1 Alignment of the Physics Level 3 Standards with the New Zealand Curriculum (2007) Graham Foster, Senior Tutor, Physics Department, University of Auckland Draft Standards Matrix Q1 a. Reflects the key outcomes of Physics as indicated by the Strongly disagree 1 relevant learning area essence statement in the curriculum b. Reflects the key achievement objectives curriculum levels 6 Strongly disagree 1 through 8 c. Shows clear progressions of outcomes across the three disagree 2 levels d. Shows appropriate assessment modes for the outcomes in disagree 2 the standards. e. Shows appropriate credit values for the standards. Strongly disagree 1 Q2. Overall Draft Matrix: Poor # 2 Q3. The Draft Matrix provides little opportunity for students to develop the “vision’ elements from NZC – creativity, personal insight, motivation through extension of their understanding, and little opportunity is given to developing important historical perspectives, development of scientific literacy, and developing ‘future focus’. The Draft A.S. structure is too traditional and limiting. There are very significant omissions, some concepts are not required at this level, and future focus topics that are extremely relevant are not included. The Draft A.S. structure does not provide sufficient opportunity for technological applications. There is a critical need to reduce the credit emphasis on Mechanics and in Electromagnetism to provide more opportunity for creative studies and recognition of contemporary technological and Physics-­‐based issues. Concept studies should include concept studies such as Climate, Heat engines and Heat Pumps, Geophysics, Medical Physics, From Quanta to Quarks and the Age of Silicon. There should be more consideration given to these topics which are already offered by several countries, including the NSW and Victorian Boards of Studies in Australia. While thermal / thermodynamics is not written in the NZC, my personal contact with Chris Arcus, Project Leader at the Minedu, Wellington, indicates that the NZC is not a limiting document and that supplementary topics are possible. NZQA should not restrict the topics available to those more traditional ones given emphasis in the Draft L3 AS structure. Q4 Assoc. Prof Gary Bold suggests that A.C. theory could easily be deleted. This is a very problematic topic that is not required until Stage 2 at tertiary level. Experience shows that students often learn ewrroneous ideas in A.C. theory at secondary level. Assoc. Prof. Neil Broderick suggests that the existing traditional approach focuses on ‘what teachers at 2e and 3e want students to know’ rather than ‘what students need to know in a technological society’. Assoc Prof. Rainer Leonhardt suggests that non-­‐linear dynamics could be significantly reduces so that more emphasis could be given to more relevant, future-­‐focused topics. There is little emphasis on rotational/angular dynamics at tertiary level until it is required late in Stage 1 and in Stage 2. Inclusion of technology and applied physics topics at 2e level should provide motivation and real world examples and should not be an end to themselves. The rationale documentation does not align with the assertion that “the process of developing these A.S. has been guided by the direction of the NZC. The very traditional, narrow-­‐focus approach limits the intentions given in the NZC regarding values, principles and key competencies. The segmented approach that seems to 2 lack links to make Physics the coherent subject it should be, does not encourage metacognitive development and does not fit the ‘future-­‐focus’ intention described in the NZC Principles. Contemporary, Physics-­‐related issues such as the use of the Large Hadron Collider, importance of developing and using photo-­‐voltaics, and other applications of Physics to geology, astronomy and quantum studies are not given appropriate scope for inclusion through adequate recognition of credit value. Finally it is concerning to see some apparent attempts to dilute the value of some Physics ideas. The inclusion of the Doppler em formula appears to be an inappropriate inclusion that diminishes the value of Einstein’s work on the Theory of Special Relativity. This reduces the coherence and value of Physics. However much more appropriate topics are available – see comment in AS 3.3 Waves. Therefore there is a need to provide a much broader view of Physics in a modern context rather than the current, narrow range of topics. This would enable students to be prepared for the range of contemporary studies available at the 3e level, it would support development of scientific literacy and provide relevance and technological advantage. Q5. As a former Unit Standards moderator I strongly support the retention / creation of equivalent Level 3 Unit Standards that would make the study of more than one future-­‐focus study possible. Then students might attempt both AS 3.2 Draft and an additional Unit Standard topic. This