🚀 go-pugleaf

Ladies and Gentlemen,

        In PA, if the teacher is a certified physics teacher, then he or
she is automatically certified to teach Principles of Technology.
Industrial Arts, (shop teachers) can get certified to teach PT by
attending a workshop.  |A Physics certificate is NOT necessary in PA|.
One of the problemns with this is that if the PT course is called physics,
than the school doesn't need a teacher with a physics certificate to teach
physics.  The shop teacher is instantly certified in "physics" after
completing the PT workshop.

        I used the PT texts for two years.  I went back to the Conceptual
Physics by Paul Hewitt.  The following is a list of the reasons.
        1.  The texts do not explain.  The text present facts for the
students to memorize.
        2.  The sample calculaions simply told the student to multiply by
this conversion factor or divide by a number without explaing where the
number or factor came from.  Some of them are quite arcane.  The student
is never given a chance to work through a logical conversion of units.
        3.  The materials are hung up on the process of converting from
one set of units to another.  Most physics books dropped this 15 years ago
when they went to the "metric system"
        4.  Since the facts are presented with no explaination, and the
labes do not require the students to think about what they are doing,
(The materials that I was given to use in Pittsburgh, provided step by
step instructions as though the student was operating a machine)  many
students go into shock when the questions at the end of the lab ask the
student for an answer that shows solid understanding of the concepts involved.
Suddenly they are asked to think and explain, when up to this point they have
needed to do nothing more than read the instruction manual.  My students
called the questions. " The questions from another world."
        5.  A eacher with little experience or little preparation in
physics is going to run into A LOT OF DIFFICULTIES if they go into the
course thinking that the course is an easy, self contained program that
only requires the teacher to turn the crank and watch the results.  I
found myself spending more and more time providing the students with
explainations and discussions that were not provided in the book.
        6.  Personally, I don't like the text.  It looks like a government
training manual.  The diagrams and sketches are not always readable.  Some
of the "pictures"  come out looking like pictures of a black dog taken in
the dark on a moonless night without a flashbulb.
        7.  A lot of expensive equipment is used.  Some would consider
this to be a plus.  I have difficulties with materials that try to teach
by making the process difficult.  Example--A ten dollar slinky can be used
to provide hands on learning about waves and interference.  For $100, it
is possible to provide slinkys for 10 lab groups.  The same topic, waves,
in PT uses a $1400 oscilloscope, and a $200 oscillator to draw waves on
the oscilliscope.  That's $1600 for ONE LAB GROUP!!  Ray optics require
the use of a laser.  I found that I was already doing a number of the labs
in my Conceptual Physics classes for a LOT less expense.  The Wave portion
of the course turned into a problem session in getting the students to
understand the function of the various knobs and buttons on the
oscilliscope. the kids forgot completely that they were learning about
waves.  The book here does not provide the students with the instructions on
how to operate an oscilliscope.
        8.  The materials were written without any concern about how a
students learns.  The material doesn't take into account that there are
different learning styles.  The materials appears to be written by authors
that have a learning style that is "Tell me in a lecture and that is good
enough."


        As you can see, I am not impressed with the materials.  I will
save the rest for later if there is any desire for discussion .

Ed Henke
George Westinghouse HS
Pittsburgh PA