What is missing from a general physics course?

[Hlud]

Hey guys,

I am teaching general physics (among other things) at an international school. The general physics course is designed as a introduction to all students to physics. These students could be interested in physics-career or not. My principal has given me a lot of leeway in designing my curriculum, which i am trying to take advantage of. For example, i am currently in a unit based on flight. This unit takes forces to a whole new level.

What topics do you guys think should be implemented into a general physics course?

 

[Guy Madison]

I found that college physics courses spend way too much time on classical mechanics and not enough on applicable technologies like electronics (not charges), general relativity or quantum mechanics which the really cool side of physics. It's like learning to play the piano, the longer you stay with five finger pieces for kids the greater the chance you will have of extinguishing the flame that got you started

You have to use a carrot to get some bunnies to play.

 

[Hlud]

I found that college physics courses spend way too much time on classical mechanics and not enough on applicable technologies like electronics (not charges), general relativity or quantum mechanics which the really cool side of physics. It's like learning to play the piano, the longer you stay with five finger pieces for kids the greater the chance you will have of extinguishing the flame that got you started

You have to use a carrot to get some bunnies to play.

I have thought about teaching some modern physics, but, i feel as if you lose the hands-on applications of it. How do you remedy this?

On a different point, i saw this textbook, Physics: A Conceptual Worldview by Kirkpatrick and Francis, that really frustrated me. According to them, "This textbook is intended for a conceptual course in introductory physics for students majoring in fields other than science, mathematics, or engineering." The word introductory really bothered me, because students who don't major in the fields listed, generally don't take more than your first course. What are the goals of a introductory, but standalone, physics course?

You can pretty much strip off some of the more difficult math and concepts from any university level book (which is designed for students who will take more physics courses) and you end up with Physics: A Conceptual Worldview. Is that acceptable?

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Hey guys,

I am teaching general physics (among other things) at an international school. The general physics course is designed as a introduction to all students to physics.

What math and science courses have you students taken before they enter this course ? What math will they be taking concurrent with the course?

 

[Hlud]

What math and science courses have you students taken before they enter this course ? What math will they be taking concurrent with the course?

Some are in Alg. II and some are in Calc (and everywhere in b/t).

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In intro courses, I always pay a lot of attention to the expectations of downstream courses for which the first two semesters are a prerequisite.

For example, at most universities, the 1st semester of general physics is a pre-requisite for several engineering courses including statics and dynamics. It is also a pre-requisite for the 2nd semester general physics course, usually focused on electricity and magnetism.

I take great care to include all the necessary learning objectives for students to succeed in those downstream courses. I look at the syllabi for those courses, I consider how past versions of the general physics course prepared students, and I talk to interested faculty who teach those courses about how student preparation could be improved in the course I am responsible for.

A similar approach in high school physics. How well is the high school physics course preparing students for college physics courses? But since many students in high school physics will also take college calculus and chemistry, I also take due care to make good on opportunities to better prepare students for these downstream challenges as well.

We had a saying at the Air Force Academy, "Their success is our success." The meaning in the context was clear: don't fool yourself with how you think your students are doing in your course. Worry more about whether you have prepared them for their future challenges, and only be content when you know they are succeeding later.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Drawing and modeling courses! I cannot believe perspective training is missed in the curriculum. They are some of the most valuable courses I've taken! I prefer hand-drawing, but I guess CAD is more hip now. Will people in the future miss out on never having to learn to write by hand, just using a keyboard instead? If not, then I'm probably overestimating the value of having some basic drawing skills to assist in perspective throughout one's study of nature and it's workings... I guess it depends on the position, but physicists and engineers probably draw more than artists or children. It only makes sense...

 

[Guy Madison]

You can pretty much strip off some of the more difficult math and concepts from any university level book (which is designed for students who will take more physics courses) and you end up with Physics: A Conceptual Worldview. Is that acceptable?

