Why does it take so long to get to modern physics in US high school curriculum?

In summary: I don't think it's a bad thing to have taken advanced math classes. It's just that most people don't. In summary, this guy think that high school students should only learn about classical physics and not modern physics. He also thinks that a high school physics curriculum should be centered around everyday observables. He also thinks that modern physics is irrelevant to most people.
  • #1
Amok
256
2
I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this post, but here we go. This guy (who usually makes great videos) posted this on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGL22PTIOAM&feature=g-all-u

First of all, is it true (I'm not American)? Second, do you agree? Any comments are welcome :D

I personally think that some modern physics should be taught in high-school, but only to show students that physics didn't stop in time. I certainly do not think that a high-school physics curriculum should be centered around modern physics. I think modern physics is irrelevant (compared to classical physics) to most people who don't go into science and engineering (and even to a lot who do go into those domains). More importantly, I feel that one could only go so far into relativity or QM when talking to people who don't know what a gradient is. I'd rather have people learn the basics well than just learn a lot of trivia about lasers and how a gravitational field bends light. The guy makes a point about people like Carl Sagan. Fair enough, but I don't think Carl Sagan really taught physics (I'm a great admirer of the man, don't get all up in arms) as much as he talked about what wonders doing physics has enabled us to discover. This is great, it sparks interest for physics, but it doesn't really make people understand physics. If anything, people should learn more maths, and then learn physics more in-depth (without necerssarily going into modern developments).
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think everything that has been known since 1865 is still a lot of material to cover for one academic year in high school. They simply don't have time to go over modern physics in any appreciable manner.
 
  • #3
Amok,

You're right. Considering that Fundamental Physics in the college or university is three semesters, so much as that cannot be packaged into just one high-school year course. Schools wanting to put mechanics, electricity & magnetism, radiation-optics-quantum_mechamics all into one high school year would need to abbreviate many things. Most of the mechanics needs some focus. Using every-day observables that can be measured would serve as development for most beginning concepts. Waves and wave motion - this can be shown with springs , things that rotate, and mechanical things that oscillate, and extended to sound.

Let experts give their comments.
 
  • #4
You guys have just one year of physics in high school?
 
  • #5
What I got from that video was:

Let's teach high school students fake physics. If there was a way to make the math behind QM and GR simple, I think we would've already done it!

I believe that we SHOULD teach SR in high school, but QM and GR is taking it too far, as most students wouldn't understand the Schrodinger equation, or the variational calculus needed for geodesics (as two examples).
 
  • #6
Amok said:
You guys have just one year of physics in high school?

Mostly, yes, usually in the last year. Actually, at many high schools it's possible to take two years of physics, but it's usually basically the same material without calculus and with calculus. The calculus-based courses are usually Advanced Placement courses that prepare students for AP exams that can lead to credit for college-level introductory courses.
 
  • #7
But is the study of calculus compulsory in high school?
 
  • #8
No. Most students who are interested in science and math do take AP calculus in high school, again usually in the last year. They may or may not be able to skip taking calculus in college, based on that. It depends on their scores on the AP exam and on the college's policies.

At the college where I work, some incoming students who plan to major in physics "place out" of part of the math department's calculus course sequence based on AP credit, and some have to take the entire calculus sequence.

Our introductory calculus-based physics course is designed to allow for students who are taking calculus at the same time. Many colleges and universities do this. Some require students to complete one or two semesters of calculus (or have AP credit) before starting physics.
 
  • #9
jtbell said:
No.

:(

I think that's a shame. I actually went through high-school twice in two different countries. First in Brazil, where calculus wasn't taught at all in high-school (in a regular curriculum). Then in Switzerland, where even the regular curriculum involves calculus. If you take advanced math classes (which is what I did) you even get to go beyond integral calculus of just polynomials and simple functions and learn integration by parts and all that good stuff, not to mention tons of linear algebra. This didn't give you any college credits, but it did give you an edge if you decided to major in some scientific area.

If you guys don't have to learn calculus in the regular high-school curriculum, then I don't see how you could put more physics into it (at all), and especially modern physics.
 
  • #10
Amok said:
I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this post, but here we go. This guy (who usually makes great videos) posted this on youtube.

