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]

Re: Why Physics First?



Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 11:38 -0400 10/10/02, Edmiston, Mike wrote:

I did as a student in 1964-1968. I took physical science as a freshm=
an,
just as Joel described, then biology, then chemistry, then physics.
Many schools are still doing this type of thing.

I suspect that the "physical science" courses that have been
described here are not the common type. Most of the ones I have been
in contact with have been about 90% chemistry and 10% physics, if
they have any time left over at the end of the year. And the general
quality of the material has been such that they are almost worse
than no course at all.


I don't have any data to back this up - but I think what you describe here is atypical
(I'm basing this on my limited knowledge from local High school teachers, my
daughter's classes, and my involvement with the local charter school). The courses I'm
familiar with are well over 50% physics. The chemistry is limited to "Physics"
oriented topics like Dalton's laws, etc.

I continue to argue that the program needs to start much earlier than
the ninth grade, needs to be coordinated with later curricula so we
don't have to start over every time, and needs to be treated as
something other than a throw-away course that can be taught by
anybody. We treat almost every subject as a progression from the
simplest things, taught in the early grades to the most complex
taught in the higher grades and on into college. Only science seems
to be something that we freely ignore until high school or later and
then expect the students to absorb in one or two years. Is it any
wonder that when we ask the students to drink from this firehose,
that we are losing far too many of them?


This frightens me. Most elementary teachers not only have incredibly poor science
skills, many are openly anti-science. I've taught evening courses for elementary
teachers who needed science credits - and I've also taught a high school physics
course - I'd rather teach the high school students any day! The elementary teachers
were only interested in getting a passing grade so they could get their next pay
increment. There was no curiosity of any kind - it was just "tell me what to memorize
for the exam". I'm really scared of the idea of these people teaching science to
elementary students - they're far better off waiting until high school where the
science teachers actually have some science in their undergraduate course work.

Bob at PC

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.