physics Please help me to narrow down physics

[Jean in Newcastle]

DS17 will be starting his senior year in a week or so.  He has taken biology, chemistry and robotics in previous years in high school.  He's taken Alg. 1 and 2, and geometry.  He passed Alg. 2 last year with a B minus.  He understands concepts very well and has actually tested into the genius category in mathematics BUT he has ADHD and following through on details always brings his grades down.  He is interested in going into engineering in college.  So I have tabs open for the following and have questions about each one:

 

1.  Kinetic Physics - He is a visual spacial learner and I saw this course recommended for this type of learner?  Is this a good course for his goals in college?  When I click on Kinetic Physics there are 4 books shown - Kinetic First Person Physics, Kinetic Principles of Physics, Kinetics Physics for Scientists and Engineers, and Kinetic Virtual Physics Labs.  Are these all different courses?  Which one is a high school physics one?  (I'm sorry if these are dumb questions but I'm not figuring this out even though I'm looking at their site.)

 

2.  Conceptual Academy/ Conceptual Physics by Hewitt.  I saw somewhere when searching this board that people use this in 9th grade and then other physics in 12th?  Is this correct?  So I should cross this off my list?

 

3.  College Physics Knight - Um. . .  I am not able to teach ds physics.  Is this just a book that he sits down and does on his own?  Are there other options?  Does it have physics lab stuff in there?

 

4.  Giancoli Physics and Giancoli Answers.  Ditto as 3 - Is this just a book and then answers to a book?  Is there a more interactive option that involves this?  Does this have physics lab stuff in there as well?

 

Am I missing some great physics option?  Esp. one that might fit his learning style?  

[FrogMom5]

What about Derek Owens physics class?  He has recorded lectures that your son can watch as many times as he wants so he can catch it all. Then your son can go over the sections in the reading and the lectures where he lost focus.  Mr. Owens is also very responsive to e-mail questions if the student doesn't understand something.  That might work better than textbook and lab at home.

 

My oldest took Pre-calc. and Calc. from DO.  We did not take physics from DO, so no direct experience with that class.  However, it is my impression that all of the classes have a similar structure.  They are all go at your own pace with textbook, lectures and labs for science.  A friend of mine has a ds currently in the class and describes it in a similar fashion. 

 

From what you posted about your son, I do think Conceptual Physics would be too easy and he would be bored. It seems like your son would enjoy a more math based program. 

 

I don't know about the other programs you listed. 

HTH

Denise

 

 

[kiana]

I also think that conceptual physics is too light for a senior who is planning an engineering major. I'll let someone else critique the other 3.

[JanetC]

+1 for looking for a program like Derek Owens with teacher support, since you don't feel comfortable with the material.

[Jean in Newcastle]

OK - I looked at Derek Owens.  It looks like he teaches basically the Giancoli material but without the actual textbook.

 

The Kinetic Physics place used to use Conceptual Physics and now has their own books.  And on closer look it looks like the First Person Physics, Principles of Physics and the Physics for Scientists and Engineers are all different books, the last two being harder than the first one.  

[8filltheheart]

Jean,

 

You can still do KB's version of Conceptual Physics or you could choose Principles of Physics. CP is contained within PoP. If you register for the single class through Kolbe, you now have to order PoP, but they have lesson plans for both the conceptual and principle levels. (The regular level is conceptual and the honors level is principle)

 

I am not familiar with PoP, but my ds loved CP when he was in 8th grade. I think the fact that you can order one course and have both options would allow you to adjust for your student. Fwiw, I would definitely not go with the new First. That is simply to satisfy College Board.

[MarkT]

I also think that conceptual physics is too light for a senior who is planning an engineering major. I'll let someone else critique the other 3.

