Starting at the beginning of the uncomfortable questions left by readers, we have Tex asking:
If physics is the basic science that underlies almost every other science, why do American high schools usually teach it in the 3rd or 4th year, after biology and chemistry? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Physics first, then chemistry, then biology?
Physics is the final course in the standard American high school curriculum for two reasons, as far as I can tell: history and math. History is the less convincing of the two, as it amounts to “the courses are in that order because they’ve been in that order for a good long time (well over twenty years).” It’s pure inertia.
The math argument is that the standard high school science curriculum (Biology, then Chemistry, then Physics) puts the courses in order of increasing mathematical sophistication. You can do a reasonable job of teaching biology with minimal math. Chemistry necessarily requires a bit of algebra, and physics demands at least some familiarity with algebra, if not basic calculus. Students need more time to take the additional math courses that they need to understand physics.
At least, that’s the argument. There’s a whole community of people who think that the order should be reversed, including people like Physics Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, who is behind Project ARISE (“American Renaissance In Science Education.” You know it’s the work of a physicist because it has a really strained acronym…).
I’m kind of agnostic on this subject. I agree that you can put the sciences in the opposite order and construct a compelling narrative about moving from simple systems to more complex ones. But you can equally well construct a narrative about the traditional ordering, as a sort of iterative process of pulling back the curtain to see what’s really going on. (Of course, that story would argue for teaching more modern physics in high schools, and less block-on-an-inclined-plane mechanics, but that’s a different issue.)
I don’t think that much of the trouble that American high school students have with science is really coming from the lack of grounding in the “more fundamental” subjects that come later in the curriculum. Most college biology programs don’t require physics of all their students, and I don’t run into many biologists who say “You know, I wish I had taken more physics as a student…” (Most of them say “You know, I really hated my physics classes…”).
On the other hand, though, I have a certain fondness for the “blow it up and start over” aspect of the “Physics First” movement. I think there are a lot of things that we do in science education for historical reasons, and I often think we might be better off scrapping the entire curriculum and starting over from scratch. To the extent that “Physics First” makes people think more about how and why we teach science, I think it’s a good thing.
Nah, astronomers have the physicists beat. Recently, Cornell launched FORCAST: Faint Object infraRed CAmera for the SOFIA Telescope.
Astronomy has a whole slew of ’em: Search for DOOFAAS, the Dumb Or Overly Forced Astronomy Acronym Site.
I think the ‘math’ reason is exactly backasswards logic. You need to learn the math an the science together to really understand (and, in many cases, give a flying fig about) the math.
I saw Lederman talk about his curriculum flip before and was completely unimpressed by the argument. I think having the math to make a credible go at teaching physics is far more important than having physics to understand biology. I think a high school biology class should basically be emphasizing cells, evolution and DNA. While there are specific questions in there that physics can help with, how much help do they get from high school physics, and how essential are those issues to understanding the core idea?
Similarly, high school physics as I remember it is not going to be spending enough time on thermodynamics (and obviously next to nothing on quantum mechanics) to make it likely that you’re going to do great things for the understanding of chemistry. Here the argument is at least more interesting, and a biology/physics/chem sequence seems at least feasible to me.
If anything, I think physics needs to be taught after students have been exposed to calculus. So much of physics relies upon differentiation and integration that there is way too much “hand waving” involved when it is taught before calculus; at least that was my high school experience.
They are not mutually exclusive. There are many physics concepts that can and should be addressed simultaneously. The math argument may hold true when dealing with advanced topics but I taught waves, sound and light in grade 9 with a great deal of success. In fact a good number of the topics [in all areas of science] should be scaffolded and revisited every year.
The Ontario curriculum teaches electricity in grade 9 and optics in grade 10. I find both a little no the edge. I would rather teach the waves/sound/light in grade 9 to flow better with our Astronomy. The optics unit has difficulty fitting with biological systems, chemistry and climate.
In fact if you have any good connections I’d love to hear them 🙂
Because ALL students take grade 9 science, I feel it should hit the most fundamental aspects of each: astronomy [big bang, solar nebula theory, fusion], atomic theory, evolutionary theory [perhaps with respect to ecological applications], nature of light, and cell theory.
It won’t have depth but you can portray a GREAT swath [breadth] of our general understanding of the universe.
I’m a biologist. I really wish I had taken more physics as a student.
It is a sin that each of the sciences gets only one year, in whichever order. When I graduated high school back in Yugoslavia I had behind me 8 years of physics, 8 years of chemistry and 8 years of biology, plus 12 years of math, 6 years of Earth Science/Geography, 8 years of Technical Ed (from woodworking to computer programing to understanding how the manufacturing system in the country is organized). And as a biology major in high school, I had additional botany, zoology, microbiology, ecology, biochemistry and molecular biology classes in my junior and senior years. Not much lab work, though, which pissed me off, but solid theoretical foundation that serves everyone well before going to study pretty much anything at the university. If anything, I wish I had more Logic, Philosophy and Ethics, and wish History was taught in a smarter way than a chronology of emperors and battles and dates to be memorized.
