Re: High-school curriculum changes

["Daryl L. Taylor" <Daryl@DARYLSCIENCE.COM>]

I tend to agree with your assessments of the problem, but not with this
solution. It does seem the students come to us Fizzix Guys and Gals poorly
prepared in the Math applications. However, it has always been that way. It
just seems worse now for some reason.

Students MUST understand that USE of a tool like algebra, trig, or even
Calculus is not only going to "pop-up", but is also expected! 27 or so
years ago, when I was a snotty-nosed rookie physics teacher, I actually
took the time to teach the math necessary. Then, I realized I was wasting
valuable physics time and, in the long run, cheating my own students. I now
find the "I expect you to do this" approach works quite well in regular
Physics, Honors Physics, and even in AP Physics. I find consistently that
the kids who actually want to learn the physics will, indeed, learn the
maths better. If we change our own curriculum to "coddle" to the
unprepared, it knocks us down a level or two.

On the other hand, physics does lend itself to being presented in many
different arrangments, so your "back-to-front" actually has merit. However,
if you switch the topics totally, how can the student truly learn EM
without vector analysis? Optics without trig? It's like beer without
calories! Can't be done.

One thing done here in South Jersey is not even allowing the student to
drop a course after the 1st two weeks. Once that was instituted, kids
gained a tendency to "guts" it out and give it their best shot. Believe me,
it works. Expect more.

Daryl L. Taylor, Fizzix Guy
PAEMST '96
Williamstown HS, NJ
Engineering Academy - Rowan University, NJ
www.DarylScience.com
609.330.9571

This email sent using 100% recycled electrons! Don't waste yours!


Daniel S. Price said:
> Several factors compel me to address (again) the structure of the
> physics curriculum at Bear Creek High School (a suburban high school
> comprising students who are, on average, slightly above the
> socioeconomic mean):
>
>    *    Increased enrollment in first-year, algebra-based physics
>
>    *    Decreased mathematical competence on the part of students
> enrolled in
>          first-year, algebra-based physics
>
>    *    10-15% of students (regardless of first-semester performance)
> dropping the
>          class before the beginning of second semester
>
>
> Given the difficulty that an increasing number of students have with
> rearranging equations, solving simultaneous equations, and general
> (mathematical) problem-solving instinct, I am seeking opinions
> regarding a possible solution:
>
>
>    *    Teach the physics course "back-to-front", beginning the year
> with
>          "traditionally second semester topics" such as waves and
> sound, light,
>          electricity, and magnetism, and teaching mechanics in the
> second semester.
>          [Challenging mathematical topics, such as vectors and elastic
> collisions, would
>            then be introduced after students have had at least one full
> semester of
>            second-year algebra, while topics which are taught with much
> less algebra
>            would be introduced in the first semester.  Also, "second
> semester topics"
>            tend to be more interesting to students (more "flash",
> making for better
>            advertising to the next year's enrollees (we register for
> the upcoming year
>            three weeks into the spring semester.]
>
>
> Discussion regarding the merits of this proposal is most welcome.