Thursday, December 4, 2008
AP Curriculum
Wow! Great conversation! You are deepening my understanding. Do any of you remember the anecdote from Ned Hallowell's talk to us earlier in the fall? He had been asked to consult with MIT's Chemistry Dept., and while there, he witnessed a remarkable thing. The professors were orienting the undergraduates to the department; they pointed out the labs to the students and said, in effect, "Go, have fun; see what you can come up with." Half the students were on fire with excitement and couldn't wait to get into those labs to "play." the other half of those "very smart" students (MIT admits) were paralyzed and in real need of step-by-step instruction as to how to proceed. In which group would our graduates be had they been in that orientation group? I wonder. You would know better than I. Thanks to you for engaging this topic. So, now, how can this conversation get more widespread attention among those who might like to know it is happening?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The labs that I do with the AP chemistry students are strictly "cookbook" with specific instructions and very little (if any) wiggle room for creativity at all. There are two VERY good reasons for taking this approach.
1. Since Wetminster chooses to deliver the AP chemistry curriculum in a way NOT recommended by the College Board (i.e. teaching it without a previous year of high school chemistry and to relatively academically immature sophomores), the time pressures associated with finishing the material before the AP exam (which I feel is an unbendable obligation) are COLOSSAL. This means that open ended inquiry type labs are simply totally impractical.
2. Success on the AP exam (which I feel is another obligation I have) is simply NOT remotely predicated on expansive lab experience, or on the type of lab experience that is based on "playing" in the lab.
Having said all of that, I don't think that our students would necessaily do in the "paralyzed" group. I don't think that their experience would necessarily lace them there. I would argue that the rigor of their academic experience serves them well in other areas too. Without that rigor you can't go "play" in the lab with any meaning.
Adrian, you give two solid reasons as to why you have a professional obligation to teach "cookbook" labs as an A.P. teacher. But as an outsider looking in, it strikes me that these two reasons make good arguments against being tied to the AP format in the manner that Westminster has chosen.
Clark, I think that you make the assumption that I am unhappy doing the cookbook labs - I'm not! If you read my posts in the other (AP) thread you will see that I am keen on fact based learning and standardized tests as opposed to an inquiry based approach.
The cookbook labs help to elucidate the theory very nicely - in that respect they are helpful and they reinforce the kids’ knowledge.
So, in a nutshell I feel very happy "tied" to the AP exam!
Adrian:
I disagree with you completely. I believe a large "minority" of Westminster students would be in the category of not knowing what to do once they entered the MIT chemistry building. The traditional curriculum does not prepare them to think creatively, critically, and independently. I think there are a significant number of students because of their personality that would function just fine, but I would argue that it is more about them and not their education that prepares them to take that leap. Don't misunderstand me, I do believe that Westminster's education is excellent, but I think it is also lacking in ways that could be identified and improved upon. But we would have to be willing to look deeply at ourselves.
I do think you are right that AP science should NOT be taught as a stand alone course. The Science Department should restructure its curriculum in my estimation.
By the way, I wonder how many Westminster students apply to MIT, Cal Tech, Harvey Mudd, etc.?
I do think success in an AP course should be predicted somewhat by their performance on a more authentic, process-oriented or lab-based exam. I like the model in AP Studio Art where the exam requires a portfolio of work (22 pieces), with photographs of the pieces, and a critical analysis of the work on the part of the student. This portfolio is then judged. That has merit and makes the AP assesment more authentic--that's what artists do. Scientists do not take multiple choice tests and solve a series of standard problems that do not relate to much beyond some important content.
Again, so where do we go from here. Good discussion with important points on both sides. Let's not let the words die a quiet death.
Bob
Bob types;
>"Adrian, I disagree with you completely."
This is a phrase that I am VERY familiar with! ;-). I suspect that some of these issues are strictly cultural and will NEVER be surmounted. That's OK and I am resigned to that, but at the same time I am totally confident that my input remains valuable; I hope that you agree.
