Re: [Phys-l] Physics First

["Josh Gates-fac" <Josh_Gates-fac@nobles.edu>]

I'm starting a new job next year where this is the plan.  I'm not against
it per se, but a problem that I've perceived is that, after taking Bio in
10th grade and Chem in 11th grade, students come back to a meatier version
of physics in 12th grade.  Since students in 9th grade lack the
mathematical tools to make it an intro course in the sense that we're
familiar with it in the "physics last" curriculum, this second course must
essentially be the same course that we're used to teaching anyway - both
because the tools are then available, allowing the traditional depth to be
reached, and because the material would largely have been forgotten over
the intervening two years.  The "intro, then AP" model that I'm used to is
not available, since they run out of years, and the only option is to go
from a physical science/physics 9th grade course to an AP course 3 years
later.  

Josh Gates
-------------------
Noble and Greenough
Dedham MA 


Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu> on
Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 6:19 PM -0500 wrote:
> I know "Physics First" (in 9th or 10th grade, before chemistry and biology
> in the HS curriculum) has been discussed for years in various venues.
> Does this PHYS-L list have a consensus opinion about the desirability of
> this "reform"?
> Is there any data to show that the colleges would receive either more or
> better prepared physics (or science) students if the high schools did
> "physics first"?
> Is there any data to show that people who had "physics first" are better,
> more educated, contributing members of society?
> Are there any reasons a physics teacher such as myself would advocate
> _against_ "physics first" (i.e., what are the disadvantages)?
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l