Honestly, I think whichever one comes first is going to get shafted. Physics and chemistry can both make excellent use of the kind of mathematical sophistication you only get around your junior year or so, and biology (well, molecular biology) makes so much more sense if you’ve had some chemistry first.
Aside from making the mandatory science classes more rigorous, I think it works well to offer advanced/honors/AP versions of each science so that interested people can take them at their leisure. (And then, of course, try and nudge the culture so as many people take advanced science as possible… totally separate problem.)
I’m a biologist (or was before I found an easier way to make a living), and I’m glad of the physics courses I took as an undergrad. From a Systems perspective all the natural sciences, including biology, emerge from the laws of physics.
The problem w/ physics first is that, if you continue to teach the SAME physics that is taught in a “physics last” sequence – which is usually 80% kinematics and dynamics with some token optics and E&M… you will do nothing that informs a student’s understanding of chemistry and biology, which is the supposed rationale. In order to make sense it requires more than just re-ordering… it requires rethinking which parts of physics are essential for students to know. I have never seen any evidence that the physics-firsters are putting in that kind of thought.
Why teach them one after the other? Many countries – countries ranking at the top of worldwide education surveys – quite successfully teach physics, and chemistry, and biology through all three years of high school, not condensed into a single year to forget as soon as possible afterwards.
I would argue that regardless of order, spreading the material out over three years makes for a better understanding of it than cramming it into a single year. After all, you see this in other education situations – people that spread their drivers education theory out over months have to spend much fewer total hours than those doing a condensed, high-speed training regime of a couple of weeks.
Or, if cramming it into single years is so important for some reason, then why is math exempt? if the other subjects all need most high-school math, then start by doing all math the first year, then do the sciences during the second and third years.
I would actually argue that mechanics is important and needs to be well understood; the reason that other subjects don’t get enough time compared to it is that there’s too little total time.
I took AP Physics in New York State, and we covered mechanics, optics, and classical electricity and magnetism very well (having a brilliant teacher helped). The level of math was what’s known as “pre-calculus”. But we never got to the twentieth century: on the last day of class the teacher tried to explain what relativity was. If there’d been a second year, I would have taken it, absolutely.
I always thought the order was simply alphabetical.
I’m in generally in favor of doing physics first, but I can see a basic rationale in teaching bio first, and let me use a physics analogy… when learning about gravity, you start with the newtonian definition, and then go into relativity, then to the possibility of quantum. from what works at the large scale of what you can see and feel, down into the theoretical, which is closer to ‘real,’ but somewhat seemingly immaterial.
also, there’s the idea of teaching the what before the why. bio is ‘what’ happens, chem is the ‘why’. then chem is the ‘what’ and physics is the ‘why’
that said, I tend to favor getting to the physics faster, but I had a truly terrible set of high school science teachers… one of the reasons I have a degree from an art school.
one last remark:
on top of all of that, I think that the maths and sciences are way too dumbed down in the lower grades in the US. my three months in the italian public school system put me 2 years ahead of my schoolmates when I got back the US…
When I went to school in South Australia high school was five years, corresponding to 8-12 in the US.
In first year we had general science, which included some of each science discipline. We also had algebra and geometry. In the four subsequent years we had chemistry and physics as separate subjects. The maths from the previous year was usually enough to cope, though when we got calculus in fourth year there was a certain amount of “So that’s where it came from” relating to previous years. We got a very good grounding in classical physics and inorganic chemistry. Organic chemistry was a small, but significant part of the course and quantum mechanics was not presented at all.
Biology wasn’t offered when I was there though it was shortly afterwards as a year five subject.
The problem w/ physics first is that, if you continue to teach the SAME physics that is taught in a “physics last” sequence – which is usually 80% kinematics and dynamics with some token optics and E&M… you will do nothing that informs a student’s understanding of chemistry and biology, which is the supposed rationale. In order to make sense it requires more than just re-ordering… it requires rethinking which parts of physics are essential for students to know. I have never seen any evidence that the physics-firsters are putting in that kind of thought.
I haven’t looked that closely at the “physics first” curricula, but the summary documents at that Project ARISE link do say that:
So they’ve at least paid lip service to the idea.
Why teach them one after the other? Many countries – countries ranking at the top of worldwide education surveys – quite successfully teach physics, and chemistry, and biology through all three years of high school, not condensed into a single year to forget as soon as possible afterwards.
Education systems are different enough in other countries that I don’t think results necessarily generalize. Many of the countries scoring ahead of the US on education surveys have less economic variance than the US, and do a good deal more sorting of students into different tracks. Something that works well under those conditions will not necessarily work under the different conditions in US public education.
Or, if cramming it into single years is so important for some reason, then why is math exempt? if the other subjects all need most high-school math, then start by doing all math the first year, then do the sciences during the second and third years.
