Re: [Phys-l] Physics First

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Josh Gates-fac" <Josh_Gates-fac@nobles.edu>

> I definitely agree that the 9th grade course really can't be a
> traditional intro topic sequence, as the lack of math skills and
> experience will make it devolve into the kind of course that you're
> talking about - phenomenological memorization, at best.
> I think that the real opportunity here is to recognize that, and not feel
> beholden to the kinematics, dynamics, energy, elec., mag., oscillations
> sequence.  Little will be possible other than some memorization on most
> topics, which will of course be forgotten by 12th grade.
> Recognizing this, I think that the key is to plan an exclusively
> skills-based curriculum, focusing on all of those things that we decry our
> 11th/12th grade students lacking: graph analysis, experimental design,
> rudimentary error analysis, linear sequential thinking, practical lab
> skills such as soldering, using lab hardware, and instrumentation, a real
> attention to units, and scientific literacy (I mean both some basic
> knowledge about "real life" topics and the fostering of a critical eye of
> scientific and pseudo-scientific claims).  I'm still planning the
> curriculum, but I'm thinking about pursuing these skills in topics where
> there's also a real chance of meaningful physical understanding and some
> out-of-the-classroom applicability, like oscillators (thinking sound
> mostly), moon phases and eclipses, electronics (phenomenologically here,
> not getting into the nuances of E and V as much as building up intuition
> for what V means, for what components do, how they function together, and
> practical experience following diagrams and building devices by hand),
> energy, and projectile motion (without bogging down in the algebra).
I think there are plenty of models for these 9th grade courses--general 
education college courses.  I teach such a course and believe me, the 
average math level is probably BELOW 9th grade.  BUT...one can use enough 
Algebra to work on important concepts.  People keep bad-mouthing conceptual 
level physics and think such have to end up as memorization courses, BUT:
    a) IMO, it is the lack of a first level conceptual course, where 
students have to really work through many of their misconceptions about the 
physical world, that reduces the effectiveness of our more traditional 
courses.  The one thing (and maybe the only thing ;-) I would not question 
about the Physics Educational Research findings, is that success in a 
traditional Algebra or Calculus-based introductory physics course is no 
guarantee of conceptual understanding of the material.  I fear that 
experienced teachers probably forget how little real understanding they had 
of much of the intro material until they were faced with teaching it. 
Therefore, a _good_ conceptual course, dealing with a limited set of topics 
(Newton's Laws, conservation laws, Calorimetry, DC current electricity, 
geometrical optics) would set students up for their next level encounter. 
After all, a physics major has always involved a spiral approach to the 
material--same topics, over and over at increasingly sophisticated (math) 
levels.  What has been missing, IMO, is the proper start of the spiral.
    b)  Such courses CAN be taught without relying on memorization.  In my 
course, students can bring a 4x6 card to the final with anything they want 
written on it [some try to inscribe the entire semester's notes in the 
tiniest printing imaginable] but still the final is not easy.  Look at the 
questions Hewitt publishes in the Physics Teacher each month.  One can teach 
FOR UNDERSTANDING rather than memorization.  And then there IS the skill set 
that Josh mentions.  Lab work can also be structured to start with well 
outlined (cookbook) activities that stress many of these skills, but then 
advance to more independent study and incorporate experimental design.


The real problems with Physics First--well known by the advocates:

1)  Too few qualified teachers.  When the 20% become 100% there is clearly a 
need for a huge number of new physics teachers.  To do conceptual courses 
'right' you need more than a math instructor with a physics course.  This is 
maybe the one factor that ultimately dooms the program.

2)  Current physics teachers tend to be 'spoiled'.  That is, they get the 
cream of the crop.  Physics is an elective and one only suited to the 
college-prep track.  The discipline problems are far fewer with students who 
have elected a course.  Being faced with now teaching the entire school's 
population of 9th graders is not a pleasant prospect.  Therefore (and 
understandably) you tend to hear the most vocal opposition to Physics First 
from established HS physics teachers.

Rick

*********************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
********************************************************
Free Physics Educational Software (Win & Mac)
     NEW:  Updated  animation packages.
     COMING: Spanish language versions.
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Energy 2100--class project
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ENERGY_PROJECT/ENERGY2100.htm
********************************************************