As far as the discussion in general goes I must admit that it tends to mirror some of my own disillusionment. Time and again I hear things relating to educational theory and innovative practice that I either do not understand or do not agree with. I don't think of myself as a closed-minded educator, nor do I consider myself as inflexible or especially conservative, but at the same time there appears to be a fairly constant erosion of the value of things that have under-pinned my whole career.
Maybe I am the proverbial "dinosaur", but what's wrong with teaching these (HIGH SCHOOL) kids some darn fine chemistry and letting the world changing inspiration come at a more appropriate time?
Naive? Wrong? Short-sighted? Old-fashioned? 20th century thinking? I dunno, but it's how I feel.
As I turned my “365 daily quotes for a teacher” calendar this morning, I was particularly taken with today’s entry. It is as follows, and it is said to be by the apparently famous (at least according to Wikipedia) engineer and “historian of technology” (whatever THAT means), Eugene Ferguson. It struck me as being apropos to the discussion. He said;
“Pyramids, cathedrals, and rockets exist not because of geometry, theories of structures, or thermodynamics, but because they were first a picture – literally a vision – in the minds of those who built them.”
I bet some people will LOVE that! I on the other hand, must admit that whilst I fully understand the words, I somewhat dislike them! I’d even go as far as to say his comments are disingenuous. As an engineer Mr. Ferguson ought to know better than to be applying such emotional and flowery words to a situation that he KNOWS requires a deep physical, chemical and mathematical understanding of “geometry, theories of structures, or thermodynamics”. Without that/those, the people that built those structures would have NOT built those structures AT ALL, and would be no more than “six year olds with some Lego”!
I'm kinda with Adrian. I think that we need to lay a decent foundation of knowledge against which our students can bounce ideas, rethink old approaches, learn to value substantive content vs. someone's unproven "pie in the sky idea"... While I agree that we have to be willing to open up our thinking as a nation, we still need to have a working vocabulary of concepts and the discipline associated with foundational research that allows up to have a reasonable discussion about the far reaching possibilities. So, yes, we do need to teach them to question and then how to challenge both our, their own, and other's peoples ideas... but let's give them some playdough to work with vs. flour and the hint of water somewhere in the lab.
(By the way, I always wonder about the tone associated with type, so please know that this is all offered in the spirit of healthy debate) MM
This exchange needs to be routed into a more productive channel. Decisions on APs are made solely by administrators, so unless there is a recognized role for faculty input, these comments are, in the saddest sense, academic. College counselors need to be heard, since they know more sides of this issue. Does the administration plan to pay attention to the advice of teachers in the ranks? An answer would be helpful. That said, let me weigh in as a humanist. One, honors courses are better in many respects, but the reality of college admissions may not allow us that leeway. Honors courses allow for more innovation, in-depth research and writing. Two, slights about facts/content miss the boat: no argument can be made without facts adduced as proof or examples, so facts must stay. Long-term retention is not our job: who said it was? But a teacher who knows his subject well, brings passion to it, and, when possible, makes things fun can be assured that kids WILL remember. One of my alums reported that she won at Trivial Pursuits because she remembered facts from my course. What more can I ask? Three, the format of humanities APs may be less satisfying than those in the sciences or math. The history DBQ is at best a thought-experiment, a writing exercise: it does not relate in any way to scholarly work. But, to be fair, we are not here to raise acolytes or pump for our professions; just to teach facts, curiosity, method, concepts and skills. Four, when I hear the word `relevance', I reach for my gun: no one knows how the 21st century will develop. Five, our students are so good that we can still be creative in AP courses and count on them doing well: I teach Ibsen, Nietzsche and others who will never be on the AP and I don't give a rat's behind that I stray from the test. We do not work for Princeton, do we? No, we are here for this school and our kids. So, go teach; and workers of the world, unite!
There is every intention for the "academics" to be the ones who engage this conversation. Any responsible administration in the position of having to make complex decisions would want to hear this voice. So, have at it; your comments are welcomed.
Post a Comment