Questions about physics

[Gil]

It's been decided that we're taking the "Physics First" approach to science and aren't doing any labs at home. Our plan is to study Physics, then Chemistry followed by Biology. I'm putting together course syllabus and need some guidance from some of you who know way better than I do about this stuff.

What topics of physics are required before switching to chemistry?

IS Physics I a true prerequisite for Physics II? Or can we do topics typically covered in Physics 2 first, or concurrent to topics typically covered in Physics 1?

Which topics (from those listed) can we skip? Which do you recommended because they're "cool" or fun?

The physics text that we have breaks down in units based on the following themes and with the following chapters.

• Introduction
• Mechanics
  • 1-D Kinematics
  • Vectors in Physics
  • 2-D Kinematics
  • Newtons Laws of Motions
  • Applications of Newton's Laws
  • Work and Kinetic Energy
  • Potential Energy and Conservative Forces
  • Linear Momentum and Collisions
  • Rotational Kinematics and Energy
  • Rotational Dynamics and Static Equilibrium
  • Gravity
  • Oscillations About Equilibrium
  • Waves and Sound
  • Fluids
• Thermal Physics
  • Temperature and Heat
  • Phases and Phase Changes
  • Laws of Thermodynamics
• Electromagnetism
  • Electric Charges, Forces and Fields
  • Electric Potential and Electric Potential Energy
  • Electric Current and Direct-Current Circuits
  • Magnetism
  • Magnetic Flux and Faraday's Law of Induction
  • Alternating-Current Circuits
• Light and Optics
  • Electromagnetic Waves
  • Geometrical Optics
  • Optical Instruments
  • Physical Optics
• Modern Physics
  • Relativity
  • Quantum Physics
  • Atomic Physics
  • Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Radiation

[Gil]

bumping for replies.

[regentrude]

Yes, you absolutely have to do Physics 1 before physics 2, because electricity and magnetism require the concepts of forces, energy, torque, etc that are developed in physics 1. Moreover, physics 1 deals with mechanics, i.e. the behavior of objects you can see and have an intuition about, while physics 2 covers the more abstract topics of charged particles and electric and magnetic fields, something students have no direct experience with, and no intuition about their behavior.

If your chemistry course covers thermodynamics, quantum, atomic, and nuclear physics you can leave those topics for chemistry. 

However, the Modern Physics topics are the "cool" ones that can get students excited.

You do not need to cover any of the listed topics before chemistry, because  all chemistry texts I have seen assume no prior physics knowledge and are self contained. Physics first is useful for systematic reasons and to develop systematic problem solving techniques, but not because the material covered is actually a prerequisite for chemistry.

 

[Gil]

Good to know. Okay, so Regentrude, are there any topics we need before starting Modern Physics?

We've began mechanics already but I'd like to know is it feasible to interject the chapters/topics in Modern Physics every so often or should we just plug on through the book in order?

I'm kind of floundering because physics isn't my forte, but they'd expected it would be "fun", and I get the feeling that they're feeling a bit let down, I've had complaints that "these are just word problems!" and "no matter what you use the same basic formula 10,000 times!"

We're doing okay with the material, and understanding well enough. But their reaction is just..."meh" instead of "Oh, that's soo cool!"

The chemistry text that I have doesn't include quantum, atomic, or nuclear physics, so we'll have to do them via our physics text.

 

[regentrude]

13 minutes ago, Gil said:

Good to know. Okay, so Regentrude, are there any topics we need before starting Modern Physics?

We've began mechanics already but I'd like to know is it feasible to interject the chapters/topics in Modern Physics every so often or should we just plug on through the book in order?

I'm kind of floundering because physics isn't my forte, but they'd expected it would be "fun", and I get the feeling that they're feeling a bit let down, I've had complaints that "these are just word problems!" and "no matter what you use the same basic formula 10,000 times!"

We're doing okay with the material, and understanding well enough. But their reaction is just..."meh" instead of "Oh, that's soo cool!"

I think you pretty much have to go in order. Until the concepts of energy, momentum, and angular momentum have been introduced, talking about quantum mechanics makes no sense.

As for "just word problems": physics is skill based. You have to do problems, not just talk about physics. Just like you don't just wax poetically about multiplication and similar triangles in math - you use the concepts to do something with them, to solve problems. And yes, sometimes learning to do things is boring. Just like playing etudes and scales on the piano before you can play the moonlight sonata.