Thanks for posting the video- there are definitely some thought-provoking ideas in it. Personally, I tend to agree with the video- one way to make students more interested in Physics (all math and science, actually) is to make the material relevant to them and their experiences. The physical concepts underlying modern technology can and should be discussed in class. It is also appropriate to discuss 'current events' in science class.

However, Physics is unique among the sciences in that it is a quantitative science, not a qualitative science. Thus, there is pedagogical tension between emphasizing the mathematical structure and the conceptual foundations. Many teachers firmly believe that until students perform a calculation, they cannot claim to understand the material. Personally, I believe that plenty of students master plug-and-chug calculations and still not know any physics.

Since the mathematical structure of 'modern' physics is decisively more abstract than classical physics, it is correct to argue that high school students (and most college students, for that matter) can't hope to understand any 'modern' physics. (side note- I say 'modern', since those topics are approaching 100 years of age!). On the other hand, it's correct to argue that a (generic) well-educated citizen doesn't need to know how to perform detailed calculations, either.

Don't forget about the role of the teacher in this- until recently, K-12 math and science teachers had degrees in *education*, not a science. So it is not surprising that most science teachers don't know science well enough to enrich the curriculum- holding them to the standards of Sagan, Feynman, and deGrasse Tyson isn't really fair. Fortunately, there *is* a national-level push to improve STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) teachers by exposing them to actual laboratory science.
 
  • #11
You guys have just one year of physics in high school?

In some states, not even that. A lot of states require a number of science classes, but don't specifically require any physics so many students elect not to take it.

After my phd, I was discouraged to find that there isn't very high demand for high school physics teachers because so few students take the courses.
 
  • #12
Andy Resnick said:
Since the mathematical structure of 'modern' physics is decisively more abstract than classical physics, it is correct to argue that high school students (and most college students, for that matter) can't hope to understand any 'modern' physics. (side note- I say 'modern', since those topics are approaching 100 years of age!). On the other hand, it's correct to argue that a (generic) well-educated citizen doesn't need to know how to perform detailed calculations, either.

Not sure about relativity, but the math for quantum physics isn't just more advanced and abstract, it's the science itself that is abstract. The math is therefore a more important and integral part of those theories: as abstract as it may be, it is was brings the science down to our level of understanding.

I think that high-school physics classes tend to be pretty boring. Maybe teaching more modern subjects might help with that, but I don't think they should be at the center of the curriculum, lest people end up learning only trivia about physics. I remember I only really got intersted in physics during college, when I had to study the subject a bit more in depth and the equations started seeming a bit less random.

From the replies I got here, I see that your main problem is that you simply don't have enough physics in school. That said, besides all the criticism, American still produces some of the best physics out there.
 
  • #13
ParticleGrl said:
After my phd, I was discouraged to find that there isn't very high demand for high school physics teachers because so few students take the courses.

At many or most high schools, the person who teaches physics also teaches something else, probably either math or chemistry, and probably actually has his degree in the other field. When I came to teach at a college in South Carolina, 27 years ago, my department chairman told me that (at that time) as far as he knew, there was one high school in the whole state with a physics teacher that actually had a degree in physics. I don't know what the situation is now.
 
  • #14
back in high school(2 years ago) the physics teacher was a biology teacher... i didn't take the class but according to my cousin half the time this asian kid taught the class and the teacher always asked him for reassurance... i am very glad i did not take that class. ( I'm from Canada )
 
  • #15
Amok said:
<snip>
I think that high-school physics classes tend to be pretty boring. Maybe teaching more modern subjects might help with that, but I don't think they should be at the center of the curriculum, lest people end up learning only trivia about physics. <snip>

This is the central concept of this thread- I think everyone here is in agreement that the current curriculum is turning students off from physics/math/science. I think everyone here also agrees that increasing the scientific literacy of the general population is a worthy goal, so in the end, we are all discussing alternative approaches to the current (US) curriculum.

It's a tricky problem- on one hand there are scientist-educators who want the curriculum to provide instruction in 'problem-solving' and on the other, (again, in the US) administrator-educators who prefer to focus on improving skill- something measurable by standardized tests.

