Young Americans are dumbs

[GaussLaw]

To all interested, I have conducted an item analysis on my last cumulative physics test that I gave my class, consisting primarily of 11th graders of average academic abilities.  

The following questions were missed by more than 50% of the students:
13. A catapult fires a projectile at a speed of 50 m/s 30 degrees above the horizontal.  What is the initial horizontal and vertical speed of the catapult?  
18. An object with mass 8 kilograms experiences a force of 20 N applied to it.  What is the acceleration of the object?
22. Find the angular momentum of an object with mass 7 kg, radius 2 meters, and velocity 10 m/s.  
27. Find the equivalent resistance of a 2-ohm resistor and a 7-ohm resistor connected in parallel.  

Anyone with any kind of physics background would realize how easy these problems are.  

Sigh.......it's nearly impossible to teach my students anything even remotely resembling physics.  They just refuse to learn or take responsibility for themselves, and they're fed this narrative that they're "so special" by their parents.  It's sickening.  It's not the unions that are the problem; it's the parents.  They just refuse to hold their kids accountable for anything.

Cumulative tests highlight another difficulty. Many students assume that either there is a sheet of potential equations or there are a select few equations to memorize; equations they are told in advance to memorize. I don't know if you did either of those for your test, but I don't. As such easily half a class of calculus-based introductory students would get all but 18 wrong.

Problem 13 combines trigonometry with vector kinematics. Students have trouble combining the information from the two disciplines though they can follow it easily enough. The critical thinking skill to mix two fields to solve a problem has been lacking for many years.

Problem 22 might see half get it, but many students won't know whether the radius is of the object or of the trajectory. A lot of science problems require reading to get the context, and students expect to be handed a specific formula and then numbers to insert into the formula.

Problem 27 requires remembering both the formula and distinguishing the definitions of series and parallel. Students who didn't memorize the formula won't try to derive it, but they will usually make a guess that is more likely to something along the lines of the simpler series formula.

Problem 18 would break 50% at the college level primarily because the formula is one of direct division. The wrong answers would occur for those students who want to multiply rather than divide because they'll guess it's one or the other, or they'll get the units wrong or leave them off entirely.

I think the theme is clear. More work needs to go into earlier grades on how to synthesize knowledge, not just repeat it. To bring this back to political discussion, the math standards of the Common Core have significant parts designed to address this issue.

Common Core, in my opinion, is good about encouraging problem solving.  However, it eschews traditional computational algorithms that are a necessary prerequisite for problem solving.  Without a good "number sense", it's very hard for students to get comfortable with problems.

With regards to my physics class, I put cumulative questions on most of my exams and give a good number of truly cumulative exams because it's very difficult to get my students to retain information without a test.  Part of the problem is that my students have a hard time with the basic math.  I have to drill them on division, algebraic manipulations, and especially quadratic equations (even basic ones like x^2+5x+6 = 0).  Since math and physics are in the same department, we as teachers try to work together to make sure the kids are as solid in math as possible.  Thus, I just can't spend that much time on theoretical physics concepts and am generally teaching formulas, problems, and methods that are accessible to students at this level. 

All in all, these students have parents that don't make them study or do homework.  I see that as the ultimate root.  This makes it very difficult for me as a teacher to get good results from these kids.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I find that the context often makes the problem harder. I could reframe question 18 as follows. I don't think this would improve the rate at which students solve it.

You look up some specifications for your little Smart Car and find that it has a mass of 800 kg with you inside. From the specifications you also determine that when you step on the gas the engine supplies 2000 N of force to the car. Find the acceleration you would feel under those conditions. Bonus part - how does that compare to the acceleration you would experience in free fall?

I fail to see how a Smart Car would engage their interest.      For that matter an approximately ¼ gee acceleration would be somewhat pathetic even for a Smart Car.  (As an aside, I think it would be more useful to define the standard gee as 10m/s² rather than as 9.80665 m/s².  Easier to use and anyone who needs a more precise figure than 10m/s² probably needs to use the local gravity rather than the genericized standard gravity.)

But more seriously, would anyone in the "real world" ever make a calculation like that? My point was not simply that we ought to provide a context, but provide a context that motivates students.  Most word problems fail seriously on the motivation point and an unmotivating context may well be worse than no context at all.

[muon2]

I find that the context often makes the problem harder. I could reframe question 18 as follows. I don't think this would improve the rate at which students solve it.

You look up some specifications for your little Smart Car and find that it has a mass of 800 kg with you inside. From the specifications you also determine that when you step on the gas the engine supplies 2000 N of force to the car. Find the acceleration you would feel under those conditions. Bonus part - how does that compare to the acceleration you would experience in free fall?