 

I concur - good book for a 9th grade "early" Physics class or for non-STEM students

 

[MarkT]

DS17 will be starting his senior year in a week or so.  He has taken biology, chemistry and robotics in previous years in high school.  He's taken Alg. 1 and 2, and geometry.  He passed Alg. 2 last year with a B minus.  He understands concepts very well and has actually tested into the genius category in mathematics BUT he has ADHD and following through on details always brings his grades down.  He is interested in going into engineering in college.  So I have tabs open for the following and have questions about each one:

 

1.  Kinetic Physics - He is a visual spacial learner and I saw this course recommended for this type of learner?  Is this a good course for his goals in college?  When I click on Kinetic Physics there are 4 books shown - Kinetic First Person Physics, Kinetic Principles of Physics, Kinetics Physics for Scientists and Engineers, and Kinetic Virtual Physics Labs.  Are these all different courses?  Which one is a high school physics one?  (I'm sorry if these are dumb questions but I'm not figuring this out even though I'm looking at their site.)

 

2.  Conceptual Academy/ Conceptual Physics by Hewitt.  I saw somewhere when searching this board that people use this in 9th grade and then other physics in 12th?  Is this correct?  So I should cross this off my list?

 

3.  College Physics Knight - Um. . .  I am not able to teach ds physics.  Is this just a book that he sits down and does on his own?  Are there other options?  Does it have physics lab stuff in there?

 

4.  Giancoli Physics and Giancoli Answers.  Ditto as 3 - Is this just a book and then answers to a book?  Is there a more interactive option that involves this?  Does this have physics lab stuff in there as well?

 

 

Does Kinetic Physics have a planned course - I did look at it once a while back - I think there is a single person behind it so probably email them for more info.

 

Derek Owens has some sample videos on YouTube, have your son watch them to see if his style matches your son's needs. 

 

3 & 4 without support would be fairly tough sledding - that's why I crossed them out

 

This is a very important class for a future Engineer.

[MarkT]

removed per directions

[8filltheheart]

Does Kinetic Physics have a planned course -

K is conceptual and H is principles. http://www.kolbe.org/documents/science/Physics11thGradeSample.pdf

[MarkT]

OK - I looked at Derek Owens.  It looks like he teaches basically the Giancoli material but without the actual textbook.

 

The Kinetic Physics place used to use Conceptual Physics and now has their own books.  And on closer look it looks like the First Person Physics, Principles of Physics and the Physics for Scientists and Engineers are all different books, the last two being harder than the first one.  

 

I looked at the Kinetic Physics site:

First Person Physics -- Conceptual - 9th grade or Non-STEM

Principles of Physics --  Algebra based typical HS college prep or maybe AP Physics 1

Physics for Scientists and Engineers - Calculus based, target is AP Physics C

[MarkT]

K is conceptual and H is principles. http://www.kolbe.org/documents/science/Physics11thGradeSample.pdf

 

Both seemed to use the same Algebra based text with H (Honors) covering more.

 

Can someone take a single Kolbe class like a Derek Owens class?  How do they match up cost wise?

[Jean in Newcastle]

This is helpful.  I'm going to sit down and compare costs today.  

[8filltheheart]

I don't know the cost comparison.  But, yes, you can enroll for a single course with Kolbe.  And, yes, Conceptual is contained within Principles as I posted upthread. 

[FrogMom5]

Jean,

I just wanted to add that Ds's Calc. class w/DO was also taught w/out a textbook.  We still bought the book the class was based on so that ds could read and see example problems.  Mr. Owens is not opposed to this as it does help many students.

 

I'm not sure if The Potter's School or one of the other online schools offer physics classes w/lectures.  Our class through PA Homeschoolers had no lectures, which surprised me.  I think it is teacher dependent with them. 

 

Also, you said your son does not follow through with details very well.  We have that problem here, too.  My oldest had to have constant reminders to put an answer into the correct unit, not just write the number down and things like that.  The outside classes did seem to help him improve - maybe because it's one thing to be docked a point or two by your mom, it's another when it's someone else.  Or maybe it just made a bigger impression on him, idk.  I do know it was not purposeful on his part.  He still does it and it negatively affects his scores.  He works very hard to check and double check before turning things in for a grade.

