Re: Active Physics First in San Diego

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

I have reviewed some of the material for active physics, as it was promoted
in an HAPT (Houston Area Physics Teachers) workshop.  I do not have copies
of the books for evaluation or much material beyond that used in the
workshop.  However, my impression of the material that I saw, was that it
was fairly conventional, and would probably not promote improved
understanding of concepts ala the FCI or FMCE.  I contacted Eisencraft, and
was told that there are no evaluations of the curriculum for effectiveness
on the FCI or FMCE.  In addition, I understand that the modules are written
by separate authors, and that the quality is variable.  On the positive
side, I have heard from teachers that students like the material.

Rather than using active physics at the 9th grade level, I would use some or
all of the following.
1.  Preconceptions in Mechanics by Camp & Clement (no relation)  This is
research based material, and is well written.  It is currently used by some
Modelers who are teaching 9th grade.
2.  Introductory Physical Science , - Highly recommended by an article in
Science News "Where's the Book" by Janet Ratloff, and also by John Hubisz in
The Physics Teacher, 39(5) May 2001 pp 304-309. It has the virtue of being
written and published by one author, so it will be nearly error free. It has
been extensively classroom tested, and is now in 7th edition. It is
consistent with many of the ideas found by research to promote better
learning. It may be purchased from Science Curriculum Inc., Belmont, Mass.
This is more chemistry than physics, but it thoroughly treats the idea of
molecules.  This is a necessity for going into chemistry or biology.
3.  The new book being produced by Science Curriculum Inc., Belmont, Mass.,
which is designed to go into greater depth in physics ideas.

The main problem with Active Physics is the lack of research on its
effectiveness.  The other problem is that students in the 9th grade
generally have lower thinking skills that in the 12th grade.  As a result
the physics concepts will be more difficult to absorb.  One of the reasons
for delaying physics is that students can come up in thinking skills so as
to be more ready for physics.  Unfortunately most science or math courses do
not develop the necessary level of thinking, so that this reason may well be
moot.  I suspect that just pushing active physics down to the 9th grade will
have little or no effect on student understanding of science.  In Texas we
teach a supposedly integrated physical science course that covers physics
and chemistry.  There is no evidence to support the idea that it
significantly improves student understanding of physical science (either
physics or chem.).  9th grade physics instructions could be productive if
the above mentioned materials are used by teachers who understand
interactive engagement methods.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators
> [mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu]On Behalf Of Larry Woolf
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:56 AM
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject: Active Physics First in San Diego
>
>
> San Diego City Schools is planning on becoming the largest district in the
> country to require that all 9th grade students take physics.  They have
> selected Active Physics as the curriculum. Currently about 25% of students
> in this district take physics in high school.  The district is part of the
> growing “physics first” movement to have students take physics first, then
> chemistry, followed by biology.  Many experienced local high
> school physics
> teachers compare Active Physics to conventional physics texts and complain
> that Active Physics is “dumbed down” physics.  I will take part in a
> community meeting to discuss this program and need advice.
>
> I am aware of the review of Active Physics in The Physics Teacher
> (May 1999
> issue, pages 284-285) and the article by Philip Sadler and Robert
> Tai in the
> Physics Teacher (May 1997 issue, pages 282-285) on “The Role of
> High-School
> Physics in Preparing Students for College Physics.”
>
> Therefore, I would like to pose the following questions to the list:
>
> 1. Is Active Physics a recommended program for 9th grade?
>
> 2. If you have used Active Physics, what was your opinion of the program?
>
> 3. Can students who take Active Physics as their first year physics course
> succeed in AP physics and do well on the AP test?
>
> 4. Do you think students who take high school physics perform better in
> college physics than those who do not?   Sadler’s article states,
> “While, on
> average, taking a high-school physics course appears to have little
> relationship to college physics performance …”
>
> 5. Is physics in the 9th grade preferred over the more traditional physics
> in 11th and 12th grade?
>
> 6. In a physics first approach, does the physics course such as Active
> Physics coherently support the subsequent chemistry and biology
> courses and
> does the chemistry course coherently support the subsequent
> biology course?
>
> 7. What do university professors think of Active Physics as
> preparation for
> college physics?
>
> 8. What do you think of the idea of requiring all 9th graders to
> take Active
> Physics? Do you think that math-and-science-oriented students can
> successfully take a more traditional physics course in 9th grade?
>
>
> Feel free to respond on or off list.
>
> Thanks-
> Larry Woolf
> Larry.Woolf@gat.com