| 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] |
On Jan 5, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Marty Weiss <martweiss@comcast.net> wrote:
Not all students are science literate and many are physics and math phobic. Physics texts (and chemistry texts as well) are notably obtuse and inscrutable to such students who might have liked the subject, but they look at the usual texts and cringe at the abundance of inferences and "insider" references to stuff they never studied or hated along the way for whatever reason. Too many authors state assumptions with the math and conceptual references that so many students hate with a passion because the math teachers were too stuffy about their own passion, be it algebra or geometry, or else failed to get these subjects across to the average high school student.
Hewitt, at least, attempts to place physics within the reasonable reading level of these students and is a very accessable book for the beginning average student and the ESL student whose mastery of English puts him/her outside the level of the other physics classes. You might have some very intelligent kids out there who will never take physics because all they see in those books are problem sets and equations beyond their level and authors making assumptions about observations that few will understand. Everyone must start off somewhere. Start these kids off with a Hewitt text in the hands of great teachers and let them fly. When they get a handle on the basics then, and only then, let them tackle the regular texts.
Marty
Dick,Not all students are science literate and many are physics and math phobic. Physics texts (and chemistry texts as well) are notably obtuse and inscrutable to such students who might have liked the subject, but they look at the usual texts and cringe at the abundance of inferences and "insider" references to stuff they never studied or hated along the way for whatever reason. Too many authors state assumptions with the math and conceptual references that so many students hate with a passion because the math teachers were too stuffy about their own passion, be it algebra or geometry, or else failed to get these subjects across to the average high school student.
I mean no offense to you or anyone else who has taught conceptual high
school physics, which I have never taught. We are (I thought) talking
about the value of the text itself, and not whether the text itself can be
used by a good teacher to good effect. I am sure it can be.
The text, I still maintain, is poor - for one reason: it is a poor choice
to teach physics using oversimplifications - simplifications that fail
Einstein's famous dictum that you should make things as simple as possible
but not simpler.
I have reviewed the text informally, as I teach conceptual physics at the
Hewitt, at least, attempts to place physics within the reasonable reading level of these students and is a very accessable book for the beginning average student and the ESL student whose mastery of English puts him/her outside the level of the other physics classes. You might have some very intelligent kids out there who will never take physics because all they see in those books are problem sets and equations beyond their level and authors making assumptions about observations that few will understand. Everyone must start off somewhere. Start these kids off with a Hewitt text in the hands of great teachers and let them fly. When they get a handle on the basics then, and only then, let them tackle the regular texts.
Marty
Dick,
I mean no offense to you or anyone else who has taught conceptual high
school physics, which I have never taught. We are (I thought) talking
about the value of the text itself, and not whether the text itself can be
used by a good teacher to good effect. I am sure it can be.
The text, I still maintain, is poor - for one reason: it is a poor choice
to teach physics using oversimplifications - simplifications that fail
Einstein's famous dictum that you should make things as simple as possible
but not simpler.
I have reviewed the text informally, as I teach conceptual physics at the
college level, and happened to have Hewitt's texts at my disposal, and
found many examples of issues that I found problematically simplified. I
don't have a list that is easy to incorporate into an email, but I would
refer you to John Denker's excellent, and far more thorough review (which
he posted a link to earlier in this thread:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/hewitt.htm). The errors are many, and of many
different kinds.
I obviously have touched a nerve, since you have felt the need to display
your ample credentials. I have no doubt that you are a very good and
experienced teacher, and that you can say alot about a text being used in
the classroom by such a teacher as you are. However, this thread is not
about such a situation, but about a text being given to a person to work
through herself...and as such, given the problems with Hewitt's text, I
could never recommend that it be used.
I wouldn't recommend it for a high school class, either, because not all
are like you - in fact no teachers I know of (and I know dozens of high
school teachers scattered around the Midwest) is quite like you. Most are
not trained in physics at all beyond one year of general, algebra based
physics, and to hand a teacher a text like Hewitt's is a big mistake
(because in such a case you have an inexperienced teacher with possibly
marginal understanding of physics a textbook which will only serve to
compound those issues).
