Can we discuss physics?

[elegantlion]

I've seen a lot of questions about physics lately. I'm definitely no expert, but after doing some searching over the last few years I've opted to align with the "physics first" camp.

 

Physics is the one science my ds is thrilled about and we spent some time loosely this year exploring Relativity. It was one of the highlights of our year. I can't imagine writing off a study of physics, even though I never touched it in high school.

 

So I'd like to open a conversation and maybe the more learned persons on this board could chime in with their physics opinions and experience.

 

Could someone explain the physics first pros? I know that it means study physics first, as much of science stems from physics. Then I see chem recommended, as modern biology is more microbiology than plant/animal biology (probably not the technical terms).

 

What about the different levels of physics? How does physical science differ from Conceptual Physics? What level of math is required for Conceptual vs. Calculus-based?

 

Should a student who is interested in a STEM career skip physics until college? Complete a conceptual program in 9th and possibly AP in 12th?

 

What options exist for outsourcing? What kind of labs do you do with physics anyway?

 

These are the type of questions I see most often.

 

Physics seems to get a bad rap lately as being too hard and seems to be the first science tossed to the wind. I'd just like to give the experts and the experienced a chance to share some good points about physics.

 

See, even Einstein supports the Hive. :D

 

Edited April 24, 2012 by elegantlion

[regentrude]

So I'd like to open a conversation and maybe the more learned persons on this board could chime in with their physics opinions and experience.

 

I guess I qualify; I have a PhD in physics and teach at a four year university.

 

Could someone explain the physics first pros? I know that it means study physics first, as much of science stems from physics. Then I see chem recommended, as modern biology is more microbiology than plant/animal biology (probably not the technical terms).

In a nutshell, that's it. All things must obey the laws of physics. Biological systems are very complex and require other descriptions, but every atom, cell, organ and organism has to obey the laws of physics.

On a more practical level, chemistry is actually only an application of physics. An understanding of physics is necessary for an understanding of chemistry, and an understanding of chemistry helps a lot with studying biology. While in our high school days, biology was focused on classifications and organisms, modern biology education is very much focused on the cellular and molecular level - every text begins with an intro to biochemistry which is much easier to handle with previous chemistry knowledge.

So, physics ends up at the bottom of the pyramid, being the foundation for the other sciences.

 

What about the different levels of physics? How does physical science differ from Conceptual Physics? What level of math is required for Conceptual vs. Calculus-based?

Physical science is a very basic introduction into the principles of physics and chemistry and can be taught in middle school/Jr high. It does not go into depth very much, but is a useful course, albeit high school level for an average student.

Conceptual physics goes a bit deeper and uses simple beginning algebra to make physics quantitative. One very good text is Hewitt.

A more rigorous treatment is possible using a full fledged algebra/trig based physics course (do not be scared by the word "trig"; you do not need a full trigonometry course, just a basic half-hour introduction). This is, IMO, an excellent option to begin the high school science sequence for a student who has taken algebra already.

A calculus based phsyics course obviously requires calculus. Most texts uses single variable calculus, but to better understand electrodynamics it would be beneficial if the student had multivariable calculus.

 

Should a student who is interested in a STEM career skip physics until college? Complete a conceptual program in 9th and possibly AP in 12th?

No, I do not advocate skipping. Physics involves abstract concepts, and many students benefit from revisiting them at different levels. I woudl recommend an algebra based course if possible in 9th, to have it as a foundation for chem and bio. Calculus based physics is a required course for STE,m majors at the university; a student who choses not to take it in 12th will do fine taking it at uni - but a prior physics exposure is helpful (though not essential; I have successful students without high school physics)

 

What options exist for outsourcing? What kind of labs do you do with physics anyway?

Part time enrollment at you local high school

dual enrollment at college

Derek Owens online course (I have no personal experience, but have seen it recommended here)

 

You can do labs with household items very well for physics; the rigor of the lab is not in the complicated equipment, but in the sophisticated analysis of the data.

[TheApprentice]

A very timely thread. I've been struggling with this very topic with myself all weekend. Thanks elegantlion for starting this thread, and thanks regentrude for such a great post.:001_smile:

 

Now were can I find an algebra based physics course that is a step above conceptual, besides Derek Owens courses?

[Teachin'Mine]

Regentrude gave excellent advice. I would also recommend physics, chem, bio as the order, if the student has the required math. I have no experience other than this is the order we've used and I didn't care for the other order when I was in high school. For regular physics, we (meaning my dd) used Apologia. Dd found it easy to follow the concepts and math in the text and the labs were easy enough to do at home. IMO it was an excellent course for high school physics. Calculus based physics will be done at cc and the labs should be on a whole different level with equipment we could never afford to buy. :)

[Shawna in Texas]

We're doing Conceptual Physics next year. The main reason I chose it was because I think physics has gotten neglected the last 4 years. We've basically not had too much organization (well, not like history) and any rabbit trail we tend to go on with reading usually has to to with life science or chemistry. I prefer integrated science, but we don't delve too deeply into the physics portion, so I've decided physics whole hog for ninth. I scored a 1st semester Physics Labpaq on ebay for about $30, so I feel fairly confident at this point.

