Has HSC physics been mutilated....... (1 Viewer)

[hasterz]

maths

period.

 

[Benny1103]

Xayma are you saying that VCE physics does not appreciate the history of physics and that the change towards a more HSC-like physics is good? If so then lol...

High school physics, in my mind, is supposed to provide students with an introduction to, and preparation for, university level physics regardless of whether or not they intend to continue with physics at unversity.

While I can see why historical topics should be touched upon, to examine it as extensively as the HSC does is ridiculous in my opinion. Knowing the history of physics does not allow you to for example, calculate the maximum kinetic energy of an electron, nor does it enable you to find the mass of an object - that is when the mathematics comes in. The history of science in general is more of a supplement to the actual physics and so should not be examined as extensively as it does in the HSC IMO.

The explanation questions in VCE exams are actually relevant to the topics which are being tested. For example, in the "Materials and Structures" section we get questions where students are required to explain which features of certain types of bridges make them more safe. Now that, is the type of explanation question that a real physics exam would have as it is actually relevant to the topic being tested. Notice how there are never questions such as 'give a brief description of how it was found that arched bridges are generally safer than simple straight bridges.' The reason for that is because the topic is titled "Materials and Structures" and not "The history and development of Materials and Structures."

I had to post because you seemed to be suggesting that the explanation questions in VCE physics exams are as irrelevant as some of the ones in the HSC exams. I did not want there to be any misconception.

 

[gordo]

EDIT: (for HSC physics)

physics is more english than maths. ALthough at time they test bluntly straight maths, most of the time you have to convey your understanding of the physical concepts and theoretics.

Theres a million ways to explain relativity and in each unique way, the person explaining it will understand in their own mind what they are talking about. THe band 6 answers go to the people who can step out of their own shoes and explain the concepts exceptionally well (i.e. less presumptions) and relate them in a fashion that portrays a thorough understanding of the conepts being dealt with

 

[Xayma]

Xayma are you saying that VCE physics does not appreciate the history of physics and that the change towards a more HSC-like physics is good? If so then lol...

I'm not saying it is necessairly good but that is the way the whole country is going and it isn't out to get asians as the user replied.

High school physics, in my mind, is supposed to provide students with an introduction to, and preparation for, university level physics regardless of whether or not they intend to continue with physics at unversity.

I slightly disagree with you here, it should prepare them not just for university physics but give them general physics knowledge for their life, such as how motors and generators work as an example.

For example, in the "Materials and Structures" section we get questions where students are required to explain which features of certain types of bridges make them more safe. Now that, is the type of explanation question that a real physics exam would have as it is actually relevant to the topic being tested. Notice how there are never questions such as 'give a brief description of how it was found that arched bridges are generally safer than simple straight bridges.' The reason for that is because the topic is titled "Materials and Structures" and not "The history and development of Materials and Structures."

That is already tested in the HSC under the subject Engineering Studies, alot of truss work is in there, as is 95% of that VCE section including more detailed stress/strain diagrams which in the VCE doesnt go into the physics behind it.

Your example is a bit weird considering that arch bridges became common in roman times, although that question would require a sound understanding of various mathematical shapes and more generally statics, which isnt taught in maths and some actual physics would have to be left off to teach it inside physics itself.

 

[Benny1103]

Perhaps my example was a bit weird, I did not write out that question word for word. The question basically asks you to explain in terms of the material and structure of the birdge(photo given), what makes the bridge stable. Even though the 'expected' answer may not go into as much detail as you may expect, it still requires an explanation of how stone is strong under compression and reference to how the arch structure is such that arch forces are transferred into almost vertical components. So it is not completely unreasonable to expect high school students to understand the basics of topics in physics. As such, I cannot see why people would suggest that high school students can only handle learning about the history of physics rather than the fundamentals of actual topics.

My point is, the explanation questions in the VCE(at least at the moment) are actually relevant to the topic being tested. If there is a section with a title along the lines of "The Development of Newton's Laws of Motion" then I can understand why questions asking about it's history would come up. However, when a topic such as "Light and Matter"(in VCE) is being tested, I cannot see why questions on it's history should come up on an exam. I cannot see the point in having such questions.

