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: Physics First Content (refocus)



Michael Edmiston says:

I am not necessarily a fan of Hewitt, but I do like the table of
contents for his book called Conceptual Physical Science. This book =
is
intended for college, but the table of contents is good for high scho=
ol
freshman, you just have to change the presentation to their level.

There is now a high school version of this book. It came out in spring of
2002, and I can't recall the publisher's name. It is one of the usual
publishers who you see at AAPT--I ordered my preview copy at the Philadelphia
meeting.

I used the college level book for two years with "college prep" level ninth
graders and it was a terrible experience (for them and for me). Plus parents
(including at least one college professor) would keep calling the school and
complaining that we were trying to teach their kids with a college-level
book. However, the "honors level" ninth graders who used the college-level
book did not have the same difficulties.

Incidentally, while the table of contents might be "good for high school
freshmen," there are certainly more topics in the book than can be covered in
one year of 5 45-minute periods/week. The high school book is shorter (I no
longer have access to my preview copy or I'd tell you what was left out).
Still, if you need to teach skills like graphing and critical thinking and
observing, and if you are expected to provide laboratory experiences (that
take less than 45 minutes, of course) you will not get through all the topics
listed.
I argued to make the ninth grade course meet 6 periods/week instead of 5
periods/week when I taught this course. That would put it on a par with the
other college-prep science classes and make it possible to teach more and do
more labs. However, that never got off the ground with the administration,
even though the honors-level ninth grade course DID get the extra period.

Unfortunately, state standards and mandated testing are combining in more and
more states to require a vast amount of content "that students should
understand in order to graduate" but which are being tested at the end of
10th grade or the beginning of 11th grade. This system is doomed to failure.
Teachers will be forced by the system to "teach" massive content in two
years, but because they can't use "active learning methods" or "inquiry-based
instruction" or any other effective-but-time-consuming method, the students
will memorize each little bit of content for the chapter test, and forget it
as soon as possible afterward, resulting in dismal test scores on the state
test and subsequent blaming of the teachers for not doing their job.

If I ran the world, then, I would eliminate most of the content standards. I
really can't think of a way to make the 9th (and 10th) grade courses meet
state standards in such a way that will let the average student do well on
the state assessment, because they have really learned what they were
supposed to. I know there are some teachers who are using physics modeling
methods in 9th grade courses. I suspect that those students retain more of
what they learn (i.e. they actually learn it), but I also suspect that those
courses do not meet enough "content standards" to keep "on schedule" for
testing in Colorado or New Jersey or wherever. Can anyone tell me if that is
true? What the situation is?

Incidentally, in New Jersey they can't manage to write the science
assessment...they keep pushing back the date of the pilot administration of
that test, not to mention the final version. Is it the same in other states?

Fran Poodry
East High School
West Chester, PA

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