I'm lost with Physics

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Can someone tell me what the various Physics options are?

 

There's Conceptual physics, physical science, physics.

Do they mean the same thing ?

 

Because I couldn't make sense of all these options, I decided to go with Kolbe's recommendation (also because shipping to Canada was possible, although costly) but I would really like to know what's what!

 

I didn't study using those sequences, so I'm a tad lost with all the American terminology...

[Jane in NC]

Physical science implies non-living science, i.e. physics, chemistry, earth science. Introductory courses in physical science often touch on a bit of all of these topics.

 

Conceptual physics describes the ideas of physics without all of the math. Hewitt's Conceptual Physics uses basic algebra--no calculus or trig. I am quite fond of the book namely because the author helped me to see physical phenomena. I have no trouble with the math of physics but explaining what is happening is another matter.

 

"Physics" as a course can come in two speeds: Calculus based or non-Calculus based. Giancoli is a popular text author, but his texts are in both of the aforementioned levels. The non-Calculus based books require Algebra II/Trig skills. Most high school physics courses here in the States are non-Calculus based.

 

Does this help?

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

so for a youth that lives for sciences, a decent course of action would be:

conceptual physics when he's still learning algebra,

then physics in later high school?

 

Would a course in physical science be redundant?

[Jane in NC]

so for a youth that lives for sciences, a decent course of action would be:

conceptual physics when he's still learning algebra,

then physics in later high school?

 

I think so. That was my plan for my son but I did not expect that he would want to take Microbiology at the CC. Thus his only physics at this point has been Conceptual. Guess we'll leave the real deal for college.

 

Would a course in physical science be redundant?

 

This probably depends on your son's background. For my kiddo, it would have been. But Physical Science remains a popular option with others.

 

Another consideration is Environmental Science. A mathy kid could do some nice modeling in this kind of a course.

[Matryoshka]

Thanks for asking this, Cleo, and thanks for answering, Jane...

 

I'm also starting to wonder if Physical Science with its mix-in of chem and earth science will be redundant for us considering our sequence. We've had:

 

5th grade: RS4K Level 1 Chem with other chem stuff thrown in, Astronomy, a unit on Physics (taught by another mom in the coop, embarrassingly I'm not sure what she focused on)

6th grade: CPO Life Science

7th grade: CPO Earth Science and Ellen McHenry's Carbon Chem

8th grade:?

 

It was in 8th I wanted to do Physical Science, but in my head I meant something focused early Physics concepts. Looking at even the 9th grade Physical Science texts, it seems like only 1/3 of the book is actually Physics, the rest is Earth Science and Chemistry.

 

They will be taking Algebra in 8th - could they take the Hewitt Conceptual Physics concurrently with that in 8th, or is that too much? They'll have just had a year of Earth Science and Chemistry; I don't think theyll need to review it that much already - at least not give them equal weight with the Physics stuff...

[Miss Marple]

I have had 2 sons use Hewitt's Conceptual Physics in 8th with no problems. We chose to use Runkle's World Physical Geography in 8th (7th for 2 sons) because I intended to follow-up with CP rather than use physical science as a high school course. The combination of Runkle's with CP gives the student a great earth/physical science background as well as a solid physics background and fits a geography course in there as well - that was what I wanted to accomplish.

 

Given a choice of using physical science or conceptual physics, I'd pick CP. But if a student wanted to pick up CP after physical science, I think there is enough variety in the Hewitt text that you could easily pick and choose chapters so that it wouldn't be too redundant. CP goes into far more depth for a topic than a physical science text.

[Matryoshka]

I have had 2 sons use Hewitt's Conceptual Physics in 8th with no problems.

 

Wow, I just looked at that text on Amazon - I think my less-mathy twin might have fits with that book. Actually, the chapter I'm looking at (scientific method) doesn't even have any math in it, maybe it's just the small point size. :tongue_smilie: Also, how do you get through it in a year? It has 40 chapters - that's more than one chapter a week? Yikes. :001_huh:

 

This did inspire me to look at CPO's Physics: A First Course - it's true it doesn't seem quite as in depth as the Hewitt, but it's all Physics and looks like it might be a good compromise for 8th grade?? I hate to cling to the CPO, but I've kind of figured it out now - I'm more a stick-with-what-I-know person than a curriculum hopper. This is why I'm hyperventilating that we're going to be done with Singapore Primary Math this year - I feel like I'm at the edge of a cliff!

 

How are the labs with the Hewitt? Is it more straightforward than it looks? Amazon only has a Look-Inside for the 3rd edition; it looks like the 9th or 10th is the current one, so I'm not even sure if the book looks the same these days.

[Miss Marple]

We actually skip the scientific method chapter because, by the time we get to CP we have already studied scientific method. We start with Chapter 2 and work through mechanics then pick and choose what we want for the rest of the year.

 

Hewitt says that one cannot cover all of the text in a year. For several chapters he recommends doing them over 2 weeks. He does recommend covering the mechanics section (about 13 chapters). The idea here is to have fun and learn the concepts rather than cover mountains of information.

 

We have the lab book and I've been able to use many of the labs and modify others in order to use them in class - some are unusable. We also have fun with many of the demos he recommends. I've also pulled labs off the internet (quite easy with Google) and I have a book, Practical Physics Labs, which has labs one can do easily at home.

 

I haven't seen CPO's physics so I can't comment on it. But Hewitt's book has been successful for my co-op kids who have either had algebra 1 already or are taking it concurrently. My 2 mathy boys did/are doing CP in 8th and my ds#3 who is not mathy is doing it in 9th along with algebra 1. The only place where I saw the younger kids bog down is in rotational motion. The math there seemed to throw a few of them. BUT...one can skip over the math and just focus on the concepts.

 

If your kids are finishing Singapore PM this year, I think they would probably be OK with Hewitt next year. We also used Singapore.

 

As far as editions go, the 3rd edition is the high school text. The 9th and 10th editions are the college version. The books are essentially the same, with the exception of more graphics and more depth in explanations with the high school text. I preferred the high school text when I examined both the high school 3rd edition with the college 9th edition. Again, they are essentially the same, but the high school text is more visually appealing, IMO. If you go with Hewitt, definitely get the TM because it has all sorts of teaching ideas and demos as well as the answers to the "in text" questions. One could easily forego the student text, IMO and just use the TM.