Re: [Phys-L] [**External**] Re: NGSS and kinematics

[Joseph Bellina <inquirybellina@comcast.net>]

Frankly I am more concerned that they don’t appreciate the challenge presented by the many misconceptions the students gave about describing motion and role force. I doubt they know about the flu

Best

Joe

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 27, 2021, at 10:12 PM, Todd Pedlar <pedlto01@luther.edu> wrote:
>
> The NGSS are a disaster, especially considering the huge fraction of people
> teaching physics who are supposed to be following these standards (but
> basically have the most rudimentary - at best - understanding of physics).
> It's so disheartening.
>
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:07 PM Anthony Lapinski <alapinski@pds.org> wrote:
> >
> > Curious about this NGSS as it is semi-foreign to me since I teach in a
> > private school. Is it just about motion, forces, energy, and waves? Who
> > developed/refined these standards?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:21 PM Philip Keller via Phys-l <
> > phys-l@mail.phys-l.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I just read JD’s analysis of the NGSS and as a high school physics
> > teacher
> > > I have one question: “Did the lights just flicker?”
> > >
> > > No kidding, earlier today I was going about an assigned task: identify
> > the
> > > NGSS standards measured on one of my tests. The topic? Vectors.
> > >
> > > > On Oct 27, 2021, at 5:50 PM, John Denker via Phys-l <
> > > phys-l@mail.phys-l.org> wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/21 8:26 AM, Joe Bellina via Phys-l wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I’ve been working on hs physical science standards that align with
> > > > > NGSS
> > > >
> > > > I offer my condolences.
> > > >
> > > > > and I noted that there is nothing about kinematics in NGSS.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with the sentiment. I would say there is "almost" nothing
> > > > about kinematics.
> > > >
> > > > *) Newton's second law is barely mentioned:
> > > >
> > > > -- Mentioned in passing in the middle-school section on page 51:
> > > > https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AllDCI.pdf#page=51
> > > >
> > > > -- Mentioned in passing in the preamble to the HS section on page 75:
> > > > https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AllDCI.pdf#page=75
> > > >
> > > > -- Mentioned in a nontrivial way on page 79:
> > > > https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AllDCI.pdf#page=79
> > > >
> > > > *) Conservation of momentum is mentioned twice (and wrongly expressed
> > > > both times).
> > > >
> > > > *) There is a treeeemendous emphasis on "stability". An earlier draft
> > > > defined what they meant by that, which was utter nonsense. The final
> > > > draft simply removed the definition, leaving us with a heavy emphasis
> > > > on a term that is undefined and unexplained.
> > > >
> > > > > I hope it