Re: Physics First

["Rick & Bea Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

The obvious answer to this is a three year integrated science sequence
for 9-11th grade where the material includes Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, Geology, etc. structured in a mixed but developementally
sequenced order.  Since that WILL NOT happen in the near term--if
ever--then a sequence of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology at conceptual
rather than mathematical levels with a 12th grade advanced science
course at the 'problem solving' level seems like a good model to me. 
Of course the problem here is getting the committment for a four year
science curriculum!  There seems to be some movement in this direction
(although not with the fervor of the post-sputnik science push).  

Rick Tarara

----------
> From: Emilio O. Roxin <EROXIN@URIACC.URI.EDU>
, June 14, 1996 9:06 AM
>       I think one CAN teach a meaningful course in physics AT ANY
> LEVEL, AND WITH ANY GIVEN PREREQUISITES. It just should be adjusted
> to be meaningful for the students involved. The key question is:
> IS IT WORTHWHILE? Is it worthwhile to teach a full course of physics
> to students who didn't have any algebra? Even within the same
subject
> such questions arise; is it worthwhile to teach the structure of the
> atoms and their energy levels to students who don't know what
> sulphuric acid is? Or teach fission and fusion when they don't know
> what the reaction of burning paper is? The main problem is how to
> teach ALL OF THIS IN A MEANINGFUL AND PRACTICAL WAY.
>      Regards     Emilio