vela said:
Paul Hewitt (the conceptual physics guy) recommends downplaying kinematics exactly for this reason, saying it's 10% physics and 90% math. The time spent on kinematics is time not spent on other concepts.
In the week before i first started teaching, we discussed Hewitt's book and ultimately decided not to use it because it did not "have enough math." I'll definitely look over his book and his philosophy again, especially since i have been teaching, i have come to realize that math is not synonymous with computation, as most of my early physics courses have led me to believe. Perhaps my colleagues will be more sympathetic to this approach. Their biggest concern is that we would be abandoning what is tried and true (the true part being debatable).
SteamKing said:
That's still an insufficient reason to neglect topic A in favor of topic B.
But that is not his argument. He is arguing that learning how to isolate a variable is not doing enough physics, and hence not worth doing in physics (at least for the time we do in regular, high school physics).
From looking at the problems submitted to the Intro Physics HW forum on this website, it is apparent that some students have trouble with basic kinematics. I think for that reason the topic should be taught as completely as time permits.
After reading Paul Lockhart's
A Mathematician's Lament, i completely disagree that they are having trouble with basic kinematics. What they are doing is rather advanced kinematics, just taught earlier than it should be for these students. Yes, we pretty much teach 'basic kinematics' first universally. However, we also live in a society where its perfectly acceptable to have zero proficiency in math. Clearly there is a disconnect.
Andy Resnick said:
I agree, but would go further- kinematics (and any other foundational concept) should not only be taught once, "as time permits". It should be discussed again and again- Arons's phrase is 'spiral back'.
What makes the kinematics equations more fundamental than basic optics? Or how sound works? Or why a simple machine works? If anything, because of the specific condition in which these equations apply, it is not fundamental at all.
Another example he uses is linear graphs: a foundational concept that is used again and again, not just in x = vt and F = ma but also for many other seemingly unconnected relationships that occur in intro physics. This gives students multiple interactions with the material and over time (one hopes) the student gains mastery.
I do like the graphing. What i will suggest to my colleagues, as i will do this, is to do shapes of graphs only. Do not connect the graphs with equations, or put any numbers at all on the graphs. I hate the front-loaded nature of how i teach physics. My colleagues seem to be okay with it.
Even better if the student can draw content links between different classes: math and physics is perhaps the easiest to consider, but regardless, the more exposure a student has to the material the better they will understand it.
This is not a good argument at all. I could expose the students to kinematics the whole entire year. They will better understand it, true, but will they benefit from this change? No, because the majority of students who take this course do not ever take another physics class again.
Are you open for other connections throughout the year, like we do with math? I know most physics courses do a bit of history when talking about gravitation and orbits. Would you make deeper connections with history class and physics than this? Would you have your students read Newton's
Principia and analyze it from both an historical and physical perspective?