Re: Physics for Ninth Graders?

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

In reality physics is already being taught to 8th and 9th grade students as
part of physical science, or integrated physica and chemistry (IPC).
Unfortuantely it is being taught as a memorization course which is 10 miles
wide and 1/2 inch deep.  As a result they come into a senior level physics
course with zero understanding of physics concepts.  Then the typical HS
physics course produces about 10% gain in understanding, so they go into the
college course with not much better understanding.

As to the lack of mathematical skill of a 9th grade student, it is really
not that much below many of the seniors who take physics.  When you ask some
seniors "what is 1/2 divided by 2" and they respond "one", you suspect they
do not have enough understanding of math to be able to make sense of many of
the physics ideas.  However many of the seniors do make remarkable strides
despite poor math preparation when the course uses good research based
materials.

Now as to whether a 9th grade students can learn physics, the answer is that
they can learn many of the concepts that most courses fail to convey in the
12th grade or in college.  The key is to have the teachers use good research
based material which can teach some of the important concepts.  An example
of good material is "Preconceptions in Mechanics" by Clement&Camp,
Kendall-Hunt.  It is ideally suited to use in middle school and early high
school.

As to the ability of 9th grade students to focus on abstract details, that
is a matter of insuring that they have the necessary exposure to material
that improves their ability to think.  An example of such material is
"Thinking Science" by Adey, Shayer, &Yates.  This is being used in England
in the middle schools, and it may even teach some important physical science
concepts.

The European spiral approach may have some merits, but I have recently
interacted with 2 German exchange students and have not been impressed with
their understanding of physics concepts.  They are both in my physics class.
The better one came in with a level of understanding that was close to the
top incoming score I have gotten on the Tufts F&M evaluation.  The concepts
of acceleration and velocity seems to been better taught, but the better
student still had a great deal of trouble with the sign of acceleration when
the velocity sign or position sign changes.  He thought that - meant
slowing, and + speeding up.  Neither student betrayed any understanding of
NTN's laws, so I must conclude that they had no effective instruction there.

I would disagree that a strong conceptual course is any easier.  When
properly taught the concepts can be learned, but sadly the proper
instruction is seldom done.  So I would certainly vote for exposing students
at an earlier age to physics concepts.  I would also strongly urge that any
such movement be accomplished by educating teachers on methods of active
engagement, and providing them with good research based material.  A junior
that I had last year commented that he had heard about NTN's 3rd law since
late grammer school, but never really understood it until he saw the ILD on
the topic.  While they had been told the facts, they did not sink in!!!!

The problem of good instruction exists at all levels, and will probably not
be solved by just tinkering with the order of instruction.  The main
objection I have to pushing physics down to the 8th or 9th grade is that it
will then probably be taught by instructors with poorer physics
qualifications.  This may reduce the gain sustantially.  Of course
understanding in biology or chemistry is not often achieved either.  I once
asked a student in one of my physics classes why plants had flowers.  He had
no idea that they were used for sexual reproduction!!!

If I were to reform instruction, perhaps a good way to start would be to
promote better material.  Teaching the 9th grade science course using the
IPS curriculum by Haber-Scheim et al. see: http://www.sci-ips.com/ and
possibly supplementing with Clement/Camp or the new book that IPS is
producing would be an excellent idea.  Then students would be prepared for
another physics course or for a good chemistry course.  I would also promote
"Thinking Science" in middle school
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schools/education/Courses/INSET/CASE.html .  But, I
would pay teachers a reasonable sum to attend the necessary training
sessions for these materials, and I would not try to force them to use the
material until they have been trained.  I would also have a parallel program
to train elementary teachers using materials similar to "Workshop Science"
at http://physics.dickinson.edu .  On top of this effort, it would be
necessary to campaign against many of the high stakes science tests that
many states are promoting, or to get them aligned with the curriculum that
is being promoted.  The high stakes tests are currently a big barrier to
acceptance of curricula that are much deeper, but not as wide.  Principals
currently mandate test review instead of good teaching.  Unfortunately the
good material will also probably not be put on state textbook adoption
lists.

The suggestions I have made do not preclude teaching physics later to
juniors or seniors.  Once the proper conceptual understanding has been
achieved, a more mathematical course will be able to work better.  However
the later course still needs to pay attention to the proper active
engagement techniques.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Richard Hake wrote:
> > "What is the best way to present the idea of learning physics, and
> > all it entails, to a ninth grader?"
>
> I guess you say:
>
>  "We are going to *introduce* you to the field of science called
> physics.  Due to your lack of mathematical skill and the limitations of
> your intellectual maturity at age 14, you will develop a quite limited
> view of what is going on in the Universe, but we will do the best we can
> with the tools we have to work with, and we will try hard to make it
> interesting and worthwhile.  To really understand physics requires a lot
> of algebra, and trigonometry, and calculus, and the ability to focus on
> abstract details.  If you *really* want to learn about physics, you
> certainly should study the subject further in future years;  the
> Universe reveals much more of itself to the learner who is more mature
> and who has more sophisticated learning skills and more
> sophisticated mathematical grasp."
>
> Interestingly, this doesn't sound much different than what I have been
> telling my physics students; except "the tools we have to work with"
> part flashes in dayglo colors when you couple it with "age 14".
>
> I am sad to see this grade-9 movement gaining momentum.  It pretty much
> ensures that HS physics will be taught at a highly watered-down
> conceptual level.  With all due respect to Leon Lederman and his
> optimistic band of followers, I do not believe that the majority of 14
> year olds possess the mathematical skills and intellectual maturity to
> comprehend physics to the extent that it ought to be understood at the
> HS level.
>
> I don't believe we're doing the nation any favors by trying to teach
> physics to less well prepared kids rather than waiting until they have
> had an opportunity to mature.  There is such a *vast* difference between
> the maturity of the typical 14 year old and the same kid at age 17; the
> gap seems like the grand canyon to me, and I'm always amazed that kids
> can traverse such a huge divide in just two or three years.
>
> I understand the "physics first" arguments and the driving politics, but
> understanding something doesn't always make one see it as an
> improvement.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Larry
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Larry Cartwright
> Retired (June 2001) Physics Teacher
> Charlotte MI 48813 USA   <exit60@ia4u.net>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~