MEMORANDUM

Date: March 5, 2004

To: Daniel S. Papp

Senior Vice Chancellor

University System of Georgia

From: Academic Advisory Committee on Physics and Astronomy

William H. Nelson, 2004 Chair

Re: Request for review of DOE Curriculum

The Academic Advisory Committee on Physics and Astronomy commends the Georgia Department of Education for its efforts in establishing a standards-based curriculum focused on analytic and critical thought. This is a considerable improvement over the previous QCC which consisted mainly of content essentially in the form of a laundry list. Moreover, the QCC's selection of content for early grades was weak in the area of age-appropriateness.

The general content listed in the GPS covers all the core areas of physics: mechanics, electricity and magnetism, wave behavior, thermal physics, basic atomic and nuclear physics, basic gravitation and astrophysics. All of us in higher education will be delighted to receive students with the capability to observe, analyze, calculate, and communicate effectively on topics in physics and physical science. It is not necessary that students should arrive in our classrooms knowing all there is to know; it is more important that they should arrive with a minimum of misconception, and with a maximum of intellectual preparation. Of course, the major unknown is how effectively these goals can be achieved in the K-12 classrooms.

A prerequisite to achieving the GPS's goals is that they should be clearly and carefully articulated. It was particularly gratifying to us that the committee preparing the GPS made extensive use of nationallyrecognized performance standards such as those created by AAAS. However, in reviewing the document, we identified several places where we believe revision is warranted for the purpose of clarity and correction; as well, we identified several points of concern regarding the balance between qualitative and quantitative emphases in the content sections. These are listed below:

- On page 2 of the physics description, "Motion" should be replaced by "Laws of Motion" in the "Major Concepts/ Skills" section. (The corresponding Physical Science section gets this more nearly correct.)

- The term "assess" is vague and unclear; our deduction is that it apparently means "experimentally determine" (but not "to measure"). (In some cases, such as that of dealing experimentally with Coulomb's Law, the less specific terminology may be appropriate. See below.) Nevertheless, additional wording is needed to clarify the meaning of "assess" as intended for the GPS.

- The standards, or at least the examples, disproportionately emphasize "Habits of Mind." Accordingly, we recommend that the following HOMs should be deleted:

SCSh4. Students will be able to use the ideas of system, model, change and scale in exploring scientific and technological matters.

SCSh8. Students will be familiar with the character of scientific knowledge and how it is achieved.

SCSh9. Students will understand important features of the process of scientific inquiry.

Our rationale is that these are sufficiently covered in the Physical Science course and need not be explicit for the physics course. We also note that reducing the HOMs leaves more time for content. (We note that deleting SCSh8&9 eliminates the entire section called "The Nature of Science.")

- We recommend adding an HOM focused on dimensional analysis. This seems most appropriately placed within SCSh2 as SCSh2i.

- Some of the content standards may not be achievable with practical hands-on methods. A specific example is the detailed examination of Coulomb's Law to "…assess the relationship between force, charge, and distance…" (The method of hanging a pair of charged spheres---e.g., graphite-coated pingpong balls---can demonstrate the force and distance parts, but we see no good way to quantitatively deal with the charge-dependence.)

- The student response samples give only weak evidence that the scientific connections are achieved. (This is mainly an expression of concern over how effectual these standards can be.)

- On page 8 of the physics draft, there is the statement "The change of motion of an object is proportional to the applied force and inversely proportional to the mass." In general, the term "motion" is not defined; thus, this statement is vague. The AAAS document precedes a similar statement with the sentence: "Changes in speed or direction of motion are caused by forces." Therefore, the GPS statement should be something like: "Changes in speed or direction of motion are caused by forces. The time rate at which the velocity of an object changes is proportional to the net applied force and inversely proportional to its mass."

- On page 9 of the physics draft, in the benchmark at the top of the page is the statement: "Accelerating electric charges produce electromagnetic waves around them." Technically this is true. But, it would be better to say something like "Electromagnetic waves are produced by acceleration of electric charges."

- On page 10 of the physics draft, near the top of the page: "Students will analyze the relationship between the conservation of electric charge and the efficiency of electrical systems." We have no idea what this means, and therefore we have no idea what the goal of this might be. Consequently, this statement needs to be removed, or replaced with one which accurately expresses the content-related goal.

- On page 7 of the physics draft, benchmark: "Heat energy in a material consists of the disordered motions of its atoms or molecules." Unfortunately, this same thing is in the physical science benchmarks, as well as a few other places. The AAAS was furthering an ignorance of basic science when they wrote this one. In general, usage of the term "heat energy" touched a nerve among several of our representatives. The HyperPhysics website has a little history on this issue: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html#c1.

- On page 8 of the physics draft, benchmark: "Power is a force applied to an object for a given distance over a period of time." This should be "Power is the change in energy of a system per unit time." We recognize that it is appropriate to describe the rate at which work is done by specific forces in terms of power; also we recognize that energy may be given to, as well as taken from, a system by identifiable forces. However, our recommended statement is the definition of power, and it seems too restrictive to introduce this important concept with a specific focus on forces at this educational level. (An instructor in high school physics can easily guide students to the appropriate force-centered relation.)

- On page 4 of the middle grade draft: "Convection is not so much an independent means for heat transfer as it is an aid to transfer of heat by conduction and radiation." This relegates convection to something less than a method of heat transfer, and is inappropriate. Therefore, we recommend removal of this sentence and insertion of a more conventional statement describing convection as a mechanism of heat transfer.

- On page 10 of the middle grades draft, benchmark: "Stars can be classified according to their color and temperature (The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram)." Actually, temperature and color are the same thing; i.e., an H-R diagram plots temperature versus luminosity (brightness). Thus, the statement should be "Stars can be classified according to their temperature and brightness (The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram)."