Edit: What do you folks think of online lectures like Khan Academy, freesciencelectures.com, etc. that emphasize 'gee-whiz' stuff rather than rigor? Is there a place for them in 'official' curricula? The current buzzword in academia is "massive open online courses" (MOOC).
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Does modern physics include atoms?

Is "classical physics" more important than atoms? OTOH, they can learn that in chemistry ...

I think one can learn physics like "water flows downhill", "light travels in straight lines", "light can bend around a corner" in primary or secondary school, because there are experiments that one can easily do to show these things. So if there were some experiment that can be easily done to show that gravity bends light, I think that could be taught in elementary school. I have to admit that an experiment demonstrating atoms doesn't come to mind immediately ...
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Andy Resnick said:
This is the central concept of this thread- I think everyone here is in agreement that the current curriculum is turning students off from physics/math/science. I think everyone here also agrees that increasing the scientific literacy of the general population is a worthy goal, so in the end, we are all discussing alternative approaches to the current (US) curriculum.

It's a tricky problem- on one hand there are scientist-educators who want the curriculum to provide instruction in 'problem-solving' and on the other, (again, in the US) administrator-educators who prefer to focus on improving skill- something measurable by standardized tests.

Edit: What do you folks think of online lectures like Khan Academy, freesciencelectures.com, etc. that emphasize 'gee-whiz' stuff rather than rigor? Is there a place for them in 'official' curricula? The current buzzword in academia is "massive open online courses" (MOOC).

I don't think physics is ever going to be unversally liked subject. There's a reason people tend to like social/human sciences better. It's because they're social/human! They're closer to what (most) people are and what they have been taught to be since they were kids. I honestly think that one solution is to introduce science/physics should be introduced earlier in school curricula, so people get used to it. Also, science is still associated to ''geekism'' in a way. Maybe there's something we can do about that too.

Personally, I think that having less subjects covered in more depth would make physics more interesting. But that would have to be accompanied by better math skills.

It's funny, some of my professors even mentioned MOOCs in the speeches they made at my graduation and made a big deal about it. I've watched some Khan academy lectures, and they're pretty good. I've also watched some online lectures by Leonard Susskind and they seem to be pretty rigorous. What do you mean by the 'gee-whiz' stuff?
jtbell said:
At many or most high schools, the person who teaches physics also teaches something else, probably either math or chemistry

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

atyy said:
they can learn that in chemistry ...

Yes, I think we're covered on that subject.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Andy Resnick said:

Some of those videos aren't bad (the first two I should say) since concepts of the scientific understanding of the universe are explained by people who actually understand them. They are interesting and show people that science is not dead, and helps them get acquainted with some modern concepts of science. I'm just saying that kind of stuff should not be central to a scientific education.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
I am student teacher now.

We are considered a high needs school.

But we are offering 1 AP Physics B class, 1 Honors Physics class, and 2 conceptual Physics classes.

The conceptual is very math light, nothing more than F=ma, p=mv, g=10 m/s/s. But we get into good discussions of why the world behaves the way it does. It's a pretty interesting course, and one that I think should actually be taught at the middle school level.

For the other, more traditional, classes, I find what trips up the kids, and turns other kids off from taking the course is the math. The trig and algebra tends to discourage a lot of students. And this is a non-calculus course. And maybe this is more a fault of their earlier math teachers, but half these kids have trouble just applying the distributive property of multiplication when trying to solve for a variable.
 
  • #21
I sometimes wonder whether at least a part of the problem with the way science and math are taught in American (and Canadian) schools is that too little solid math taught between kindergarten to Grade 6 is actually taught and so when advanced concepts are introduced in later grades, students are simply overwhelmed.

I recall ever so long ago from my childhood that many of my classmates in Grade 6 were still learning the advanced multiplication tables, while I was being taught by my parents (and teaching myself) advanced algebra through texts that they bought for me and through private tutoring. Perhaps a gradual but more in-depth introduction of mathematical concepts through the earlier years will enable students to better comprehend and learn the material, and thus concepts from physics and other sciences will be better taught.

This also ties into teacher training as well, since I suspect many elementary school teachers do not have any background in either math or science.
 