I fail to see how a Smart Car would engage their interest.      For that matter an approximately ¼ gee acceleration would be somewhat pathetic even for a Smart Car.  (As an aside, I think it would be more useful to define the standard gee as 10m/s² rather than as 9.80665 m/s².  Easier to use and anyone who needs a more precise figure than 10m/s² probably needs to use the local gravity rather than the genericized standard gravity.)

But more seriously, would anyone in the "real world" ever make a calculation like that? My point was not simply that we ought to provide a context, but provide a context that motivates students.  Most word problems fail seriously on the motivation point and an unmotivating context may well be worse than no context at all.

I picked the Smart Car only so I could easily scale the two values in the original problem. Not many cars have a mass as low as 800 kg. You are free to pick any other vehicle you like.

If you aren't trying to estimate how many g's of acceleration occur when you hit the gas, then I expect that there is probably no real world example to help the students. That's one of the things that makes acceleration so hard to teach - students don't have a real world feel for the concept.

[Simfan34]

I find that the context often makes the problem harder. I could reframe question 18 as follows. I don't think this would improve the rate at which students solve it.

You look up some specifications for your little Smart Car and find that it has a mass of 800 kg with you inside. From the specifications you also determine that when you step on the gas the engine supplies 2000 N of force to the car. Find the acceleration you would feel under those conditions. Bonus part - how does that compare to the acceleration you would experience in free fall?

I fail to see how a Smart Car would engage their interest.      For that matter an approximately ¼ gee acceleration would be somewhat pathetic even for a Smart Car.  (As an aside, I think it would be more useful to define the standard gee as 10m/s² rather than as 9.80665 m/s².  Easier to use and anyone who needs a more precise figure than 10m/s² probably needs to use the local gravity rather than the genericized standard gravity.)

But more seriously, would anyone in the "real world" ever make a calculation like that? My point was not simply that we ought to provide a context, but provide a context that motivates students.  Most word problems fail seriously on the motivation point and an unmotivating context may well be worse than no context at all.

Are you mad? 9.8 m/s² is what it is!

[muon2]

To all interested, I have conducted an item analysis on my last cumulative physics test that I gave my class, consisting primarily of 11th graders of average academic abilities.  

The following questions were missed by more than 50% of the students:
13. A catapult fires a projectile at a speed of 50 m/s 30 degrees above the horizontal.  What is the initial horizontal and vertical speed of the catapult?  
18. An object with mass 8 kilograms experiences a force of 20 N applied to it.  What is the acceleration of the object?
22. Find the angular momentum of an object with mass 7 kg, radius 2 meters, and velocity 10 m/s.  
27. Find the equivalent resistance of a 2-ohm resistor and a 7-ohm resistor connected in parallel.  

Anyone with any kind of physics background would realize how easy these problems are.  

Sigh.......it's nearly impossible to teach my students anything even remotely resembling physics.  They just refuse to learn or take responsibility for themselves, and they're fed this narrative that they're "so special" by their parents.  It's sickening.  It's not the unions that are the problem; it's the parents.  They just refuse to hold their kids accountable for anything.

Cumulative tests highlight another difficulty. Many students assume that either there is a sheet of potential equations or there are a select few equations to memorize; equations they are told in advance to memorize. I don't know if you did either of those for your test, but I don't. As such easily half a class of calculus-based introductory students would get all but 18 wrong.

Problem 13 combines trigonometry with vector kinematics. Students have trouble combining the information from the two disciplines though they can follow it easily enough. The critical thinking skill to mix two fields to solve a problem has been lacking for many years.

Problem 22 might see half get it, but many students won't know whether the radius is of the object or of the trajectory. A lot of science problems require reading to get the context, and students expect to be handed a specific formula and then numbers to insert into the formula.

Problem 27 requires remembering both the formula and distinguishing the definitions of series and parallel. Students who didn't memorize the formula won't try to derive it, but they will usually make a guess that is more likely to something along the lines of the simpler series formula.

Problem 18 would break 50% at the college level primarily because the formula is one of direct division. The wrong answers would occur for those students who want to multiply rather than divide because they'll guess it's one or the other, or they'll get the units wrong or leave them off entirely.

I think the theme is clear. More work needs to go into earlier grades on how to synthesize knowledge, not just repeat it. To bring this back to political discussion, the math standards of the Common Core have significant parts designed to address this issue.

