How to handle class of unprepared students

<p>This semester, I was assigned to teach a very small (7 students) section of physics for non-majors. The course is supposed to be kind of hands on and lite, with some problem solving but not the usual algebra-based mirror of physics for the science majors. Unfortunately, I have found that only 2 of the students have adequate backgrounds to do much of anything, problem wise. The others are woefully unprepared and lack the means to consider even the least calculation effort. I doubt that any of them are finding it fun at this point. </p>

<p>Kind of at a loss on how best to proceed.</p>

<p>I guess I would aim lower. Look for lessons aimed at middle schoolers and beef them up as is appropriate for your class or for the 2 students that are at a high level.</p>

<p>Berkeley Extension offers a “physics lite” class online. I actually volunteered to proctor the exam for someone, and it was interesting because it was all conceptual and nary a calculation to be seen. You might go on line to find it, and get in touch with those that teach it. Seems like a model that would work for you. </p>

<p>Okay I think this is it: [Concepts</a> of Physics course - UC Berkeley Extension](<a href=“http://extension.berkeley.edu/cat/course354.html]Concepts”>http://extension.berkeley.edu/cat/course354.html)</p>

<p>I took a physics for non physics majors class at a local university a few years back, because I got very interested in the concepts, just for fun. I really enjoyed it, but if I had had to do the math??? The teacher was fantastic! Have to say it was a lot of fun.</p>

<p>Good luck. People like me, who work in the soft sciences, appreciate you dumbing it down for us so we can get what knowledge we can out of this.</p>

<p>Oh, and it was interesting, too, how I brought some of the concepts into my own understanding of how the way we look at things really does influence what it is we end up seeing. It had an impact on me, in ways you might not expect, as a thinker and practitioner.</p>

<p>If you’re teaching physics appreciation, make the course that.</p>

<p>My D took what was referred to as a Physics Options course in HS. It did not culminate in the state exam. She had been through pre-calc before realizing that she could drop math! She loved the class and thinks it will be very useful in her chosen career of elementary special ed teacher because the science was fun and the math was “light.” On the other hand, my son is currently taking AP Calc BC and AP Physics C.</p>

<p>For the OP, is this a HS or a college course? If HS, maybe try to focus on “useful” physics and allow them to use calculators for the math; maybe encourage the two who can to do the math by hand. If it’s college, I have no clue…</p>

<p>Joan52 - this is a college course. Most of the students are there to fill the core curriculum science requirement.</p>

<p>Is there anyone in the department to talk to? They will be able to tell you whether this is normal. My guess is that it is and that students often fail. You might see what kind of materials are available for your textbook. See whether there is a study guide or a companion website (go to Google and type [name of textbook] companion website). If it is a Pearson product, many of them have sites with lots of useful information. Good luck.</p>

<p>What I would do is review the background they are missing and try to build up to what you originally intended to teach. Perhaps you could give a diagnostic test to find out where people are.</p>

<p>Is there a tutoring center where you could have them work on skills?</p>

<p>Forget the math part. Teach them tangible and easy to understand examples of physical phenomena and the theory behind them. But forget the math. This could be a fun and meaningful class, but if you are solely a whiteboard physicists you might find it difficult.</p>

<p>I’m assuming this class doesn’t involve calculus, but if it’s a physics class, you’ve got to have some math.</p>

<p>I would hope that there is some type of course description that explains what is supposed to be covered in the class. I would assume there is also some type of math prerequisite. I would use those as the starting points. What needs to be covered, and how can you best do that given the expected math background? I am not a fan of dumbing down a college class simply because the students are not prepared. If they are supposed to have a particular background for the class but do not, they shouldn’t be there.</p>

<p>I know I probably sound a bit heartless, but a college course is supposed to be at least somewhat college-like.</p>

<p>You are exactly right, Kelsmom.</p>

<p>here is what I read</p>

<p>“Before printing, it was very difficult to create books, and so someone would read the books to everybody who would copy them down,” says Joe Redish, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland. He points out that the word “lecture” comes from the Latin word meaning “to read.”</p>

