The face of the moon was in shadow
First-year physics is hard, especially the way it’s often presented. Physics is a layer-cake of tough stuff: A heavy base layer of academic language and deeply interconnected and nuanced concepts topped with a layer of most delicious math calculations. Don’t get me wrong, math is for sure tasty, but when paired with an already difficult conceptual layer, it’s often too much to swallow. Required curriculum isn’t helping here. For example, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for physics REQUIRES math calculations for students taking physics in Texas public schools. Teachers are forced to push tough concepts and often remediate math, too. It’s a lose-lose for students **and** teachers. There must be a better way! What if we could strip out the calculation layer and still teach a deep, engaging, and approachable physics course? Enter Conceptual Physics.
Tell me, who knows more: the student who calculates the correct answer every time or the student who is capable of an intelligent dialog about the subject? I’d argue the latter. Math can be taught by rote. In fact, in my experience, you don’t need all that much physics to solve many textbook problems! To have a conversation, though, without the crutch of algorithmic calculation is a true demonstration of a working knowledge of the subject. When calculation and the faux certainty of correct answers fade, students must become apprentices who ask probing questions and tangle with novel applications for the material ensuring a deeper understanding of physics.
Math does have a role to play, though perhaps not in the commonly accepted view of it. Conceptual physics uses mathematical relationships to reinforce concepts and is masterful at developing a working knowledge of the world. Exactly how much force it takes to move, say, a heavy object against friction across a rough surface can be helpful but more useful and universally applicable would be a feel for the relationship between the weight of the box and the amount of force it takes. It is better to know that heavier boxes are harder to push against friction because they press harder into the floor than it is to know that it takes 900 newtons of force to do so. By removing the calculation of force and looking at the relationship between force and the weight of the box we’ve created a connection that can be readily abstracted and applied across any friction situation and perhaps leads to solutions: box too hard to push? Empty it a bit first!
Would that I could wave a magic wand and convert all first-year physics classes into conceptual physics courses. How many more engineers, astronomers, and other scientists would we have? Let’s change the question from “How far does the ball fly?” to “Why does it fly? How can I get it to fly higher?”. Let math be a tool in the toolbox but not the first go-to. Let’s start with a deep understanding of physics. Once we know the why and how, students will move into the “how much” on their own.
For excellent conceptual physics information, check the glorious Conceptual Physics by my great uncle Paul G. Hewitt. Another uncle, Dr. John Suchocki, hosts a site for conceptual science of all stripes. Learn more from him at ConceptualAcademy.com.
Physics and Math are hard! Ask your teacher for help if you need it. Ask me if you need more.