Re: College nowadays - What "should" students know?

[Bob Muir <muirrob@UNCG.EDU>]

Fran, et.al.,

Yes, it has been awhile since I've seen a note from you.
I was wondering whether you were still on the list.

I agree with you!  One of our best local H.S. physics
teachers use the modeling approach and does not use any of
the textbooks in his room for the same reasons you mention.

I DO NOT assume that any of my students have had a "good"
H.S. physics course.  Where "good" means they *covered*
Serway or whatever.  Since I have so few who are critical
thinkers, I have to start from "scratch".

It would be fantastic if all my students in the intro.,
calc. based course were good critical thinkers.  I'd think
I'd died and gone to heaven!

Maybe it would be informative to the list members if you
would share your experiences from the use of the modeling
method.  For example, how did your students do on the FCI
before you began using the modeling method compared to
afterwards?  How long have you been using this method?  Did
you participate in the workshops?  Have you encountered any
problems shifting to the method, e.g., materials, budgets,
parents, etc.?  Is there a *learning curve* associated with
the transition?  What do your colleagues (biology &
chemistry faculty) think about your teaching with this
method?

Thanks,
bob

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:56:58 -0400 Fran Poodry
<FPoodry@AOL.COM> wrote:

> In a message dated 9/29/99 5:00:50 AM, LISTSERV@LISTS.NAU.EDU writes:
>
> > I have become increasingly troubled that "good" high school physics
> > classes are increasingly becoming mirrors of college classes. Only if
> > we
> > high school teachers run through Serway and Faughn, Giancoli, Cutnell and
> > Johnson, etc are we deemed to be doing our jobs. And if we can get through
> > Resnick and Halliday in one year on our students first exposure to physics
> > we are truly excellent.
>
> Huh???
>
> It has been a few years since I last wrote to this list, so I apologize if I
> am repeating old stuff or stepping on toes, here.  But what "information"
> tells us that "good" HS classes "mirror" college classes?  WHO SAYS we are
> only doing our jobs if we cover all of Cutnell and Johnson (or whichever) in
> a year?
>
> Nobody judges me on whether I get through a textbook.  I judge myself on how
> well my kids do on the FCI at the end of the year, but I'm the only one who
> cares about that.
> (I was pleased to achieve nearly 50% average, with one kid missing only 2
> questions on the whole thing!)  My administration observes me teach, and they
> have a whole three pages of checklist, without once mentioning whether I
> "cover the book."
>
> Besides, I thought college professors wanted critical thinkers in their intro
> physics classes, not kids who had covered the book in HS.  And as long as the
> kids take their state test in 11th grade and I teach 12th, I don't even have
> to "cover" ALL the "standards".
>
> So, what is a "good" HS physics class?  I teach using modeling, and I think
> it is a decent class.  We do a couple of fun projects (I think school should
> have SOME fun in it, but I may be a radical), but we also analyze a LOT of
> data.  We ask hard questions like "Why did you do it (the experiment, the
> problem, etc) that way?" and "What if you changed (some variable or
> condition), what do you think would happen then?."  Book?  I admit I kindof
> forgot to use it last year.  I'm not used to having a decent one, so I'm not
> in the habit of assigning reading or problems from it.  I'm SURE we didn't do
> all the topics in it.  So am I a "bad" teacher?  Where are these criteria
> coming from?
>
> Fran Poodry
> Haddonfield Memorial High School
> Haddonfield, NJ

----------------------
Bob Muir
Physics & Astronomy
UNC Greensboro
Greensboro, NC
muirrob@uncg.edu