D. Hammer, Science Education, 83(6), p 797-799. (html preprint)
Abstract: Last year, browsing current journals, I came across an article in Kappan titled "Physics for First Graders" (Hagerott, 1997). I'm a big fan of the idea that young children can, do, and should learn physics, even children as young as the first grade. But this article was misguided, and it troubled me that Kappan, which bills itself as "The Professional Journal for Education," would publish it. I held off writing a response — I had plenty to do, and I assumed there would be a barrage of criticism. Still, I watched Kappan, and when several months went by without any sign of that criticism, I phoned the editors to learn that none had been submitted.
Was everyone expecting someone else to write? More worrisome was the possibility that the piece fit with Kappan readers' expectations of science education. I drafted a somewhat longer essay than I'd originally considered, backing up a little to explain my concerns about the scientific substance and pedagogy.
Kappan declined to publish my response. The editors felt I was "eminently unfair" to the author. Moreover, they noted, no one but me seemed to have any problem with the article: "As an enrichment activity that will give kids more exposure to some of the basic concepts of physics than they are likely to get otherwise — unless they have an exceptional first-grade teacher — we see nothing wrong with [the author's] approach." I don't think I was unfair, and the fact that the editors and readership might see nothing wrong with "Physics for First Graders" was, in the end, what motivated me to write. It is also what motivates me to publish my essay here, and I am grateful to Science Education for providing a venue.
What follows is the essay I submitted to Kappan. Readers of Science Education may make their own judgments, and I would be happy to hear them.
Was everyone expecting someone else to write? More worrisome was the possibility that the piece fit with Kappan readers' expectations of science education. I drafted a somewhat longer essay than I'd originally considered, backing up a little to explain my concerns about the scientific substance and pedagogy.
Kappan declined to publish my response. The editors felt I was "eminently unfair" to the author. Moreover, they noted, no one but me seemed to have any problem with the article: "As an enrichment activity that will give kids more exposure to some of the basic concepts of physics than they are likely to get otherwise — unless they have an exceptional first-grade teacher — we see nothing wrong with [the author's] approach." I don't think I was unfair, and the fact that the editors and readership might see nothing wrong with "Physics for First Graders" was, in the end, what motivated me to write. It is also what motivates me to publish my essay here, and I am grateful to Science Education for providing a venue.
What follows is the essay I submitted to Kappan. Readers of Science Education may make their own judgments, and I would be happy to hear them.
No comments:
Post a Comment