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: Why Physics First?



Part of the answer may be that in some schools I've
seen with 9th grade (or later) Phys Sci, that's the
place where "low-end" students get placed and the
content gets dumbed down quite a bit. VERY few of our
"college-track" students here take Phys Sci.

I think the Phys/Chem/Bio sequence makes the most
sense pedagogically. Everyone gets some physics
exposure; the weaker math kids would certainly not
deal with vector components. It would seem easy to
offer an honors 9th grade physics for those who can do
the algebra and a conceptual course for those who
can't. But the conceptual course must still ask lots
of "How do you know that" questions. John Barrere
Apex HS
--- "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU> wrote:
I have been trying to say the same thing as Joel
Rauber for several
years, but don't seem to be getting anywhere. From
my perspective we
have been doing physics first (and last) for quite
some time. It's w=
hat
I did as a student in 1964-1968. I took physical
science as a freshm=
an,
just as Joel described, then biology, then
chemistry, then physics.
Many schools are still doing this type of thing. I
don't understand
what is wrong with that. Furthermore, if this
sequence is still
practiced, it seems the "physics first" push will
actually push us
backwards. If "physics first" puts physics in the
freshmen year (in
lieu of physical science) and eliminates it from the
senior year (in
favor of anatomy, or physiology, or earth science,
etc), then we end =
up
with 1.0 credits of physics in the four-year period
where now we have
something more like 1.70.

If the sequence is physical science, biology,
chemistry, physics then=
we
end up with about 1.7 units of physics, 1.3 units of
chemistry, and 1=
.0
units of biology. "Physics first" would likely end
up as 1.0 physics=
,
1.0 chemistry, 2.0 biology.

Granted, my numbers are assuming 4 years of science
but many students
only take three. But it seems physics first might
be an attempt to m=
ake
sure those who do not currently take physics (in the
senior year) wil=
l
get it in the freshman year, except in many schools
they are already
getting 70% physics in the freshman year.

If that is true, then why are physicists pushing to
move from 0.7
physics for everyone and 1.7 for some, to 1.0
physics for everyone (a=
nd
that 1.0 is at a low level). This doesn't seem like
a good trade to =
me.
=20

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton College
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu


Joel Rauber said...

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.
When I was in hi=
gh
school 71-75 in Georgia, the fairly standard
curriculum was what I'd
call Physics First and Last. They didn't call it
that back then, the
9th graders took something called "Physical Science"
which was about =
70%
physics and 30% Chemistry. Sophomores had Biology,
Juniors had
Chemistry, and Seniors Physics. This was probably
thought of as phys=
ics
last, I thought it served me well. Has this style
curriculum changed
sometime in the last 25 years?

This posting is the position of the writer, not that
of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.