Can Freshman do the math needed?
 |
| Freshman studying standing waves on a string. |
I am interested in the idea of physics first as a possible sequencing change at our school. We have a traditional model of classes and some are even thinking of eliminating physics as a requirement for our students. Obviously, I have great concern with this as I truly believe students need to understand the physical world in which they live. When the idea of physics in the 9th grade was introduced previously, teachers (even one who occasionally teaches a physics course) commented that the students couldn’t handle the level of math required for the course even at a basic level. I didn’t agree having taught physical science in the 8th grade for years but still there was great concern. So, my question to you is how does the program differentiate itself regarding the requirement for certain math skills? Any insight you could share would be helpful.
==============================================================
The objection you describe is very common. In fact we too, prior to implementation, were concerned about the impact of having freshman attempt to do Physics. Some thought that if students learned Physics, they could become frustrated and disheartened because the math was too difficult. Then the entire house of cards would come tumbling down. Students having poor grades, poor performance and frustrating experiences would then avoid the AP sciences which is precisely what we were hoping to improve. In addition, if the science was not genuinely learned then performance in subsequent AP courses would decimate performance. You can imagine our surprise when AP Science enrollment quadrupled and the number of student passing went up 350%! We are not the only school to experience this. There have been others too In the cases below freshman learned as much physics as seniors AND developed better skills in math as measured by standardized tests:
An analogy may be helpful here. Our football coaches here in Alabama think it is important that our students learn how to play football. They start with the freshman. The freshman have little or no on field skills, they are not yet 170 lbs , they can not run an 11 second 100 meter dash and they are not benching more than 100 pounds. Still the coaches work with them. Train them and develop them. Our school even has a "freshman team" that truly thinks they are playing football. I have never heard the coaches here say "No football till they are seniors because they can't do what is needed." Amazingly the coaches here have gotten to the playoffs 16 of the last 17 years. What if I proposed to them that all freshman be banned from football because they can not play real football? The problem is being a successful coach demands that they start them as freshman. I wish we were as concerned for our physics students learning physics as those coaches are about learning football.
We also happen to have a very good basketball team (in case you do not like football). Our coach has 2 freshman basketball teams even though none of the players can "dunk a basket". Last year his varsity team has 4 players able to "dunk" a basket. Does that mean the freshman are not playing basketball? Does that mean the coach should not teach basketball to them? Is it possible that a "dunk" is to basketball what "calculus" is to physics? Is it true that if you are not dunking then there is no basketball?
OK. I hope you get the point.
Another point I think can be made to encourage Physics for freshman. Math and science is not a "chicken or egg" phenomenon. The development of quantitative skills may be enhanced and nurtured by using the quantitative skills they are learning concurrently in the math class AND the science class The skills may vary based on the level of the student (our Honors students are often in Geometry as freshman while most are in Algebra). So we do Physics that uses the skills we know have already been learned or are being learned. One topic I do expose freshman to is a "right triangle lab" at the start of the year in which I lay the groundwork for the "sine of the angle" we will use in a refraction lab later in the year. The result of our efforts was a rise in ACT Math section scores every single year since the initial implementation of the "Physics First" sequence even though the Math department has had no special initiative during that same time. The students entering our school are the same socioeconomic level as the students previous and our enrollment is stable. Is it possible that the students who say to me "Dr. Burgess I finally get what linear equations are for. I always thought that stuff you learned in Math was never used anywhere but in math but now I see it in Physics just about everyday!"
The impact of "Physics First" on ACT Math scores we have had (but there are others with similar results):
I taught seniors Physics for over 20 years. In the last 8 years I have taught Honors and Regular Physics to freshman. During one of the transition years I taught seniors and freshman the exact same class of Physics. Surprisingly the scores on the tests (and 1st semester exam) were about the same UNTIL March. Then the senior performance dropped off markedly. It was almost as if the seniors had "checked out" as they learned 30% less than the freshman during the last quarter as measured by end of unit tests. I write and reported my findings at:
The seniors at my school missed 2 weeks of class at the end of the year so I realize that they did not have the opportunity to learn as much Physics as the freshman but I only compared unit tests.
The number of passing and number of 5's in the AP B and AP C courses has tripled from the five years prior to "Physics First" when a PhD in Physics was the teacher.
I will say that teaching freshman is harder for me. They are immature, loud and do not know the rules of how to get along with demanding teacher as my top level seniors do. You also have many more "black hawk helicopter" parents trying to protect the future valedictorian status of their talented children. When I taught seniors the parents had grounded the helicopters (or at least disarmed them) AND the school year did not go to the bitter end. Now I have to teach Physics to freshman for 2 more weeks than I do my seniors in my AP Physics. Our seniors get out of class 2 weeks earlier in order to practice for the graduation ceremony among many other important things to do. My senior teaching colleagues get to kick back and put things away and clean up their rooms while I am still working with these freshman on the photo-electric effect apparatus with touchy knobs and sensitive ammeters. When I decided to teach freshman physics that was the very very down side...almost a deal breaker. Who wants to do all this extra work?
Your senior level Physics teacher will be needed to be fully on board to make this go. If that teacher is not on board then get ready to run for the lifeboat. Even the Titanic went down and it was unsinkable. A disgruntled senior level Physics teacher is an iceberg that will do all the damage below the surface where it will be unseen (except for those unable to escape). The ship will slowly start to list and support will evaporate. Who would want to be in that position?
There is much more data on the impact of "Physics First" in a variety of schools at:
There is much more data on the impact of "Physics First" in a variety of schools at:
===================================================
I agree with: "I will say that teaching freshman is harder for me. They are immature, loud and do not know the rules of how to get along with demanding teacher as my top level seniors do. You also have many more "black hawk helicopter" parents trying to protect the future valedictorian status of their talented children."
ReplyDeleteI don't WANT to teach freshman. I didn't originally want to teach high school, but after my first year of teaching juniors, I was hooked. If I have to teach freshman all the time, then I may go back to teaching college, or retire into another field.
Unless your school has another Physics teacher awaiting the opportunity to teach Physics to freshman then you would definitely sink the Titanic! Physics First is a great idea but it is not unsinkable. Students benefit only if the teachers are willing to facilitate the benefit. This is not about "curriculum adjustment". Everyone needs to be on board. That is why success, as measured by ACT scores and AP scores is selective. Only those programs with teachers totally on board willing to teach and develop generate the positive results possible.
ReplyDeleteSuch success is about what teachers are willing to do to serve students. It is definitely not about making life easier for the Physics Teacher! Thank you for your honesty!
I think it is important to provide adequate training for physics teachers beginning to teach physics first. It is very difficult to figure out on your own how to teach physics with extremely limited algebra and other math. It can feel like you're not ever really getting to physics if you aren't fully developing and using math models fluently.
ReplyDeleteI could probably do a better job now than I did ten years ago when I was in that situation, but still I would aggressively pursue some sort of formal Physics First training or find a strong network of experienced Physics First teachers working with similar populations.
I think that getting the "Freshman Physics Teachers" as prepared as possible is very important ESPECIALLY if your program is going to provide an opportunity for ALL students to learn Physics (not just the top 40%).
ReplyDeleteIn our case 5 of the six teachers obtained training in "Modeling Physics". Why so many? During the transition 100% of the freshman and the standard 40% of the seniors were taking Physics in the same year. During the transition we needed extra Physics teachers. I think this enriched our staff and made us all better. More of us, in science, do quantitative modeling now as a result. Quantitative reasoning is not just done by the "Physics Teacher" for the top 40% but instead is shared throughout the sequence.