BC Curriculum Suggestions
The thoughts below are based on my experience working as mechanical engineer for 15 years, my experience as a high school science and physics teacher, my interest in professional development, and my study of problem based learning and how to educate competent, useful and resourceful students.
Science K - 9
In general I’m very pleased with the draft K - 9 curriculum. I had sent feedback and ideas about the new curriculum before the drafts were published. I think I sent them to someone from BCScTA along with the Ministry’s online comment form. Two key topics that I thought were absolutely required made it into the drafts (yay!). Evolution and modern physics are noticeably absent in our current curriculum, and I’m very glad that they are now in there. If I would make one change, it would be to put the electricity into grade 9. I feel quite strongly about this because it a fantastic opportunity for students to apply data collection and graphing to a concept. It may be the only time that students can collect data (voltage and current) and come up with an equation of a line that has a physical meaning. It fits in nicely with Math 9 and allows opportunities for teachers/classes to use an integrated approach. This speaks to the very heart of the BCedplan I think. Impact of micro-ogranisms, forces, or periodic table could easily be swapped?
The opportunity to use experimental design and graphical analysis (for Ohm’s law) is just too good to be passed up!
Science 10 and Physics
With regards to Science 10 and physics, I’d first like to say that I don’t think a Physics 11 concept necessarily needs to be introduced in science 10. This includes kinematics, forces, energy, momentum, etc. Physics 11 can easily handle all of these topics. Students do not need to be eased into them. Many jurisdictions and regions across the US and the world actually start introductory physics in grade 9. Clearly students can handle this load and have the cognitive ability to deal with it. Secondly, the idea of adding energy to science 10 seems to go against the ideas of the BCEdplan. The BCedplan speaks of lifelong skills, competencies, creative thinking, problem solving, and global and cultural understanding. Energy in science 10, I feel, does nothing to address this. In general I don’t think that a graduating student in BC has any specific need to know or understand what kinetic energy or potential gravitational energy are. Certainly they will never need to calculate it, in isolation of taking physics courses. Exactly how do we explain to our students that they will need to know how to calculate energy? The reasons such as “you’ll need to do this next year if you take physics” fall so flat. It is hoop jumping at its worst, especially when students that do take physics can easily cover the topic in a physics class. Do we know of any adults that ever discuss, calculate or use the concepts of kinetic energy in their daily lives? Even once? Probably not, so why do we want our kids to study it? Of course, many adults do discuss energy within the context of physics/engineering, and this is the context where it should be learned. It is not needed for general study.
Physics 11 and 12
As a general methodology, we can use the outlines of AP Physics 1 and 2 for guidance. A lot of work went into these courses and we can use their efforts to our advantage. My general idea is that we tweak our current ph11 and ph12 but allow for growth via honours classes that could align with the AP courses. To be clear: I am not a big fan of AP courses and generally don’t think they should be offered, for many reasons. But the design of the courses do make a lot of sense.
Physics 11
- Kinematics
- Vectors
- Forces, including problems with ramps and Atwood machine
- Gravitation
- Projectiles, including angled launches (seems to typically be done before forces. This year I did it after forces and it made so much more sense. How do we explain this to them before they’ve even studied gravity and forces?)
- Circular Motion
- Rotational Motion and Torque
- Energy and Power
- Momentum (linear)
- Waves (no need for optics, as this is mostly covered in science 8)
Physics 12
- Electrostatics
- Circuits
- Electromagnetism
- Fluids
- Thermodynamics
- Some modern physics, as recommended by universities? (quantum mechanics, nuclear, radiation, EM, etc)
Below are two tables that show how I can see this playing out. I’ve included a column for “honours” courses. The added material in the honours stream I would anticipate as being not as important as a pre-requisite for the universities. I don’t imagine the curriculum team has any intention of writing curriculum for honours courses, but I think it makes sense to consider, and show, how an honours stream could be developed. There is a clear advantages and disadvantages with the streams. For many students, the current physics 11 is ridiculously easy. However, this has allowed physics 11 to be one of the best attended courses in high school, and makes it accessible to many students. In years of declining enrollments, I’ve seen actual increased enrollments in physics 11 because the course has the reputation of being interesting, hands-on, and doable.