 

If dd decides to do STEM then we will probably outsource AP/dual credit Physics in 12th. Right now, we've got Psychiatrist, Window Washer, Cosmetologist, Mom, Nurse, Midwife, Forensic Scientist and working at Hot Topic as career goals, so I'm not going to worry about that, yet. :tongue_smilie:

[snowbeltmom]

Now where can I find an algebra based physics course that is a step above conceptual, besides Derek Owens courses?

Have you looked at Hippocampus? The website is www.hippocampus.org. They have video lessons for different levels of physics - from introductory level to Calculus based. The site also lists a number of textbooks that are aligned with the video lectures at each level.

 

Hippocampus is not an actual online class, but I think it is great component for a homestudy course or to supplement an outsourced class.

[Gwen in VA]

Another approach -- By following the traditional bio / chem / physics path, my kids were able to happily and easily do AP physics B with no prior physics.

 

They would not have had the solid math and test-taking skills to do AP physics B in 9th, but just by doing the AP physics B their senior year, after bio, chem, and AP chem, my kids were able to shortcut the process and take the AP class without having done an earlier physics class. (For a math/science kid, AP physics B is one of the easier AP exams -- the class is little more than an honors first-year physics class.)

 

I would NOT have a STEM kid skip physics --

 

1) physics is part of the core three science subjects -- bio, chem, and physics.

2) An acquaintance with physics in high school will prepare a student for the more advanced coursework in college that assumes some prior knowledge of physics.

3) If a kid thinks he is headed into engineering but he absolutely HATES physics, he may need to rethink his plans a bit. Meeting the beast in high school will help him to solidify his plans with some knowledge of what he is getting into.

[regentrude]

They would not have had the solid math and test-taking skills to do AP physics B in 9th, but just by doing the AP physics B their senior year, after bio, chem, and AP chem, my kids were able to shortcut the process and take the AP class without having done an earlier physics class. (For a math/science kid, AP physics B is one of the easier AP exams -- the class is little more than an honors first-year physics class.).

 

Agreed. I do not think anybody needs to take another physics class before AP B; that would be overkill.

 

I would like to add:

for a STEM major student, AP Physics B will not give college credit because it is algebra based, and the students are required to take calculus based physics at the university. Exception: biology majors may be required to only take an algebra based course, and AP B would fulfill that requirement.

Edited April 24, 2012 by regentrude

[snowbeltmom]

Another approach -- By following the traditional bio / chem / physics path, my kids were able to happily and easily do AP physics B with no prior physics.

 

I would NOT have a STEM kid skip physics --

 

 

 

:iagree: I would definitely not have a STEM kid skip physics.

 

Fwiw, I am also in the physics first camp. My oldest took AP Physics B last year as his first physics course. As others have said, Physic B only requires Alg. I and a little trig.

 

There are a lot of free resources on the College Board website to help prepare for the AP exam.

[Brenda in MA]

No, I do not advocate skipping. Physics involves abstract concepts, and many students benefit from revisiting them at different levels. I would recommend an algebra based course if possible in 9th, to have it as a foundation for chem and bio. Calculus based physics is a required course for STEM majors at the university; a student who chooses not to take it in 12th will do fine taking it at uni - but a prior physics exposure is helpful (though not essential; I have successful students without high school physics)

 

I would definitely recommend doing Conceptual Physics in 9th, followed by Chemistry in 10th, and Biology in 11th (could do AP Bio at this point if the student has a strong interest). Then, if he/she is interested in STEM, an AP Physics B course in 12th. I would recommend this sequence for a bright, but not gifted math/science kid. (if you can start this sequence with Conceptual Physics in 8th, that's would work, too).

 

I just don't think most kids are ready for a more math-heavy physics course in the 9th grade (even if they could do the math). I know that some kids can handle this easily in the 9th grade and many do, but I'm talking about the typical bright kid. My oldest went through the typical bio in 9th, chem in 10th, physics in 11th (and he did an AP Physics B course with Giancoli). That first physics course at the AP level was very difficult for him. He was able to do the math, but having to deal with a math-heavy course and physics concepts for the first time, resulted, I think, in a bit shallower understanding of the physics. He's gone on to an engineering major and has done well, but it hasn't been easy for him.