Common Core, in my opinion, is good about encouraging problem solving.  However, it eschews traditional computational algorithms that are a necessary prerequisite for problem solving.  Without a good "number sense", it's very hard for students to get comfortable with problems.

With regards to my physics class, I put cumulative questions on most of my exams and give a good number of truly cumulative exams because it's very difficult to get my students to retain information without a test.  Part of the problem is that my students have a hard time with the basic math.  I have to drill them on division, algebraic manipulations, and especially quadratic equations (even basic ones like x^2+5x+6 = 0).  Since math and physics are in the same department, we as teachers try to work together to make sure the kids are as solid in math as possible.  Thus, I just can't spend that much time on theoretical physics concepts and am generally teaching formulas, problems, and methods that are accessible to students at this level. 

All in all, these students have parents that don't make them study or do homework.  I see that as the ultimate root.  This makes it very difficult for me as a teacher to get good results from these kids.

Math needs are evolving, and teaching expectations have to as well. In this age of calculators and the internet there will be less need for computational skill beyond one digit manipulation. Instead the premium will be on people who can properly set up the information to supply to a computer and make estimates to have a sense of what the computer's answer ought to be. It's not the removal of number sense, but the type of number sense changes in this paradigm. For example our western European tradition does operations from the least significant digit to the most significant digit to improve calculation accuracy. However, when using a tool, whether a calculator or going back to the abacus, a better and older method starts with the most significant digits.

Physics for non-physicists becomes more about concepts and relationships between physical variables than plugging numbers into an equation. If you are familiar with the force concept inventory it is is a good example of conceptual questions. For non-physicists the goal becomes correctly predicting an approximate result and avoiding errors in conventional wisdom. That helps when physics concepts appear in other fields.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you aren't trying to estimate how many g's of acceleration occur when you hit the gas, then I expect that there is probably no real world example to help the students. That's one of the things that makes acceleration so hard to teach - students don't have a real world feel for the concept.

Then perhaps that should be taken as a signal that this is something that shouldn't be part of a general liberal education?  There are only so many things we have time for in the educational day.  As I said, the math involved isn't at all complicated, and the truly abstract idea isn't acceleration per se, but second order differentials differences and derivatives by whatever name.  Perhaps physics isn't the optimal method of using to teach the concept.  (Or perhaps different students should be guided into different subjects that teach the concept, with physics but one option.)  While historically a lot of basic calculus was developed in the service of mechanics, that doesn't necessarily make it the best subject to teach those concepts today.

[muon2]

Acceleration need not involve the understanding of derivatives, and when I teach it to life science majors (eg pre-meds) it doesn't. There are two generally important concepts that acceleration embodies, and those are often applicable to work outside of physics. One is the idea that the rate of change of motion is not the same as the motion itself. Slowing down from 80 mph to 40 mph in 10 sec is not as harmful as going from 20 mph to 0 in 2 sec, since it's acceleration that can cause damage not speed. The other idea is that net forces don't cause velocity, they cause acceleration. So setting up a display to minimize damage from acceleration is related to minimizing forces that are out of equilibrium, and the same principle applies if the display is set up in a moving truck.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see it's been long enough since I had to worry about the terminology I goofed.  When I said differentials earlier, I meant differences  (i.e. ∆x's and not ∂x's).  [By the way, I would think 20 to 0 in 2 sec shouldn't normally cause harm as it's under half a gee.  Possibly for a baby who doesn't have any support in the direction of the acceleration, but certainly not a healthy adult.]

[muon2]

I see it's been long enough since I had to worry about the terminology I goofed.  When I said differentials earlier, I meant differences  (i.e. ∆x's and not ∂x's).  [By the way, I would think 20 to 0 in 2 sec shouldn't normally cause harm as it's under half a gee.  Possibly for a baby who doesn't have any support in the direction of the acceleration, but certainly not a healthy adult.]

nb. you are correct that half a g isn't very harmful to people. I was only comparing that to a higher speed but less acceleration.

[MalaspinaGold]

To all interested, I have conducted an item analysis on my last cumulative physics test that I gave my class, consisting primarily of 11th graders of average academic abilities. 

The following questions were missed by more than 50% of the students:
13. A catapult fires a projectile at a speed of 50 m/s 30 degrees above the horizontal.  What is the initial horizontal and vertical speed of the catapult? 
18. An object with mass 8 kilograms experiences a force of 20 N applied to it.  What is the acceleration of the object?
22. Find the angular momentum of an object with mass 7 kg, radius 2 meters, and velocity 10 m/s. 
27. Find the equivalent resistance of a 2-ohm resistor and a 7-ohm resistor connected in parallel. 

