The authors describe the way in which quantum physics is introduced in the new AS (Advanced Subsidiary) course Advancing Physics. It is based on the sum over many paths approach developed by Richard Feynman and described at an appropriate level in his book, from which the following quotation is drawn.
Evidence mountsthat a very large number, probably the vast majority, of schoolchildren do not understand physics (CLISP booklets;Watts 1983;Gilbert and Watts 1983;APU reports). Recognising this fact, the realists amongst them (generally speaking, girls) vote with their feet and abandon its study just as soon as the system allows. Attempts to make the fundamental ideas of school physics clearer and more logically defined (Warren 1984) seem to have no effect, other than to demonstrate that most physics teachers don't understand physics either! Coupled with this shaking of the foundations, we are now being assailed by the external pressures to produce a balanced science education for all school pupils, with the consequent implication that less physics will be taught to more pupils than is now the case (Blin Stoyle 1984; 16+ reduced content syllabus).
Stephen Jay Gould is, unfortunately, a palaeontologist. I write unfortunately because if he were a physicist we would all have benefited from his innumerable entertaining and informative essays [1]. His steady theme involves an obscure subject like palaeontology and why the subject links so strongly with the human condition. The key, of course, is evolution, and the light it sheds on what it means to be human. The new National Curriculum for England (and probably Wales) requires that pupils be taught: * how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence and models based on this evidence, and * ways in which scientific ideas may be affected by the context in which they develop, e.g. social, historical, moral and spiritual , and how these contexts may affect whether or not the ideas are accepted. Stephen Jay Gould produces an essay a month (in the US Natural History magazine) and so seems to have few problems in finding topics to write about that would fit well into one or both of the National Curriculum requirements. Good for biologists, but it doesn't seem to be so easy in physics. Admittedly Gould has to have recourse to a great number of historical cases - but he usually manages to link these with up-to-date issues. After all, he comes from a country where several states put `creation science' on a par with the Darwinian model of Earth history, so he has not only scope but need for encouraging some humane rationality. Can the history of physics provide such relevance? Does physics provide nice meaty controversies that might tempt the adolescent to think? We might be able to tell some stories with some level of drama, but it is hard for teachers to produce much enthusiasm in ordinary students at age 14 to 16 for controversies between Newton and Hooke, or Newton and Leibnitz (or Newton and most of his contemporaries, to be honest). They might be made to sympathize with Thomas Young, agonize over Boltzmann, celebrate with Einstein - but we are immediately into realms of physics outside the 14 - 16 curriculum, and perhaps this is just as well. Also, history is problematic. Apart from the possible aversion to dead white males, probably with beards, history is more complicated than we often think. It is easy to give wrong messages: science makes steady linear progress, modern scientists are so much smarter than these old folk who got so much of it wrong. To quote Gould [1, pp 83-4], talking about an 18th century British naturalist, a puzzled contemporary of Linnaeus: Mendes da Costa was an ordinary man in the midst of [a] great transition. ... By studying Mendes da Costa, we can best understand the fixed beliefs, the impact of novelty introduced by innovators, and, particularly, the intellectual impediments that his age posed to better comprehension of the natural world. We must learn to view these impediments with proper sympathy - not in the old style of condescension for an intellectual childhood to compare with our stunning maturity, but as a set of consis...
Honorary Editor Neither. But what exactly is Physics Education? What is its role? Such questions exercised the combined wit and wisdom of the Editorial Board at its recent meeting in October. Some facts. Among the core readership of the journal are teachers of physics in UK secondary schools, nearly all of whom teach A-level physics. Many of these who are not already Institute of Physics members benefit from a reduced subscription via membership of the Institute of Physics Schools and Colleges Affiliation Scheme or the Association for Science Education. But some readers worldwide subscribe at the full annual individual rate. In addition the journal is bought by over a thousand institutions (colleges, universities, schools) - and most of these are abroad, in North America especially. A typical issue shows a broad geographical spread of authors. Less than half of the papers submitted for publication come from the UK, the rest come from our foreign readership, with the USA in the lead. Each issue contains about eleven papers - currently we receive an average of ten articles a month, of which about 60% are ultimately published. This creditable figure hides the fact that 90% of UK submissions are accepted, whilst two thirds of 'foreign' articles are rejected by the referees. Linguistic fluency is significant here, of course. But some are rejected because they are seen as too limited in their appeal to our readers; often there is too much physics and not enough education. These decisions are made by the referees, who are all members of the Editorial Board. The main topic of discussion at the October Board meeting was whether the journal does satisfy the needs of its readership. It was generally agreed that the main question referees and editors should ask themselves is: Will this article/issue help to improve the teaching and learning of physics? We were worried that there is not enough in the journal that teachers can use in their everyday tasks of planning or delivering lessons encourages teachers to evaluate or re-evaluate their approach to teaching physics. But this depends on you, the readers. We can only publish what is written and submitted. Articles need not be 3000 words long. Short, snappy items may indeed be more effective. Tell us (and other readers) what you do when you have a particularly successful lesson. Encourage your students to tell us about a good piece of learning (see Tim Harman's article in the January issue). In this issue the articles by Jon Ogborn and Brian Davies should give us all quite a lot to think about. Pursuing this theme, in 1998 we intend to publish a special issue (November) entitled Physics from the classroom. This will be edited by real schoolteachers! They will welcome contributions. (Also look out for details of the IoP Education Group's Annual Conference (3 - 5 July 1998) on Keeping the stars in their eyes.)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.