might be appropriate to the needs of some school students and would provide additional opportunities for study of ‘future-­‐focus’ topics. Such studies would provide for values of equity, excellence, innovation and inquiry, together with opportunities for appropriate development and assessment of Key Competencies. Q6 AS3.1 The statement “test a physics theory” is an over-­‐simplified statement of intention and raises the concern of the language and expression for these Draft AS being too economical. The conditions provided need to indicate more specifically the intended level of this investigation, including the non-­‐linear relationship and the need for a relationship that requires an intercept where possible. The assessment requirements seem to be not aligned with the requirements in the title since the level suggested by the title seems to be lower that that required by the assessment criteria. AS3.2 This AS provides a very good opportunity for students to show development of Key Competencies and Values as in NZC. It will allow students to develop understandings related to the NZC Principles of ‘future focus’. While not intending to offer definitive topics for this AS, it is suggested that topics such as those offered by the Victoria and NSW Boards of Studies and in the “Physics for Future Presidents” (Berkeley University) should be developed and resourced by the Ministry of Education and there is a need for NZQA to relay this suggestion to Minedu so that this development load is not left to teachers who are already too busy to do this development of resources. 3 Physics Assessment Standard – 3.1 Q7 a. That the title provides a general summary of the 1 Strongly disagree requirements for this Standard b. With the credit value 4 Agree c. That the Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the 2 Disagree requirements for the award of each grade d. That the explanatory notes sufficientl clarify the intent of the. 1 Strongly disagree Standard e. With the appropriateness of the Mode of Assessment 4 Agree Q8. How would you rate this Achievement Standard 2 Poor Q9. The statement “test a physics theory is an over-­‐simplification. The title and conditions need to be more specifically stated to indicate the more advanced level required in this investigation. The assessment criteria do not align with the assessment statement . It is suggested that the title be re-­‐worked to give better equivalence between the two, indicating that a non-­‐linear relationship needs to be developed with appropriate uncertainties. Physics Achievement Standard – 3.2 Q10 a. That the title provides a general summary of the 4 Agree requirements for this Standard b. With the credit value 2 Disagree c. That the Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the 4 Agree requirements for the award of each grade d. That the explanatory notes sufficientl clarify the intent of the. 4 Agree Standard e. With the appropriateness of the Mode of Assessment 4 Agree Q11. How would you rate this Achievement Standard 4 Good Q12. It is very good to see this AS being introduced as it provides the opportunity for students to show development of the Key Competencies, scientific literacy, and technological competence in the context of a ‘future – focus’ study. Topics suggested include “Geophysics, Thermal /Thermodynamics, Astrophysics, Quanta to Quarks and The Age of Silicon similar to those in the Victoria and NSW Boards of Studies examinations. It is suggested that resources should be developed by the Ministry of Education and not left to teacher development. Further, while the “Condition of Assessment” should require at least two modes of assessment so that the breadth of the NZC statements is realised. E.g. Test & poster; Test & PowerPoint; Test and Practical. This will provide potential to assess development of values and Key Competencies. To provide greater motivation and legitimacy the credit value should be raised to 4 credits. 4 Physics Achievement Standard – 3.3 Q13 a. That the title provides a general summary of the 4 Agree requirements for this Standard b. With the credit value 4 Agree c. That the Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the 4 Agree requirements for the award of each grade d. That the explanatory notes sufficientl clarify the intent of the. 2 Disagree Standard e. With the appropriateness of the Mode of Assessment 4 Agree Q14. How would you rate this Achievement Standard ? 