To be honest, I don’t even remotely know what you mean by classic vs quantum physics enough to say whether I’m interested or not interested. It’s another language to me. When I think of physics I tend to think of astronomy, and I think things like the nature of time, black holes, etc might be sufficient to rope me in.
I am math-y, but not science-y. Took honors bio and honors chemistry in high school because that’s what the smart kids did; didn’t ever take physics in HS or college; satisfied my college science distribution by bio classes for non-majors. It wasn’t a function of not being able to handle the math involved - it was just never presented in a way to entice me to learn more.
@sylvan8798 : Here’s a link to the NPR broadcast I mentioned. I was just as surprised today when listening to it as I was the first time. I think you will be, too.
Hope it helps as you consider how to move forward.
From what I have read about engineering technology, it is less “theory oriented” than engineering is. Unlike engineering, it allows physics without calculus or with light calculus, rather than the calculus and multivariable calculus heavy physics for engineering. See http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/academics/majors/engineering-tech-or-engineering .
What it may mean is that the engineering technology students taking a non-calculus or light-calculus introductory physics course (of the kind that biology majors and pre-meds take) may be the ones less intrinsically interested in the subject than those who take the heavy-calculus version (of the kind that engineering and physics majors take).
So if the course in question is a non-calculus or light-calculus introductory physics course, it should not be surprising if most of the students in it (whether engineering technology, biology, or pre-med) are just checking a box on their degree requirements, rather than being enthusiastic about learning the material.
In which case it’s even more important to find a hook that will interest them versus just tossing a reading assignment at them.
Biology has the edge in this area - I took Human Reproduction and Genetics as my two science for non-science majors classes. You can easily see how college kids are interested in sex, ha ha. What’s your angle here?
One might be able to teach a course that included topics from black hole physics with mathematics lite. To understand black hole physics? That’s something else. You might take a look at the book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. It is intended for a full-year, graduate level physics course. You have the math for this book, Pizzagirl, and I don’t think much standard physics is needed to follow it.
If you look at the first few reviews of the book, you’ll have an idea of what it entails.
So a question to the gravitational physicists (if anyone in that field is on this forum, or if you are on the forum and have a handy gravitational physicist conversation partner): If you have a student majoring in Engineering Tech, is there anything that the student could be taught about black holes in a first course in physics that would draw them deeper into the subject than Star Trek already could? I have some doubts about this.
In general, I don’t know that physicists have any angle to use. I once advocated for covering the questions, “Why is the sky blue?” and “Why is grass green?” but apparently a lot of students are not that curious about either of those topics.
Why do metals heat up comparatively rapidly? That actually requires quantum mechanics to answer–classical physics would give a totally wrong answer. On the one hand, it has a practical application. On the other hand, does anyone really care about the explanation? (Aside from me and a couple of my colleagues, that is.)
^^ this is a challenge for students who aren’t all that engaged. But doing the reading post-lecture is probably a challenge for them too. At least having discussions/quizzes/whatever IN CLASS makes it much harder to skip the reading.
This is exactly where I have been coming from, except that peer instruction won’t work with my students, because not enough of them know what they are doing and with enough confidence to help others understand it.
For the curious, my course is Mechanics: Motion in one dimension - position, velocity, acceleration. Vectors so that we can deal with more than one dimension. Motion in two dimensions, projectiles. Newton’s laws of motion. Forces - weight, normal forces, friction, tension. Angular motion (limited to circles). Equilibrium, work, kinetic and potential energies. Gravity if we have time. It is an algebra-based course.
I’ve read quite a bit about the misconceptions students have and struggle constantly to address these. Some of them are things you would never think of, such as what is meant by “vertical” and “horizontal” in physics. Others are the result of loose use of the English language in the vernacular - i.e. we might use “speed” and “velocity” interchangeably, but to physicists they have different meanings.
Here is a typical paragraph from Walker’s Physics, although without the figures, it is somewhat more abstract. Picture the Figure being a person walking along a straight horizontal line labeled with assorted x’s to show the origin, etc.:
It occurred to me that special relativity is a lot of fun, and might be covered as one topic in a course on motion, using only algebra.
Tension–that’s a problem, I think, because students want to use it like a vector in problem solving, yet it is clearly not a vector. What it actually is–that’s rarely covered.
Also, is the author Jearl Walker? The same person who wrote the Flying Circus of Physics?