Those are just my thoughts.

 

[KFunk]

In light of this debate... : http://science.uniserve.edu.au/school/curric/stage6/phys/stw2004/sharma_stewart.pdf

 

[Xayma]

Perhaps my example was a bit weird, I did not write out that question word for word. The question basically asks you to explain in terms of the material and structure of the birdge(photo given), what makes the bridge stable. Even though the 'expected' answer may not go into as much detail as you may expect, it still requires an explanation of how stone is strong under compression and reference to how the arch structure is such that arch forces are transferred into almost vertical components. So it is not completely unreasonable to expect high school students to understand the basics of topics in physics. As such, I cannot see why people would suggest that high school students can only handle learning about the history of physics rather than the fundamentals of actual topics.

My point is, the explanation questions in the VCE(at least at the moment) are actually relevant to the topic being tested. If there is a section with a title along the lines of "The Development of Newton's Laws of Motion" then I can understand why questions asking about it's history would come up. However, when a topic such as "Light and Matter"(in VCE) is being tested, I cannot see why questions on it's history should come up on an exam. I cannot see the point in having such questions.

Those are just my thoughts.

When I said the VCE is headed along that path (although not as much as NSW is) I was mainly refering to the pilot program being tested at a few schools across Melbourne.

In any case the idea of materials and structures is already present in Engineering Studies (a better suited place for it) as well as general triangle truss calculations, I daresay that the Enginering Studies exams generally have more maths than physics exams do.

 

[Benny1103]

The pilot program was implemented in a number of Victorian schools last year. However, it is now the physics which is studied. In other words, the 'normal' physics that Victorians did prior to this year has been completely replaced with the pilot physics studies. That, in my opinion, is not the best change that could have occurred but at least it does not affect me.

As for the Materials and Structures topic, yes, clearly it could be better suited to other subjects, but that is not the point. I only brought up the Materials and Structures section as an example. After all, I needed to use questions from a topic in the (former) VCE physics study design to illustrate my point that the 'old' VCE physics exams had, in my mind, questions which were more relevant to the topics being learned and tested. Perhaps I could have use a better example than a question from the Materials and Structures topic but again, that is not the point.

I am not saying that the HSC should definitely be more like how the 'old'(prior to this year) VCE physics was. I am just saying that I feel that the VCE physics exams have questions which are more relevant to what is being tested for the reasons I have previously stated. All I am saying is that I do not think that historical facts should not be as heavily tested as they are in the HSC. There is nothing wrong with having questions on an exam which require a written response but I really do not see the relevance of rote learning a whole bunch of historical facts.

Finally, I am not saying that HSC(or VCE) physics should be more 'mathematically based' - in fact I never even referred to the amount of maths that should be in either of the physics subjects in question. Rather, all I have really been talking about is the relevance of certain types of questions in high school physics exams.

 

[alphatango]

HSC physics is not "real" physics, no. It's pulled back from university physics so much that it's now almost irrelevant whether or not you've done HSC physics before you do uni physics.

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that physics is tightly linked with mathematics. It follows that there is similarly nothing wrong with the idea that you have to do some level of mathematics to do physics. 2U mathematics at least should be the minimum standard.

By removing the dependence of physics on mathematics, you find yourself unable to derive even the most basic things. You leave students with the impression that it's ok just to know the concepts but not how to express them, and that it's ok not to know how things are derived. I don't ask for much -- even assuming a basic knowledge of calculus would make the physics syllabus significantly better.

Mathematics is and will always be a part of physics. Making physics more "accessible" by leaving out the necessary mathematics doesn't improve the subject, it reduces it to a poorly explained course without the strong foundation which mathematics provides.