  • #22
superdave said:
<snip>

For the other, more traditional, classes, I find what trips up the kids, and turns other kids off from taking the course is the math. The trig and algebra tends to discourage a lot of students. <snip>

My experience is exactly the same. Also, it's really hard to motivate the students since they truly believe they have no need to understand basic algebra and trig (except in the short term, for passing the class).

StatGuy2000 said:
I sometimes wonder whether at least a part of the problem with the way science and math are taught in American (and Canadian) schools is that too little solid math taught between kindergarten to Grade 6 is actually taught and so when advanced concepts are introduced in later grades, students are simply overwhelmed.
<snip>

I agree that the way K-12 math is currently taught (in my limited geographical experience) is poor. Again, one possible reason is that the curriculum was developed by educators with little to no formal mathematics expertise. For a delightfully cynical discussion, I encourage you to read "A Mathematician's Lament":

http://www.maa.org/devlin/lockhartslament.pdf [Broken]

FWIW, a major thrust of STEM reform is centered on STEM *educator* reform.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Andy Resnick said:
My experience is exactly the same. Also, it's really hard to motivate the students since they truly believe they have no need to understand basic algebra and trig (except in the short term, for passing the class).

I think that's a problem faced by teachers in general, from biology to philosohpy, from physics to art. :D

When I took advanced math classes in high school, the focus of the classes shifted from a purely 'calculatory' approach to something with more demonstrations and abstract concepts. That made me struggle A LOT (but certainly more engaging). The same thing happens when people go from high school to college, especially if they're going for a physics/math degree (that's what I observed at least). Maybe it's ok that this happens in college, but maybe changing the way math is taught to little kids might help (I have no idea how this works in the US btw).
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Amok said:
I think that's a problem faced by teachers in general, from biology to philosohpy, from physics to art. :D
<snip>.

Definitely- the challenge to motivate students is not limited to math and science class :)

However, there is a big difference in curricula for classes subject to standardized 'proficiency exams' (math, science, english) and those not tested- art, philosophy,etc. To paraphrase Lockhart's essay, No K-12 art teacher grades based on the expectation that the student will one day be a professional artist. No K-12 music teacher develops a curriculum based on the assumption that every student may become a professional musician. The same holds true for most subjects- the curriculum is based on providing a constructive learning experience, not rote memorization. The clear exceptions are reading, math and science. It is also no coincidence that reading and math are subject to a large number of standardized exams.

The argument for standardized exams goes like this: some school districts (primarily poor urban and poor rural) manage to only graduate a small fraction of kids, and of those that graduate, most are functional at the 4th grade level or so. This is clearly unacceptable, so standardized tests are required to ensure that all students graduate with a minimum amount of skill/knowledge. And to make sure schools take these tests seriously, today's test scores are correlated with tomorrow's funding levels.

Personally, I agree that graduating students need to be able to read, write, and compute at a grade-appropriate level. I disagree that the schools with the worst problems should drive the curriculum at successful schools (which is what happens because *all* schools have to deal with the same standardized exams).

Our school district is moving to the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum, and while I know very little about the specifics, what I do know is encouraging- there is less emphasis on rote memorization and more emphasis on coherent integration of concepts across disciplines.
 
  • #25
Andy Resnick said:
Definitely- the challenge to motivate students is not limited to math and science class :)

However, there is a big difference in curricula for classes subject to standardized 'proficiency exams' (math, science, english) and those not tested- art, philosophy,etc. To paraphrase Lockhart's essay, No K-12 art teacher grades based on the expectation that the student will one day be a professional artist. No K-12 music teacher develops a curriculum based on the assumption that every student may become a professional musician. The same holds true for most subjects- the curriculum is based on providing a constructive learning experience, not rote memorization. The clear exceptions are reading, math and science. It is also no coincidence that reading and math are subject to a large number of standardized exams.

The argument for standardized exams goes like this: some school districts (primarily poor urban and poor rural) manage to only graduate a small fraction of kids, and of those that graduate, most are functional at the 4th grade level or so. This is clearly unacceptable, so standardized tests are required to ensure that all students graduate with a minimum amount of skill/knowledge. And to make sure schools take these tests seriously, today's test scores are correlated with tomorrow's funding levels.