 

I hope you find a good class for your son.  He sounds really smart and interesting.

Denise

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

I hope you find a good class for your son.  He sounds really smart and interesting.

Denise

Thanks, Denise.  He has taken some classes from teachers other than me.  The details were still difficult!  But as he ages and works on it, he is showing some improvement.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think we're doing the Derek Owens.  Ds and I sat down and watched demo/sample lessons of both Kinetic Physics and Derek Owens.  Ds thought that the text of Kinetic Principles of Physics was too simplistic and that the interactive part encouraged guessing instead of actually working out the problems.  He liked the Derek Owens a lot.  The only problem.  We were not able to see video on the actual DO sample lessons but had to look at his sample lessons on YouTube.  Obviously we need to figure out what is wrong or incompatible in our system so that he can see the actual video.  

[kbernt]

I also think that conceptual physics is too light for a senior who is planning an engineering major. I'll let someone else critique the other 3.

 

I have a BS in physics, and in my opinion, this is true; however, if you utilize all of the "Problem-Solving Practice" extra problems for each chapter in the appendix at the back of the book (about 30 pages of them, and approx. 10-25 problems for each chapter) then the course is more meaty and approaches the level of normal 11th-12th grade physics courses. I adore Hewitt's style of explaining things, and wish someone would have explained them to me that way years ago--I probably would have "gotten it" a little quicker on some topics.

[MarkT]

I have a BS in physics, and in my opinion, this is true; however, if you utilize all of the "Problem-Solving Practice" extra problems for each chapter in the appendix at the back of the book (about 30 pages of them, and approx. 10-25 problems for each chapter) then the course is more meaty and approaches the level of normal 11th-12th grade physics courses. I adore Hewitt's style of explaining things, and wish someone would have explained them to me that way years ago--I probably would have "gotten it" a little quicker on some topics.

 

this forum likes CP for a first year Physics course such as 9th grade

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

So.. .  now ds tells me that he does not want a physics course that just tells him the formula and has him practice doing it ad nauseum.  Isn't that how traditional physics programs work?  That's how I remember my physics course back in high school.  Is there an Art of Problem Solving for physics?  

[regentrude]

So.. .  now ds tells me that he does not want a physics course that just tells him the formula and has him practice doing it ad nauseum.  Isn't that how traditional physics programs work?  That's how I remember my physics course back in high school.

No! This is NOT how traditional physics programs work! Sadly, it is how many high schools teach physics, so students come away with the impression that physics is a grab bag of equations.

 

A good physics course will explain the concepts, derive the equations, and then apply the equations to problems and practice problem solving. So yes, in order to master physics the student will also need to solve problems - but that is NOT practicing using a formula. To solve problems, students should learn how to model a situation with physical models (point mass, free fall, neglect air resistance etc), draw a diagram, identify given and wanted quantities, select appropriate equation and solve.

But they should not be told a formula and then asked to plug and chug ad nauseum! This approach to teaching "physics" is completely useless.

 

I have found that College Physics texts strike a good balance between conceptual explanation and introductory problem solving appropriate for a high school student with good math background. Not just concepts and a lot of verbal explanations, but relatively simple problems that are not too complex to set up. That's what I do with my own kids in 9th grade.

 

  Is there an Art of Problem Solving for physics?

I have not come across any equivalent for AoPS for physics, and I think that would be fundamentally impossible, because physics is a science and based on observation of natural phenomena; where a student can use a discovery approach to discover mathematical relationships in AoPS, a discovery approach in physics would require recreating vast amounts of experimentation to discover things like the free fall acceleration being constant, objects obeying newton's laws.. it is practically impossible to teach physics the way AoPS teaches math.

[MarkT]

So.. .  now ds tells me that he does not want a physics course that just tells him the formula and has him practice doing it ad nauseum.  Isn't that how traditional physics programs work?  That's how I remember my physics course back in high school.  Is there an Art of Problem Solving for physics?  

