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: percent success



We've discussed the 5% that become physics majors and the 95% that don't, but
I think we also need to consider the 90+% of the total population that never
take a physics class at all. Clearly, we can't claim to serve them very well.

Actually this is not true First it is not 5% that becomes physics majors.
Less than 1% of the population which experiences instruction in physics
becomes physics or engineering majors. We have almost all of the
population going to school through the age of 16. Essentially all of these
have physics as part (nearly half) of a physical science course in either
8th or 9th grade. About 25% of the high school graduates take at least one
course in physics before graduation. An even greater percentage of our
total population, makes it through 6th grade and, while one might not tend
to argue that no physics is taught in K - 6, three things work against this
1) all elementary science text series (which generally serve as the
backbone of any curriculum that is established) contain physics lessons, 2)
all schools at some level (often at the state level) set requirements as to
how much time is spent each week on science, 3) there are people who come
around and check on such things, 4) there are exams used to assess the
progress of students in general in school which include items in science,
including physics from the curricula, and 5) there are studies of how much
time is spent on science instruction which indicate that often more time is
spent on science (including physics) than the state minimum requirements.
So, it is extremely unlikely that 90+% of the population does not receive
any physics instruction.

Even if one restricted the statement to the % of the population that took a
HS or college physics course 90+% would not be the best estimate because of
the 25% taking it in HS and the relatively high HS graduation rate overall.
BUT there's about 7 times more student hours of physics instruction going
on each week at K - 8 or 9 than at the college level. Can we *really*
ignore all of this physics instruction? Unfortunately, if we do not
consider ourselves responsible for the rest of the physics instruction then
who should be? Can we *really* absolve ourselves of all responsibility?
Should we *really* absolve ourselves of all responsibility?

There must be some reason they avoid us. Word must be out on the street that
physics classes are bad news. Who put the word out and why? Do we care?
Can or should we do anything about it.

The figures on what percentage of the college population takes an intro
physics course are probably either available or enough data is available to
make a reasonable estimate. I have not done that yet so I can't give a
number.

BUT, by this time it seems the "word is out". Rick's comment to the effect
that there are...

No easy answers here.

and his expressed wish...

I would love it if students came to college with a
good conceptual understanding of a few basic topics. This is what I hope
the outcome of the PER work provides--that the REAL introductory courses,
those taken at the primary, middle-school, and high-school levels will
develop into EFFECTIVE conceptualization courses. Then the colleges and
universities can provide the depth and the other skills needed by the
technical students. We're a long way from that.

seems quite appropriate. It fits with *my* earlier comment to the effect...

A simple place to begin, as far as I'm concerned, would be to reserve the
vocational training strictly for physics and engineering majors and for
everyone else (K - 12) and college non-science majors develop courses in
which the *students'* understanding concerning the *phenomena* are the
object of attention. I think even the physics and engineering majors would
be all the better for this approach of partitioning the thrust of courses
at the different levels.

(In spite of the fact that one reading the recent threads might imagine
that nothing has as yet come out of PER in terms of courses which are in
Rick's terms "EFFECTIVE conceptualization courses," this is just not true.
There's a number of examples published in one way or another which claim to
be such courses and which cite data do support the claims. Some of this is
even published in AJP and otherwise by AAPT.)

It seems to me that a dilemma arises when one starts to wonder how this
change in teaching (at K - 12) might happen. If we do not change how we
teach physics in college, then is it likely that teachers in K - 12 will
change how they teach? (I don't mean to exclude HS physics teachers in any
way. I consider them in the "we" of this question. Some of them might not
consider themselves as part of the "we" in this question.) If we still
feel free to "play devil's advocate" to essentially feel comfortable with
continuing to teach the way we do, then is it reasonable to expect any
change?

I submit that as long as the physics community in general continues to view
such considerations as second-class activity then little real change can be
expected and what change does happen will certainly not benefit from what
the physics community *could* 'bring to the table.'

Dewey


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad@varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938

"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++