As for "using the basic formula 10,000 times": what curriculum are you using? I often have students whose high school physics created the impression that physics was a simply a grab bag of equations from which they had to pick the right one to stick numbers in. That is not what physics is, and not how problem solving should be taught.

ETA: I am reading in your signature that you are talking about 5th grade. Is that correct? Perhaps your 5th graders aren't really ready for high school physics?

[Gil]

7 hours ago, regentrude said:

I think you pretty much have to go in order. Until the concepts of energy, momentum, and angular momentum have been introduced, talking about quantum mechanics makes no sense. Okay, thanks. Will do.

As for "just word problems": physics is skill based. You have to do problems, not just talk about physics. Just like you don't just wax poetically about multiplication and similar triangles in math - you use the concepts to do something with them, to solve problems. And yes, sometimes learning to do things is boring. Just like playing etudes and scales on the piano before you can play the moonlight sonata. I think they're just disappointed. They'd been told for a long time that Physics is where math gets "really fun", and that since they enjoy math, they'd enjoy physics a lot too. I think its just not "living up to the hype".

As for "using the basic formula 10,000 times": what curriculum are you using? I often have students whose high school physics created the impression that physics was a simply a grab bag of equations from which they had to pick the right one to stick numbers in. That is not what physics is, and not how problem solving should be taught. I know that I'm biased, but I think they've got a fairly strong foundation in academic problem solving. We've been building problem solving via programming, building tech-projects and mathematics for a few years now. We're not doing physics to learn "problem-solving"

ETA: I am reading in your signature that you are talking about 5th grade. Is that correct? Perhaps your 5th graders aren't really ready for high school physics?Yeah, they're 5th grade, but they're definitely ready. With most of their subjects, I always have gone the extra mile to make it fun, keep it interesting, pulling in different strands of the subject to diversify, etc. But in math and tech, I've always known the next few levels ahead of them. With modern languages it's easy because there is an entire world of people, and a media-rich culture, etc to dabble in.

But with physics (and all the natural sciences), I don't have the extra knowledge and I don't know any of the branches and the only place you ever really use physics is...in physics class or as a physicist? I guess we'll just soldier on.

They're 5th grade now, I'm busy and so I have been dialing back all the "Rah-rah!" effort to try and keep fun present in their academics, but I'll probably have to put something together to hook their interests a little more each unit.

 

[Farrar]

If you're doing high school level physics with much younger students, why purposefully leave out the labs? Some kids just don't gravitate toward labs, but I'd think that would be an obvious way to make it more engaging for most kids. And if you already made the decision it's not going to be a "lab science" then you don't have to worry about doing lab reports or checking off some specific list of labs.

[regentrude]

I would approach teaching physics to 5th graders completely differently ; even for gifted kids (BTDT) I do not consider a textbook approach suitable at that age. (And I am saying this as a physics professor who certainly values a rigorous science education.)

But to answer your questions:

24 minutes ago, Gil said:

know that I'm biased, but I think they've got a fairly strong foundation in academic problem solving. We've been building problem solving via programming, building tech-projects and mathematics for a few years now. We're not doing physics to learn "problem-solving"

I was not talking about problem solving in general, but specifically referring to problem solving in physics. That is a skill that has to be developed and practiced in a systematic way: starting with a diagram of the problem, labeling all given and unknown quantities, working in symbols to derive an expression of the unknown in terms of known variables (not just a number), evaluating what the derived formula means.

Quote

 and the only place you ever really use physics is...in physics class or as a physicist?

What does "use physics" mean? What is your  objective in teaching physics? I don't teach physics so my kids can become physicists, but so they can understand how the world works, and how scientists work. 

And physics is not just used by physicists. Obviously, engineering applies a lot of physics. My biology students use physics when they use microscopes, centrifuges, understand the functioning of cell walls. Plumbing and electrical wiring are direct applications of physics. Anybody who builds model rockets or trebuchets uses physics. And so on.