Looking at the table of contents it's actually not too bad, about 200 pages of classical mechanics and the rest on various modern subjects. Any physics text should not be stuck in the time of Newton, unless you are going to be a mechanical engineer. The continued focus on subjects like these are a real time waster for most of us.

 

[Hlud]

We had a saying at the Air Force Academy, "Their success is our success." The meaning in the context was clear: don't fool yourself with how you think your students are doing in your course. Worry more about whether you have prepared them for their future challenges, and only be content when you know they are succeeding later.

I think the biggest difference is that high school physics (non-AP) is mostly taken by students who won't go onto a major related to physics, or even science for that matter. By just preparing them for future physics and engineering courses, i am doing a lot of my students a disservice.

Drawing and modeling courses! I cannot believe perspective training is missed in the curriculum. They are some of the most valuable courses I've taken! I prefer hand-drawing, but I guess CAD is more hip now. Will people in the future miss out on never having to learn to write by hand, just using a keyboard instead? If not, then I'm probably overestimating the value of having some basic drawing skills to assist in perspective throughout one's study of nature and it's workings... I guess it depends on the position, but physicists and engineers probably draw more than artists or children. It only makes sense...

I haven't really thought about that, but i really like that suggestion. Since my school is really small, we don't have courses in those courses. I perhaps can incorporate that into my course.

Looking at the table of contents it's actually not too bad, about 200 pages of classical mechanics and the rest on various modern subjects. Any physics text should not be stuck in the time of Newton, unless you are going to be a mechanical engineer. The continued focus on subjects like these are a real time waster for most of us.

My issue with it is twofold. First, conceptual physics is almost synonymous with "physics, just with less math." While this book perpetuates that stereotype, i like to think of conceptual physics as "physics, just with more words." Personally, i think i struggled the most with physics in college (especially my upperclassmen courses), because i could not grasp the concepts, which, of course, were directly tied into the math. Unfortunately, no professor, nor textbook, really stressed the concepts.

My second issue is that it doesn't really differentiate itself from a university physics course except in difficulty of problems. This is fine for going from university physics to upperclassmen physics to graduate level physics. Students in those courses choose to major in physics or engineering. But for students who see the world in a completely different light, i don't think this is acceptable.

Not too long ago, i read a blog by a disgruntled physics professor, who was fired from his position at Canadian school. This professor changed his entire curriculum around to answer the questions his students were genuinely interested in. Probably a better way to phrase my original question is, "What questions could we tackle using a physics mindset (model, theory, experiment, application), but are normally skipped in a typical physics course?"

An example that i had just thought of is the physics of smell. While this topic can surely be argued as a biological topic, it is more in line with the responses i am searching for.

 

[Andy Resnick]

What topics do you guys think should be implemented into a general physics course?

I"What questions could we tackle using a physics mindset (model, theory, experiment, application), but are normally skipped in a typical physics course?"

Do you have any requirements? For example, we are state-mandated to teach 80% of topics on a provided list, to ensure students can transfer within the state system and carry the credit hours with them. If you are an IB school, there may be a ‘subject guide’ that you have to follow. Maybe you have a lot of latitude to select topics.

It’s good that you know your (typical) student’s abilities and preparation. Physics primarily differs from the other sciences in the degree that mathematics is used to model the world, and knowing how mathematically sophisticated your students are will help you be effective.

So, if you have the ability to create your own course, I recommend that you choose topics that you find interesting and can effectively communicate to the students. For example, in my algebra-based intro physics sequence, rather than spend a lecture on statistical mechanics, I choose to spend that period covering general relativity (physics I), and rather than covering mirrors, I choose to cover polarization (physics II). That is to say, I use my 20% slice to talk about topics I'm interested in and I think my students would be interested in: radiation biology, digital cameras, sports (not just ballistics but also collisions and safety equipment), the list goes on.

Not everyone agrees with my choices, but that’s what academic freedom is all about.