| Physic 11 | Physics 11 Honors |
|---|---|
| Kinematics | Kinematics |
| Vectors | Vectors |
| Forces and Projectiles | Forces and Projectiles |
| Gravitation | Gravitation |
| Circular Motion | Circular Motion (Kepler?) |
| Rotations and Torque | Rotations and Torque |
| Energy and Power | Energy and Power |
| Momentum (linear) | Momentum and Elastic Collisions |
| Waves | *Angular Momentum |
| Waves and Optics | |
| Simple Harmonic Motion |
| Physic 12 | Physics 12 Honors |
|---|---|
| Electrostatics | Electrostatics |
| Electromagnetism | Electromagnetism |
| Circuits | DC Resistive Circuits, RC Circuits |
| Fluids | Fluids |
| Thermodynamics | Thermodynamics |
| Modern Physics? | Entropy and probability |
| Modern Physics |
The new physics 11 as proposed would be more difficult although equally engaging. By differentiating learning objectives between conceptual understanding and calculating, students with poorer mathematical abilities can still be modestly successful.
Science 10
Energy
As I mentioned above, I don’t believe that energy needs to be included in science 10. Looking at the physics curriculum, energy can and should be included there. I guess that it’s possible that adding the concept of energy could be justified, but it is a nebulous topic to begin with. I always introduce energy in physics by quoting Feynman, “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is.” If energy were to be included, I feel that the best approach would be to analyze energy as energy storage systems, and how one type of energy can be transferred to another. The best tool that I know of for this is to use energy bar charts. They are intuitive and pack a lot of information.
This type of analysis is approachable to the general student population and encompasses the most important aspects: energy is stored in different ways, working as a transfer of energy across a closed system. Energy is also a dangerous topic for those that are not well versed in the topic. Work, working, thermal energy, heat, heat transfer… it’s a rat’s nest of slightly conflicting ideas. I’m a member of the American Modeling Teachers Association, and the teachers across the US have a tough time agreeing on these terms in their listserv.
Special Relativity
Special Relativity could be included in science 10. Is it relevent? I think so. The idea of time travel and the speed of light captures the imagination and is embedded throughout pop culture. There are the ideas of relative motion and frames of reference, which can be interesting, thought provoking, and approachable with math 10. As well, there are the time dilation equations which are of acceptable difficulty with the assistance of calculators. The topic in general should be very engaging, and easily tested on a standardized test if required.
Power Generation
There was some discussion on the BCAPT listserv that AC circuits could be added to physics. While I don’t think these is feasible or even required, there is the natural progression from moving from DC Circuits (hopefully in science 9!) to Power Generation, which necessarily involves topics in AC circuits. Power generation involves the idea of global responsibility. Some Big Ideas include:
- There many methods for generating electrical power
- We depend on non-renewable resources for electrical power generation
- Nations around the globe are improving renewable resource based power generation
- Critical analysis of Nuclear Energy: Should we promote nuclear energy as method for generating electrical power? (problem based learning)
- AC circuits are used to distribute electrical power for industrial and residential use
Manufacturing
Another idea that I think would be useful for the general population is an understanding of manufacturing processes and resources. We often talk about kids not understanding how things work and how to get things done, and this topic can address both of those concerns (lifelong skills, global and cultural understanding, problem solving). This unit could be extended into problem based learning and integrated tech programs, and allows for school growth in terms of personalized learning and educational transformation. It also provides a curricular pathway for Making in the classroom. Every science and engineering program in Canadian universities should be interested in incoming students that have awareness of how things are manufactured. It is the first step to learning how to manufacture something yourself. Big ideas could include:
- All devices, machines, and tools that we use undergo several manufacturing processes
- Different types of materials require different types of processes, including molding, metal fabrication, semi-conductor fabrication, machining and hand-working.
- Manufactured materials are comprised of fundamental non-renewable resources. Metals, semi-metals and non-metals each have unique properties that allow us to manufacture an amazing array of goods.
Chemistry
I won’t make many suggestions here about chemistry, as I have not taught the full chem 11 and chem 12 courses. However, like I hinted at with physics, I don’t think there is much need for all the prep work for senior chemistry (reaction equations and details that are currently in science 10). For the students that will never move on to senior chemistry courses, the chemical equations are of absolutely no use. Their time would be better spent learning minecraft than learning how to balance a single reaction equation. Conceptually there are important ideas to know about, like the idea of an acid mixed with a base produces a salt. But the pre-chem11 stuff is just more hoop jumping and the kind of curricular decisions that disengage children and provide seeds for apathy.
Biology and Earth Science
I know even less of an authority on biology and earth science, but I do think that topics like ecology, agriculture and climates are so utterly important that they have to have a significant focus in science 10. I don’t think there is a scientist or critical thinker out there that doesn’t know that these topics present the biggest challenges to our communities and society.
BC Curriculum Change by Doug Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.