Re: Intro Physics Sequence

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

I agree with Jack -- even more radically I would guess:

1) Mathematicians do not consider The Calculus to be a real math course yet
they try to guard it as their domain -- only the pixies know why.
<g>  Ideally Calculus should be taught in a Physics Class. IE "tools"
should be taught in an ambient where the tools are used.

2) Physics should be taught as a unified topic -- very difficult to do
without repetition.   A preliminary once through Physical Science course
would be very helpful.  Then teach a slightly more rigorous course.

In my opinion this should be done even for physics majors - if there are
any such left in the world. HS physics then general physics then upper
division then Grad Sch then teach for a year or two -- by this time they
should have a mediocre grip of the topic.

Jim Green

At 10:46 07 11 2000 , you wrote:
> 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
> >


Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen