🚀 go-pugleaf

 >>    Concerning the curriculum of a first year physics course, I had wondered
 >> about that several times myself.  I've discussed it also with some
 >> Vanderbilt professors here in Nashville.  They are of much the same opinion
 >> as Mr. Kaplun - the how is more important than the what.
 >
 >Unfourtunately when we develop curriculum we spend all of our time on
 >the what.  I've had some recent discussions about this and would be
 >interested any comments about the "how".  Specifically, the way we
 >teach science and the way scientists do science.  Is there a
 >difference? And should there be a difference?  How does one go about
 >affecting change?
 >
 >

If a student from another school were to inform me that they had taken
physics, I would assume (however foolishly) that they had covered certain
core subjects.  I agree completely that the "how" is incredibly important,
but there should be a content that the skills can be developed within.  I
could teach the entire year, covering just mechanics (no waves, sound,
light, electricity, or magnetism) and develop very (I hope) capable
students that are prepared to handle many of lifes challenges and answer
many of lifes questions...

Which brings me back to my original question as it should have been phrased:

What areas within the subject of physics should be covered when developing
students higher order thinking skills?