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: breadth vs. depth (was: attached HS curriculum)



This looks like the standard traditional HS course. The U Mass Amherst PER
group recommends spending 1 semester to 1 1/2 semesters on mechanics
including energy/momentum. The 1 1/2 figure is probably closer to reality
in the average physics class for getting the necessary depth.

Not having occasion to spend two years with most of my students, budgeting
1 1/2 semesters for mechanics would eliminate most of what they find
"really cool" about physics (sound, color, and other second-semester
topics). I'm not strictly in the entertainment business, nor do I wish to
offer a survey course, but I do have to pay attention to the audience--if
they don't sign up for physics, I'm out of a job. [The administration has
made it clear that I and I alone am responsible for maintaining and
increasing enrollment in physics courses.]

Priscilla Laws et al have found that 2 dimensional cases should be delayed
until 1-d cases have been exhausted. Also they found that momentum needs to
come before energy for better understanding.

As I plan to de-emphasize the coverage of work (at least at the abstract
level), I see no reason why I could not rearrange the curriculum to lead
from force into momentum (via impulse) and then into energy (via collisions).

If you really want to get them
to understand simple circuits then they need to do batteries and bulbs labs
ala McDermott, Workshop Physics, Real Time Physics, or Castle. This eats up
a big chunk of time.

Indeed, and coverage of electronics is the only topic which I feel is given
"short shrift" in the curriculum. It is the exception to my "don't do it
at all unless you do it thoroughly", as I judge some exposure to the
subject is, in this case, preferable to ignoring it utterly. Moreover,
much of the discussion of electricity involves practical applications such
as issues of safety.

This list of topics probably does not allow enough time to be able to get
the necessary depth. My class periods have been cut back to daily 45min, so
if students do activities, the material must be spread out more. They also
cut 2 weeks off of the second semester to get the seniors out early. One
topic is only covered by my small handful of juniors (3 this year).

Perhaps not, though I hope I do as well as could be done. [As doubtless do
we all.] In support of my syllabus, I offer the following rebuttals:

How much depth is necessary and appropriate? One could never cover *all*
of the complexities and ramifications of a topic, but may well find
an acceptable level
of coverage which serves the student in the present and future.

Without a list of specific activities supporting each topic, it would be
difficult to judge the adequacy of coverage. I have not provided
such a list, which would be more trouble
than I care to take on for this discussion.

One way of judging how well the less coverage/more depth works is by pre
and post-testing with the FCI and/or the FMCE (the dreaded F words).

Quite likely, and I am trying to find ways to apply such tools despite a
very tight schedule. As my job is to provide what each student needs,
rather than what I find convenient to teach them, any analytical device
which leads to that ideal is of great value.