This thread of "physics first" has been running for some time now. I just
wanted to add my 2 cents worth here.
I have been teaching physics to freshmen for 6 years now at a school where
the "inverted" (phys - chem - bio) program has been used. The initial push
for this was the fact that understanding biology nowadays requires a working
knowledge of the fundamentals of chemistry. So we put chemistry before
biology in order to meet this need. Now perhaps if students received the
necessary background in middle school this would be unnecessary and so the
old traditional sequence could be preserved. But this has not yet been the
case. Ok. Well, where does physics fit into this scheme of things? Why
physics first? I don't believe for a nanosecond that the same argument works
again. Yes, chemistry is based on physics, but this connection need not be
mastered before one can pass a chemistry course. So why not keep physics at
the end of the sequence where it can be taught with all the mathematical
formalism preserved? In other words, teach physics the way its supposed to
be taught. It is still being done. This is done with our advanced placement
course for juniors and (mostly) seniors. This, of course, is designed to
meet the needs of those students who will go on to a physics based course of
study in college such as engineering. Nothing new and startling there. This
has always been. But, traditionally, only a minority of students, the cream
of the crop, ever took this class. We figured that since our
technologically driven society is so much based on science in general and
physics in particular in many ways, that a knowledge of the laws and
fundamentals of physics would be of benefit to all students. Not necessarily
to prepare them for further work in physics, but so that they have a greater
knowledge and appreciation of nature and how it works in our daily lives.
Also, enable them to make more informed decisions as reposnsible citizens.
In short, we wanted to expose our students to as much science as possible.
Furthermore, by exposing more students to physics, we hoped to be able to
interest more students into going into physics related fields. Ergo, physics
first.
By teaching physics to freshmen, since they do not yet posses the
mathematical sophistication needed to be taught physics the way its supposed
to be taught it has to be done so at a more conceptual level. Now I can
hear the purists or traditionalists or whatever kind of ' ist there is out
there yelping, "but this is not really physics!!" This is bogus, watered
down, etc. etc. Well, there may be some truth in this. But then isn't it
just as true that freshmen level physics vs graduate level work has the same
polarity? Quantum mechanics can't really be learned until a couple of years
into a graduate program because of the mathematical sophistication required.
So in freshman physics, we study the laws conceptually, use them to explain
many familiar phenomena in our daily lives, and work with the mathematics to
the extent that they are able at this level. To those whose interest we
captured and/or want to take more physics we'll give them the math and the
rigor when they are more able to handle it.
As far as biology and life processes being more inherently interesting
to the younger students, perhaps this is true. But I have found that
students have an inherent curiosity about all types of nature. Whenever I
can base a lesson or a unit on some experience of theirs familiar to them, I
can grab and hold their interest. This also helps them learn as their
Piagetian development at this age is not what it will be as juniors or
seniors.
In summary, I really don't have any fancy educational theories or
principles to draw on or use here. This has been my experience: our "phyics
first" and last works.
Mike Macallister
Central Catholic High School
Portland, Oregon