Message-Id: <l03102801b0d03bad85d1@[153.90.236.25]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.971228204904.14229A-100000@hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 11:34:20 -0700
To: pinhole@exploratorium.edu
From: Steven Eiger <eiger@montana.edu>
Subject: Re: Advanced Integrated Science thread
Since I will not be able to attend the AP workshops, I thought I would like
to put in two more cents worth. It sounds like many people have thought up
a group of great advanced science courses to be taught in high school.
They all should be taught, in my opinion. Some standard AP courses I think
are pretty good too, eg., Chem and physics, bio I am very lukewarm about.
I was soundly criticised for this about a month ago, and I think unfairly.
It is a fact that teachers often feel pressured, for a variety of reasons,
to teach towards the AP test. Thus a potentially great AP course, can be
altered significantly so that students can succeed on the test. I taught
in a school where the AP results were compared between departments, 4.5 was
average, I did not want to teach towards the AP bio test as it is now
written, so I taught a Physiology course more in line with the one outlined
in the criticism against my arguments. Biology is a great subject, the
test, at least back then, required a certain treatment of the subject which
I do not think encouraged the thinking skills we want. You can certainly
look at each topic and see how one could integrate those skills into the
material, but then one has an extremely difficult time covering the breadth
of material requiired by the test. I sympathize with the test writers as
ten different bio teachers might choose to focus on ten different areas;
their response is to write a general test covering everything. I am all
for offering upper level bio courses, just doing it in a way such that each
teacher is teaching what they, and their students are interested in, and
not being a slave to the "test'. Sincerely, Eiger