ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE Science => VCE Mathematics/Science/Technology => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Physics => Topic started by: Richard Feynman 101 on September 29, 2018, 08:52:55 pm
-
Why has the recent physics course been dumbed down so much that you get 2 makrs for simply saying that force is 0N when current runs parallel in a DC motor when questions such as the one attached is signficantly harder and actually requires problem-solving.
The introduction of an investigation report? I mean yeah sure read between the lines, this is trying to get girls to do physics. But, really a poster... Like, not even a lab report.
Any thoughts?
-
Why has the recent physics course been dumbed down so much that you get 2 makrs for simply saying that force is 0N when current runs parallel in a DC motor when questions such as the one attached is signficantly harder and actually requires problem-solving.
The introduction of an investigation report? I mean yeah sure read between the lines, this is trying to get girls to do physics. But, really a poster... Like, not even a lab report.
Any thoughts?
I feel as if your comment about "trying to get girls to do physics" is a pretty poor comment, honestly.
My understanding is that the new course was designed to be aligned with the rest of the country as a part of a national curriculum, and also based on what unis/industry want/need students to have skills in.
Marking schemes also change over time, and questions such as the examples from 1977 would probably be worth more marks now than way back when.
-
You have not answered the question.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/students-slide-in-global-maths-and-science-rankings/news-story/bf2aa8be9b40805d6d9406c4392a3940 doesn't quite seem to be working.
Man, physics has certaintly lost its place as being regarded the crème de la crème.
-
Those questions you attached aren't 'significantly' hard. And the practical investigation is great, not some girl thing, at least it makes science subjects more interesting and practical rather than just learning from the Textbook and all.
-
I never said that those questions were significantly hard. I stated quite explicitly that they are significantly harder than the VCAA 2017 exam questions. In lay man's term, VCAA 2017 mentioned 7th grade question, 1977 HSC (the real physics days), year 12 standard.
Sure the poster makes it somewhat interesting. I agree with you on a common denominator, however, as the broad scope of the course and study design, this is really an unrealistic expectation.
Sure the wave-particle duality was interesting. But if you want to make it really interesting talk about the real physics (when an observer 'views' the electrons and how they react). Also, explore delayed choice QM. To get a real feel for physics you really do need calculus, how the hell is counting the squares considered physics. It provides a range of values that practically destroys the whole accuracy of the physics investigation.
Additionally, why should you need to make physics more interesting? When it already is interesting as a whole through your own personal interest and intuition.
My concern is that unrealistic angles and expectations taught. That there is no real problem solving such as the question attached.
mod edit: merged posts. There is no need to double post. :)
-
I never said that those questions were significantly hard. I stated quite explicitly that they are significantly harder than the VCAA 2017 exam questions. In lay man's term, VCAA 2017 mentioned 7th grade question, 1977 HSC (the real physics days), year 12 standard.
Sure the poster makes it somewhat interesting. I agree with you on a common denominator, however, as the broad scope of the course and study design, this is really an unrealistic expectation.
Sure the wave-particle duality was interesting. But if you want to make it really interesting talk about the real physics (when an observer 'views' the electrons and how they react). Also, explore delayed choice QM. To get a real feel for physics you really do need calculus, how the hell is counting the squares considered physics. It provides a range of values that practically destroys the whole accuracy of the physics investigation.
So you're saying, you would rather sacrifice the accessibility of a course just for your selfish needs of calculus and your biased views of "investigation"?
Honestly. I'm actually quite elitist about these things myself behind the scenes. I don't like how physics lacks the flavour of calculus and many of the perspectives true physicists use. But just because this was considered the norm four or so decades ago certainly has no implication at all about why this should be the case right now.
Seriously. All I can see in your rant is your insistence on favouring what you want to see in your physics course, whilst ignoring the fact that there are heaps of other students out there that just want to enjoy a course and gain insight to a field of study that has traditionally been near-inaccessible in many people's viewpoints. All I see is you bashing out certain forms of assessment that you deem "unworthy" of a true physics course, which may be a reasonable argument at tertiary level studies but for the sake of secondary, where you've only been given a taste of things for the first time, is just absurd.
Not to mention that traditional teaching methods involving textbook grind and 100% theory have been statistically shown to produce lesser results in the long run. I have friends that are all in for the theory, and I too love theory, but that is not going to impact much at all in contrast to thousands of people who literally want AND need other elements to facilitate their studies, and understandings of various concepts.
If you can't handle the fact that the current physics curricula across the country has been too dumbed down for your needs, just like I have occasionally with mathematics, then please do yourself a service and go self-learn the content and explore more deeply into it like I used to. Fact just is, everyone learns at different paces, and all I can see is you rubbing off your's.
-
Why has the recent physics course been dumbed down so much that you get 2 makrs for simply saying that force is 0N when current runs parallel in a DC motor when questions such as the one attached is signficantly harder and actually requires problem-solving.
...
The introduction of an investigation report?
...
Any thoughts?
You have not answered the question.
I think you're mistaking lack of agreeance for lack of an answer.
To also answer your question:
As far as I can tell, VCAA wants understanding of scientific principles and application to be emphasised - hence there being an investigation and poster (for all sciences).
I found that the scientific investigation and assessment of scientific skills in the exam and SACs was useful, and it deepened my understanding of science. I'm glad it's part of the curriculum - especially because not everyone who studies VCE physics will go on to further scientific study.
-
oh dear.
-
Why has the recent physics course been dumbed down so much that you get 2 makrs for simply saying that force is 0N when current runs parallel in a DC motor when questions such as the one attached is signficantly harder and actually requires problem-solving.
The introduction of an investigation report? I mean yeah sure read between the lines, this is trying to get girls to do physics. But, really a poster... Like, not even a lab report.
Any thoughts?
It really does pay to make sure that you've got all of your facts straight before you come out with statements as bold as "dumbing-down" and the suggestion that changes have been made to make physics acceptable to girls. A couple of notes:
-being able to report new science is the core skill in science. Without reporting science, science stays stagnant. You obviously have a preference for ignoring this skill in favour of doing questions and rehashing old work without critical thinking, which y'know, is basically just performing a trick in the same way that a seal does at a circus.
-there are no demonstrable differences between the inherent abilities of males and females in STEM. There is abundant evidence that women are underrepresented because of institutional barriers and negative stereotypes, which make it harder for women to engage in STEM in the same way men do. But you probably wouldn't understand that because of your already stated disdain for actually learning how to do science.
-
To post something as ridiculous as this requires real stupidity and cynicism... Just to eludicate the nature of the question you are referring toward, your expectation of problem solving for every single question within an exam is completely misguided. Exams assess both critical thinking and theory... the question you have so *eloquently* detested is likely theoretical, in contrast to problem solving based.
Next time you want to boast about your purported superiority over a course, please provide evidence that isn't laughable (the question you gave was not even difficult in the slightest --> but that is beside the point) and don't use pejoratives against others (I.e. women).... that is a really quick method of alienating yourself (and rightfully so).