Talk:Physics First

Australia
I mentioned American schooling, but judging from one external link the situation is similar in Australia. I don't know enough to add that, however, and no nothing about the order of science courses elsewhere. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not posting original paper
I just wrote a paper on Physics first, and will add info and references soon. I assume that posting all 16 pages of the final product would be a bad idea, however, so I will make it as brief as possible ;) - Jlygrnmigt 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
This article uses a lot of "weasel words" that disguise what may very well be OR as facts (items such as "scientists argue that..."). This would be all well and good if these arguments were cited from some reputable source, but they are not. Until they are, the template should stay in the article. – Dok(talk 15:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of actions that do not actually occur
The criticism of physics first made little sense to me, since it alleged criticisms of aspects of the Physics First approach that do not, as far as I know, actually exist. Physics First does not move 11th or 12th grade physics to the 9th grade. The traditional 11th or 12th grade physics course stays; the only change is that for schools that used to have 11th grade physics, they then move it up to the 12th grade. The Physics First approach adds a new course, often called "Conceptual Physics", "Introduction to Physics" or "Physical Science", and this is usually done in 9th grade. Students then take a later high school course in biology and then chemistry, as they always have, then may elect to take a more advanced physics course, as they always have. As such, the unsourced criticisms currently in the article are literally invalid.

It is possible that some high schools have done away with the more advanced physics course, and replaced it with a 9th grade "Physics First" course, but I haven't seen that happeny anywhere yet. If it does happen, my gut feeling is that this is very rare. In these cases alone would the criticisms in the article make sense. [unsigned entry posted by 71.161.67.2617:38, 17Nov2008]

AutoBot removes good links! Why?
An autobot is removing some good links, but is only leaving me cryptic messages. Why specifically are these innocuous links to physics education websites being removed by a mindless robot? Could a human being please explain?
 * American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) Statement on Physics First
 * AAPT Physics First Informational Guide (pdf file)
 * Physics First resources
 * Australian Physics First
 * Project ARISE (American Renaissance in Science Education)
 * The State of Physics First Programs: A (pdf file) Report for Project ARISE (Americasn Renaissance in Science Education  [unsigned entry posted by 71.161.67.26, 17:50, 17Nov2008]

Angular Displacement
what is the angular displacement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.189.212 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @121.245.189.212 196.188.160.41 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to advocate or anti-advocate for Physics First
I removed a good bit here... anything that wasn't NPOV and directly related to explaining Physics First was deleted.

That included: * information about the New Jersey advocate -- he is not a national or well-known figure * the derogatory comments about those who think that physics should always be taught with mathematical basis * back-and-forth bickering about an inconclusive educational review, and its conclusions Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)