 

Younger son used Conceptual Physics and just loved the course. It was/is one of our favorites. If you choose to do the physics/chem/bio route, I highly recommend starting with CP.

 

Brenda

[regentrude]

nm

Edited April 24, 2012 by regentrude

[Guest cynthiacronrath]

We are in Agora Cyber Charter School. Wondering if anyone has experience with the K12 curriculum and its AP Physics course?

 

We are trying to decide if we should take AP Physics in a cyber/online environment or just jump to dual enrollment and take it at our local University.

 

My son has had math through Precalc/Trigonometry, science includes Honors Bio and Honors Chem. Next year he'll be in Ninth grade, and Physics is next, which greatly excites him.

 

I am an English/Humanities person, and out of my element here.

 

Any insights are greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

Cynthia

[MIch elle]

Intro. Physics is taught in 9th grade. Here are some samples of the state tests (MCAS): http://www.wrsd.net/wrhs/mcas.cfm

 

Many students in MA take this science sequence:

 

Intro. Physics

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

 

HTH

[elegantlion]

Just to throw these out there, here are some options I've found in my research:

 

Academic Earth has several courses on physics. The MIT ones look interesting.

 

Khan Academy is also listed.

 

The Great Courses has several physics options. This one is one my wish list. It seems to follow a sequence that would pair well with a textbook. This set is often on sale for around 150.00.

 

Someone else mentioned Hippocampus. They have options from Introductory Physics to AP Physics.

 

For textbooks:

 

There is the free option from ck12.org.

 

We opted to go with the College Physics by Knight, Jones, Field. I bought the first edition, volume 1 at a cheap price from amazon. There are two volumes, a student workbook, and a solutions manual available. This is an algebra based physics for biology majors. It was recommended and I find it very readable. We'll start this in the fall.

 

 

Supplemental books:

 

We read Simply Einstein this year, it was a wonderful introduction into Relativity. It's written by the same professor who does the Great Courses lectures.

 

The Great Books Foundation book together some readings in different science areas, one is on physics. You can download a sample here.

[jennynd]

Where I grow up, "real" science stated middle school. elementary school is more observing type activities than anything else. In middle school, all three are taught at the same time, but chemistry and physics are combined as one subject. It really make sense as early physics/Chemistry introduction IMO. I wish there are curriculum like that here...

[Kendall]

My EE major son agrees that he is glad he had physics in high school. He did Conceptual in 8th and Apologia in 11th and We tried Advanced Apologia in 12th.

 

I'm writing this in response to the poster who said if the child HATES physics in high school they might rethink college majors. But, my sons situation was different so I'm not necessarily giving a blanket disagreement to that statement.

 

My son hated the Advanced Physics and because of it thought he should change his intended major(engineering). Someone on here told me to hang in there and that Calc based physics would be better. I kept telling him that in college he would have a teacher and it would be better. It did. He liked Physics in college and got an A in Both Physics I and II (has III this semester).

[mom4peace]

I'll be teaching high school level physics to my DS14 and two to four of his friends, all then between 14 and 17. I've insisted upon a strong grasp of algebra and some basic trig understanding. We'll be using Singapore's Physics Matters book and should be managing most of the labs in the practical book, although some with modifications to be named later.

 

Our last pass at physics was in 6th grade (this course will be 10th grade), where my son and I used some of Conceptual Physics by Hewitt. After that, we did HS level Biology and HS Chemistry (my own plans, on Quarks and Quirks, link below, for both), with this year being the Earth Science we neglected all the way along because he studied so much of it on his own when he was younger. The second pass for bio and chem will be at a local university. Honestly, I'd rather he did physics there, too, but he already has a schedule with 8 college credits this fall, and I can't see adding four more for the physics his first year in a university classroom. (He's taking Calc I and a sign language class).

 

Physics first makes sense. I think it's best done on a bit different timeline, with somewhat different expectations, especially from a physics class taken before much upper level math has been taken. Taking the algebra out of physics or chemistry just seems to be a waste, IMO, so if those aren't underway, starting with bio or earth science might make more sense. I suppose conceptual chem and physics are possibilities if waiting for the math skills to be in place.

 

This is kind of rambly and based on nothing but our own experience.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

I have purposefully stayed away from physics discussions because I know I can add absolutely no value to them whatsoever! :D:001_smile::lol:

 

I have asked a lot about how to do 9th grade algebra-based physics, though. My first thought was to do Conceptual Physics. (We still might go with this.) Laugh if you will, but trying to put labs with this nearly drove me crazy... even with the great answers you all shared with me in a different thread. Since I never took physics, I feel lost and sometimes discouraged.... yet not defeated. :tongue_smilie:

 

I've since turned to Derek Owens Physics. Dd is trying a sample chapter. Believe me, this course would take care of MY struggles, but dd isn't convinced this is the right course for her. She's completing Algebra I in 8th grade. She understands the math in the algrbra yet struggles setting up a physics word problem. This might be the downfall of using Derek Owens. I'm just hoping we can work this out. At least we are moving in the right direction, however, because she needs a teacher, and Mr. Owens lecture/note-taking method is wonderful, I think.