Personally, I agree that graduating students need to be able to read, write, and compute at a grade-appropriate level. I disagree that the schools with the worst problems should drive the curriculum at successful schools (which is what happens because *all* schools have to deal with the same standardized exams).

Our school district is moving to the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum, and while I know very little about the specifics, what I do know is encouraging- there is less emphasis on rote memorization and more emphasis on coherent integration of concepts across disciplines.

It's interesting that you point out the issue of standardized testing as one of the major drivers in reducing the interest level of students in math and science. In the province of Ontario, Canada (where I live) standardized testing for reading and math had been introduced around the mid-1990s, and there have been reports indicating that students graduating from high school have struggled with university level courses.

So the question then becomes, would eliminating standardized testing for math and reading may actually improve overall proficiency in the subjects? That would be an interesting hypothesis to test.
 
  • #26
I don't think it has anything to do with standardized testing. As a former physics hater in high school myself, it just comes down to being lazy and not wanting to learn it. Let's face it, physics and math are hard subjects, and can be rather boring. The average high school kid doesn't give a rats *** what the velocity of a ball rolling down an incline plane is at the bottom of the plane, atleast given the energy needed to understand the problem. The ratio of time it takes to understand the question relative to the significance of the question is rather high for many pupils.
 
  • #27
StatGuy2000 said:
<snip>
So the question then becomes, would eliminating standardized testing for math and reading may actually improve overall proficiency in the subjects? That would be an interesting hypothesis to test.

It's unclear, because the relationship between standardized test content and 'subject proficiency' is not clear. AFAIK, the US K-12 educational system has not articulated a clear coherent standard of what a high-school graduate should know and be able to do- but that could be changing, at least in the STEM fields.

For example, I could decide that a high school student has demonstrated proficiency in Physics if the student, with prompting, can solve a particular equation for an unknown quantity and can recall basic factual information. This sort of proficiency lends itself well to standardized testing.

Alternatively, I could decide that a high school student has demonstrated proficiency in Physics if the student, with prompting, can provide quantitative evidence that supports or refutes a scientific claim. This sort of proficiency does not lend itself to standardized testing.

You (and others) correctly identify a 'bottleneck': the transition from K-12 science education to college/university science education is difficult for many students, even those who did very well in the K-12 system. Personally, I think it's because of the difference in what is thought of as 'proficiency'- K-12 students are rewarded for rote memorization, while college/university students are increasingly asked to apply conceptual information to new and unfamiliar problems. This 'problem-based learning' approach has been increasingly used in advanced classes for decades, but only recently has it been applied to general-science required classes.
 
  • #28
Woopydalan said:
I don't think it has anything to do with standardized testing. As a former physics hater in high school myself, it just comes down to being lazy and not wanting to learn it. Let's face it, physics and math are hard subjects, and can be rather boring. The average high school kid doesn't give a rats *** what the velocity of a ball rolling down an incline plane is at the bottom of the plane, atleast given the energy needed to understand the problem. The ratio of time it takes to understand the question relative to the significance of the question is rather high for many pupils.

The thing is, Phyics and Math are boring because of two reasons:

The first is the way they are tested. The standardized, 70-90 question multiple choice test with 5-10 constructed answer questions. The format of these tests dictate the way the content is taught.

The second reason is tradition. Physics has been taught using the same examples, the same way for many years. This is generally caused by professors who teach the way they've always taught. A Physics Professor is often a horrible teacher. I took my physics classes at one of the top Physics schools in New York (Stony Brook University). But the professors cared more about research than teaching and basically taught by writing out a proof or a derivation on the board for an hour.

Many high school teachers learn to teach physics from these professors, so they teach the same way. This is changing for younger teachers, as the theory behind learning and teaching is being emphasized more in education programs.



As for math, well, once you get past early algebra, it's very hard to see the point in learning. Some of my physics students have told me that takuing physics helped them to understand geometry and trig a lot better because they have something to help it make sense. And one of my AP students said the same about calc.

Math and Physics are often separated in schools, but it doesn't need to be so. We could start teaching physics in math classes as early as algebra. Why separate the subjects? Newton certainly didn't.
 
