SMH article (1 Viewer)

[Constip8edSkunk]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/04/1067708212432.html

so the Unis finally caught on to the stupidity of the HSC course

The new syllabus was not only drawing school students, but also a new generation of teachers, one academic said.

can the standards get any lower?

Rick Connor, a science methods tutor at the University of NSW, said yesterday that his students expressed a sense of "excitement and re-engagement" with the broadened material.

"Now they feel they can demonstrate what the concepts mean," he said

HAHAHAHAHAHA...

 

[inasero]

i think the argument can go both ways....i agree that the old syllabus was fairly lmited in that it was merely rote learning and application of formulae but this new syllabus is overkill in terms of societal impact and history...an essential balance needs to be struck between these two ideally~

but think bout it this way whatever we do to the syllabus theres always bound to be vocal dissatisfaction cos we can't satisfy everyone...perhaps the increase in enrolments is of merit

 

[kaseita]

it shouldn't matter if the course is losing people, because if you make it the right standard, then people will jump for it, even if its just the scaling.

it'll just be like 4u maths, in that the people who can handle it will go for it, and will be rewarded for it.

I'd have to say though - it hasn't helped any boost in enrolments in actual physics in uni - perhaps they should be working on that instead? no point learning it in school unless you intend to do something related to it (the people at uni who have to do a little of physics generally don't take it very seriously. e.g. eng - its relevant, but they don't necessarily need to know it)

history sucks. I reckon just being able to acknowledge it is enough (unless you plan to do an actual history on it).

 

[Ragerunner]

They should just even it exactly 50/50 of mathematical questions and english type ones. That way, its much more better.

But I prefer more english type. if you can understand concepts, you can do the maths.

 

[Affinity]

Professor Storey said the inclusion of recent developments - including light-emitting diodes and superconductivity - came at the expense of a thorough grounding in Newtonian physics, and could only be taught at a superficial level.

Precisely.

the new syllabus has arrested a decline in student numbers.

I guess that's the major concern of the board of studies.

"It's wrong to deny students the excitement of [developments in physics in] the last 20 years . . . and it would be wrong to deny them the Newtonian physics - the new syllabus attempts to put those elements together," said Professor McPhedran, who is a member of the Board of Studies' science syllabus advisory committee.

The new syllabus attempted to put the 2 together, but did not suceed.

"There's a narrow view that if you can't write the equation then you haven't understood; but if you can read about it on the internet and explain it to your girlfriend and father then you have understood."

I have trouble explaining how planck's assumption of quantised energy would solve the UV catastrophe, could you help me?

The new syllabus was not only drawing school students, but also a new generation of teachers, one academic said.

"hmm, I will check the textbook tonight and come back to you tomorrow" - one of the most common responses.

 

[...]

i'm flashing back the memory of the physics exams..


how many maths question was there in the extended response???

less than 5??

 

[Bannanafish]

I have trouble explaining how planck's assumption of quantised energy would solve the UV catastrophe, could you help me?

by considering radiation in packets, you can only have a few high energy packets because you have a finite total energy

"hmm, I will check the textbook tonight and come back to you tomorrow" - one of the most common responses.

better than my bio techer.... she says "thats a good question, how about you do some research on that as homework"

 

[Affinity]

so little that their effects are negligible as relativitivistic effects are in normal life

 

[...]

Originally posted by Affinity

I have trouble explaining how planck's assumption of quantised energy would solve the UV catastrophe, could you help me?

Originally posted by Affinity
so little that their effects are negligible as relativitivistic effects are in normal life

i remember my teacher said something he learnt that in uni...

lol

 

[Affinity]

by considering radiation in packets, you can only have a few high energy packets because you have a finite total energy

By that line the classical theory will predict the same. And that explanation doesn't tell you why the intensity peaks at one value then drops

 

[...]

Originally posted by Affinity
By that line the classical theory will predict the same. And that explanation doesn't tell you why the intensity peaks at one value then drops

theres a formula to hit...(not as in E=hf)

but something hectic..teacher read it out...
*shivers*

 

[Affinity]

I(f,T) = 8(Pi)hf^3/c^3 * [ e^[hf/kT] - 1]^ -1

where k is the boltzmann constant.

but giving the formula explains nothing.

 

[...]

ahh.thats the one...

but meh, true, formulas means nothing if u dunno what the heck they mean...

btw, is this uni physics??

 

[Affinity]

that's not the point, the point is why are they teaching us these fancy things when we can't explain it, even in our dear professor McPhedran's concept of explaining it to our dads and gf/bf

 

[...]

hmm, i get ur pt...

but its not only physics..like english, who the heck cares if we dun what technique is used in a text...

 

[Affinity]

and the inclusion of contemporary material had reversed a pre-2001 enrolment decline.

The enrolment rate would probably have increased more had they not been making the blunder to included these new material after they removed the old. [/sarcasm]

 

[freaking_out]

that professor who said that the syllabus is a good balance, should b whipped.

 

[PRSOV]

My physics teacher right from the first day in yr 11 was complaining about physics because the BOS have made it a paragraph based subject, and a downfall in the amount of mathematics that is in the new physics paper with most of the questions, such the the 2003 einstein and conductors revolving around paragraph answers which isn't physics.

He also composed numerous letters to the BOS complaining about the new system, but as usual as they are a government run organisation, they didn't even pay the courtesy of a reply.

 

[freaking_out]

Originally posted by PRSOV
My physics teacher right from the first day in yr 11 was complaining about physics because the BOS have made it a paragraph based subject, and a downfall in the amount of mathematics that is in the new physics paper with most of the questions, such the the 2003 einstein and conductors revolving around paragraph answers which isn't physics.

He also composed numerous letters to the BOS complaining about the new system, but as usual as they are a government run organisation, they didn't even pay the courtesy of a reply.

yeah, same here, my teacher hated the new syllabus, but then he rightly said: "what can u do?".

 

[Sah]

umm... formulas do give meaning concept. If one can actually understand the formula they will learn the concept. It can work the other way too. For example that formula tells u that the intensity of EM radiation given off by a black body cavity is a function of the frequency of the wave and the temperature of the black body. This resembles the graph of the freqeuncy and the intensity. Sure it probably wont explain how plank came up with all this stuff but it will help show the results. Planks results were emperical any ways, he got the formula from experiments then he went and said that for this to happen electron oscillation must be quantised.

Yeah the new BOS syllabis are kinda crappy, but they attempt to make subjects more "interesting" to people. The did succeed to a small degree because the new physics sylabis is ok. Quanta to quarks is pretty interesting for me but space and motors are pretty boring.