 

 

[Farrar]

Just adding... "ready" doesn't only mean "able to do the work." It can also mean "able to be engaged in the work." I guess I'm just struck by that. We talk a good bit on the boards about kids who are able to read adult level books, but who aren't ready for them and finding books that suit their age and understanding that still challenge their reading. Maybe they're really ready for high school physics in all ways... but also, maybe just because they can do the math involved, read the textbook, and memorize the information, it doesn't mean it's the right course for them at this time. I'm good with forcing a high schooler to just buckle down and do it when it comes to a basic science class. But an elementary student? If they're engaged and enjoying it most of the time, then that's perfect and amazing. It can be so rewarding to have gifted learners. But if they're not most of the time, then I'd pull back. Sometimes gifted learners don't need to be pushed ahead in traditional academic ways.

[Gil]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

What does "use physics" mean? What is your  objective in teaching physics? Besides humoring my kids, I don't have one really. They had asked me to teach it to them for a while, but I finally agreed because they were really curious because they'd heard from a couple of adults they respect that physics was "fun" and though we've always had a very Gil-directed home school, they are getting older and really wanted to mix things up a bit. Because they are 10/11 now, and I do want them to become more self-directed and making the effort to teach them what they want to learn about more seemed reasonable. We've definitely got time on our side. They have the requisite skills to break down a variety of problems, and solve them, they have the requisite math etc. Physics was just "something to do next".

We had physics texts on hand already. They had began to really enjoy various science documentaries and books from the library, and have enjoyed the same units from "non-majors" texts in the sciences. They said they don't want to drop physics, but they want "the cool/real/interesting/fun physics" but it seems we've got to get through the material in order.

Its highly probable that they just need a better teacher. When I have to "co-learn" subjects we move at a sloths pace and everyone winds up frustrated by the speed of progress. Maturity-wise and emotionally, they still very much need a "teacher" involved to direct them, to present the material, to walk through the text with them, etc. Since it seems we can't skip around, they'll have to decide if they really want to do the ground-work for learning the parts they want to learn about. It seems that it might just be a dinner-before desert, type of thing.

If they really want desert, they'll have to eat their dinner.

I don't teach physics so my kids can become physicists, but so they can understand how the world works, and how scientists work.

And physics is not just used by physicists. Obviously, engineering applies a lot of physics. My biology students use physics when they use microscopes, centrifuges, understand the functioning of cell walls. Plumbing and electrical wiring are direct applications of physics. Anybody who builds model rockets or trebuchets uses physics. And so on.

 

 

[regentrude]

Gil, it is very difficult to quote you since you replied inside the quote. 

If they want "fun", why not continue reading non fiction books and watching documentaries, adding science museums and the like? At this age, I would be much more concerned with keeping the spark alive than with a systematic coverage. I strongly dislike a textbook approach before high school, because it tends to kill the joy and is unnecessary. 

If they want the "cool" topics and some excitement, get some Great Courses lectures, and some books on particle physics and astrophysics.

If they are hands on learners, do labs and demonstrations, instead of slogging through a textbook. Just because they can do the math does not mean this is a suitable approach.

[regentrude]

Instead of a standard textbook, have you looked at books like Bloomfield's How things work- Physics in everyday life?

[regentrude]

just saw that there is also a Coursera course for this that starts tomorrow:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/how-things-work

[Gil]

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Gil, it is very difficult to quote you since you replied inside the quote. Sorry

1) If they want "fun", why not continue reading non fiction books and watching documentaries, adding science museums and the like? At this age, I would be much more concerned with keeping the spark alive than with a systematic coverage. I strongly dislike a textbook approach before high school, because it tends to kill the joy and is unnecessary. 

2) If they want the "cool" topics and some excitement, get some Great Courses lectures, and some books on particle physics and astrophysics.

If they are hands on learners, do labs and demonstrations, instead of slogging through a textbook. Just because they can do the math does not mean this is a suitable approach.

1) They requested multiple times to start "real" physics/and have been wanting to use the physics textbooks that we have on the shelf. I guess they were just too curious and impatient for their own good. I haven't had a chance to study far ahead of them so we're going at a slower than normal pace.

They especially wanted me to teach the physics course, as I've been only supervising their Japanese and staunchly refuse to get more involved in it than making sure that they sit down each day to do it, checking their notebooks and quizzing them to ensure they're learning their vocabulary.

But for us it's really best I pull back gradually and stay involved to keep things on track. 

So while I don't know physics, I can follow the material well enough, but since they wanted to start now I haven't been able pre-learn much of the material and sure haven't had time to 'Gil-ify" the course, we've just been going through the text because that's what I've got. They insisted they wanted to use the book, and they chose this book out of the options that we had. If nothing else, I guess this will be a valuable experience in how they'll need to have a little more faith that "Gil knows best".