3 Fair Q15. There should be greater linking between the SHM quantitative formulae e.g y = A sin ωt + φ and the expanded wave equation y = A sin 2π (ft + x / λ). This interpretation is not provided to a satisfactory level in Year 13 Maths with Calculus. This will provide students with greater understanding about how to interpret the wave equation graphically and lead to the insight that is required by the NZC. The addition of the Doppler electromagnetic equation seems to be a dilution of good Physics. Consultation with Assoc. Prof Matthew Collett confirms that this introduction is of doubtful value at this level unless it is linked to an adequate study of the Lorentz equation in the context of Special Relativity. It seems to be a disservice to Einstein to teach Doppler without this more effective link to Special Relativity. It would seem much better to develop the topics of diffraction and interference to the more relevant and technological application of the differences between CD’s, DVD’s and Blue Ray. 5 Physics Achievement Standard – 3.4 Q16 a. That the title provides a general summary of the 4 Agree requirements for this Standard b. With the credit value 2 Disagree c. That the Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the 4 Agree requirements for the award of each grade d. That the explanatory notes sufficientl clarify the intent of the. 4 Agree Standard e. With the appropriateness of the Mode of Assessment 4 Agree Q17. How would you rate this Achievement Standard? 3 Fair Q18. It is necessary that the revised AS strictly adheres to the Level 3 standard rather than involving any Level 2 overlap (mostly by teachers). This AS should only emphasise Conservation of Momentum (linear in terms of centre of mass; angular momentum). Since rotational dynamics is not advanced at tertiary level except through use of differential equations, the emphasis on rotational dynamics could be reduced to technological applications such as wheel design. Linear ideas such as motion in a banked curve and conical pendulum should remain. SHM remains an essential concept that may need strengthening by giving more emphasis to graphical representation so that the link between AS 3.4 and AS 3.3 is more evident to students. Physics Achievement Standard – 3.5 Q19 a. That the title provides a general summary of the 4 Agree requirements for this Standard b. With the credit value 4 Aagree c. That the Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the 4 Agree requirements for the award of each grade d. That the explanatory notes sufficientl clarify the intent of the. 4 Agree Standard e. With the appropriateness of the Mode of Assessment 4 Agree Q20. How would you rate this Achievement Standard? 4 Good Q21 A very good Standard within the contingencies of time and assessment demands 6 Physics Achievement Standard – 3.6 Q22 a. That the title provides a general summary of the requirements for this Standard b. With the credit value c. That the Achievement Criteria sufficiently specify the requirements for the award of each grade d. That the explanatory notes sufficientl clarify the intent of the. Standard e. With the appropriateness of the Mode of Assessment 4 Agree 1 Strongly Disagree 4 Agree 4 Agree 4 Agree Q23. How would you rate this Achievement Standard? 2 Poor Q24 Since AC Theory is not included at Stage 1 tertiary level teaching and learning it should be removed in favour of a more rigorous treatment as part of a AS 3.2 topic. Assoc Prof Gary Bold indicates that many teachers of Physics have difficulty with this topic since it can be quite complex for many students. He indicates that Stage 2 students even seem to have difficulties with this topic. From his experience students are taught erroneous ideas in Year 13 and A.C. needs to be taught correctly at Stage 2. It is suggested that it would be preferable to reduce the content in this AS Draft and leave AC, network theory and design, together with intrinsic and extrinsic semi-­‐conductors and their technological applications as a AS 3.2 topic. This reduces AS 3.6 to 4 or 5 credits, leaving more time for appropriate development of technological, future-­‐focus topics and scientific literacy. CLOSING Q25 There are numerous research articles discussing why students find Physics difficult, uninteresting and irrelevant. Wieman, Mazur, etc indicate that if Physics has little relevance, is too traditional and limiting, then students will find it confusing and view the study as simply a series of non-­‐related ideas rather than a coherent study of ideas and concepts that students should know in our technological society. Therefore the revision of the Draft Physics AS needs to increase the future-­‐focused perspective by removing unnecessary topics and introduction of topics which may be similar to those within the contexts of the NSW and Victorian Boards of Studies, and similar to those in the Physics for Future Presidents (Berkeley). The balance of credits needs altering to give legitimacy and emphasis to these future-­‐focus topics and to promote development of scientific literacy (in its fuller sense). To reverse the falling numbers of students studying Physics and to meet the needs of New Zealand’s development, we must update the concepts, increase coherence and linking between concepts, increase the technological perspective, make Physics more relevant by moving from a content-­‐focus to a student-­‐needs focus and align the Standards to be closer to the NZC, not just in content, but in its fuller intentions.