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: The Good Effects of Physics First - Even For Mathematics Education (was The Good Effects of Physics First. . . "



There seems to be something I am missing here. Others have asked the
same question I am about to ask, and I don't believe the physics-first
advocates have answered this question.

The question... Haven't we been doing "physics first" forever, and
aren't we still doing "physics first?"

For as long as I can remember, essentially all schools around here have
been teaching a "physical science" course in the 9th grade. Although
physical science textbooks cover a bit more than just "general physics,"
it is still pretty much a conceptual physics course. The "extra
content" is some combination of astronomy, meteorology, geology (all of
which are physics to some degree), and a bit of chemistry (e.g. what is
an element, what is the structure of an atom, etc.) and this is really
atomic physics. Thus, a 9th-grade physical science course is "physics
first" even though it has more than the traditional mechanics, heat,
sound, electricity, magnetism, light topics found in the physics course
usually taught in the senior year.

Thus, if a school is teaching physical science in the 9th grade, and
then traditional physics in the senior year, what is all the hullabaloo
about physics first? Is my region of Ohio the only place were physical
science has been a 9-grade course for more than 50 years?

Assuming physical science for everyone is offered in 9th grade, and a
traditional physics course is an elective for college-bound seniors,
what's wrong with that? Are the physics-first advocates asking for
something more than this?


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