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]

[Phys-l] breadth +- depth (was: Practical Physics)



The discussion of "Practical Physics" is a good one and
I do not want to derail that train of thought. I look
forward to more good suggestions on topics and techniques
for such a course.

That is 100% good, but I can't help noticing that it is at
a tactical level. Let's spend a moment looking at a more
strategic level.


On 10/09/2007 12:57 AM, John SOHL wrote:

Target audiences might include nursing majors and other health
professions, architects, anthropology majors, applied technology
students (not engineering students), etc.

I'm wondering why/whether engineering students should be excluded.

It seems to me that for all the reasons that Practical Physics
is good for the anthropologists, it should also be good for
the engineers ... and even good for the budding physics majors.

I am *not* saying that anthropologists and physics majors need
to take the same course ... I'm just saying that similar
attention to practicality would benefit both courses.

Obviously nobody is advocating "impractical" physics.

Perhaps a useful way to look at this is in terms of breadth
versus depth. Several of the suggestions in the "Practical
Physics" thread involved going into some depth on one or two
topics.

I know there is a lot of pressure to maximize the breadth of
the introductory course(s) for physics majors and engineers.
But some depth is needed also, because the real world requires
depth, and students need at least some exposure to that.

As Mike Edmiston said,
“A person who is a mile wide and an inch deep is not an
educated person. But a person who is a mile deep and an
inch wide is not an educated person either.”

For more on this, see
http://www.av8n.com/physics/breadth-depth.htm

A related way of thinking about this is the idea of having a
/theme/ for the course.
-- the physics of music
-- the physics of flight
-- the physics of the energy/power industry
-- the biomechanics of running
-- etc. etc. etc.

That automatically gives you some depth in that one area. And
the process of laying the groundwork -- if done right -- provides
a fair amount of breadth. And if you can have _two_ themes, and
show the connections between them, it teaches something about the
value of interdisciplinary connections.