Physics First....

[rissiethebug]

This is an old essay of mine (unfortunately it's the uncited early rough draft version) that describes why Physics should be taught in high school before Chemistry or Biology. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject...

When I graduated high school, I was convinced gravity was caused by the rotation of the

Comments

[rissiethebug]

I agree that it is a misnomer that the sciences are labeled and taught almost completely separate. Though I do realize that with such a large amount of material it's easy to separate into the mentioned categories. I could see in some many instances were chemistry and biology could (and perhaps should, such as organic chemistry) be taught side by side. However, physics is fundamental to both of these describing the "simplest" of ideas such as energy or forces. Although you could probably mesh things from chemistry and biology together with this, I'm of the opinion to really understand the "higher level" concepts you need to have physics pretty solid first.

Also, I don't believe that teaching physics first is because chemistry or biology is harder, it's just a higher level of thinking. Like C+ is a higher level of programing than analog. I really don't think any academic subject is "harder" than the other, some are just taught from kindergarten and some are not. Science, in general, is one of those things that are not.

[rissiethebug]

I don't believe any of the sources that I cited say that biology or chemistry is "harder." I believe what you're refering to is when the sorces site that biology or chemistry is more "complicated." The complication I believe they're refering to is that biology and chemistry is a higher level knowledge than physics, just like alegbra II is more complicated than algebra I, but not necessariliy harder as long as you've had one before the other.

I think that all children in the system should see all three of these a bit before taking a "real" course an any of them (elementary/jr. high). However, I dunno if teaching an intro course for all three of them is an idael situation in a freshman course. I feel like it will just become a memorization regergitation course that plagues the system as is. I suppose if it's taught more like a super hands on course experimenting with the scientific method and what not, it could be a good idea.

[rissiethebug]

I guess we fundamentally disagree that physics is not geared to teach most of it's students. The physics being proposing is a very non-abstract physics, though we may be considering a different definition of abstract? Abstract to me is ideas humans cannot touch or feel. We're not going to teach people quantum mechanics, relativity, or anything advanced or abstract at all. The level of physics were proposing could be learned by anyone with little to NO math experience. I mean, we're talking about "how come when I push something, it moves?" level of physics. This can be learned through pure memorization (but I'm very biased, and most educators are, against memorization learning), physical interaction/lab, reading a book, lecture, etc. It can be learned in the same way they teach biology or chemistry, if not more interactive and more hands on.

Also, I would make the argument that every human experiences physics on a day to day basis as much (if not more) than biology.

[rissiethebug]

I've definitely had to think about this a little bit. Because you're right, the subjects are completely interconnected, but the problem is that physics is mostly connected to biology through chemistry and that the level in which physics and chemistry (besides maybe one or two small subjects) become understandably connected is at a very high, very mathematically difficult stage in physics (took me four quarters of calculus based physics to get there). I think this is why the subjects are initially taught separate because to see the connections takes several college quarters of prior knowledge in both subjects. Where connections can be easily made between subjects (like positive and negative charges which can be explained both in basic physics and chemistry) should be made so that knowledge can be gained via comparison. Having a completely meshed science year is very difficult for me to imagine, as the material between the three that overlap (in a low level course that is) is very difficult to find. Again, physics leads into the

[rissiethebug]

I'm curious. Have you taken a physics class an had a bad experience?

[anonymous]

I have not taken a physics class, but I would have liked to. I've taken all sorts of related science classes, because, what class doesn't use physics? But, I talked with folks who have taken straight physics in high school and pretty much the general thoughts were the teacher didn't know how to teach the subject to most of the students and that all the concepts were so far out there and just never explained. I saw some of the homework and got pretty turned off by the class, but not the subject.

[rissiethebug]

Yeah, the way physics is taught now in high school is shameful. They expect high school students to solve the same problems one would take in a beginning physics class in college without any prior knowledge of the concepts. The first physics class anyone should see is a course which emphasis concepts more than anything else and full understanding of the ideas. Physics does involve everything we do in life, but it also asks students to look at the same ideas in a slightly different way, which many students find initially challenging, thus they should have a full year before doing any rigorous problem solving.

[rissiethebug]

No problem, your arguments are also having to make me think about it in a different way, which is always good.