  • #29
superdave wrote:

Math and Physics are often separated in schools, but it doesn't need to be so. We could start teaching physics in math classes as early as algebra. Why separate the subjects? Newton certainly didn't.

If the Algebra or Trigonometry book is any good, it will include many APPLICATIONS exercises, some of which are physics.
 
  • #30
symbolipoint said:
superdave wrote:



If the Algebra or Trigonometry book is any good, it will include many APPLICATIONS exercises, some of which are physics.

Yeah, that's true. But even so, they are buried among a mountain of other problems, and those applications exercises tend to just be somewhat relevant word problems. They never have you actually get up and use geometry to figure out the height of a building.

And there are standards written like "Students will be able to use complex math ideas to solve every day problems."

But then on the standardized test, the questions go back to being "Prove triangle xyz is congruent to abc" and "Simplify [insert complex number with radical in denominator]" with never any explanation of why anyone would possibly want to do that.

There is a disconnect between the standards and the standardized tests. And now that more and more states are tying teacher pay to student performance on the test, teachers have less time to get creative and spend more time on the test.

If physics was no longer just a science seniors took, but an integral part of math class from early years, it might help with some of these issues.
 
  • #31
superdave,

The reason why some/many of the OLDER textbooks are good (or great) is because they do have many and varied applications exercises and examples. Still, we do not need to wonder why physical science students develop a good sense for how to use their Mathematics to analyze and solve realistic word-described problems and numerical physical problems. First they spend several weeks learning Algebra and maybe some Trigonometry; then they see their physical science topics relying on Algebra and Trigonometry, where the topic is both contactable and very mathematical. The mathematics LIVES in the physical sciences.
 
  • #32
superdave said:
The thing is, Phyics and Math are boring because of two reasons:

<snip>
Some of my physics students<snip>

I've been thinking about your post because you raise good points. However, it appears that you are a teacher/instructor/educator- a fact that, if true, undermines your argument. Do you teach?
 
  • #33
Andy Resnick said:
I've been thinking about your post because you raise good points. However, it appears that you are a teacher/instructor/educator- a fact that, if true, undermines your argument. Do you teach?

I'm student teaching now, will be certified in 3 weeks. I'm not sure how that undermines my argument. I'm seeing classrooms first hand. And I'm fresh from taking physics college courses. As a student teacher, I am able to see things from the teachers side, but also from outside the system as I don't have the same politics to answer to, and as a one-on-one tutor, I see what students struggle with.
 
  • #34
superdave said:
I'm student teaching now, will be certified in 3 weeks. I'm not sure how that undermines my argument.

I was specifically referring to the following comments:

superdave said:
<snip>The format of these tests dictate the way the content is taught.

<snip>Physics has been taught using the same examples, the same way for many years. <snip>

As an instructor, I write exams and I choose how to present the material. My tests, the order I present topics, and the examples I use in lecture/recitation differ in significant ways from the 'canonical' Intro Physics course design.

My point is that as an instructor, you can choose to update/refresh your course- stating 'physics is boring because the tests and example problems are no longer relevant' when you have the direct ability to change that is unfair.

That said, while it is certainly true that K-12 teachers have less latitude than college/university teachers (for a variety of reasons), I maintain it's still possible to make adjustments to the curriculum in an effort to be more effective. So here's my challenge: what specific changes would you make?
 
  • #35
Andy Resnick said:
I was specifically referring to the following comments:
As an instructor, I write exams and I choose how to present the material. My tests, the order I present topics, and the examples I use in lecture/recitation differ in significant ways from the 'canonical' Intro Physics course design.

My point is that as an instructor, you can choose to update/refresh your course- stating 'physics is boring because the tests and example problems are no longer relevant' when you have the direct ability to change that is unfair.

That said, while it is certainly true that K-12 teachers have less latitude than college/university teachers (for a variety of reasons), I maintain it's still possible to make adjustments to the curriculum in an effort to be more effective. So here's my challenge: what specific changes would you make?

When it is up to me, I focus a lot on the concepts. I'll introduce the equations, and then spend a whole class having a discussing about what it really means. Not just quantitatively, but in reality. What does it really mean to do work? To convert energy from one type to another? I spent 25 minutes the other day having the kids detail the energy changes in different interactions.

