RE: This is gonna be the thread where we talk about stuff
03-01-2013, 01:45 AM
Maybe? But it's almost like complaining that students learning calculus aren't being taught any math post-Newton. It's not going to take them any less time to grasp the concepts, and rushing ahead means sacrificing mastery of more fundamental ideas.
("mastery" is a term I'm using very, very loosely. I suppose "exposure to the point of vague recollection" is more appropriate)
It would be possible to design and present a physics course that explores topics like particle physics, special/general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory and the like, and there would be definite advantages to doing so, but it would mean that the course would have to become much more concept-based than practice based. (example: talking about how the force of gravity gets weaker with distance rather than calculating it with known masses.)
There have been some pretty big pushes lately (from what I can tell) to reduce the amount of math required in high-school physics (at least in Texas), so that students who have just learned what a variable is (algebra 1) can take it. This means separating the math from the science, it is doable to an extent, but is it something we really want to do? Right now I can teach kids about basic motion, but only in one dimension, or at nice even angles. Anything that involves a sin or cos is right out. Though this isn't an example of reducing the rigor to expand the scope, it's just about making things easier because having students reach the minimum standard is the current prime directive.
This turned from a simple defense of the status quo to a minor bluh bluh at the trend towards "conceptual physics". My personal opinion: whatever the course, the more you can get students to invest in it, the more worthwhile (and fun) that course will be, pre-1850 or not.
("mastery" is a term I'm using very, very loosely. I suppose "exposure to the point of vague recollection" is more appropriate)
It would be possible to design and present a physics course that explores topics like particle physics, special/general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory and the like, and there would be definite advantages to doing so, but it would mean that the course would have to become much more concept-based than practice based. (example: talking about how the force of gravity gets weaker with distance rather than calculating it with known masses.)
There have been some pretty big pushes lately (from what I can tell) to reduce the amount of math required in high-school physics (at least in Texas), so that students who have just learned what a variable is (algebra 1) can take it. This means separating the math from the science, it is doable to an extent, but is it something we really want to do? Right now I can teach kids about basic motion, but only in one dimension, or at nice even angles. Anything that involves a sin or cos is right out. Though this isn't an example of reducing the rigor to expand the scope, it's just about making things easier because having students reach the minimum standard is the current prime directive.
This turned from a simple defense of the status quo to a minor bluh bluh at the trend towards "conceptual physics". My personal opinion: whatever the course, the more you can get students to invest in it, the more worthwhile (and fun) that course will be, pre-1850 or not.