Richard Muller,
physics professor at UC-Berkeley and author of PHYSICS FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS,
gave a fascinating and enlightening keynote address at the AAPT Winter meeting
(Feb. 4-8, 2012) on his course for non-science majors; and he was on a panel
immediately afterward.
He referred us
to his website: http://www.muller.lbl.gov/. From there, you can read his
preface to his course, which was what his talk was about.
http://www.muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP_textbook/PffP-00-TOC-Preface-5-27.htm
I quote from
his preface:
--------------------------------
Knowledge of
physics will help them judge, on their own, if the physicist is right. Let me illustrate what can be
taught by telling a short story that I share with my students in the first
lecture. It tells them what I want
from them.
Liz, a former
student of my class, came to my office hour, eager to share a wonderful
experience she had had a few days earlier. Her family had invited a physicist
over for dinner, someone who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. He regaled them
through the dinner with his stories of controlled thermonuclear fusion, and its
great future for the power needs of our country. According to Liz, the family
sat in awe of this great man describing his great work. Liz knew more about fusion than did her
parents, because we had covered it in our class.
There was a
period of quiet admiration at the end. Finally Liz spoke up. "Solar power has a future
too," she said.
"Ha!"
the physicist laughed. (He didn't
mean to be patronizing, but this is a typical tone physicists affect.) "If you want enough power just for
California," he continued, "you'd have to plaster the whole state
with solar cells!"
Liz answered
right back. "No, you're
wrong," she said. "There
is a gigawatt in a square kilometer of sunlight, and that's about the same as a
nuclear power plant."
Stunned silence
from the physicist. Liz said he
frowned. Finally he said,
"Hmm. Your numbers don't
sound wrong. Of course, present
solar cells are only 15% efficientÉ but that's not a huge factor. Hmm. I'll have to check my numbers."
YES!! That's what I want my
students to be able to do. Not
integrals, not roller-coaster calculations, not pontifications on the
scientific method or the deep meaning of conservation of angular momentum. She
was able to shut up an arrogant physicist who hadn't done his homework! Liz hadn't just memorized facts. She knew enough about the subject of
energy that she could confidently present her case under duress when confronted
by a supposed expert. Her performance is even more impressive when you
recognize that solar power is only a tiny part of this course. She remembered the important numbers
because she had found them fascinating and important. She hadn't just memorized them, but had thought about them
and discussed them with her classmates.
They had become part of her, a part she could bring out and use when she
needed them, even a year later.
-------------------------
His goal is to
motivate students by putting the most fascinating topics first. Energy is
taught FIRST. He is skeptical about using the definition of energy as the
ability to do work. ÒEnergy is energy; it is all energy.Ó He doesn't like the
term "types of energy" (i.e., kinetic, potential).
If students
believe something is important, they will learn. He teaches understanding, not
facts. "You're going to win arguments because you understand ..." he
tells students. "Know the numbers, know what is important, thus be
empowered to challenge misinformation." "If this is wrong, HOW is it
wrong?" he asks them.
Most important
is to learn HOW TO LEARN, he said.
His course,
Physics 10, is on YouTube. Search for Physics 10 Richard Muller. The first
lecture is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ysbZ_j2xi0
David Hestenes
wrote about it: ÒHis course is about as good as a physics lecture can get. Note
that all the examples concern rates and proportions that are accessible to
grade 9. Teachers need a catalog of good and relevant examples such as he
gives.Ó