 

Elegantlion's post which included a link to Khan was interesting to me. Dd seems to understand Khan. It looks like CP could be used with him. I'm going to have to see if this works. This still leaves me with labs. Regentrude, I have the lists of labs you've posted. It's just that I don't know how to use them.... how to squeeze the lesson out... the analysis you talk about. Also, I think the math practice in the Derek Owens class would stregthen and review dd's algebra skills. CP would not do this nearly as well.

 

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but Lori D. used TOPS with CP. My struggle with this is both the expense plus just knowing some of this labs work better than others.

 

The CP lab book isn't a sure thing either. Some experiments are too expensive to be done at home.

 

The Physics Classroom is FULL of physics... but overwhelming!

 

Labpaq is expensive and math intensive. Ugh...

 

I must say, Try Engineering did look pretty good if I could match labs to topics in the CP book: http://www.tryengineering.org/lesson.php

I still feel strange about doing this though...

 

Everything about physics labs just seems out of reach unless you understand physics.

 

I'm still trying to decide between CP and Derek Owens. If I can use Khan with CP that sounds like a good combination for dd..... but labs???

 

And then..... what if we just skip the idea of labs and just do the simple demonstrations.

 

I really appreciate this discussion. If nothing else, I've bumped the thread back up to the top.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Sweet Home Alabama

[regentrude]

Everything about physics labs just seems out of reach unless you understand physics.

...

 

 

Ah, but your students WILL understand physics, because that is what he is studying. And much you do not have to know beforehand., you can do the experiment to figure things out.

Let me explain this for a simple example: the pendulum.

You hang a mass from a string and let it swing and ask: how does the period, i.e. the time it takes for a full swing, depend on the mass, or the length of the string, or the amplitude of the swing? you do not need ot know physics to come up with a question like this - you just have to be curious.

So, you go and try it out. By high school, your student should know that he should only vary one thing at a time and keep all the other variables constant. So, for instance, you try different lengths of strings, but do not vary mass or amplitude.

He also should know that it would be more accurate to measure ten swings at a time and divide the time by ten. And that, since measurements are imprecise, he should repeat each experiment maybe ten times and average.

Now he has an average, and he also has a largest and smallest value which gives him an indication how accurate his results are.

Having had algebra, he knows that you can plot data in a two-axis graph: time for swing vs length of string. Plot them by hand on graph paper and put the error bars is - or use a graphing program.

repeat procedure by varying the other two variables (again, one at a time).

Your student will discover that the time does not depend on mass or amplitude, but solely on the length of the string.

Now, when he studies oscillations, he will learn from his book that the relationship is a formula T=2pi sqrt(L/g). he can either know this before doing the experiment and thus verifying the relationship, or he can do the experiment first and discover the relationship, only to read later in the book why it is like that.

 

Voila- you have done a beautiful physics experiment without really knowing much physics.

 

Oftentimes, your book will suggest demonstrations and experiments which you can try to replicate. Since the book explains the physics, you do not have to be the expert - you *learn* it from the book.

 

And then..... what if we just skip the idea of labs and just do the simple demonstrations.

I do not think demonstrations teach the student much. It would be a waste of time.

[Cosmos]

Physical science is a very basic introduction into the principles of physics and chemistry and can be taught in middle school/Jr high. It does not go into depth very much, but is a useful course, albeit high school level for an average student.

Conceptual physics goes a bit deeper and uses simple beginning algebra to make physics quantitative. One very good text is Hewitt.

A more rigorous treatment is possible using a full fledged algebra/trig based physics course (do not be scared by the word "trig"; you do not need a full trigonometry course, just a basic half-hour introduction). This is, IMO, an excellent option to begin the high school science sequence for a student who has taken algebra already.

 

Do you have a recommendation for a "full-fledged algebra/trig based physics" text? Thanks!

[regentrude]

Do you have a recommendation for a "full-fledged algebra/trig based physics" text? Thanks!

 

I use College Physics by Knight, Jones, Field. Intro text for biology majors.

 

Giancoli is another good option.

[Mama Geek]

For whatever my 2 cents are worth, here are my thoughts. I think the conceptual physics is much more important to STEM majors that the Trig based physics. If you can go into a Calc based physics having a physical understanding of how things are actually working it will help more than you can know. You can also make it through an engineering program without liking physics. I loved Calc and struggled greatly with Physics. I was lucky that my dh had his BS in Physics and was able to give me visual examples of how the concepts worked.

