Re: [Phys-L] The Make-Believe World of Real-World Physics

["Anthony Lapinski" <Anthony_Lapinski@pds.org>]

These are interesting and important discussions about textbooks. They
naturally lead to a discussion about what to teach and how to teach it. To
me, nearly all physics books (high school or college) are encyclopedic.
Are they intended for a one year course? Maybe a two-year course. Who can
really cover that amount of information in a meaningful way? Nobody that I
know... When I was in college, we did about a chapter every week. Looking
back, it was way too much. Way too fast.

I teach high school and cover only about ten topics each year (about 165
days). I do the usual concepts, math, labs, tests, etc. No days are
wasted. My honors class only goes slightly faster and more in depth as
physics concepts are difficult for kids at any level. Even at this pace,
it is difficult for kids to fully grasp physics as it is difficult and
counterintuitive. Physics is not biology or chemistry.

I am wondering what topics others on this list (esp. high school teachers)
cover in a given year.


Phys-L@Phys-L.org writes:
> > In particular, Mazur is right that there is a treeeeemendous amount
> > of nonsense in typical physics classes and physics textbooks.  I'm
> > talking about
> >  a) some stuff that is just plain wrong,
> >  b) some stuff that is 100 years out of date,
> >  c) some stuff that is ludicrously impractical, for no good reason,
> >  d) some discussions and diagrams that are confused and confusing,
>
> I agree with this paragraph. But at the same time, it makes me
> uncomfortable for the following reason. I personally think it's very hard
> to write an introductory physics textbook (let's say a first edition, to
> make the point extra sharp). Much much harder than probably anything else
> that we physicists can write. We're experts in our research fields, and
> can
> have fairly high confidence that when we write a research article or
> monograph, it's probably going to well established. (Even if it's got
> errors in it, those will be found and fixed as the research field
> advances.
> Some errors are even very helpful in that they attract people to work on
> showing what's wrong with them and what's better about some other view.)
> But who can claim to be an expert in every field of physics, which is what
> an intro text has to cover (more or less)? In fact, a textbook writer will
> necessarily base much of his (her) writing on how he learned the stuff and
> what others have written. But we all know how new misconceptions and new
> views of how to teach intro physics are constantly appearing.
>
> How easy to therefore become paralyzed into not daring to write anything!
> Because most of it is going to fall into categories a to d above
> eventually. Maybe not today, but maybe next year or next decade.
>
> So for that reason I think we need to give textbook writers a big amount
> of
> encouragement and applaud their courage and give them the benefit of the
> doubt as much as possible. And praise to the heavens whatever insights and
> new directions they manage to pioneer.
>
> This is not meant to disagree with John's statements, just add another
> viewpoint that often comes to my mind when I listen to criticisms of
> physics teaching at PHYS-L and AAPT meetings. -Carl
>
> -- 
> Carl E Mungan, Assoc Prof of Physics  410-293-6680 (O) -3729 (F)
> Naval Academy Stop 9c, 572C Holloway Rd, Annapolis MD 21402-1363
> mailto:mungan@usna.edu     http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l