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[2]: A Parents' Day gem




Leigh writes:

After writing the above I got Nick Guilbert's further protest:

Let's remember the context, ok? This is from a *conceptual
physics* course in a *high school*, a course in which we do not treat,
when discussing projectile motion,

<snip>

I think this is the strongest argument I've seen for getting rid of the
misnamed courses in "conceptual physics". One must question their value
to the student and to the society. Originally I believe these courses
were promoted on the premise that they would produce "scientific
literacy" in a population otherwise deprived of that blessing. Here we
have a conceptual physics course with a menu of *important* concepts
which are intentionally left out. Not only are these topics not treated
mathematically, they are not mentioned at a natural juncture in the
course dealing with projectile motion.

Nick's omission here is not a unique error. It is entirely representative
of the point of view taken by proponents of such courses. I can talk about
*all* of the topics in the list on a level appropriate to a mathematically
unsophisticated student. Why is it inappropriate to talk about them when
they naturally come up?

This is a discussion worth having, and I'd be glad to continue it
off-line if nobody else is interested. At the outset, it becomes apparent
that one's predispositions about what ought to be taught, and why, about
physics to "mathematically unsophisticated" students will determine much
about one's answers. I also need to mention that I do not consider myself
to be a "proponent" of the kind of course I described. I am not currently
teaching the conceptual course here, and I have not done so for many years.
I was relating what is (in the context of the Witchcraft! story), not
necessarily what I think ought to be. But I thank Leigh for asserting that
I was an advocate for the position I described; I must have written with
uncharacteristic clarity that day!

Discussing 'real-life' complications to artificially-simple examples is
entirely appropriate in a conceptual course, and I think many of us on this
list who have been around for a while can do it pretty well. What I will
not do is to construct a course out of a non-mathematical treatment of a
laundry list of "*important*" topics. I have chafed under courses like
that: they tend to make physics into an encyclopedic collection of things
(I hesitate to use the word 'facts') to be memorized for a test and then
forgotten. I would much rather do fewer, simpler ideas (like motion under
constant acceleration, for example) and do them *well* - including as much
math as the students can take, including relevant experiments, including a
discussion of the limits of applicability of the ideas - than to cover
conceptually a bunch of 'real life' or 'relevant' or 'contemporary' ideas
that the students can't appreciate mathematically, can't experiment with,
and can't with a limited exposure realize where the boundaries of validity
lie. I have pared down over the years the number of topics I cover in the
courses I teach in favor of a smaller number of topics done more
thoroughly. I think that represents better the nature of the discipline
than by teaching courses that are encyclopedic in coverage but veneer-deep.
If that flies in the face of 'scientific literacy', then so be it.

Nick


Nick Guilbert

The Peddie School
Hightstown, NJ

nguilber@peddie.k12.nj.us