[regentrude]

For whatever my 2 cents are worth, here are my thoughts. I think the conceptual physics is much more important to STEM majors that the Trig based physics..

 

A good algebra and trig based physics course/book teaches the concepts too, but in more depth, because some concepts can only be truly understood when the student works quantitative problems.

I do not want anybody to think that a math based physics course does not teach concepts; it explains the concepts but has math as an additional tool for these explanations.

[avilma]

Since my dd is not yet 5, I suspect I cannot add much direct practical advice for teaching a highschooler, but since I have taught physics at a college level for 10 years, I would like to add the main lesson I have learned myself during my physics studies.

When I finished high school I had already taken 6 years of physics. The first 5 were algebra based. The last year was calculus based. I was considered a star student, an Olympiad level one. I loved physics.

 

Naturally, in college I enrolled in a five year very intensive physics degree. I did very well ... in all math subjects that I had to take. See, what I hadn't realized was that physics is really an experimental science. During high school we had done many labs but the actual measurements where always done by the teacher (she used to say it was because of time limitations, we had only one hour to do one lab). All we had to do was plug the numbers in the formula and get the results. The worst part was that I suspect that the teacher was fudging the measurements so that the results came out what they were supposed to be. Getting the "correct" result was considered very important.

 

Labs in college were independent experiments. Soon I found out that experiments "didn't work". Newton's law was not correct. Friction coefficient varied wildly every time I measured it. Pendulum period does depend on the amplitude. And so on. During high school I had been led to believe that physics is an exact science. But physics is just a model of the real world and not a very exact model of it. I struggled with that realization throughout all my undergrad physics studies and not only on the experimental part of it but also or even more on the theoretical part of it. Because, of course, a good theoretical course is going to spell out when the models you are studying are valid in reality and very often it seems that spelling out those conditions was harder than the actual development of the theory. And I had it on the back of my mind that the theory is the only important thing.

 

So here would be my advice to the highschooler me or whoever was teaching me at that time. Do an experiment, take some data and do some calculations. Do few experiments but do them really well. By this I mean take note of all the conditions that might be affecting your measurements, repeat the measurements many many times, do use these measurements to calculate the results, see how using some set of measurements versus some other set of measurements changes the results. In short do what scientists do, do an experiment and reason (using data measurements) about it.

The experiments can be from physics, chemistry or even biology. They can and in fact I think they should be very simple but they should involve measurements and calculations. For example measure g by letting stones fall from the third floor window and measuring that time it takes to reach the ground. That sounds like a very simple experiment but it should take a lot of repetitions to actually start getting values for g close to the expected ones.

 

I wish I could recommend a good book on experimental science to be used in high school but I am not aware of any. Maybe they exist, I haven't really looked hard at all. But I think that in all science textbooks that are plenty of experimental ideas to choose from. Pick a few that you find most interesting.

Edited April 24, 2012 by avilma

[Mama Geek]

A good algebra and trig based physics course/book teaches the concepts too, but in more depth, because some concepts can only be truly understood when the student works quantitative problems.

I do not want anybody to think that a math based physics course does not teach concepts; it explains the concepts but has math as an additional tool for these explanations.

 

I just think an algebra based class is not nearly as good as a calc based class and I don't see much advantage in taking one. Yes I took algebra based physics in high school and 3 semester of physics based calculus in college. Once you are able to do the calculus, the physics problems become much less tedious to solve.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Ah, but your students WILL understand physics, because that is what he is studying. And much you do not have to know beforehand., you can do the experiment to figure things out.

Let me explain this for a simple example: the pendulum.

You hang a mass from a string and let it swing and ask: how does the period, i.e. the time it takes for a full swing, depend on the mass, or the length of the string, or the amplitude of the swing? you do not need ot know physics to come up with a question like this - you just have to be curious.

So, you go and try it out. By high school, your student should know that he should only vary one thing at a time and keep all the other variables constant. So, for instance, you try different lengths of strings, but do not vary mass or amplitude.

He also should know that it would be more accurate to measure ten swings at a time and divide the time by ten. And that, since measurements are imprecise, he should repeat each experiment maybe ten times and average.

Now he has an average, and he also has a largest and smallest value which gives him an indication how accurate his results are.

Having had algebra, he knows that you can plot data in a two-axis graph: time for swing vs length of string. Plot them by hand on graph paper and put the error bars is - or use a graphing program.

repeat procedure by varying the other two variables (again, one at a time).

Your student will discover that the time does not depend on mass or amplitude, but solely on the length of the string.

Now, when he studies oscillations, he will learn from his book that the relationship is a formula T=2pi sqrt(L/g). he can either know this before doing the experiment and thus verifying the relationship, or he can do the experiment first and discover the relationship, only to read later in the book why it is like that.

