Re: Would Physics First Increase the Number of Physics Majors?

[Bob LaMontagne <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>]

Richard Hake wrote:

> In his Physhare post of 27 Apr 2003 22:39:49-0500 titled "Re: Would
> Physics First Increase the Number of Physics Majors?" Marc "Zeke"
> Kossover wrote (my CAPS and insertions [....]):
>
> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
> So, to summarize, the reason on the table against physics first is
> that there are not enough qualified teachers.
>
> And there are enough qualified teachers for biology. . . [or chemistry??]
>
> You have got to be kidding. Biology is a much more complicated discipline
> than physics. . . .[the same can be said of Chemistry]. . . Newton's
> Big Three are a piece of cake compared to molecular biology . . [or
> molecular chemistry]. . .  that deals exclusively in things that are
> too small to see and labs that are ridiculously non-intuitive.
> Molecular biology spends its time talking about shapes of molecules
> and there interactions in systems that are remarkably obtuse. Sit in
> on a lecture on the cell membrane for a week. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The key word is "qualified" teachers. Biology is certainly more complicated than
physics at the introductory level. It has all those Latin names and students have
to memorize incredibly long lists of names of structures and parts. Despite claims
by biology teachers that they stress understanding over memorization, anyone who
has taught biology majors knows that is far from reality. It takes many weeks at
the beginning of introductory physics to get biology majors to get past their
assumption that they really understand physics just because it is so absurdly easy
to memorize the terminology and equations. They breeze through Newton's laws
confident that they are "getting" the material - after all, what's there  to get?
Then comes linear and circular dynamics and the whole tone of the class changes.
What they thought was easy now becomes difficult. That's when one starts to hear
how they "can't find an example problem in the book to show how to do this
homework problem" - and it becomes obvious that they've simply been memorizing
because it works in their major courses.

We have had many discussions amongst our science faculty regarding the physics
requirement for the biology major. The biologists have often pushed for dropping
the requirement and bringing the relevant physics into the biology courses on an
"as needed" basis. The reason they give is remarkable similar to the quote
attributed to Kossover - Newton's Laws are so simple that one need only spend a
small portion of one lecture to get through them. What's frustrating is that
they're right! If a course is taught as a simple exercise in memorization, nothing
could be as simple as Newton's Laws, especially compared to DNA, genetics or
naming all the things in a simple cell.

If that's the approach to be taken, then there is certainly no lack of qualified
teachers. Our college has an alliance with a local charter school. When the
curriculum was being developed we made a strong case for a "Physics first"
approach - and so far this has been quite successful. But, on the other hand, we
have been careful to make sure that the instructor in the first year physics
course has a strong background in physical science. It has been difficult to
retain those people. Each year we have to fight back suggestions that we let the
biology or chemistry people that are already teaching take over the introductory
physics. The argument always centers around the claim that biology teachers had to
take some physics when getting their degrees so they should be able to teach it.
On closer inspection, many only took a non-lab "core requirement" course, or took
no physics at all. Biology majors take physics - but biology teachers often don't.
But yet many seem comfortable with teaching the "physics first" course because
they see the material as being easy. It's hard to convince them that the
simplicity is only apparent.

I suspect Kossover's remark was made somewhat tongue in cheek, but it does send a
shiver down the spine. The culture of memorization is firmly entrenched - a truly
"qualified" physics instructor that has been broken of that approach is hard to
find. Fortunately they can be found and many have profound insight into what
physics really is - as evidenced by their contributions to this list.

Physics First is, to my mind, a good approach, and my department is firmly
committed to it in our charter school association - but one has to staff the
courses carefully. I've been personally involved in the hiring process twice, and
both times it was very difficult to get the right person.

Bob at PC