Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

RE: Physics First



Hi Ron-
Your administrative types may have been hearing from Leon
Lederman. The logic is impeccable: You can't understand chemistry
without a modicum of physics and biology (they got it wrong, huh?)
without some chemistry. I surely agree, with some reservations.
Biology ought to include some insight into genetics and the
chemistry of DNA, RNA and genetic expression. At least a bit of the
romance of organic chemistry is needed as background. Chemistry
cannot be understood without some insight into the atomic structure
of matter. Today, the chemists teach this aspect of physics. The
students do not, however, have enough physics insight to grasp this
aspect of chemistry, at least according to the Ledermanites.
I don't know where I stand on all this. I could recite
valences long before I took high school physics - it was a boy scout
merit badge, as I recall. The science oriented student has educated
itself, usually, well beyond the level of the high school offerings,
in my experience.
There is a view, which has some respectable support, that it
is a waste of time to make "scientific literacy" an object of a high
school education (see the review of Shamos, "The Myth of Scientific
Literacy", in"Nature" 6 June, '96, p 487). This view, if adopted,
might cost the jobs of a number of people who proclaim themselves
as "Science Educators."
I am inclined to the Lederman view, which would relegate a
high school physics course to more of a "how things work" sort of view.
The other courses could then work up from there.
Regards,
Jack
************************************************************
Some Radministrative typesS at my four-year, private high school are
starting to make some noise about teaching physics to the freshmen,
biology to the sophomores, chemistry to the juniors, and then offering AP
courses to the seniors. Currently, we teach biology to freshmen,
chemistry to sophomores, physics to juniors, and then have seniors choose
among the AP courses. Their argument is that the freshmen donUt seem to
be ready to handle some of the biology concepts.

Our program has been quite successful the way it is, and I am a little
concerned about the effect such a change might have on it. Now we have
about 80% of the school population take either the Honors Physic I course
or the General Physics I course in their junior or senior year. About a
third of those take the Advanced Placement Physics C course as seniors.

I am wondering what other experience some of you have had with various
sequences of sciences in the high school. What evidence do you have that
one sequence is better than the other? What opinions do the college
instructors have about the success of such methods?
**************************************