 

Voila- you have done a beautiful physics experiment without really knowing much physics.

 

Oftentimes, your book will suggest demonstrations and experiments which you can try to replicate. Since the book explains the physics, you do not have to be the expert - you *learn* it from the book.

 

 

I do not think demonstrations teach the student much. It would be a waste of time.

 

 

Regentrude,

Thank you so much for writing this out. You really make it look EASY!:001_smile: This does help, and I need to look back at the other experiments you've posted and see if I could apply the above example to the others.

 

I have a better understanding now of how you set up simple experiments, but there are some parts of your example that I would not have thought of...

 

Quoted from above:

• Having had algebra, he knows that you can plot data in a two-axis graph: time for swing vs length of string. Plot them by hand on graph paper and put the error bars is - or use a graphing program.
  repeat procedure by varying the other two variables (again, one at a time).
  
• Now, when he studies oscillations, he will learn from his book that the relationship is a formula T=2pi sqrt(L/g). he can either know this before doing the experiment and thus verifying the relationship, or he can do the experiment first and discover the relationship, only to read later in the book why it is like that.
  

What if I tried to make up an experiment, but just didn't do enough analysis simply due to my lack of experience? Plotting on a 2-axis graph isn't something that just comes naturally to me. I wouldn't have even known to do this. I've never heard of the oscillations formula.... I'm sorry for sounding so desperate.

 

I've thought of this before but somehow forgot to check it out....If I could find a used Apologia Physics book, could I match those labs with CP? Apologia labs use common materials, and its written to the student. I think I'll start another post and ask this, but I thought it also fit here. Maybe I should have thought about Apologia instead of CP. It's an open-and-go curriculum (as long as dd has enough math background.)

 

I remember reading somewhere that Apologia physics requires Algebra II. Maybe that's why I didn't research it further. Dd will finish Alg. I in 8th and take geometry in 9th.

[regentrude]

What if I tried to make up an experiment, but just didn't do enough analysis simply due to my lack of experience? Plotting on a 2-axis graph isn't something that just comes naturally to me.

Plotting the data is the standard way to analyze and display them. Your physics book will have many such graphs of quantities. It is the best way to show how a quantity varies with another variable, because you do not see from a table of numbers what the exact nature of the relationship is- linear, quadratic, etc.

Graphing data in the x-y -plane is a skill that should have been covered in math, starting in algebra 1 with linear and quadratic functions.

 

I've never heard of the oscillations formula....

 

That is why your student will study physics - to learn these things: to describe motion, to find out how physical quantities depend on each other.

 

If you are feeling so uncomfortable with labs, I suggest you go with a kit that comes with full instructions.

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Plotting the data is the standard way to analyze and display them. Your physics book will have many such graphs of quantities. It is the best way to show how a quantity varies with another variable, because you do not see from a table of numbers what the exact nature of the relationship is- linear, quadratic, etc.

Graphing data in the x-y -plane is a skill that should have been covered in math, starting in algebra 1 with linear and quadratic functions.

 

 

 

That is why your student will study physics - to learn these things: to describe motion, to find out how physical quantities depend on each other.

 

If you are feeling so uncomfortable with labs, I suggest you go with a kit that comes with full instructions.

 

Thank you, Regentrude. I agree. That is exactly what I'm researching.

[TravelingChris]

My d, who is a stem kid, is doing Conceptual Physics this year along with Biology. Next year will be Chemistry. 11th grade will be AP Physics or Physics in college plus AP Bio, probably. I haven't planned that far and will see what she is interested in and what opportunities are available.

 

Physics is the backbone of the other sciences. That is why for a STEM child, we do it first.

[SailorMom]

I guess I qualify; I have a PhD in physics and teach at a four year university.

 

In a nutshell, that's it. All things must obey the laws of physics. Biological systems are very complex and require other descriptions, but every atom, cell, organ and organism has to obey the laws of physics.

On a more practical level, chemistry is actually only an application of physics. An understanding of physics is necessary for an understanding of chemistry, and an understanding of chemistry helps a lot with studying biology. While in our high school days, biology was focused on classifications and organisms, modern biology education is very much focused on the cellular and molecular level - every text begins with an intro to biochemistry which is much easier to handle with previous chemistry knowledge.

So, physics ends up at the bottom of the pyramid, being the foundation for the other sciences.

 

Physical science is a very basic introduction into the principles of physics and chemistry and can be taught in middle school/Jr high. It does not go into depth very much, but is a useful course, albeit high school level for an average student.

Conceptual physics goes a bit deeper and uses simple beginning algebra to make physics quantitative. One very good text is Hewitt.