2) Which Great Courses do you recommend? Our library has a few and they've watched some of them, but we also have ILL in our city. Generally, they have a better success-rate and performance-record with print-based materials vs screen/electronic for learning.

They are easier to engage/direct/re-direct with a book than with a screen. They tend to daydream when watching, but when reading-discussing-doing with a human over a book or at a white board, they stay more on task and retain the material better.

[regentrude]

You may want to post the question about GC recommendations separately; I have not used those. But if your kids engage better with print, then maybe that is not a good option.

Which textbook have you chosen? 

[Gil]

33 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Instead of a standard textbook, have you looked at books like Bloomfield's How things work- Physics in everyday life?

I got them each a copy of Physics for People Who Think They Don't Like Physics from our local book store, and they've been reading it through, they said it was a really a good "introduction" and that's easy to understand.

I bought a single copy of Bloomfields book a little while ago, because it aligns with our Physics text better than the PfPWTTDLP books, but I haven't gotten around to reading it myself. I gave it to them, but I doubt that they've read it either. When school lets out after May, we're taking a break from Physics and re-evaluating the course and whether they want to do it or not after summer.  Just last night they said they want to keep at it, but I will ask them again at the end of May if they still want to do physics and if so, we'll have to come up with a new plan.

They are usually more engaged and interested during our lessons, so it's stuck out that they are just "meh" about physics as time goes on.

 

[Gil]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

You may want to post the question about GC recommendations separately; I have not used those. But if your kids engage better with print, then maybe that is not a good option.

Which textbook have you chosen? 

The book is Physics by Walker. We have the 2nd edition and the Student Study Guide that goes with it.

Since the semester just ended, there will be an infusion of text books at the used book store coming in soon, so maybe I'll take them to see if we can find a better text.

[MamaSprout]

I found the Great Courses Physics videos that I previewed via Hoopla to be pretty dry. Take a look at the GPB videos. The guy that teaches them is kind of a goof-ball and the note taking guides help keep kiddos focused. A book for extra problems and vocabulary is helpful, even if you get the teacher materials. Oddly, my dd did better with the abstract topics than the mechanics, but we also got better at doing labs the second half of the year.

I think the advice to do hands on stuff is good. Even labs your kids have seen before have kind of an "ah-ha" moment when they can apply them to the "real" physics.

[EKS]

I guess I missed this thread before.

There are a lot of things that are worth doing that aren't "fun" in the the way that kids normally understand the word.  Some things don't get to be "fun" until a person becomes proficient with a certain knowledge base and skill set.  I would say that physics falls into both categories.

Do your kids know calculus yet?  I didn't really appreciate physics until I took a calculus based physics course. 

If they like history, the book The Mechanical Universe is very good.  Well, it seems good--I've only worked through the first few chapters.  The thing that is interesting about The Mechanical Universe is that they show how the discipline evolved.  Also, there are videos that go with it (that are free), though I know you said that videos don't work that well with your kids.

I think you are right to question your teaching.  I think it is very difficult to make a subject "fun" if you don't have the big picture yourself.  Perhaps you could put off their study of it so that you can work through the text first?  The last thing you want is for them to decide that they hate physics when it sounds like it could be something they might enjoy as adults.

Anyway, here is a link to The Mechanical Universe videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMmeAjQTXc&list=PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5G0dk-XGtA5cZ

And to the text: https://www.amazon.com/Mechanical-Universe-Introduction-Mechanics-1985-08-30/dp/B01FGORDWM/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526913140&sr=1-2&keywords=the+mechanical+universe+mechanics+and+heat

[MarkT]

On 5/20/2018 at 5:37 PM, MamaSprout said:

I found the Great Courses Physics videos that I previewed via Hoopla to be pretty dry. Take a look at the GPB videos. The guy that teaches them is kind of a goof-ball and the note taking guides help keep kiddos focused. A book for extra problems and vocabulary is helpful, even if you get the teacher materials. Oddly, my dd did better with the abstract topics than the mechanics, but we also got better at doing labs the second half of the year.

I think the advice to do hands on stuff is good. Even labs your kids have seen before have kind of an "ah-ha" moment when they can apply them to the "real" physics.