So to your second question, since you've taken intro physics, what do wish was covered in introductory physics? I'm intrigued by 'flight'- there are a lot of great videos out there that really get into the details-boundary layer separation (stall), turbulence, wakes... the topic lends itself to visualization very well. I would caution against 'physics of smell', since (the royal) we don't fully understand the sense of smell yet.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think the biggest difference is that high school physics (non-AP) is mostly taken by students who won't go onto a major related to physics, or even science for that matter. By just preparing them for future physics and engineering courses, i am doing a lot of my students a disservice.

That may be true where you are, but it has not been my experience or that of my colleagues. College Physics and Calculus are required courses in many college majors: biology, chemistry, forensic science, pre-med, pre-vet, pre-dental, etc., in addition to physics and engineering.

More than half of the students we see in non-AP high school physics course are intending to move toward one of these majors, or keeping an open mind to them. High school physics without real quantitative problem solving and where one can earn an A without learning vectors does a real disservice to these students.

In contrast, learning this is in no way a disservice to students who do not end up taking College Physics or Calculus. The quantitative problem solving skills of a good high school physics course have many applications in real life and many professions.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Drawing and modeling courses! I cannot believe perspective training is missed in the curriculum. They are some of the most valuable courses I've taken! I prefer hand-drawing, but I guess CAD is more hip now. Will people in the future miss out on never having to learn to write by hand, just using a keyboard instead? If not, then I'm probably overestimating the value of having some basic drawing skills to assist in perspective throughout one's study of nature and it's workings... I guess it depends on the position, but physicists and engineers probably draw more than artists or children. It only makes sense...

I kind of agree- draughtsmanship is an incredibly useful skill, I can fake it (poorly) and wish I had some formal training.

 

[Guy Madison]

College Physics and Calculus are required courses in many college majors: biology, chemistry, forensic science, pre-med, pre-vet, pre-dental, etc

Isn't that great :) people tell me you're so smart because your dad was so smart... I respond back.. listen.. my mother took full calc / physics set for nursing in a time when women didn't become doctors. I expect both of my daughters to take a full calc / physics tour of duty if I am paying the bill.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Isn't that great :) people tell me you're so smart because your dad was so smart... I respond back.. listen.. my mother took full calc / physics set for nursing in a time when women didn't become doctors. I expect both of my daughters to take a full calc / physics tour of duty if I am paying the bill.

I'm smart because my parents met in a Physics class at LSU. My mom got a D. My dad switched his major from engineering to business.

 

[Guy Madison]

I'm smart because my parents met in a Physics class at LSU. My mom got a D. My dad switched his major from engineering to business.

Smirk :) My grandfather made all his children take a full course of calc / physics, he was paying the bill and expected something in return. No business majors in the family though... just doctors / engineers / finance majors.

 

[Hlud]

Do you have any requirements?

For the most part, no. My general physics class is mine to design. Being a small school, i will only have the one general physics class (and one AP, but i don't have control over that curriculum).

Physics primarily differs from the other sciences in the degree that mathematics is used to model the world, and knowing how mathematically sophisticated your students are will help you be effective.

The only thing i am trying to abandon is the use of plug-and-chug in my physics class. "Can you use a mathematical equation to explain this phenomenon?" is more what i am going after. In that respect, my students are okay at gathering meaning from equations.

So to your second question, since you've taken intro physics, what do wish was covered in introductory physics? I'm intrigued by 'flight'- there are a lot of great videos out there that really get into the details-boundary layer separation (stall), turbulence, wakes... the topic lends itself to visualization very well. I would caution against 'physics of smell', since (the royal) we don't fully understand the sense of smell yet.

Flight is a big one for me, because after two years of high school physics, and four years of college physics, i can't say i have ever received an explanation of how things fly. I agree with you on smell, but i guess what i am trying to get at is topics that can be discussed in terms of physics, but aren't covered in textbooks.

 

[Hlud]

That may be true where you are, but it has not been my experience or that of my colleagues. College Physics and Calculus are required courses in many college majors: biology, chemistry, forensic science, pre-med, pre-vet, pre-dental, etc., in addition to physics and engineering.

