In
prior posts, I referred to work done by David Hestenes and his colleagues at Arizona State University addressing the dismal results of traditional university level physics instruction. Hestenes and others developed the Force Concept Inventory, FCI, to demonstrate that even after a year of traditional instruction, college students had failed to create proper models in their own minds for how mechanics actually works.
Specifically, "Before physics instruction, students hold naive beliefs about mechanics which are incompatible with Newtonian concepts in most respects.
• Such beliefs are a major determinant of student performance in introductory physics.
• Traditional (lecture-demonstration) physics instruction induces only a small change in the beliefs. This result is largely independent of the instructor’s knowledge, experience and teaching style. "
Hestenes has gone forward from there, and developed a new curriculum design for high school and college physics instruction, and has pushed this curriculum design out to high school and college physics teachers on his own, and more recently, through NSF backing. He calls this new type of instruction
modeling instruction.What is meant by modeling instruction? He means that you learn physics by constructing appropriate models for the interactions in your system, and then you apply inference to your model to solve whatever problem you have. The emphasis is on getting the student to recognize the model at hand by getting them familiar with constructing models in the first place. What's a model? A model is a representation of your system and its properties. A model tells you everything you need to know. So a model tells you your system, the boundaries of your system, the state variables inside your system, the initial conditions of your system, the transition function for the state variables in that system, and whatever interactions you need to know. This sounds vague, but the point of the model is that you can explicitly say whether or not you've got everything you need to infer what happens if you write it all down.
In modeling instruction, the idea is that "the modeling method approaches the problem of restructuring students’ intuitions by engaging them in explicit construction and manipulation of externally structured representations. In the case of mechanics (6), we have found it advisable to engage students in explicit comparisons of the three major misconceptions in Box 1 with their Newtonian alternatives. When these three are adequately treated, many other misconceptions about mechanics fall away with them. "
To facilitate the teaching of mechanics by modeling instruction, the modeling group at ASU created
course materials and curricula for a high school level mechanics class. Their modeling method for mechanics explicitly teaches 10 models, five of them models of motion (kinematical models): constant velocity, constant acceleration, the simple harmonic oscillator, uniform circular motion, and a collision model; and five models of force (causal models): the free particle, the constant force, the central force, the linear binding force, and the impulsive force. The idea is that by explicitly organizing the ideas of motion and force in this way, the student will see the common physics in each. This is as opposed to organizing ideas around "problems".
Here's an example. "oh, that's a projectile problem", " oh that's a block-siding problem" "oh, that's a orbit problem" is a typical way a student might think about the physics problem in front of them, but it doesn't help elucidate what were the relevant features of the problem at hand, whereas recognizing "oh, that's a constant velocity problem", "oh that's a free particle problem," "oh, that's a central force problem" leads you immediately to know or be able to infer the geometric structure, the interaction structure, the force structure, the changes over time, etc.
Enough talk! Let's jump in.
Here are the course notes for unit on the free-particle model. The instruction goals are to use the free particle model to develop intuition for Newton's First Law (commonly stated as "an object in motion tends to stay in motion; an object at rest tends to stay at rest"), for Newton's Third Law , and to correctly be able to represent forces as vectors.
1. Newton’s 1st law (Galileo’s thought experiment)
Develop notion that a force is required to change velocity, not to produce motion
Constant velocity does not require an explanation.
2. Force concept
View force as an interaction between and agent and an object
Choose system to include objects, not agents
Express Newton’s 3rd law in terms of paired forces (agent-object notation)
3. Force diagrams
Correctly represent forces as vectors originating on object (point particle)
Use the superposition principle to show that the net force is the vector sum of the forces
4. Statics
•F = 0 produces same effect as no force acting on object decomposition of vectors into components
Continuing, the teacher's notes state "It is essential that you get students to see that the constant velocity condition does not require an explanation; that changes in velocity require an interaction between an agent and an object. We quantify this interaction by the concept of force. After the dry ice and normal force demos, one can use worksheet 1 as an opportunity to deploy the force concept in a qualitative way. It is important to carefully treat how to go about drawing force diagrams in which one represents the object as a point particle. Drawing the dotted lines around the object helps students distinguish between the object and the agent(s). "
And
"Newton’s Third Law ...Researchers have identified and categorized many such misconceptions, but two of them are particularly important, because they are persistent common sense alternatives to Newton’s Laws. Ignoring variations and nuances, these misconceptions can be formulated as intuitive principles.
I. The Impetus Principle: Force is an inherent or acquired property of objects that make them move.
II. The Dominance Principle: In an interaction between two objects, the larger or more active object exerts the greater force."
The notes then describe detailed demos and labs, with pre and post discussion points as well:
"It is an indirect goal of this activity to provide students an opportunity for arguing that a free particle, i.e. one subject to zero net force, will have a constant velocity. Also, students should conclude that any apparent change in velocity of an object indicates that a non-zero net force is acting upon it, provided that the observer is in an inertial frame of reference. ,,,
Make the point that when no force acts on the block in the horizontal direction, the block maintains constant velocity.
* Point out that an impulse applied perpendicular to the original trajectory does not result in the block making a right angle turn.
* Be sure to ask why they think the block continues to move once it leaves the hand. Some are likely to answer " due to the force of the hand."
The notes continue in this fashion, with specific notes on what demos/labs, how to guide them, what the appropriate leading questions are, when to ask for students' input, when to build to consensus.
This might seem like a fairly normal course, being taught with a normal lab. But the structure is different. More on that in the next post.
Physics Education and Failures in Conceptual Understanding
Fixing Physics Education: Modeling Instruction
Physics Education Continued
More Modeling Instruction: Techniques
Posts
It really depends on the school.
ACSI in Singapore has implemented the IB program since 2004.
IB, despite being 'international', really assimilates to each host country's culture.
As I recall, the highest level math exams in IB cover linear algebra and ordered differential equations -- presumably that's what they would have to cover in Singapore in order to be eligible to replace the British A-levels.