A more rigorous treatment is possible using a full fledged algebra/trig based physics course (do not be scared by the word "trig"; you do not need a full trigonometry course, just a basic half-hour introduction). This is, IMO, an excellent option to begin the high school science sequence for a student who has taken algebra already.

A calculus based phsyics course obviously requires calculus. Most texts uses single variable calculus, but to better understand electrodynamics it would be beneficial if the student had multivariable calculus.

 

No, I do not advocate skipping. Physics involves abstract concepts, and many students benefit from revisiting them at different levels. I woudl recommend an algebra based course if possible in 9th, to have it as a foundation for chem and bio. Calculus based physics is a required course for STE,m majors at the university; a student who choses not to take it in 12th will do fine taking it at uni - but a prior physics exposure is helpful (though not essential; I have successful students without high school physics)

 

Part time enrollment at you local high school

dual enrollment at college

Derek Owens online course (I have no personal experience, but have seen it recommended here)

 

You can do labs with household items very well for physics; the rigor of the lab is not in the complicated equipment, but in the sophisticated analysis of the data.

 

Thank you so much - you just convinced me :)

I've been waffling back and forth on DS's science next year. He's doing great in algebra, so I think we're going to tackle the algebra/trig based physics.

[Tasia]

regentrude - What math would be required for a "full-fledged algebra/trig based physics" like College Physics? I know the necessary trig can be taught in an afternoon, but which Algebra would need to be completed before starting physics?

[regentrude]

regentrude - What math would be required for a "full-fledged algebra/trig based physics" like College Physics? I know the necessary trig can be taught in an afternoon, but which Algebra would need to be completed before starting physics?

 

Algebra 1 is sufficient for almost everything.

Exponentials and logarithms will be needed if you decide to cover RC circuits (no big deal if you leave them out)

 

Student needs to be rock solid on linear equations, systems of linear equations, quadratics.

[Tasia]

Thank you. :)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I use College Physics by Knight, Jones, Field. Intro text for biology majors.

 

Giancoli is another good option.

 

Would you mind being a little more specific for the befudled.

 

I'm seeing two different physics books by Knight, Jones, Field. One is College Physics: A Strategic Approach, which seems to be algebra based. Does a high schooler want both volumes 1 & 2 of this book? Would you say that the workbooks are worth getting?

 

The other book I'm seeing is Physics for Scientists and Engineers. I'm pretty confident that is more advanced than what I'm looking for.

[regentrude]

Would you mind being a little more specific for the befudled.

 

I'm seeing two different physics books by Knight, Jones, Field. One is College Physics: A Strategic Approach, which seems to be algebra based. Does a high schooler want both volumes 1 & 2 of this book? Would you say that the workbooks are worth getting?

 

The other book I'm seeing is Physics for Scientists and Engineers. I'm pretty confident that is more advanced than what I'm looking for.

 

 

Knight, Jones, Field College Physics: A Strategic Approach

is the algebra and trig based text I have been recommending. (Knight Physics for Scientists and Engineers is calculus based.)

 

The College Physics textbook comes in two edition: 1st and 2nd. Get the 1st if you can, because it is a lot cheaper and there have been hardly any changes.

You can either get a hardcover version that contains everything, or two separate paperback books for volumes 1 (mechanics) and 2 (electricity and magnetism, plus a bit of Modern Physics). If you go with the paperbacks, you need both volumes.

 

The workbooks are definitely worth getting; I find them an excellent resource for conceptual problems and use them extensively with my classes. For the workbook, the 2nd edition is better; more and better problems. You can use the 2nd edition of the workbooks with the 1st edition of the textbook without any problem.

 

Hope that helps.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Knight, Jones, Field College Physics: A Strategic Approach

is the algebra and trig based text I have been recommending. (Knight Physics for Scientists and Engineers is calculus based.)

 

The College Physics textbook comes in two edition: 1st and 2nd. Get the 1st if you can, because it is a lot cheaper and there have been hardly any changes.

You can either get a hardcover version that contains everything, or two separate paperback books for volumes 1 (mechanics) and 2 (electricity and magnetism, plus a bit of Modern Physics). If you go with the paperbacks, you need both volumes.

 

The workbooks are definitely worth getting; I find them an excellent resource for conceptual problems and use them extensively with my classes. For the workbook, the 2nd edition is better; more and better problems. You can use the 2nd edition of the workbooks with the 1st edition of the textbook without any problem.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Thank you. You are awesome.

 

Any suggestions for how to break up the book? Generally equal weight to the chapters? Heavier on mechanics?

[AngieW in Texas]

I have an MS in Physics and although my two older girls did not do physics 1st, that is the way I'm going for my youngest.

 

There are really 4 levels of physics texts. I'll start with the most basic and go up from there.