 

What course is that?  It sounds dull.

[PeterPan]

Jean, fwiw, I don't think following board consensus on Hewitt's Conceptual Physics is wise or necessary.  We have people ALL THE TIME on the boards here who do ill-regarded "simple" programs WELL and do quite well.  Look at the girl who did Spectrum Chem and went to MIT.  I also note that he is struggling a bit with math.  I'm with your ds, that my first experience with high school physics, which was an AP class btw, totally sucked and absolutely positively DESTROYED my previous interest in it.  So I definitely agree that going with the hardest physics class you can find is the wisest thing.  There's no sense in putting him in an achievable, intellectually stimulating, do-able class that fits his level of math comfort, letting him read extra books about physics on the side (Physics for Superheroes, anyone?), etc. and actually letting him ENJOY his physics.  Nope, don't dream of doing that.  Must, must, must follow the board and call high school level physics inadequate.  Must implement college level physics, filled with dronings for years on packages dropping and this and that, blah blah (man I hated that class).  MUST NOT enjoy the physics.

 

The Physics of Superheroes: Spectacular Second Edition

 

The Physics of Star Trek

 

Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel

 

For the Love of Physics: From the End of the Rainbow to the Edge Of Time - A Journey Through the Wonders of Physics

 

The Flying Circus of Physics

 

How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life

 

The guy who wrote How Things Work also has done some courses on Coursera.

 

Have you discussed with him whether he wants to be able to do the hands-on?  If he does, you might put your chunk of change into getting the supplies for THAT and just using what is free/cheap/easily accessible for the text.  And what about those AMAZING videos by Hewitt to go with Conceptual Physics?  And what about the free MIT open courseware?  He could watch the MIT OCW for fun and stretch his mind.

 

Personally, I think it's more important to get his math solid than it is to have a whiz bang ultimo year at physics.  My dh went to engineering school, is not a stellar student, and STRUGGLED with the math.  He was fabulous once they got into the application, but that math really killed him.  So my advice is solidify the math and go really basic with the physics.  Conceptual is fine, doing the word problems at the end of the chapters in the Hewitt text will be more than enough.  The main thing is get that math more confident.  Maybe he needs some spiral?  Teaching Textbooks (haha, another they say shouldn't work) might be golden for him.  That's where I'd put your energy, because I can *promise* you that's what he'll regret being weak when he walks into college.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree on getting math solid.  Jann in TX (who was his teacher last year) has graciously helped me with concrete suggestions on how to do that for him specifically.  (And yes, it includes Teaching Textbooks as well as other things.)

 

I'll let him see these books too.  I still have all my physics tabs open on my computer.  No hard and fast decisions have been made yet!  

[PeterPan]

Our library ILL system was able to get us CP.  Remember too there are videos to go with it on Hewitt's website for the book.  I was very impressed with the problems to go with each chapter.  Once I actually had the book in-hand, I was shocked at the way it's portrayed around here.  

 

 

I have a BS in physics, and in my opinion, this is true; however, if you utilize all of the "Problem-Solving Practice" extra problems for each chapter in the appendix at the back of the book (about 30 pages of them, and approx. 10-25 problems for each chapter) then the course is more meaty and approaches the level of normal 11th-12th grade physics courses. I adore Hewitt's style of explaining things, and wish someone would have explained them to me that way years ago--I probably would have "gotten it" a little quicker on some topics.

Just wanted to pull this down and make sure you saw this Jean, because this was my take when I looked at the text too. If we do physics, it will be in 11th or 12th, and it will probably be with CP.

[PeterPan]

I agree on getting math solid.  Jann in TX (who was his teacher last year) has graciously helped me with concrete suggestions on how to do that for him specifically.  (And yes, it includes Teaching Textbooks as well as other things.)