Math is a separate, parallel track. Students take math every year, building toward calculus in the senior year. You could probably cut this down somewhat– most schools do for the best students– but again, this is not going to be feasible with the entire population served by the public schools.
In Canada (I *think* this holds for all provinces) we have general science every year up to grade 10, then it’s time for electives. Grade 11 offers biology, chemistry, and physics, and again in grade 12. I took all of them, which means I had six different full semester science courses in my last two years of high school.
Currently there is also a fourth course in my province (MB) which is about science and society rather than focusing too deeply on the science itself. Some students take it because they think biology (traditionally the easy out for a science credit) is too much work, but it has the potential to be a nice companion to the fundamental science courses.
I agree with what Chad said in the past, if students really want to do well in physics in university, getting the math fundamentals down is very important, but if the US wants to remain competitve in science/engineering, maybe there should be more course offerings at the high school level.
I was a classical piano major (a major suitable only for concert performers, music teachers, and fine ladies who expect to marry rich men). I had no physics in high school or college. I had just enough math to get by.
So guess what I want to go back to school to become? Pick the very least probable thing (no, not nuclear energy scientist, but almost that improbable). Yeah, I’m dying to become a mechanical engineer. It’s a bit like getting a sex change, not because I’m a woman trying to break into a male-dominated field, but because every ounce of my education and upbringing was spent shackled to a piece of mid-eighteenth-century technology because I could touch it so that it made pretty noises, and now I feel like I’m not a whole person unless I become a cutting-edge inventor type with my hands covered in nice clean lubricating oil. Anyway.
I’ve bought self-study books on algebra, trig, and calculus. I’m not afraid of the math by any means; I have plenty of raw brainpower and an aptitude for analytical thinking. I’m not sure what I’m going to have to do to catch up in physics and the other recommended classes for a wanna-be engineer. Online stuff would be good. Any of you physics teachers have any ideas for me?
My high school did the reverse order. Freshman year physics, sophomore chemistry, junior year biology, senior year was an AP class if you wanted, or no science otherwise.
Some obvious benefits: a lot of discussion of energy and heat in chemistry class, the ability to talk about basic chemical reactions when covering metabolism and photosynthesis, discussion of energy conservation and loss in the food chain. I didn’t see any obvious problems it caused, but I was (and am) a huge math nerd so I could have easily missed others mathematical difficulties.
The problem is the insistence on math at the college algebra and trig level for most senior physics classes, which colors any thinking of what physics has to be, along with the mini-PhD list like you put in your comment @18.
First, there is no reason that you can’t have a freshman physics class as the intro to chemistry, based on the same math requirements that chemistry has, except for the old bugaboo of credit hours and sequencing. However, knowing what I know about the way chemistry is taught, you could save more than half of the chem class and get right down to chemistry if this was done right. (And I have seen it done right at one college.) Take a look at the college chemistry class at your college, Chad. Ours uses Silberberg and they spend all sorts of time on things like a bad treatment of quantum mechanics of the atom before they get to chemistry. That book is great if you already know physics, but most of the students barely know algebra.
Second, there is a model for what could be done at the 8th grade level. The Hewitt book on “conceptual physical science” is a fantastic approach that works through physics to the atom to the periodic table and then chemistry. Big chunks of it are not needed if your singular goal is to prepare for a chemistry class that includes enough organic to do biology at a more advanced level. For example, why do anything with gravity or magnetism at all if your goal is to lead in to chemistry with total mastery of basic physics?
The only problem I see is that it has a clear track through to molecular biology but not one to mechanics while in HS.
As a science coordinator for a school district and someone who taught HS physics for nearly 10 years, I am trying to get a move to Physics First initiated in my district. It is my opinion that high school Biology puts a bullet in any scientific interest that the typical kid still has by the time that they reach High School. Viewing this from a standpoint of what is best for science literacy, putting physics first seems ideal. In surveying students about their attitudes toward science I have found that kids generally still like science when they leave the 8th grade. When surveyed at the end of their 9th grade Biology class, the number of students with a favorable view of science is drastically diminished. The overwhelming reason given is the difficult vocabulary and “not doing any fun labs besides dissections”. Simply put, high school freshman are an interesting bunch and if we can give them a more “fun” science class like physics where they learn with cars and ramps, Frisbees, electrical circuits, etc their interest in science might maintain at the levels they were at the end of 8th grade. When kids have matured to the 11th grade year and they have had physics and chemistry they should be better prepared to understand (and enjoy) biology. Just my point of view…it has nothing to do with math skills, a good foundational physics course can be taught on the Algebra level. In fact I feel like a Physics First in conjunction with Algebra I could bolster the percentage of kids being successful in Algebra I as well. Problem is that you have to convince Physics teachers that they can teach their course without as much of the complicated math- remember we are talking about high school and making kids scientifically literate, not turning them all into physics majors in college.