 

Conceptual Physics:

This requires only Algebra I and has the least math of all the physics courses. The text usually recommended for this is Hewitt's Conceptual Physics. Make sure that you get the high school version of the text because you won't be able to get teacher materials for the college version. This is what I'm going to be doing with my youngest next year for 9th grade.

 

Regular High School Physics:

The text that seems to be rated best for this is Holt Physics by Serway and Faughn. I haven't actually used this text, but I have looked through it and it seems pretty good.

 

AP Physics B:

I taught this to my middle dd last year. This course is almost definitely going to need to be taught. It is unlikely to work as a self-taught course. The general recommendation is to have Algebra II completed before beginning the text, but kids who are very strong in math can do Algebra II at the same time (my dd and my other student were both doing Algebra II concurrently). We used Giancoli's Physics (that was the full title, not the one that says Physics for Scientists and Engineers because that one is calculus based). Be sure you get the high school AP version and not the college version because you won't be able to get teacher materials for the college version. There are complete solution manuals available for this text.

 

Calculus-based physics:

Giancoli's also has a calculus-based version (Physics for Scientists and Engineers), so that's probably what I'd go with. I haven't taught this level in a long time. It is what I taught at cc right after I graduated. I have no idea what text I used back then. It was the text that was assigned for the course by the department head.

[Tattarrattat]

For the workbook, the 2nd edition is better; more and better problems. You can use the 2nd edition of the workbooks with the 1st edition of the textbook without any problem.

 

Regentrude, I have the 1st edition workbooks. Do you think it's still worth getting the 2nd edition ones? Also, is there a way to get solutions to workbooks other than Media Manager which is out of print?

 

if we want to add lab, is there a ready to use kit that you would recommend? Good but not too expensive? If we go with put-together lab, is there any guide we can follow?

 

Thanks in advance for your help!

[regentrude]

Regentrude, I have the 1st edition workbooks. Do you think it's still worth getting the 2nd edition ones?

 

No, if you already have the 1st edition, I would not consider it worth it to get the 2nd.

 

Also, is there a way to get solutions to workbooks other than Media Manager which is out of print?

 

I am not aware of any way to get solutions if you are not an instructor with a higher learning institution. You can try negotiating with the publisher.

 

if we want to add lab, is there a ready to use kit that you would recommend? Good but not too expensive? If we go with put-together lab, is there any guide we can follow?

 

I do not know anything about physics lab kits because I designed my own.

Sorry not to be of any help there.

[Tattarrattat]

Regentrude, thanks so much!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I contacted Pearson yesterday. They seemed more than willing to give me access, so long as they had a record of a purchase of the text through their website (not a college bookstore, Amazon or used).

 

However, the lowest price for the full text that I was finding is about $242 (that is with Mastering Physics). I may end up counting that as the cost of teaching this course to my two older kids.

 

I'm also now trying to see if I can get access to instructor material for the Giancoli text. It seems like AP Physics B uses Giancoli frequently, so I'm finding more sample syllabai tied to that book.

 

(I'm at that stage in planning where I'm swinging wildly between excitement and trepidation. Very concerned that I'm biting off more than we can chew. Ack. But I don't feel like I have a ton of choices. If I flip flop and go with biology, there are coop classes, but they all use Apologia. I not only don't really like the content, but think that it would put my kids into a position of causing friction within our coop.)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Is there such a thing as a physics readiness test?

[regentrude]

Is there such a thing as a physics readiness test?

 

Not that I know of. There is no specific readiness a student needs to study physics - other than solid algebra 1 skills for a student who wants to take an algebra based physics course.

[AngieW in Texas]

For conceptual physics, you need to be at least partway through Algebra I and preferably finished with Algebra I.

 

For regular high school physics, you need to have a solid understanding of all of Algebra I (including the quadratic equation).

 

For AP Physics B, you need to be absolutely solid in Algebra I, but you can take Algebra II concurrently if you are a strong math student. It is generally preferable to do Algebra II before this course. My dd and the other student I had for this class did Algebra II concurrently, but they were both strong math and science students.

 

For AP Physics C, some students can take Calculus I concurrently, but it is generally recommended that you complete Calculus I before you take it. I took them concurrently in college, so it is possible to do them at the same time (or at least, it was back then).

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I guess I'm trying to measure real algebra ability vs just having survived the chapters.

 

We've been reviewing polynomials and I'm concerned with some of the mistakes they are making. I'm not sure if physics will cement their understanding or display my hubris in taking it on first.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I did find this test. It may at least help me decide which level of non calc physics is a good fit.

 

http://www.brynmawr.edu/physics/courses/math_ready_exam_2009.pdf

 

They have gone through quadratics in AOPS, but struggle with creative applications.