Re: Intro Physics Sequence

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Hi all-
        I think that it is a mistake, in the present climate of math
teaching, to suppose that the one-semester delay in starting physics
will result in "improved calculus skill when starting physics."  The
physics teacher is interested in problem-solving calculus skills.  These
skills are simply not addressed in current US calculus texts and,
presumably, in the courses taught from them.
        You might play with the idea of a preliminary course along the
lines of a physical science course, but use it to introduce calculus
ideas, much as you did in your concurrent physics course but at a slower
pace.
                                Regards,
                                        Jack


Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Tim Folkerts wrote:

> In our department we are tossing around the idea of revamping our intro
> sequence and I thought I'd see what all you "experts" out there thought -
> perhaps some of you already have the proposed plan.  (We're a 5000 student,
> 5 faculty midwestern state university, graduating ~4/yr in physics and
> transferring ~6/yr in 3/2 or 2/2 pre-engineering.)
>
> Currently we have a fairly traditional Phys I/II freshman year concurrent
> with Calc I/II.  The second year we cover modern physics in a semester and
> then move on to the upper level electives.
>
> The alternative is to delay Phys I until spring semester.  Instead, we
> would have a 2-3 hr course on the "Great Ideas of Physics" using something
> like Alan Lightman's book.  This would be supplemented by a 1-2 hr "Intro
> to Engineering" course (already on the books).
>
> Perceived Advantages:
> *improved calculus skill when entering physics class
> * building a conceptual framework for later courses.
> * broading the intro to engineering course (currently pushed only toward
> define pre-engineers and taught in the evening)
> * students outside physics could take the "Great Ideas" course, where they
> would never take Phys I
>
> Perceived Problems:
> * Tougher to complete 2/2 transfer requirements in just two years.
> * Upper level electives more bunched at the end
> * What to drop to keep the total hours about the same
> * faculty time to redo the schedule/shuffle paper/ etc.
>
> Comments?  Suggestions? Improvements?
>
>
> Tim Folkerts
> Fort Hays State University
> Hays, KS