Re: Why Physics First?

[S Goelzer <s.goelzer@ATTBI.COM>]

I really disagree with the idea that physics can be made so simple. It
is already evident from a current thread that acceleration is very
difficult to teach to upper levels. Having spent some years trying to
teach the acceleration concept to freshman has made me believe that
most of them are not old enough to 'get' rate of a rate. Does not
matter how many demos or activities ( I do many) - only a very few can
get it. Not their fault, they are not ready.  The most they can
identify is change or no change in speed; rate of change is too hard.
According to the NH strands for curriculum, freshman should be studying
physics, chem, and earth sci.  Our school does about 2 quarters physics
(heavy on energy), basic chemistry for 1 quarter, earth science for the
last quarter.  Physics is then offered to Juniors and Seniors.

I prefer to have Juniors take physics. They are just about ready  and
have finished Algebra and Geometry. Physics is hands-on and concrete
for most of my students. Students who then move on to the abstract
studies in chemistry are better prepared.

Scott


On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 12:53 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> At 9:02 -0700 10/10/02, John Barrer wrote:
> > I think the Phys/Chem/Bio sequence makes the most
> > sense pedagogically. Everyone gets some physics
> > exposure; the weaker math kids would certainly not
> > deal with vector components. It would seem easy to
> > offer an honors 9th grade physics for those who can do
> > the algebra and a conceptual course for those who
> > can't. But the conceptual course must still ask lots
> > of "How do you know that" questions.
>
> Physics can be done without trig. There are few things that require
> two dimensions to be understood, and those can be done without
> reference to trigonometric concepts. They need introductory algebra
> and a geometry course (mostly so they understand a bit about
> triangles). They don't need vector components except in the simplest
> form, like an etch-a-sketch. Collisions can be done in one dimension,
> as can kinematics. They can be taught electricity without Gauss's law
> (although I'm not sure you have to do it that way), and they don't
> need to mess with products of vectors. Peridoic motion doesn't have
> to bring in sines & cosines. We really only need to know about
> periods and frequencies, and when they see pictures of waves they
> don't have to be identified as sine-waves. I'm leaving lots of stuff
> out in a one-paragraph summary, of course, but the point is that
> there are very few basic principles of physics that cannot be taught
> in a significant way without getting into the math that they haven't
> had yet.
>
> ninth graders can learned an intellectually stimulating version of
> physics without having to be advanced math students. And students who
> arrive in their chemistry courses with an understanding of the
> physical basis for chemistry can learn a whole lot more there, and
> then when they arrive in biology with an understanding of the
> chemical basis of biology they can learn a whole lot more there than
> they do now. Of course, this sequence may require that the chemistry
> and biology teachers learn a lot more chemistry and biology than they
> now know and may be threatening to them.
>
> Hugh
> --
>
> Hugh Haskell
> <mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
> <mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>
>
> (919) 467-7610
>
> Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because
> they
> have to..
> ******************************************************
>
> This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU
> or the AAPT.
*******************************************
Scott Goelzer
Physics Teacher
Coe-Brown Northwood Academy
Northwood NH 03261
sgoelzer@coebrownacademy.com
*******************************************

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