Which instructor?  I like Wolfson but then again I am an Engineer so goofy isn't always needed - Wolfson has good presentation style. I have had so many boring STEM professors through my education college and post college that my bar is fairly low  :)

 

 

[MamaSprout]

31 minutes ago, MarkT said:

Which instructor?  I like Wolfson but then again I am an Engineer so goofy isn't always needed - Wolfson has good presentation style. I have had so many boring STEM professors through my education college and post college that my bar is fairly low  ?

 

 

It was Wolfson, but maybe I picked the wrong episode? My dd is still on the young side, and does do better when she has some sort of note-taking "guide" for video watching. Goofy can be helpful, but she dislikes Edward Burger's math videos for some reason.

Her lab partner disliked the GPB guy a lot, so YMMV.

[MarkT]

4 hours ago, MamaSprout said:

It was Wolfson, but maybe I picked the wrong episode? My dd is still on the young side, and does do better when she has some sort of note-taking "guide" for video watching. Goofy can be helpful, but she dislikes Edward Burger's math videos for some reason.

Her lab partner disliked the GPB guy a lot, so YMMV.

yeah some episodes are better than others but wait until your student gets Mr or Ms Boring in college - bring No-doz :)

 

[MamaSprout]

1 hour ago, MarkT said:

yeah some episodes are better than others but wait until your student gets Mr or Ms Boring in college - bring No-doz ?

 

Yeah... that was me. I never showed them to her. Maybe I shouldn't assume she wouldn't like them.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

What is your reason for not doing hands on work like labs and demonstrations? 

I would think that this would be a way of helping to keep things interesting while also giving context to the physics studies.

But I also hesitate over doing high school level textbook oriented work with much younger kids.  (And I say that as a mom of highly gifted kids who were not prepared to effectively self teach physics.)

[Gil]

On 5/20/2018 at 8:37 PM, MamaSprout said:

I found the Great Courses Physics videos that I previewed via Hoopla to be pretty dry. Take a look at the GPB videos. The guy that teaches them is kind of a goof-ball and the note taking guides help keep kiddos focused. A book for extra problems and vocabulary is helpful, even if you get the teacher materials. Oddly, my dd did better with the abstract topics than the mechanics, but we also got better at doing labs the second half of the year.

I think the advice to do hands on stuff is good. Even labs your kids have seen before have kind of an "ah-ha" moment when they can apply them to the "real" physics.

The guided-notes might be really helpful on keeping them on-task so I'll have a look at the videos. They usually appreciate goofball, even if I don't.

On 5/21/2018 at 10:33 AM, EKS said:

I guess I missed this thread before.

There are a lot of things that are worth doing that aren't "fun" in the the way that kids normally understand the word.  1-Some things don't get to be "fun" until a person becomes proficient with a certain knowledge base and skill set. I would say that physics falls into both categories.

2-Do your kids know calculus yet?  I didn't really appreciate physics until I took a calculus based physics course.

 

3-If they like history, the book The Mechanical Universe is very good.  Well, it seems good--I've only worked through the first few chapters.  The thing that is interesting about The Mechanical Universe is that they show how the discipline evolved.  Also, there are videos that go with it (that are free), though I know you said that videos don't work that well with your kids.

4-I think you are right to question your teaching.  I think it is very difficult to make a subject "fun" if you don't have the big picture yourself.  5-Perhaps you could put off their study of it so that you can work through the text first?  The last thing you want is for them to decide that they hate physics when it sounds like it could be something they might enjoy as adults.

1) So far, that's been my experience with pretty much everything. Get a handle on the fundamentals first, then things can become fun. They've started to appreciate that more as they can now form friendships in Spanish, code small games, and reliably follow along when reading mathematics, etc.

2) They do know calculus, but the text that we have is algebra-based as far as I can tell.

3) That actually sounds like an intriguing book. I'll put out an ILL request for it. This sounds like it could be a good fit since they enjoy the history behind things quite a bit. Thanks.

4) Amen to that.

5) They insist that they don't want to but life's causing us to pause for a bit this summer anyway so when we finish the chapter we're on, we're done for the time being. We may drop the subject, change texts, change approaches, etc if we pick it back up.

I think it's just time for a break. The B & M school year is almost over and we've all just been doing a lot. It's time for some R&R all around. We're taking a week or two off, then switching to 40min/daily study block for the rest of the summer.