 935‐957). American Institute of Physics. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
  • Hestenes, D. (2008) Notes for a Modeling Theory of Science Cognition and Physics Education. In E. van den Berg, A. Ellermeijer & O. Slooten (eds.) Modelling in Physics and Physics Education. U. Amsterdam. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
  • Lesh, R. and Doerr, H. M. (2003a). Beyond Constructivism, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2&3), 211‐233.
  • Lesh, R, and Doerr, H. (eds) (2003b). Beyond Constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Malone, K. (2006). A Comparative Study of the Differences between Modeling and Non‐Modeling High School Physics
  • Students Cognitive and Metacognitive. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
  • Malone, K. (2008), Correlation between knowledge structures, force concept inventory, and problem‐solving behaviors. Physical Review Special Topics‐‐ Physics Education Research 4, 020107.
  • Megowan, C. (2007). Framing Discourse for Optimal Learning in Science and Mathematics. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
  • Modeling Instruction Project: http://modeling.asu.edu.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA. http://standards.nctm.org.
  • National Research Council (1996), National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Wash. DC.
  • National Research Council (1999), Designing Mathematics of Science Curriculum Programs, a Guide for Using Mathematics and Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Wash. DC.
  • PISA (2007). The Programme for International Student Assessment. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/27/37474503.pdf Rutherford, F.J. and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford.
  • Sherwood, B. (1983). Pseudowork and Real Work, American Journal of Physics 51: 597.
  • Thompson, P. (1994), Bridges between Mathematics and Science Education, Project 2061 Conference on Developing a Research Blueprint. http//patthompson.net/PDFversions/1994Bridges.pdf.
  • Wells, M., Hestenes, D., and Swackhamer, G. (1995). A Modeling Method for High School Physics Instruction, American Journal of Physics 63, 606‐619. http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.