Yes, but most high schoolers will go into fields not listed, than are listed. You have history majors, language majors, art majors, politics majors, law majors, etc... And you have students who don't go to college after high school, but will find a job instead.

More than half of the students we see in non-AP high school physics course are intending to move toward one of these majors, or keeping an open mind to them. High school physics without real quantitative problem solving and where one can earn an A without learning vectors does a real disservice to these students.

In contrast, learning this is in no way a disservice to students who do not end up taking College Physics or Calculus. The quantitative problem solving skills of a good high school physics course have many applications in real life and many professions.

I disagree. I am very much against plug-and-chug problem solving. For the most part, a lot of the plug-and-chug that we do is the same for different equations. The physics for the equations changes, however. Why don't we just focus more on the physics, then? Most courses i have seen, whether as a student or a teacher, have always focused on the algebra (or later, the calculus) with very little emphasis on the physics. It is depressing, because the students did sign up for physics!

I fully understand that students who will end up going into the majors you have listed will take physics courses. I often like to ask professionals from these majors on how they use their physics. The answers i receive don't line up with the practices of the courses. These professionals don't plug-and-chug! I want my students to be opened up to a whole new way to seeing the world around them; i don't want to hide that world in a mountain of plug-and-chug.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The only thing i am trying to abandon is the use of plug-and-chug in my physics class. "Can you use a mathematical equation to explain this phenomenon?" is more what i am going after.

I try and take a similar approach. Consider having your students read this; maybe have them write a response or hold a class discussion:

http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/wigner.pdf

I agree with you on smell, but i guess what i am trying to get at is topics that can be discussed in terms of physics, but aren't covered in textbooks.

Sure- and there's a near-infinite number of topics to choose. The practical problem is, you will not have any source material/homework problems/test questions available to use; you will have to generate all of that yourself. It's not necessarily hard, but it is time-consuming, and that's why I suggest to start with topics that are of interest to *you*. I have a folder titled 'interesting problems' full of just this sort of material (about half I've obtained from PF)

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I disagree. I am very much against plug-and-chug problem solving. For the most part, a lot of the plug-and-chug that we do is the same for different equations. The physics for the equations changes, however. Why don't we just focus more on the physics, then? Most courses i have seen, whether as a student or a teacher, have always focused on the algebra (or later, the calculus) with very little emphasis on the physics. It is depressing, because the students did sign up for physics!

Teachers doing plug and chug are doing it wrong, and you were in error to assume I was advocating anything of this sort.

I reject the notion of a dichotomy between conceptual physics (with a minimum of quantitative problem solving) and plug and chug (as the only way to include problem solving). I call that "formula roulette."

The problem solving method my colleagues and I teach rejects the approach of starting every problem with "what formula do I need?" We insist students begin by identifying and writing down the general principle(s) of physics in view and needed to solve the problem. The problem solving approach also insists that students draw a representative diagram and identify the important quantities and physical geometry and considerations. Then students need to make a step-by-step written plan for solving the problem. Equations are not in play until after they have a plan of attack. Execution of the plan often involves writing down formulas, solving symbolically, and then substituting in the quantities (numbers AND units) and evaluating (numbers AND units). Finally, an assessment is required on whether the answer made sense and its likelihood of being correct and why.

My favorite grading rubric only gives about 20% of the points for a problem to a correct numerical answer. For a 25 point problem, points would be distributed as follows: 5 points for correct general principle, 5 points for diagram, 5 points for plan, 5 points for evaluating correctly (numerical answer and units), 5 points for assessment.

Students who learn intro physics like this both master the essential concepts in physics as well as quantitative problem solving. The light goes on for them regarding "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in The Natural Sciences." The quantitative problem solving skills carry over into many other areas. "Conceptual Physics" is an oxymoron. Physics does not exist apart from the ability to make quantitative predictions and measurements. Once students have the algebra skills to handle it, teaching them that Physics is only qualitative and conceptual is dishonest.