 

I'll let him see these books too.  I still have all my physics tabs open on my computer.  No hard and fast decisions have been made yet!  

It's none of my business, but have you thought of doing a grade adjustment or giving him another year?  It sounds like it would help him.  If he seriously wants to go to engineering school, you might consider it. You could repeat algebra 2 with TT at a faster pace (if it works for him), then go into pre-calc without the pressure.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

We've already decided to do an extra year.  He's a diagnosed aspie and there are some anxiety issues at play plus low processing speed.  Both of those things sort of wreak havoc with his abilities even though otherwise he's quite gifted.  I think having some extra time will be in his favor.  

[Robin in DFW]

nm

[MarkT]

Our library ILL system was able to get us CP.  Remember too there are videos to go with it on Hewitt's website for the book.  I was very impressed with the problems to go with each chapter.  Once I actually had the book in-hand, I was shocked at the way it's portrayed around here.  

 

 

No one is putting down "Conceptual Physics" in general.  It is a very good book.  You can't take the posts out of context. 

 

The OP mentioned that their student wanted to attend college for Engineering.  The first Physics course for Engineers, Physics majors, etc is Calculus based.  It may be quite the leap going from Conceptual Physics to say Giancoli's "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" without something in between.

[PeterPan]

MarkT, has it at all occurred to you that the words "in between" were in your statement.  Did you notice he's remedial in math and struggling?  Did you notice that the kid is going to get an extra year at home to work on these things?  Did you notice that he's SN and do you have any cognizance that it can often include later bloom times, struggles with certain aspects of things, etc.?  Does it occur to no one here that there ARE people who need more time, do better with a good foundation, who need to go into things at their own pace, who are NOT DUMB but who REALLY need to do high school in high school and college in college?  Does it occur to NO ONE to give these kids the space to bloom at their own pace, do things, stop being so freaked out, and let happen what is supposed to happen???

 

I mean, seriously.  Say he just needs more time for these thought processes to come together.  Then in another year or two, it will be obvious and he'll decide engineering school or not.  Say he's not MEANT to go to engineering school (which you really CAN'T SAY at this point), then in another year or two he'll decide and it will be obvious.

 

Dude, is there NO ROOM for anyone NOT to be a National Merit Scholar and top of the charts and STILL be a successful, worthwhile human being around here???

 

I went to a school for the gifted, I know what my IQ probably is, I know I'm eligible to be in Mensa, and I know I wasn't ready for calc-based physics in high school.  My classmates were, on the side, figuring out calc-based for themselves because trig-based annoyed them.  (That guy now works for NASA on the Mars rover project, btw.)  We had an integrated calc/physics class but it wasn't well taught and the kids all dropped out.  The only guy who stuck with it then went to MIT and has his phd from there last I checked.

 

I just think this lunacy ought to stop.  It's not about the theory.  This is the life of an individual, unique child, and the parent has to look at the CHILD and say WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP FOR THIS CHILD that will help them think, grown, mature and bloom.  This whole freakiness about stuff blows my mind.  It's possible to go to engineering school and STRUGGLE and graduate and be a successful human being and be good at what you do.  The boy is not WORTHLESS or doomed to failure because he struggles.  He just needs to make the next step and keep making those next steps, even if they're not flashy, and let those things add up.  And then, if he has gifts that balance out his weaknesses, it will all become obvious.  But there is no point destroying the learner to get there.

 

So the kid could do Conceptual Physics for this coming year (age 17, grade 12) along with his repeat of algebra 2 and beginning precalc.  Then in 13th he does a lighter calc class and a 2nd year of physics.  That could totally work.  Take small, reasonable steps that help the student succeed and let the future solve itself.  

 

I'm not saying what he should do.  I'm saying he should take small, reasonable steps that he CAN do, use that extra year to keep going, and then see where he's at.  

[regentrude]

No one is putting down "Conceptual Physics" in general.  It is a very good book.  You can't take the posts out of context. 