< end rant >

 

[JamiL]

simple... yes it is more theory then b4, but doing physics was like doin 4u maths... its easyer this way but there are more shit head, stupid ppl 2 annoy u. but if u are considering studing a Bat Of Adv Science (physics) then 3u maths is a min or ur plan fukd. the HSC used 2 be a prep couse 4 uni, now it about ranking as less people opt 2 go 2 uni

 

[Xayma]

The pilot program was implemented in a number of Victorian schools last year. However, it is now the physics which is studied. In other words, the 'normal' physics that Victorians did prior to this year has been completely replaced with the pilot physics studies. That, in my opinion, is not the best change that could have occurred but at least it does not affect me.

As for the Materials and Structures topic, yes, clearly it could be better suited to other subjects, but that is not the point. I only brought up the Materials and Structures section as an example. After all, I needed to use questions from a topic in the (former) VCE physics study design to illustrate my point that the 'old' VCE physics exams had, in my mind, questions which were more relevant to the topics being learned and tested. Perhaps I could have use a better example than a question from the Materials and Structures topic but again, that is not the point.

I am not saying that the HSC should definitely be more like how the 'old'(prior to this year) VCE physics was. I am just saying that I feel that the VCE physics exams have questions which are more relevant to what is being tested for the reasons I have previously stated. All I am saying is that I do not think that historical facts should not be as heavily tested as they are in the HSC. There is nothing wrong with having questions on an exam which require a written response but I really do not see the relevance of rote learning a whole bunch of historical facts.

Finally, I am not saying that HSC(or VCE) physics should be more 'mathematically based' - in fact I never even referred to the amount of maths that should be in either of the physics subjects in question. Rather, all I have really been talking about is the relevance of certain types of questions in high school physics exams.

Sorry about the refrences to mathematics etc, they were to others who got caught up in the argument that started off addressed to you.

ROTE learning is a bad idea however, the history of physics is an interesting topic which although may not be the best preperation for University Physics it will give a good indication of how facts are remembered allowing it to be used for UAI and ENTER calculations.

 

[clonestar]

I've got a physics teacher who constantly says HSC Physics course isn't physics and that it's been multilated by the syllabus writers.

Do other people think it's true? and what arguments could I say to get him to shut up and get on with teaching?

As a teacher I have to agree...

There is more "describe" and "explain" rather than pure mathematics.

Its reasonable but compared to the old syllabus there is no comparison.

Old syllabus=Physics
New syllabus= Medium amount of Physics but more english<-- focus on language and explanation

CLONESTAR

 

[Emma-Jayde]

I think your teacher is right! HSC physics has been mutilated by the DET, it isn't real physics anymore, my teacher says the same thing. Real physics should involve more of the pure mathematics, not the history of physics. Speaking as a 4U maths student, I was actually quite disappointed when I found out that we weren't going to be using real maths.

 

[KFunk]

Half the reason I took 4U maths was so I could do the mechanics topic because I really enjoy physics but I miss out on all of the mathematical descriptions and theformalism. Simply substituting values into a formula doesn't really count as math IMO.

 

[FinalFantasy]

I think your teacher is right! HSC physics has been mutilated by the DET, it isn't real physics anymore, my teacher says the same thing. Real physics should involve more of the pure mathematics, not the history of physics. Speaking as a 4U maths student, I was actually quite disappointed when I found out that we weren't going to be using real maths.

i agree! the more maths the better!
in physics, the projectile motion, ignore air resistance and stuff and say that the path of projectile is a parabola.
but if im not wrong.. in mechanics u do it WITH air resistance and if u count in air resistance the path of projectile is not actually a parabola.
also those motion formula's only take acceleration being constant, in maths the acceleration can change, so it's much cooler!
more maths is so much better and more like "real physics" in my opinion

 

[M-turkey]

ahh, i hate english, i find science subjects much easier lol

Yeah, at least with Science/Maths your either right or wrong, there's no in-between, unlike English where its a matter of taste and scores can vary between teachers.

 

[Emma-Jayde]

yeah, that annoys me so much!! If the teacher marking your essay doesn't like you, your mark is automatically lower than what it would be if someone that likes you marks it.