On
“Putting Physics First” (published in “Interactions”; March/April 2007, p. 6
-7;
http://aapt.org/Publications/InterActions.cfm)
I
have been teaching physics for 20 years and I vote with both my hands for a
comprehensive physics education for everybody. However, I had a mixed feeling
when reading “Putting Physics First” by Denise Jarrett Weeks (Interactions, December
2006, p. 14 – 18).
In
the debate on whether it is possible to teach physics at a middle school, or if
every student is capable of learning physics, or in what order should school
subjects be taught, American scholars seldom use the experience of their
foreign colleagues. The conceptual physics course for ninth-graders created by
Larry Neznanski, was “a radical change to the
curriculum” at his school [according to Weeks], but similar curricula have been
used in
The
common reason for putting physics first is that chemistry and biology are based
on it. As the rationale, we can read often that “Chemistry is essentially the
study of chemical bonding. Biology is the most complex of the sciences”.
However, saying this is misleading. Chemistry had formed as a science a century
before the very idea of boning was developed, and biology is obviously simpler
than any of social sciences (and I do not believe that, when developing his
theory, Charles Darwin was heavily using any physics knowledge he had at the
time). Even the chemistry teacher (Guy Hudson) is saying that the kids who have
taken physics class first are better at studying chemistry not because of their
physics knowledge, but “because they’re used to a little more critical
thinking”. Here I cannot agree more on the importance of learning physics (not Physics
First); physics is one of the best subjects to develop critical thinking and
problem-solving skills. But to be honest, teachers of all subjects are supposed
to contribute to this; physics is just one of the oldest and most developed
sciences, so it is easier for physics teachers to work on developing metacognitive abilities.
When
reading the article, I see that all the described positive results are based
not on the fact that physics is taught first at the school, but on the fact
that the school has a very good physics teacher, who knows physics, loves
teaching and dedicates himself to his students.
Dr.
Valentin Voroshilov
Physics
Department
I
have been teaching physics for 20 years and I vote with both my hands for a
comprehensive physics education to everybody. However, I had a mixed feeling
when reading putting physics first.
I
used to think, that, when proving the point of view, scientists have to use all
the reachable facts, including the information developed by the international
community. In debate on is it possible to teach physics at a middle school, or
is every student capable of learning physics, or in what order should school
subjects be taught, American authors seldom use the experience of their foreign
colleagues. Some newly developed physics curricula are treated often as a
radical change, but similar curricula have been used in Russia for at least 4
decades. The questions like “are middle school students capable of learning
physics?”, or “are girls capable of learning physics?”, etc, have the simple
answer “yes”. I (and millions of former and current Russian students) am the
live proof to that fact, because in Russia all school students start learning
physics at the 6th or 7th grade (depending on the curriculum). If millions of
people were doing it for decades, it seems to me like it is a significant
statistical data. However, an even more
important fact is that all those millions of people were (and are) studding
physics and chemistry, and biology at the same time. From a grade to a
grade, these three subjects go along in Russian schools hand by hand.
Separating the subjects and making any order in their study, no matter which
subject would go first, just does not make much sense (from Russian point of
view, of course). I am not saying that Russian way of teaching is the only
right one, I am saying that for a long
period of time a working teaching model does exist, which completely in a
contradiction to the very idea of ordering the school subjects.
The
common reason for putting physics first is that chemistry and biology are based
on it. As the rationale, we can read often that “Chemistry is essentially the
study of chemical bonding,…”, “It is impossible to learn chemistry without
having physics knowledge”, “Biology is the most complex of the sciences; …”.
However, saying this is at least misleading. Chemistry had formed as a science
a century before the very idea of boning was developed, and for a very long
time chemistry and physics had been developing in parallel. Biology is
obviously simpler than any of social sciences (and I do not believe that, when
developing his theory, Charles Darwin was heavily using any physics knowledge
he had at the time). Even chemistry teachers are saying that the kids who have
taken physics class first are better at studying chemistry not because of their
physics knowledge, but “because they’re used to a little more critical
thinking”. Here I cannot agree more on the importance of learning physics (not
physics first); physics is one of the best subjects to develop critical
thinking and problem solving skills. But, to be honest, teachers of all
subjects are supposed to contribute to this; physics is just one of the oldest
and most developed sciences, so it is easier to physics teachers to work on
developing metacognitive abilities.
The
positive results in teaching physics are based not on the fact that physics is
taught first at the school, but on the fact that the school has a very good
physics teacher, who knows physics, loves teaching and dedicates himself to his
students.
Dr.
Valentin Voroshilov
Physics
Department
Boston
University
Physics First or Physics in
Parallel?
The “Physics First” is a broad
motion in science education in America. Many different reasons are used to
support this approach to teach science, including “Chemistry is essentially the
study of chemical bonding.”, or “Biology is the most complex of the sciences.”,
and similar. However, the best proof (or disproof) for any scientific approach
is a significant statistical data, including the information developed by the
international community. In Russia, for decades, millions of school students
start learning physics in 7th grade, biology in 6th grade and
chemistry in 8th grade and then study the subjects basically in parallel. Of course, it does not mean
that the Russian way of teaching is the only right one. This is just a fact that
for a long period of time a working teaching model does exist, which contradicts
the idea of making school subjects in a specific order.
The common reason for putting
physics first is that chemistry and biology are based on it. However, saying that
“Chemistry is essentially the study of chemical bonding” is at least
misleading. Chemistry had formed as a science a century before the very idea of
boning was developed, and for a very long time chemistry and physics had been
developing in parallel. Biology is obviously simpler than any of social
sciences (and I do not believe that, when developing his theory, Charles Darwin
was heavily using any physics knowledge he had at the time). Even chemistry
teachers are often saying that the kids who have taken physics class first are
better at studying chemistry not because of their physics knowledge, but
“because they’re used to a little more critical thinking”. Here I cannot agree
more on the importance of learning physics (not physics first); physics is one
of the best subjects to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills.
But, to be honest, teachers of all subjects are supposed to contribute to developing
metacognitive abilities; physics is just one of the
oldest and most developed sciences, so it is easier for physics teachers to
work on it.
The positive results in
teaching physics are based not on the fact that physics is taught first at the
school, but on the fact that the school has a good physics teacher, who knows
physics, loves teaching and dedicates himself/herself to the students.
Dr. Valentin Voroshilov
Physics Department
Boston University