Re: [Phys-l] Physics First

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

At 16:19  -0600 5/4/06, Larry Smith wrote:
> I know "Physics First" (in 9th or 10th grade, before chemistry and biology
> in the HS curriculum) has been discussed for years in various venues.
> Does this PHYS-L list have a consensus opinion about the desirability of
> this "reform"?

From my recollection of the previous discussions we have had of this 
topic, there is no consensus among the list members here.

> Is there any data to show that the colleges would receive either more or
> better prepared physics (or science) students if the high schools did
> "physics first"?

I'm not privy to such data, but I think there might be some out there 
at this level.

> Is there any data to show that people who had "physics first" are better,
> more educated, contributing members of society?

This is the kind of longitudinal data that makes a lot of sense for 
evaluating things like the physics-first idea, but it is very hard to 
get, and takes a long time, so most people who are making the 
decisions about this are usually not willing to wait for it before 
making a go/no-go decision. I doubt that such studies have been made, 
but others may know of some.

> Are there any reasons a physics teacher such as myself would advocate
> _against_ "physics first" (i.e., what are the disadvantages)?
I think there are powerful arguments on both sides of this issue. I 
used to be a strong advocate of physics-first, but have rethought the 
issue over the past few years and am now somewhat less enthusiastic.

Arguments for are clearly that physics is fundamental to both 
chemistry and biology, and both would benefit from getting students 
who know something more about energy than what the biologists or 
chemists will tell them, and I think that physical thinking can beef 
up biology a lot. But it isn't good enough to just start from scratch 
in the ninth grade. Physics as a discipline needs to be introduced 
earlier and more gently, so that the non-intuitive ideas that from 
its basis get a chance to take root before the students start using 
them in any serious way. If we do that, and construct a 9th grade 
course that is based on what ninth graders are capable of taking on, 
then I think it could be successful, but it will also require 
cooperation from chemistry and biology teachers to use what their 
incoming students have already learned in the earlier courses and 
build on them. But if chemists continue to do what they are doing 
now, and so do biologists, then the whole effort will be a waste of 
time and no one will benefit. I know of no programs that are 
constructed like that, and so I am not confident that we have any 
data that will show us how well such a program could work.

But, if such a program could work, then a 12th-grade-level follow-on 
physics course could be very different from the current courses, and 
I would expect, lead to students entering college with a much better 
grounding in physics than they now possess. But without such a 
carefully constructed, integrated, cooperative program involving all 
the science teachers, I think such a program is doomed to failure and 
could well set back physics education considerably.

I think that a properly structured course for the ninth grade would 
not be a dumbed-down "physics for poets," as some have suggested it 
would have to be. Hewitt's physics program, while not heavily 
mathematical in the traditional sense does use many aspects of 
mathematics to make the concepts clear, including heavy emphasis on 
ratios, and on what happens to one variable in a relation when 
another is changed. These are valuable concepts that are frequently 
assumed to be already in the student's tool-kit when they arrive in 
the 12th grade, but are usually not, since they have boon only 
minimally exposed to them, if at all. The ability to think through a 
physical situation qualitatively is something that needs to be 
carefully taught and is usually not done at present. If a ninth grade 
course spent plenty of time nurturing that skill, I think the 
students would be much better off by the time they got to college, 
even without a traditional 12th grade course.

What we don't need is another physics program that treats physics as 
a subject that can be taught as if one is reading an encyclopedia, 
where one topic follows another with little or no connection between 
them. I'm afraid that the AP-B syllabus is too much that way, and as 
a result, I don't recommend that students take that program. I would 
rather they take a good solid introductory course that doesn't work 
on the "topic du jour" every day, and then if they are interested in 
further study, perhaps the AP-C program, which goes into mechanics 
and E-M in more depth would be appropriate.

So, I would say that, if the program that you are looking at has been 
well-integrated into a science program that takes advantage of what 
the students do in the ninth grade, and the ninth-grade physics 
curriculum is carefully tailored to the level of intellectual 
development that can be expected of ninth-graders, and has students 
who have been exposed to some of the basic ideas of physics in middle 
school, then go for it, and give it a try. Perhaps you can give us 
the data to determine if the idea is a good one.

On the other hand, if they are just giving you a dumbed-down, totally 
descriptive text and no changes are planed for chemistry or biology 
in the ensuing years, then I think it is a waste and you should argue 
against it.

Like all proposed reforms, physics first is not a panacea, and if it 
is not done right, its failure is just about guaranteed.

Remember New Math?

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they 
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
			--Douglas Adams
******************************************************