 

The OP mentioned that their student wanted to attend college for Engineering.  The first Physics course for Engineers, Physics majors, etc is Calculus based.  It may be quite the leap going from Conceptual Physics to say Giancoli's "Physics for Scientists and Engineers" without something in between.

 

Well, actually quite a few engineering students will have to take calc based physics for scientists and engineers as their first ever physics course, due to the pathetic state of high school education in this country.

For those, even conceptual physics would have been a step up from none at all.

(Coming from a different country, I won't ever be able to comprehend this system....)

 

[PeterPan]

Well, actually quite a few engineering students will have to take calc based physics for scientists and engineers as their first ever physics course, due to the pathetic state of high school education in this country.

For those, even conceptual physics would have been a step up from none at all.

(Coming from a different country, I won't ever be able to comprehend this system....)

My point exactly.  You can say it ought not to be that way or whatever, but that's how it is.  People do NOT all have the same level of access to education in this country.  For many kids, the most they'll have access to is traditional high school physics and a "calc" class that *might* be comparable to AB at best. 

[regentrude]

My point exactly.  You can say it ought not to be that way or whatever, but that's how it is.  People do NOT all have the same level of access to education in this country.  For many kids, the most they'll have access to is traditional high school physics and a "calc" class that *might* be comparable to AB at best. 

 

I think we were making different points.

Just because the sorry reality is that schools do not offer an adequate preparation does not mean we need to recreate that scenario in our home schools.

I agree with you that Conceptual Physics is a good text for many high school students, but I also think that a student who wants to be an engineer would be better served with a more rigorous text. That does not mean putting down CP. I would assume (and hope) any student with such plans to possess a higher-than-average aptitude for math and physics, and would not recommend the lowest possible level for such a student. I have not seen any mentioning that the student is struggling in math - he has a B in algebra 2, so I see no reason why he would be unable to complete a course that requires algebra 1 and half an hour's worth of trigonometry. I completely disagree that that has to mean boring and uninspired! It has been my experience from over a decade of teaching physics that the problem solving helps cement the conceptual understanding to a degree that a mere conceptual discussion does not accomplish. So, the problems serve a purpose beyond just honing problem solving skills.

The list of books you mentioned is good, but I found that, while they may sound interesting, a real understanding is only possible with a physics background. The Flying Circus is fabulous, but many of the examples he uses are tough nuts conceptually and often require a combination of several concepts to understand the explanations - I would never suggest this book for a beginner.

 

ETA: Nobody said a person could not be a "valuable human being" without physics. This is a gross misrepresentation of the statements on this board. Nothing in this discussion is about a person's value - it is about choosing the best possible preparation for an individual student to help him accomplish a specific goal. It should be permitted to voice the opinion that CP is not the best tool to prepare a future engineering major, without being accused of considering the student worthless.

[MarkT]

MarkT, has it at all occurred to you that the words "in between" were in your statement ...

 

This reply read way too much into my post. Wow I was not putting down the student at all. My reply was about using CP as your only Physics class prior to heading off to Engineering school.

 

CP may very well be the next best step for this particular student. 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

OP here!   :seeya: Ds and I have been discussing this.  We want an algebra based physics, which he can handle.  He's not ready for a calculus based physics because he has not taken calculus.  He's gotten straight B's in math including Alg 2 (ok - a B minus) so on paper he doesn't look bad in math (though he doesn't look terrific either).  He could easily have gotten an A if he had a better command of his math facts (yes, that is an issue for him even at 17, despite years and years of drill) and if he didn't veer off into ADHD neverland.  We're getting better control of his allergies though which seems to be helping him to focus better.  We are hoping to have a refresher of Alg 2 to just solidify some things and then move on to pre-calculus this year.  

