Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

What to "cover" (Was dimensionsless units etc.)



Tim O'Donnell wrote:

If you're asking my opinion (it seems like you are) my answer is that
it depends on what you mean by "change". If by not changing you will
fail everyone who can't do it as fast as the boys used to then I say
yes - you should change. If you mean by changing that you will not
require students to be able to string a pulley anymore then I say no -
I think that being able to string a pulley system is a reasonable
standard, just be aware that you'll have to provide more time for
practice and instruction than you used to provide.

Absolutely correct, but where does that time come from; something
else suffers. I think stringing pulleys is an important concept in
terms of machines, advantages, efficiencies, etc.(others may not),
but what goes away. Until school years are lengthen ( and I'm not
exactly wanting that to happen) what should be the priority? It is
the biggest decision I make each year - what should I "cover."

The "ultimate question", from college methods class to PRISMS to C3P to
Modeling, I've heard this question repeatedly. If you have "the answer"
let me know. The last discussion I was part of went like this:

We asked teachers to come up with what they thought should be in a
"typical" physics course. The total time for the activities came up to
over 200 hours. Considering a "typical" 50 minute period times 180
student days adds up to 150 hours the "basic physics course" was pared
down to activities that was estimated to take 130 hours, leaving 20
hours for "assessments".

This is ok if things are typical but we all know that time gets
"readjusted" because of things like Tim describes. Then there is the
education reform movement that in my school has changed the schedule to
be 85 days of 85 minute periods for a total of 120 hours (not including
interruptions like school assemblies, state or national tests, etc.).
What is a conscientious teacher to do? My response has been to look at
the TIMSS results and decide to make sure I don't lower the standards on
what I teach which means I cover less. Even compounded over 4 years of
this new schedule the loss of 30 hours of science each year of high
school means 120 less hours of science in a "good student's" high school
career, the equivalent of a FULL YEAR of science classes.

This is not unique to science but is a common problem in education
today. In generations past knowledge was difficult to find (at least
"accurate" facts) so teachers were valued because they had these
"facts". Teachers could provide the knowledge quickly by lecture to
many students. Parents (and others) taught processes, thinking skills,
"common sense".

Today facts are found easily - the internet for example. Parents are
short on time (we are all too busy - much more than our parents and
grandparents) but they can easily provide access to the information.
Students don't know what to do with the facts so teachers must supply
the process skills - a time consuming, labor intensive, time intensive
task. But we are supposed to do this in the same amount of time (even
less because we are also supposed to provide self esteem and fun
learning experiences).

Tim, if you have the answer to your question you could be the next
leader in the next educational reform movement.

I would also be interested in the responses of others in this group.
What physics topics are essential for a high school physics program?
Knowing that we can't teach everything that we "should" what are the
priorities? What should physics students really know in depth so that
it is not just "I got through it" responses that are "a mile wide and an
inch deep"?

--
Arlyn DeBruyckere
Hutchinson High School
1200 Roberts Road SW
Hutchinson, MN 55350
http://www.hutch.k12.mn.us/