Our technology students take basically the same courses in the first two years that the engineering students do in those programs, including calculus. One of the primary differences is they are permitted to take algebra-based physics (not a good idea, IMHO). If they are not really interested in physics, then they should weed out of the program and change majors (I’m sure many do). The intro physics in my course is the basis for several follow-on courses, some of which I also teach from time to time (mercenary for the Tech program ). If they get to Engineering Dynamics (HARD!) and they still don’t know what a vector is, there isn’t much one can do with them.
ETA: There have been semesters when I included outre topics, such as a period devoted to various simple machines - levers, wheel and axis machines, etc. and a period devoted to satellites, but I find that I have so much material and I have to spend so much time just getting the basics that I often don’t have much time for extras.
I really agree with this statement by eastcoascrazy- " Ask me to read something that I have no background in? And figure out what is important in that assignment before you have presented the information?".
I took two semesters of physics this past year for my chemistry major. I had some physics background but not enough to know, at first read of a chapter, what is important and what isn’t. Students might miss learning important concepts that aren’t present in those simple before-class problems. If I, as a student, felt like I understood the problems well, I probably would tune out much of the class discussion- and miss any possible clarification.
That being said, I’m sure your students appreciate that you are trying out new ways to present material. My professors basically read of off PowerPoint slides.
^It’s not important to get everything on the first pass, just to get started thinking about it. If you then try the problems and are stuck, at least you know that you are stuck and can (theoretically) ask for some clarifications in class. I never use PowerPoint slides.
I find it amusing (or depressing as the case may be) that even Harvard professors have to struggle with their classes. My average student this spring has a combined SAT CR+M of 915. 20% of the class was at 800 or less, the lowest at 660. Only 5% over 1200. Seventy students.
If that is the level of your class, then that speaks even more to the difficulty of expecting them to read and start on problems. The passage upthread on explaining x-coordinates? That might simply be too difficult for them to read and understand without explanation and a chalk drawing.
One technique I find worked well for me in the business world was to have them demonstrate mastery by teaching one another. I don’t mean from the get-go … The material needed to be covered … But they seem to retain it more than just quietly listening. Maybe groups of 4 (or whatever) each present a 5 minute summary of a different sub topic to the room and then the other students ask THEM the questions, and you just jump in if they get stumped. I found in business this technique really worked. FWIW.
@QuantMech: “Why do metals heat up comparatively rapidly?.. On the other hand, does anyone really care about the explanation? (Aside from me and a couple of my colleagues, that is.)”
I gave you one in post 54. Maybe a Physics for Dummies book might give you ideas on how to ease in to difficult topics by linking the topic to something that might catch their attention. I get the sense you’re really uncomfortable dumbing it down. But it may be necessary to keep them in the baby pool for a bit instead of throwing them into the deep end.
^Feeling like we’re dumbing down already. I Like the idea of making them try to explain a topic. Other faculty have done this with mini white boards, but we can’t transport those into a 70-student lecture hall, so I have to work on something for that scale.
Think outside the box on how to facilitate learning. Here are some ideas, just off the top of my head, for you to play with:
Homework - each team prepares (let’s say) a 5-slide powerpoint explaining their assigned topic to the class. They have 5 minutes to present and answer questions. You facilitate and correct any misinformation, but otherwise you stay quiet and let them “own” explaining the principle. This gives the responsibility to them, and once they’ve explained it to others they’ll remember it far more than they’ll remember a lecture.
Poster sized paper. Each team has xx minutes to put together a poster explaining the assigned topic. You can make this fun. Heck, you could even give a nominal prize (candy bars, whatever) to whoever does the best job.
Have them write a tweet explaining the principle in 140 characters or less, and require them to have at least 3 hashtags. Don’t laugh at this. I have had teams do this all over the world, and it’s actually one of the best methods I’ve ever found in having people internalize information.
You’re apparently not dealing with elite-level students, and you’re apparently not dealing with students who have an interest in the topic. So, think about the end goal here – having them learn. What if you are dumbing it down? Isn’t it better for them to have at least learned the dumbed-down version than to tune you out and not learn at all?
Again, I’m not suggesting turning your classroom into a circus, but there are lots of ways to facilitate. I had to come up with new ways of facilitating, and often on the fly, and I did this all over the world, often with non-native English speakers or with people who had a vested interest in not “accepting” what my data suggested they do. So I’m sure with some careful thought you can come up with other ways. Good luck!
). If they get to Engineering Dynamics (HARD!) and they still don’t know what a vector is, there isn’t much one can do with them.