[8filltheheart]

OP here! :seeya: Ds and I have been discussing this. We want an algebra based physics, which he can handle. He's not ready for a calculus based physics because he has not taken calculus. He's gotten straight B's in math including Alg 2 (ok - a B minus) so on paper he doesn't look bad in math (though he doesn't look terrific either). He could easily have gotten an A if he had a better command of his math facts (yes, that is an issue for him even at 17, despite years and years of drill) and if he didn't veer off into ADHD neverland. We're getting better control of his allergies though which seems to be helping him to focus better. We are hoping to have a refresher of Alg 2 to just solidify some things and then move on to pre-calculus this year.

Jean, I know you said your ds thought that KB was not a good fit. I'm not sure how he thought the program encouraged guessing bc they have to enter their answers.

 

Anyway, the program is a solid alg base program and the only one ds used prior to taking cal physics (and he is a physics major).

 

ETA: I would not take a non-physics textbook approach for introductory physics for a future STEM major.

[PeterPan]

Jean, is he using a calculator?  

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, is he using a calculator?  

Some of the time.  It's one of those stubborn sticking places.  My attitude is that he can be stubborn about it but he's going to have to reap the consequences at the same time.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't think that any of these programs are bad.  I really appreciate all the input I'm getting to help choose what is the best fit for him.  (Though ultimately he will choose because if he isn't invested in the program he won't put the time in that he needs to put in.)

[PeterPan]

Some of the time.  It's one of those stubborn sticking places.  My attitude is that he can be stubborn about it but he's going to have to reap the consequences at the same time.  

So he's impulsive and doesn't want to slow down?  Or are the buttons small and uncomfortable for him?  Does he feel like he loses his train of thought while he's working if he stops to use the calculator?  If that's the case, you could work on working memory or scribe for him on a whiteboard to hold his thoughts. (sort of external RAM)

[JanetC]

If you think you can get by without a live teacher, take a look at gpb physics. It is algebra based, but not as intensely so. The videos really do the math step by step. For example, they spend time explaining that little m can be an abbreviation for meters and for mass and how to figure out what means what. There is a half lecture on using your calculator efficiently as well. And, of course, examples worked on screen.

 

You do need algebra, but the demands are maybe at the right level for someone reviewing algebra 2 at the same time.

[MarkT]

If you think you can get by without a live teacher, take a look at gpb physics. It is algebra based, but not as intensely so. The videos really do the math step by step. For example, they spend time explaining that little m can be an abbreviation for meters and for mass and how to figure out what means what. There is a half lecture on using your calculator efficiently as well. And, of course, examples worked on screen.

 

Is gbp this?                                    this forum is pretty acronym crazy -  and I thought we were bad at work  :)

 

http://www.gpb.org/chemistry-physics

 

FYI -  HS Algebra based Physics classes usually only require Algebra 1 as a pre-req.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

 

FYI -  HS Algebra based Physics classes usually only require Algebra 1 as a pre-req.

What pre-req do calculus based physics classes require?

[regentrude]

What pre-req do calculus based physics classes require?

 

calc 1 for 1st semester, calc 2 for 2nd semester- but ideally, the student should have taken multivariable calc before taking the 2nd semester (electricity&magnetism)

 

[JanetC]

Is gbp this?                                    this forum is pretty acronym crazy -  and I thought we were bad at work  :)

 

http://www.gpb.org/chemistry-physics

 

FYI -  HS Algebra based Physics classes usually only require Algebra 1 as a pre-req.

 

Yes, and the same videos plus some worksheets-turned-into-webpages are available here:

http://www.gavirtuallearning.org/Resources/SharedPhysics.aspx

 

You need to buy the teachers CD for 30 bucks for answer keys and tests from GPB.

 

--Janet

[Matryoshka]

FYI -  HS Algebra based Physics classes usually only require Algebra 1 as a pre-req.

 

I get confused about this.  The most commonly suggested text I see for "Algebra-based" Physics is Giancoli, which I think requires Trig?  So wouldn't it need at least Alg2?  Dd's school requires PreCalc as a co-requisite.

