Physics K-12 curricula are very biased against teaching modern theories based on the assumption of learning difficulty, complexity in visualization, conceptual demands and mere controvertiality of its results
However, there are equally discouraging reasons for keeping the focus on non-modern physics: mechanics is wrong, even if by approximation is good it is based on wrong conceptualizations and principles (i.e. Newton 2nd law is based on action at a distance assumptions, velocity def on absolute time -based analysis of motion etc).
What's more, there is no evidence that students don't or won't understand SR postulates and concepts. The argument they ignore is that for learning the motivation plays an important factor and if the material is high status, more revealing and more logical then students can learn.
Also, the focus on "building young scientists" |(Konstantinou, 2010) that is the stated or unstated assumption is physics k-12 curricula and assessments has gone to the extreme and to the detriments of education. If students are taught SR then the focus is on basic and selected undertanding than integral one, encyclopedian level insights and assesment- this can work.
In the Germany county of Northrine-Westphalia (Cologne, Aachen, Bonn etc.) SR was part of the A-levels curriculum until very recently. Over a course of two years, teacher could assess students by written exams and oral participation during lessons. There was also an A-level like final exam that contributed heavily to a students final marks. Typical problems treated was decay of myons in the atmosphere, interstellar travel, the twin paradox, relativistic mass in synchrotons etc.
I am a private tuition teacher with a focus on physics and maths. Over the years, I have taught SR to about 20 students (aged about 15 to 20) of very different intellectual abilities. I enjoy the privilege of face-to-face lessons with only one student in the class, or of teaching very small groups of gifted (IQ > 125) and highly motivated students. Here is my experience.
a) Student Motivation
About 90 % of our students were mainly motivated by passing tests and exams. Learning to the test, as the phrase goes, was most popular. As the German equivalent of A-level exams of the past few years are always online and accessible to high school student and because there was a great continuity in the types of questions asked, rote learning without too much need for deeper understanding worked astonishingly well for students with an average intuition of "exam logics". This I found quite frustrating. Many students achieved very good marks by rote learning. However, I sometimes witnessed strong motivation that often went hand in hand with a physics teachers who inspired pupils by their own enthusiasm. One indication of such teachers was that they frequently organised field excursion to physics labs and companies across Germany. A very strong ingredient for motivation seems to be the teachers personality.
b) SR in contrast to Classical physics
More serious irritation caused by SR offences to commons sense was surprisingly rare: I hardly ever had the impression that the ontological monstrosities implied by SR were really understood by students. By contrast, I found it hard to show them how SR conflicted with some assumptions of classical physics. Hardly ever did I notice any emotional stirrings indicative of some indignation at the violation of accepted commons sense. There was really no need to reconcile classical concepts with SR as they were strictly compartmentalized in the students minds and hardly ever addressed by examination questions.
c) Deep Learning
About 10 % of students were intrinsically motivated to understand deeper principles. With these, I found that following the historic path to relativity was a rewarding option. I started with the ether theory, as widely held in the 19th century. I took about two to three lessons to fully understand how Michelson and Morley wanted to measure the speed of the earth relative to the ether. Only when this classical notion was understood up to a quantitative treatment (predicting wavelengths, frequencies, times, speeds and expected interference effects) did I go on to the results, particularly the the constancy of the speed of light.
Once the absurdity of the constancy of the speed of light was fully grasped, I went on to Einstein, using a small booklet he had written for students of the age group in question here back in the year 1916 (Albert Einstein: Über die spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, 1916). Einsteins starts from first principles everyone can understand. He very clearly and simple explains the idea of a transformation of events in space-time from one frame of reference to another one. This is usually not treated in schools in Germany. Instead, ready-cooked formulae for the dilation of time and the contraction of space are all to quickly introduced in schools. Einsteins approach is far more simple in the sense of Lego-like building blocks for later theory-building. It's a more deductive, whereas school teachers tend to follow more the inductive way.
Also, I found it very helpful to get students to write long essays on those topics. I asked them to give pros and cons to different views. Were adequate, the reason should include a quantitative treatment of the phenomena. Writing essays helps build a more comprehensive understanding.
d) Takeaway
- With about 90 % of high school students of physics sticking to "learning to the test" works fine. It's what they want and many are good at it.
- About 10 % of students seek a deeper understanding. My selective approach there is a focus on two ideas: a) the classical ether and it improbability and b) Einsteins own "tutorial" from 1916 explaining how to use the Lorentz-Transformation for single events.
- For homework, use original papers and books written by the historic pioneers. They tend to be very readable.
- Let students write essays (anything from 200 words to 1000 words)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics