Re: Syllabus for AP physics

[Hugh Haskell <haskell@ODIE.NCSSM.EDU>]

If I understand what you are saying, I believe that what you are advocating
is sometimes called the "spiral approach." I would argue strongly for such
a method. It certainly worked for me. I continually tell my students that I
didn't understand freshman physics until I had seen it several times, and
that my understanding deepens every year I teach it. Repetition is
important and valuable. What I am bemoaning is the continual "starting
over" that we do, assuming that the student knows nothing and dragging them
through the same old stuff over and over again. Very few students have the
maturity to use these opportunities to their advantage and add the new
depth on their own. To be done properly, it seems to me that each topic
should be revisited several times, each time at a different level of
sophistication, and each time incorporating a deeper level of insight and
mathematical analysis.

I agree with your comments. Teachers should not only "connect back" to
previous material, but also across to related disciplines, especially math,
and outward to the "big picture." We should make sure that students are
made aware of how what they are doing in science class relates (either
positively or negatively) to how "real science" is conducted. Although I am
skeptical of the "integrated science" approach to teaching science because
I have always believed that we need to know something about a subject
before we can appreciate its connection to other subjects, we should lose
no opportunity to point out and exploit those connections when they are
appropriate.

Hugh

> It may well be that 'repeating everything over and over again' that makes
> the successful physics student (one who has survived all of the repetitions)
> a little more skilled in their knowledge than those from some other
> disciplines.  General educational research does point to MULTIPLE
> repetitions as being necessary to the internalization of knowledge and the
> standard physics curriculum does build heavily on a spiral
> approach--repeating the same general material at higher and higher levels of
> sophistication.  What I personally feel is lacking in that approach is
> fundamentally two things:
>
> 1)  The purely conceptual, 'first look' approach that we use for many
> non-science/engineering students is usually never experienced by those with
> the math tools to 'jump into' our algebra/calculus-problem solving courses.
> Hence, the first loop in the spiral is missing for our science majors.
>
> 2)  Few instructors at the higher levels specifically point students back at
> their previous experiences in the same subject area.  How many instructors
> of QM or Goldstein-level mechanics ever tie these courses back to the
> student's previous courses.  Usually it is just assumed that the students
> have the built-in ability to do this (when few actually do).
>
> Of course it would be advantageous if the first two loops of the spiral were
> really accomplished BEFORE student got to college, but there is much work to
> be done in the K-9 science curricula (especially teacher preparation) so
> that HS students could really 'learn' in from taking first a conceptual then
> an AP level physics course.
>
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> > Good point, Jack. I didn't mean to commend or condemn math teaching in
> > general, only that they and other disciplines have achieved some sort of
> > continuity in their progression that we in science have not been able to
> > achieve. Thus we simply repeat everything over and over again, just as if
> > the students had never seen it before, which, of course, is the case for
> > many of them at each level. This does allow for students to enter the chain
> > at several points, but if we had some sort of progression starting earlier
> > in the educational process, it would not be necessary to allow for this
> > situation.

***************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto://haskell@odie.ncssm.edu>

"The box said 'requires Windows 95 or better,' so I bought a Macintosh."
***************************************************