 

[brainpushups]

There is an article in this month's issue of The Physics Teacher titled "100 Years of Attempts to Transform Physics Education" that I think is a worthwhile read. It addresses the historical development three main questions in physics education: Why and how should physics be taught? What physics should be taught? and To whom should physics be taught?

I am teaching general physics (among other things) at an international school. The general physics course is designed as a introduction to all students to physics. These students could be interested in physics-career or not. My principal has given me a lot of leeway in designing my curriculum, which i am trying to take advantage of. For example, i am currently in a unit based on flight. This unit takes forces to a whole new level.

What topics do you guys think should be implemented into a general physics course?

I am in a similar situation (and have been for seven years) in that I have a great deal of freedom for what content I can teach for both introductory and second year physics courses (high school level - typically grades 10 through 12). Initially my sequence of topics followed –more or less– the sequence presented in most introductory physics textbooks, but I decided to overhaul everything a couple of years ago because, even though I was preparing students well for learning physics content (based on feedback from alums going into science or engineering), I was dissatisfied overall with their abilities to think critically and their understanding of science as a way of thinking. I now consider my objective to help students learn how to learn and think (or at least think scientifically) using physics content as the vehicle to do so.

You asked about topics that should be implemented in a general physics course and I would argue that the most important 'topics' for such a course are so-called 'transferrable skills' which include things like critical thinking and other cross-curricular skills that I felt were lacking from my approach to the traditional introductory physics sequence. I just came across a http://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/EDU-PBGR_TransferableSkills-1.pdf this past week that was put out by the state of Vermont which outlines such a set of five such skills with many examples of indicators for each. Many states in the northeast are now mandating that high schools re-orient their graduation requirements to assess such skills. So, my two cents: these skills (or a similar set) should be the focus of your course and that the content you choose as the vehicle for their assessment is unimportant provided you – and hopefully the students – are enthusiastic about it.

 

[robphy]

Thanks, @brainpushups for the alert to the article.

Here is that TPT article http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4967888 by Otero and Meltzer
From the abstract, you can also find the article and further information here:
https://sites.google.com/site/physicseducationhistory/home

 

[Hlud]

Students who learn intro physics like this both master the essential concepts in physics as well as quantitative problem solving. The light goes on for them regarding "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in The Natural Sciences." The quantitative problem solving skills carry over into many other areas. "Conceptual Physics" is an oxymoron. Physics does not exist apart from the ability to make quantitative predictions and measurements. Once students have the algebra skills to handle it, teaching them that Physics is only qualitative and conceptual is dishonest.

I think we are both in error in our assumptions of the other. I am in no way arguing for the removal of mathematics from physics education (or even an introduction to physics course). Perhaps i will have to abandon the use of the term conceptual physics instead of asking the community to view it differently. I am arguing for a revamp of the problems we assign and the topics we cover in our general physics classes.

Consider the following two questions.
1) A block is at the top of a frictionless, flat ramp. When the block is released from rest, what energy changes does the block undergo as it travels to the bottom?

2) A 0.50 kg block is at the top of a frictionless, flat ramp, that is 1.0 m high. The block is released from rest. What is the block's speed at the bottom of the ramp?

Now, the first question will come under a lot of fire from physics teachers and professors alike. "By not applying a mathematical model, you are not doing physics!" I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

I do not want to defend the first question. But, why does the second question not come under much fire? Partly because we require more from the student than just to provide an answer. We want them to show their work and, as you have your students do, assess their answer. Now, i want to introduce a third question to the fold.

3) A block is released from rest at the top of a frictionless ramp that concaves inward. An identical block is released from rest from the top of a frictionless ramp that concaves outward. Which block will be moving faster upon reaching the bottom?

This question requires a mathematical response, like the first question. However, this question, unlike our second question, does not end at a result. It is the start of more questions. "Why do i receive the same result, despite two differently shaped ramps?" Question one lacks a result. It is hard to discuss results in physics if you are not generating any! Question two ends at the result. Question three takes me beyond the result.