Then for calculations, I tried to first do them with interesting examples. We calculated the change of kinetic energy during a pitch to find the work done, and then the power. Using ESPN's Sports science to get some of the details. Did a few other video calculations. The power of Iron Man's rocket boots, the spring constant in Spider-Man's webs, the kinetic energy, and then his velocity, at the bottom of his swing.

And the students did better on this unit test than they have on any of the ones their regular teacher taught. And actually found the material interesting. It's true, most of these changes could be made within the structure of the state curriculum. But there is nothing pushing for it. Boring teachers continue to be boring teachers. So you are right in the sense that you can't blame it all on the standardized test.
 
<h2>1. Why is modern physics not taught earlier in the high school curriculum?</h2><p>The high school curriculum is designed to build upon foundational concepts and gradually introduce more complex topics. Modern physics, which includes concepts such as relativity and quantum mechanics, requires a strong understanding of fundamental physics principles. Therefore, it is typically introduced in the later years of high school when students have a solid foundation in physics.</p><h2>2. How has the high school curriculum changed over time in regards to modern physics?</h2><p>The high school curriculum is constantly evolving to keep up with advancements in science and technology. Modern physics was not always included in the curriculum, but as it became increasingly relevant and important in our understanding of the world, it was integrated into the curriculum. In recent years, there has been a push for more emphasis on modern physics in high school education.</p><h2>3. Are there any specific challenges in teaching modern physics in high school?</h2><p>Teaching modern physics in high school can be challenging due to the abstract and complex nature of the subject. It requires a strong understanding of mathematical concepts and can be difficult for some students to grasp. Additionally, the lack of access to advanced equipment and resources in high school settings can make it challenging to fully explore and understand modern physics concepts.</p><h2>4. How does the inclusion of modern physics in the high school curriculum benefit students?</h2><p>Studying modern physics in high school allows students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It also introduces them to cutting-edge scientific concepts and prepares them for further studies in science and engineering fields. Understanding modern physics can also help students make connections between science and real-world applications, such as technology and medicine.</p><h2>5. Are there any efforts to incorporate modern physics into the high school curriculum earlier?</h2><p>There have been efforts to introduce modern physics concepts earlier in the high school curriculum. Some schools offer advanced placement or honors courses that cover modern physics topics in earlier years. Additionally, there is a push for more interdisciplinary approaches to teaching science, which could include introducing modern physics concepts in earlier years through connections with other subjects such as math and chemistry.</p>

1. Why is modern physics not taught earlier in the high school curriculum?

The high school curriculum is designed to build upon foundational concepts and gradually introduce more complex topics. Modern physics, which includes concepts such as relativity and quantum mechanics, requires a strong understanding of fundamental physics principles. Therefore, it is typically introduced in the later years of high school when students have a solid foundation in physics.

2. How has the high school curriculum changed over time in regards to modern physics?

The high school curriculum is constantly evolving to keep up with advancements in science and technology. Modern physics was not always included in the curriculum, but as it became increasingly relevant and important in our understanding of the world, it was integrated into the curriculum. In recent years, there has been a push for more emphasis on modern physics in high school education.

3. Are there any specific challenges in teaching modern physics in high school?

Teaching modern physics in high school can be challenging due to the abstract and complex nature of the subject. It requires a strong understanding of mathematical concepts and can be difficult for some students to grasp. Additionally, the lack of access to advanced equipment and resources in high school settings can make it challenging to fully explore and understand modern physics concepts.

4. How does the inclusion of modern physics in the high school curriculum benefit students?

Studying modern physics in high school allows students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It also introduces them to cutting-edge scientific concepts and prepares them for further studies in science and engineering fields. Understanding modern physics can also help students make connections between science and real-world applications, such as technology and medicine.

5. Are there any efforts to incorporate modern physics into the high school curriculum earlier?

There have been efforts to introduce modern physics concepts earlier in the high school curriculum. Some schools offer advanced placement or honors courses that cover modern physics topics in earlier years. Additionally, there is a push for more interdisciplinary approaches to teaching science, which could include introducing modern physics concepts in earlier years through connections with other subjects such as math and chemistry.

Similar threads

  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
6K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
7
Replies
233
Views
18K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
757
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top