 

I've used CPO Physics: A First Course, which from going through it I'd think of as "Algebra-based", but it has Algebra as a co-requisite, not a pre-req.  It does not require Trig, nor does it use Quadratics (they solve half-parabolas, like throwing something off a cliff, using separate equations for height and distance).   But I don't think it's what people are talking about when they say "Algebra-based"?   Do the other "Algebra-based" courses use Trig or not?  Trig is not covered in any Algebra 1 course I've seen, so I thought they must be referring to Algebra 2 -based at least...

[regentrude]

I get confused about this.  The most commonly suggested text I see for "Algebra-based" Physics is Giancoli, which I think requires Trig?  So wouldn't it need at least Alg2?  Dd's school requires PreCalc as a co-requisite.

 

I've used CPO Physics: A First Course, which from going through it I'd think of as "Algebra-based", but it has Algebra as a co-requisite, not a pre-req.  It does not require Trig, nor does it use Quadratics (they solve half-parabolas, like throwing something off a cliff, using separate equations for height and distance).   But I don't think it's what people are talking about when they say "Algebra-based"?   Do the other "Algebra-based" courses use Trig or not?  Trig is not covered in any Algebra 1 course I've seen, so I thought they must be referring to Algebra 2 -based at least...

 

The little bit of trigonometry that is required for an algebra based physics course can be learned in half an hour for a student who had geometry of the right triangle. It really is just SOHCAHTOA and the Pythagorean theorem.

 

The "algebra based" College Physics course I teach requires algebra 1 including quadratics and SOHCAHTOA. Both my kids did fine with it after having taken algebra 1; they took the course concurrently with geometry.

 

ETA: quadratics don't just occur for 2-d kinematics, but already in 1-d. For example a vertical throw from a height requires the solution of a quadratic equation when you ask to determine time elapsed until the object hits the ground (unless you want to break it up into two parts to top and from top, which sends the wrong message to students that something in the physics is requiring the problem to be broken up)

[Kathy in Richmond]

I get confused about this.  The most commonly suggested text I see for "Algebra-based" Physics is Giancoli, which I think requires Trig?  So wouldn't it need at least Alg2?  Dd's school requires PreCalc as a co-requisite.

 

Giancoli is a terrific & engaging text that can be used at different levels.

 

With only an algebra 1 background and the very basics of trig (the "30 minute" definitiions of sine, cosine, tangent), you could cover the basics, skipping starred sections & assigning mostly level I and some level II homework problems (he labels homework problems by levels: I, II, and III). I believe that Derek Owens teaches physics with only alg1 as a prerequisite, and he suggests Giancoli as a reference text.

 

When I taught from Giancoli, my students had already completed a full trig course. We covered all of the sections with the exception of a few at the very end of the book -it's massive!  I assigned lots of level III problems, several of which required facility with trig graphs, identities, and approximations; for example, multi-dimensional momentum conservation problems and deriving the equations of small pendulum motion. At this level the student does need trig as a prerequisite.

 

Snowbeltmom recently posted this link to a service that offers full solutions to the 6th or 7th editions of Giancoli, in case anyone out there has a self-study student.

[g1234]

I have a BS in physics, and in my opinion, this is true; however, if you utilize all of the "Problem-Solving Practice" extra problems for each chapter in the appendix at the back of the book (about 30 pages of them, and approx. 10-25 problems for each chapter) then the course is more meaty and approaches the level of normal 11th-12th grade physics courses. I adore Hewitt's style of explaining things, and wish someone would have explained them to me that way years ago--I probably would have "gotten it" a little quicker on some topics.

 

Can anyone help me figure out where to find this section?  I have CP, 10th edition, and CP for high school, 3rd ed. w/Expanded Technology.  Neither one has a "Problem-Solving Practice" appendix.  I also have the CP 10th ed. Practicing Physics book.  It seems to have lots of good questions, but not so much algebra-type problem-solving.  I would love to get my hands on these!

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

So do the courses I listed in the OP come with labs?