I've said enough. Take it for what it's worth. (and clearly you don't
think that is very much, which is fine with me).
Todd
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Richard Heckathorn <geepaw@wowway.com>
wrote:
Greetings,
This is directed to Todd Pedlar and to all of you. While my comment is
only from one person, I believe my questions and comments need feedback
from others as I am curious where other stand on Paul Hewitt Conceptual
high school physics program.
My comments are interspersed within Todd's "My unsolicited two cents."
May I first ask, Todd how many years have you taught High School
Conceptual Physics? To what student age group? Did you use the video's,
next time questions, laboratory guide, do demonstrations etc?
I taught the course for 10 years to non-math orientated students who
desired to learn about the Physics world around them. Students worked hard,
learned a lot and came to appreciate much physics in the world around them.
I used a lot of demonstrations (I have over 500 in my inventory.) If you so
desire, go to my website listed below and select the column title
'Conceptual Physics' to see what I used for the course.
(For my part, I think Hewitt is an awful suggestion.)
What is your definition of 'awful'? This in my opinion is a very harsh
comment.
(Hewitt, for all the desire to be "conceptual", cuts so many corners)
What corners does he cut? Enlighten me on 10 corners cut and the reference
page numbers.
(as to foster misconceptions of physics,)
Give me 10 'misconceptions fostered' and page numbers.
(in addition to the many outright erroneous statements embedded in the
text.)
I would greatly appreciate with page number the 'many outright erroneous
statements embedded in the text'
(The desire for conceptual focus is no excuse for sloppiness or loose
language)
Again, I would like to have 10 examples of 'sloppiness or loose language'
with page numbers.
(admittedly, a good conceptual text is an incredibly hard thing to put
together well,)
To this comment I applaud what you say. If you select the 'more' column on
my website you will find the self-paced physics PSSC physics program I
wrote and taught for 15 years. I know how hard it is and I'm sure some
errors exist after 15 years of usage.
(but Hewitt's text is a failure)
What is your definition of failure. Based on no specific examples, and my
own experience, I cannot come to that conclusion.
(If this person for whom a text recommendation is being sought is a holder
of an advanced degree of some kind, then I suspect PSSC is a very solid
choice,)
Having taught both High School Conceptual Physics (10) years and PSSC
Physics (15) years, what my experience says, differs from your
recommendation.
(while Hewitt would in many ways be something of an insult to offer.)
My, my what a final comment. While no program is perfect, Conceptual
Physics and PSSC physics are worthy texts but Conceptual Physics would
provide the best starting with many many more real world examples than PSSC.
Who am I? Check the 'welcome' column which tells all about my education,
teaching experience etc covering 54 years.
Much, much more than 2 cents worth of comments.
Now, what do I need to hear?
Dick
Helping teachers who facilitate, motivating students who learn.
Dick Heckathorn 14665 Pawnee Trail Middleburg Hts, OH 44130
440-710-4941
New Web Site: www.rheckathorn.weebly.com
Retired Physics Teacher - Wharton, Midpark, Cuyahoga Valley Christian High
Schools
Baldwin Wallace Univ and Merchant Taylor School
– Crosby England
Physics is learning how to communicate with ones environment so that it
will talk back
-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Todd
Pedlar
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 10:52 AM
To: Phys-L@phys-l.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Late Physics Learner
For my part, I think Hewitt is an awful suggestion - and JD's critique
mirrors mine. Hewitt, for all the desire to be "conceptual", cuts so many
corners as to foster misconceptions of physics, in addition to the many
outright erroneous statements embedded in the text. The desire for
conceptual focus is no excuse for sloppiness or loose language -
admittedly, a good conceptual text is an incredibly hard thing to put
together well, but Hewitt's text is a failure. If this person for whom a
text recommendation is being sought is a holder of an advanced degree of
some kind, then I suspect PSSC is a very solid choice, while Hewitt would
in many ways be something of an insult to offer.
My unsolicited two cents.
TKP
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
--
Todd K. Pedlar
Associate Professor of Physics
Luther College, Decorah, IA
pedlto01@luther.edu
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l