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] |
1. Make the course similar to a typical algebra-based or
calculus-based
course. In other words, cover about the same material in
about the same
order with mechanics being the dominant topic the first semester and
electricity and magnetism being the dominant topic the second
semester.
Use less math than one would in the case of the other two courses. I
think the Hewitt textbook is designed for such a course.
Correlate the
lab with the course and try to make it so that each lab exercise helps
to enhance the understanding of concepts that the students have just
studied in the "in-class" part of the course. I would probably use
Mazur's peer tutoring method if I went this route in that I
already have
a ton of conceptual questions (with some "repeat the information"
questions mixed in) and I am used to it.
2. Do something like 1 above but cut the number of topics in
half. Take
the time to teach the math and have them do the math. Cover
each topic
in more detail then one would have time to in 1 above.
3. Make the course a puzzle-solving course in which one applies the
skills gained by solving generic puzzles to physics puzzles and then
puzzles in other fields to check for and work on
transference. Ideally
(I think), I'd have a ton of puzzles, each at a known
learning level and
I would, probably by means of a test, figure out the appropriate level
for each student at the start of the course, and have them working on
puzzles at that level and the next level up so that they are
challenged
but also meet with frequent success. Each time a person masters the
generic puzzles at one level I have them work on the physics
puzzles at
that level and then perhaps some other field-specific puzzles
from some
other field. Everybody would be working at their own pace
but hopefully
there would always be a number of people at any given level
so that they
could work in groups most of the time (but on their own occasionally
too). To try to make the whole course like this would probably be
biting off more than I can chew. The course grade plays such a huge
role in our system of education that it is pretty easy to see
this kind
of course blowing up in my face. What are you going to grade them on,
how far they get? or how far ahead of where they started they wind up?
How much effort they seem to be putting in? This kind of course seems
like it might be a better fit for the way the Swiss undergraduate
university program was when I was there--you took some
ungraded courses
for two years and then you took a test to see if you would be
allowed to
stick around for two more years. Also, how would I ever come up with
all those puzzles and the learning level associated with each one?
4. Take Rick Tarara's advice and make the course a themed
course--perhaps "Energy" one semester and "Physics and the
Environment"
the other; or perhaps I could work a unit (or a semester or an entire
course) on the interplay between physics and technology in
there. While
it has been quite a while since we have been able to offer it, the
astronomy course which served most students as nothing but a free
elective was always popular which tells me that yes, at this
institution
using a theme could go a long way in making the course
appealing to the
students.
5. Implement the "modeling" method. There doesn't seem to be training
available to college professors for that method but there is plenty of
information and there are plenty of modeling materials available on
line--one should be able to figure it out.
6. Make the whole course a lab course. The MWF periods time could be
used for mini-labs, analysis of data gathered during the lab period,
designing the procedures that one is going to carry out in lab,
simulations, etc. I estimate that about 90% of them will have
laptops so
we can do things requiring every group of 2 students to have a laptop
between them. Also, I wouldn't rule out activities like drawing
spacetime diagrams that wouldn't be considered lab
activities, but we're
talking extreme hands on in this model.
My questions to you are: What other structures should be
considered and
what are the pros and cons of the ones under consideration? What
structure would you use and why? Also, special insights based on
experience with a particular structure would be most appreciated.