The idea to have physics first, then chemistry, then biology has been
circulating a long time. Leon Lederman is one of the champions of this
idea. I agree with some of the basic ideas, and we adopted the plan here at
Bluffton College for our general education program.
However, I think the plan works a lot better at the college level than at
the high school level and I am not sure that I support the idea in high
school in the form I usually hear it. I do think it can be accomplished
with a modification of what I typically hear.
(1) I am worried that it will make it more difficult to train baccalaureate
chemists and physicists in four years.
The bulk of students entering our science programs in college had at least
one year of chemistry in high school, usually as a junior. Some had a
second year of advanced chemistry during the senior year. They learn an
awful lot of basic chemistry such as atomic structure, periodicity,
nomenclature, stoichiometry, etc. This means we can fly through this
material pretty fast at the college level. Even then we have difficulty
getting all the American Chemical Society recommended course work finished
in a four-year period. A very similar thing can be said about physics.
Students who take a good high school physics course as juniors or seniors
learn an awful lot of basic physics that we can either skip or cover rapidly
in college.
(2) I am worried students won't gain mathematical skills, problem solving
skills, lab analysis skills, report writing skills if they take physics
early and biology later in high school.
In the previous paragraphs I mentioned the important of the "content
knowledge" gained in chemistry and physics as high school juniors and
seniors. That's important, but another important part is the mentality of
working through fairly difficult mathematical "story problems," and also
taking good data and doing data analysis, and graphing, and writing good
reports. I do not think this can be done very well at the freshman level.
But I am also confident it will NOT be done at the junior/senior level if
the students are taking biology. Most biology does not lend itself to this
type of quantitative analysis. Even here at college, the biology labs often
use "work sheets" rather than requiring lab reports, and the graphing and
quantitative analysis for biology labs is minimal. This is not a put down
of biologists. The biology professors here have their students doing
educational and meaningful labs. But they're not quantitative, and they
don't often require statistics, graphs, etc. (Some do... but this is
minor.) And many do not require lab reports.
Therefore, my fear is that physics at the freshman level will not have
sophisticated problems, non-mathematical labs, non-mathematical lab
analysis, fairly simple (if any) report writing. Perhaps that would be okay
if students got those skills in their biology courses. But they won't.
Biologists as a rule don't do those things.
(3) We would make a change in the number of people getting physics
instruction, but it is a "trade" and I'm not sure it is a good trade. I
also think there is a better way to accomplish the goal (see 4).
Currently, of all high-school graduates (not just college bound) 99+% took a
biology course. Only about 50% took a chemistry course. Only about 20%
took a physics course. These are depressing numbers for chemistry and
physics. If physics were first, we would have the 99+% figure for physics.
That's good, right? Maybe not. It may not be a good trade if we swap 20%
of graduates receiving a high-level physics course for 99% receiving a
low-level physics course.
(4) I think there is a way to "have it all." I've already said this here
before, but I'll say it again.
I think the freshman year should be a physical science course blending
physics and chemistry. The course would indeed start out with physics and
migrate toward chemistry.
Then, when students take a fairly standard biology course as sophomores,
they have done exactly what the physics-first people have advocated. They
learned some physics, then some chemistry, then some biology. But at this
level it was only the equivalent of half a year of physics and half a year
of chemistry (integrated together). But that's okay. At the freshman
level, without the math skills, half a year equivalence each of physics and
chemistry is appropriate.
After the standard biology course as sophomores, many students will quit.
That's all the high school science they will take. That's too bad... but
it's reality. And with the integrated physics/chemistry freshman year, they
have at least had some physics and chemistry.
For those students who want more science, or in those states that require
more science, or for college-bound students... they can take a standard
chemistry course as juniors and a standard physics course as seniors. For
those needing more than two years of science, but not wanting chemistry or
physics there could be ecology, earth science, astronomy, and advanced
biology electives in the junior and senior years.
(Summary) I am not in favor of "physics first" if it is simply a SWAP of
low level physics in the freshman year instead of higher level physics in
the senior year. However, I am in favor of physics first if it is IN
ADDITION to an elective of traditional physics later. This can be done by
introducing an INTEGRATED PHYSICS/CHEMISTRY course at the freshman level,
and keeping biology-chemistry-physics in the sophomore-junior-senior
years... plus adding junior-senior electives such as earth science,
astronomy, ecology, advanced biology, etc.
Finally, note that my plan is nothing new or earth shaking. THIS PLAN HAS
ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED. It is exactly the sequence I had when I was in
high school from 1964 to 1968 in a township school outside of Lima, Ohio.
It was a good sequence. It worked well for me and many others.
(Note, my use of all caps is not shouting. Without the ability to draw your
attention to some key words via bold or italics, I think all caps gets the
job done, and it works in all e-mail systems.)
Also note that in the State of Ohio the new teacher licensure procedure
combines physics and chemistry. You cannot be licensed to teach just
chemistry or just physics. You have to become licensed to teach both, and
it is called a "physical science license." A person earning this license
could teach the freshman integrated course and also the regular chemistry
course and the regular physics course. Physical science licensure follows
the "dual field model" of teacher preparation as outlined by NSTA. The
prospective teacher takes about 24 semester hours of chemistry, 24 hours of
physics, and about 12 more hours in biology, and earth/space science.
Unfortunately this cannot typically be done in four years. At Bluffton
College the student has to do student teaching in a ninth semester.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817