Now, let's look at the topics covered in a general physics course. Generally, these courses are mechanics heavy. You start at the beginning of the text, and you go as far as you can before time runs out. In my old school, another reason for our general physics course being mechanics heavy was to prepare students for the now defunct AP Physics B curriculum. This frustrates me because all students are being treated as future physics majors.

The problem with this kind of course is twofold. We promise to open their eyes to a new way of seeing the world, but we cover far few phenomena (whether that phenomena is suitably explained classically or not). In my first year teaching, our school's general physics course spent over two months covering the motion of a ball, whether thrown or dropped in a vacuum (i.e. kinematics). We then revisited that same motion of a ball in terms of energy, for another few weeks. For a third of the school year, my class looked at the motion of a ball (that doesn't even roll!).

Secondly, mechanics is perhaps the most abstract part of the curriculum. You deal with definitions (force, momentum, and energy) that will serve useful in the rest of physics. In creating those definitions, modelling all sorts of objects as a point suffices. Well, it suffices for us, but not for the students. We are supposed to be wetting their feet in modelling, not drowning them.

 

[Hlud]

There is an article in this month's issue of The Physics Teacher titled "100 Years of Attempts to Transform Physics Education" that I think is a worthwhile read. It addresses the historical development three main questions in physics education: Why and how should physics be taught? What physics should be taught? and To whom should physics be taught?

From my first year teaching, i often expressed to my colleagues my frustrations about the state of physics education. "Well, this is how physics has always been taught" would be a common reply. The article raises serious doubts to the veracity of that claim. It is also comforting that their is such a prolonged history of improving physics education in high schools. What is not so comforting is the success of those reforms. Unfortunately, what is required to graduate with a degree in physics dictates the curricula of these general physics courses.

I now consider my objective to help students learn how to learn and think (or at least think scientifically) using physics content as the vehicle to do so.

I remember you mentioning your desire to overhaul your curriculum. How successful would you consider yourself in this goal?

So, my two cents: these skills (or a similar set) should be the focus of your course and that the content you choose as the vehicle for their assessment is unimportant provided you – and hopefully the students – are enthusiastic about it.

Because my school is a small K-12 school, the science teachers (all three of us) are working together to promote skills through the vehicle of concepts, as well. I'll have to look through that document to see if i can better articulate the skills we want our students to build.

 

[brainpushups]

I remember you mentioning your desire to overhaul your curriculum. How successful would you consider yourself in this goal?

In terms of meeting my objectives of students developing a deeper understanding of the scientific process, the connection of scientific progress with cultural values, experiencing some sense of the creativity needed in science, and improving overall logical reasoning (ability to work within a set of assumptions – a theoretical framework) I think the redesigned curriculum is allowing students to meet these objectives very well. Students seem to agree for the most part and most like the way the course is structured (based on my first quarter course survey/evaluation).

The end of the first year was too rushed and I've decided to trim the content a bit which I was very uneasy about at first when planning this (the second) year so we'll see how I feel at the end of the year. My original plan was to end the course with Newton (which I did during the first year), but I ended up trying to cram too much other stuff in around it, partly because it was content I had always covered and thought was necessary: momentum, energy, and Newton's laws. This year I'm actually going to end with Galileo's theory projectile motion and reinstate a project that I had always done (except for last year) which does a good job connecting science, engineering, politics, and ethics – a project that actually seems to fit much better with this new structure. To end with Galileo I really had to convince myself that the content really doesn't matter as long as my objectives are being met. I wonder if this is the only introductory physics course that will not cover Newton...

Because my school is a small K-12 school, the science teachers (all three of us) are working together to promote skills through the vehicle of concepts, as well. I'll have to look through that document to see if i can better articulate the skills we want our students to build.