<p>Redish is trying to change the way college students are taught. He says lecturing has never been an effective teaching method, and now that information is so easily accessible, lecturing is a waste of time.</p>

<p>“With modern technology, if all there is is lectures, we don’t need faculty to do it,” Redish says. “Get 'em to do it once, put it on the web, and fire the faculty.”</p>

<p>Redish has been teaching at the University of Maryland since 1970. When he started, he lectured because that’s the way he had been taught. But after a few years in the classroom, Redish was meeting with one of his mentors, a famous physicist named Lewis Elton who had begun doing research on education.</p>

<p>“He asked me, ‘How’s your teaching?’”</p>

<p>Redish told him it was going well, but that he seemed to be most effective with the students “who do really well and are motivated” about physics.</p>

<p>Elton looked at Redish, smiled, and said, “They’re the ones who don’t really need you.”</p>

<p>“That was like an arrow to the breast!” says Redish.</p>

<p>He knew that Elton was right. Most of the students in his lecture classes were not motivated to learn physics, and they didn’t seem to be learning much. Redish thought back on his own experience as a college student and realized that he didn’t learn much in lecture classes either.</p>

<p>“When I had a question, I would find the TA,” he says. “He would explain stuff to me. I would find other students. I learned how to learn physics on my own.”
How People Learn</p>

<p>Redish wanted to reach the students who weren’t teaching themselves. So he began trying to better understand how people learn.</p>

<p>This was the 1970s and 80s, a time when cognitive scientists were making big breakthroughs in their understanding of how the human brain processes and retains information. At the same time, a small and growing group of physicists was becoming interested in the questions that kept Redish up at night: What do students learn in a traditional lecture-based physics class, and are there ways to teach them better?</p>

<p>Cognitive scientists determined that people’s short-term memory is very limited – it can only process so much at once. A lot of the information presented in a typical lecture comes at students too fast and is quickly forgotten.</p>

<p>Physics education researchers, among whom Redish is now a leader, determined that the traditional lecture-based physics course where students sit and passively absorb information is not an effective way for students to learn. A lot of students can repeat the laws of physics and even solve complex problems, but many are doing it through rote memorization. Most students who complete a standard physics class never understand what the laws of physics mean, or how to apply them to real-world situations. (Read more about what physicists learned.)</p>

<p>wow giant post
Should just linked it
[Rethinking</a> the Way College Students Are Taught](<a href=“http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/lectures/rethinking-teaching.html]Rethinking”>Rethinking the Way College Students Are Taught)</p>

<p><a href=“http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/lectures/problem-with-lecturing.html[/url]”>http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/tomorrows-college/lectures/problem-with-lecturing.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I agree that college physics should be a college level class, but even Harvard had a Physics for Poets option. I have no idea what it covered however since I took Physics for Pre-Meds (and Architects). I’d think you could at least cover what a high school physics course would cover (ours assumes you’ve had Algebra 1 and Geometry). You could beef it up by having students write papers. There’s a lot of physics you can demonstrate - levers and all that stuff. All I remember from physics is “F=MA” and “You can’t push on a rope.”</p>

<p>There’s lots of entertaining stuff at MIT’s Open Courseware: <a href=“http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/[/url]”>http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Something else can be demonstrated: why you need a long wrench handle to remove the overtightened lug nuts/bolts when changing your car’s flat tire.</p>

<p>In terms of other “physics for poets” type of courses that you may want to get ideas from, you can also look at this course web page, which includes some chapters of a textbook for this course:<br>
[Physics</a> for future Presidents](<a href=“http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html]Physics”>http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html)</p>

<p>That was a very interesting article bears and dogs. One of the problems with studies or approaches applied by professors from places like Harvard is that they are most likely not dealing with the same type of students as we are seeing here. Presumably, most Harvard students can convert inches into meters given a conversion factor and know basic trigonometry. However, I agree that some kind of non-standard approach is necessary.</p>

<p>I once took a fascinating course called “Science Fiction and Physics.” IIRC, we learned the basic laws of physics as contrasted with science fiction short stories wherein the laws were routinely broken. Kind of fun.</p>

<p>There was a paperback textbook that had the literature in it, annotated.</p>