I see this as my/my department's next step (there are also three of us). I want to better articulate not just the skill set and content set that students will leave my class with, but also what that looks like so students are aware when they've reached it. We've been talking about moving toward a proficiency based grading system, but I was never too impressed with models that I had seen until recently – standards always seemed so vague that if one were to do anything remotely scientific it seemed like students would be demonstrating knowledge of the standards. I think the set of 'transferrable skills' that I linked to in post 20 are also flawed in that way, as are probably all general standards. I've recently seen a few schools that have implemented proficiency based systems but they went as far as to include explicit statements about the level of rigor that is expected for meeting the standard.

One model of this that I liked was to have a set of four 'I can' statements, each corresponding to different levels of rigor within a given standard with the third level being a demonstration of 'proficiency' in the standard, level four exceeds the standard, and the first two levels are where students are as they approach the learning objective. I just started thinking about this on Tuesday and I have a (draft) of one example of what I mean.

On the set of transferrable skills is a category of 'self direction' and in that category is the indicator 'apply knowledge in familiar and new contexts.' A somewhat vague statement. So I thought of four levels of rigor that would make it clear to students what this looks like. When I wrote these I had in mind sort of 'standard' book work in physics - the indicator could certainly be interpreted differently.

1 - I can follow along with an example in a textbook or other resource
2 - I can apply my knowledge of a theory to explain and/or predict phenomena identical to specific examples that I have seen
3 - I can apply my knowledge of a theory to explain and/or predict new, but familiar, phenomena for which the approach to the explanation or prediction does not differ significantly from the approach of the texts or resources I have seen.
4 - I can apply my knowledge of a theory to explain and/or predict familiar or unfamiliar phenomena for which the approach is novel, or primarily designed by me.

I think that 3 is what most of us hope students can do.

 

[Hlud]

I really like the self-awareness that you are working on. I know i want to get there in the future, but i need to get a better vision of my curriculum, first.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Ah- now the thread is getting more interesting. Instead of talking about specific topics, we are now talking about overall 'learning objectives'. The AAPT article is good- thanks for the link. I also like the home-brewed version of Bloom's taxonomy.

Here's how I summarize the problem:

Intro physics courses are typically phrased as a liberal-arts version of the sciences. Students learn a little bit about a bunch of things, and overall the course is supposed to provide 'problem solving tools', 'ways of interpreting the world', etc. etc. This is no different than any other intro course, and so the unique voice of physics is overlooked. In opposition to those abstract goals, students are expected to learn specific skills: mathematical computation, measurement techniques, etc. This is no different than any vocational program, and so the unique voice of physics is again lost.

It should be possible to achieve balance between measurements of the real and analysis of the ideal.

In my experience, students struggle with identifying irrelevant parts of a problem that can be ignored and the essential parts of the problem. To be fair, some of this arises from poor problem statements. I advocate more use of estimation (Fermi problems) and approximation (what does 'frictionless' and 'flat' mean?) to bridge the two approaches. I also advocate that teachers spend more time on units and unit conversions. So, as an example, I would consider posing the following exam problems (note that I re-worded them from previous posting):

1) A block is at the top of a ramp. When the block is released, what energy changes occur as the block slides down the ramp?

2) A 20 pound block is at the top of a smooth ramp that is 10 feet high. The block is released from rest and allowed to slide down the ramp, and you are supposed to catch the block and set it down on the ground. Is this reasonable? (note- you may assume the ramp is frictionless, if you like).

These are open-ended questions that require interpretation by the student to answer. Students don't like these questions because there's not a (single) correct answer, and it's not clear how points are awarded.

A note for #2: for my (US) students, I have found that using imperial units paradoxically makes problems easier to comprehend but when gravity is involved, more difficult to solve. I spend a fair amount of time on mass vs. weight and why bathroom/produce scales can be misleading.

This year I'm actually going to end with Galileo's theory projectile motion and reinstate a project that I had always done (except for last year) which does a good job connecting science, engineering, politics, and ethics – a project that actually seems to fit much better with this new structure. To end with Galileo I really had to convince myself that the content really doesn't matter as long as my objectives are being met. I wonder if this is the only introductory physics course that will not cover Newton...

I'm very intrigued by this- please let us know how it went!