Anyone with any kind of physics background would realize how easy these problems are. 

Sigh.......it's nearly impossible to teach my students anything even remotely resembling physics.  They just refuse to learn or take responsibility for themselves, and they're fed this narrative that they're "so special" by their parents.  It's sickening.  It's not the unions that are the problem; it's the parents.  They just refuse to hold their kids accountable for anything.

These are really easy questions. How my physics teacher from junior year would ask them:
13.   A catapult fires a projectile at a speed of 50 m/s 30 degrees above the horizontal. Find the distance traveled and the total time before it hits the ground.

18. A car with mass 1000 kilograms is traveling at 20 m/s applied to it.  After 10 seconds it collides with another car weighing 20000 kg traveling the same direction at 10 m/s. If the collision is perfectly elastic, calculate the resulting velocity of each car.

22.  A round ball with radius .5 m is rolling down a slope of angle 30 degrees. Calculate its velocity <moment of inertia for a sphere given on test>

27. A circuit with 8 resistors in both series and parallel given (too lazy to draw it now). Find the power across resistor x.

I'm proud to say that with the possible exception of question 22, I can still do these problems a year later.

And re: math in science, I really do think that people shouldn't be taking physics until they've taken at least trig and some sort of calculus involving integrals and derivatives. With the knowledge that by integrating distance you get velocity, and by integrating velocity you get acceleration, and by integrating force you get energy, kinematics literally becomes a breeze. Yet without understanding the concept of integration of shading in the area under the curve, the laws become haphazard, and it becomes much harder to understand the concept behind memorizing equations. Also, I could not imagine someone doing banking angles, forces at an angle, and acceleration down a non-frictionless ramp without trig.

[Suburbia]

My college professor once said that young people are so "dumb" that the government should raise the voting age to 40 because young people and even 'poor people" don't turnout in midterm elections.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My college professor once said that young people are so "dumb" that the government should raise the voting age to 40 because young people and even 'poor people" don't turnout in midterm elections.

College professor of what subject? If it's anything in the humanities that's an unbelievably odious and ignorant sentiment. If it's not in the humanities that's...still an unbelievably odious and ignorant sentiment, but potentially less directly damaging to the minds of the people they were teaching.

[AkSaber]

Of course. Fire the incompetents, dump tenure, and reward the talented, like with 150K per year salaries in the tougher schools. And give them the disciplinary tools.

This combined with making it harder to get a degree to teach secondary education would do more to help than throwing many billions of dollars at the problem.

Sadly many people (especially the very pro union types) don't want to see bad teachers fired and good teachers rewarded.

[Torie]

Speaking of the Common Core, at least one citizen thinks it's a superhighway straight to Hitler. And what is a means for a local board to put on end to the verbal flagellation? Yes, you guess it - go into executive session!  

[muon2]

Speaking of the Common Core, at least one citizen thinks it's a superhighway straight to Hitler. And what is a means for a local board to put on end to the verbal flagellation? Yes, you guess it - go into executive session!  

Ironically NY has had state mandated standards leading to its Regents Exam for probably longer than any state. NY has modified those standards and the test it gives many times over the decades. I suspect the citizen needs to take up his issue with the NY state education establishment circa 1878 to get satisfaction as to why his local board is using standards developed to collect data on student performance and to insure some level of equivalence among districts.

[Suburbia]

My college professor once said that young people are so "dumb" that the government should raise the voting age to 40 because young people and even 'poor people" don't turnout in midterm elections.

College professor of what subject? If it's anything in the humanities that's an unbelievably odious and ignorant sentiment. If it's not in the humanities that's...still an unbelievably odious and ignorant sentiment, but potentially less directly damaging to the minds of the people they were teaching.

He was a history professor. He said that America can't afford "dumb young fools" and idiotic demographic groups that are lazy to show up in off-years. Crazy, foolish guy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course. Fire the incompetents, dump tenure, and reward the talented, like with 150K per year salaries in the tougher schools. And give them the disciplinary tools.

This combined with making it harder to get a degree to teach secondary education would do more to help than throwing many billions of dollars at the problem.

Sadly many people (especially the very pro union types) don't want to see bad teachers fired and good teachers rewarded.

I don't think it's fair to blame a students poor performance on his teacher's décolletage.

You totally missed the point.  Clearly the replacing of eyeglasses with contact lenses is the source of our educational decline.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My college professor once said that young people are so "dumb" that the government should raise the voting age to 40 because young people and even 'poor people" don't turnout in midterm elections.

College professor of what subject? If it's anything in the humanities that's an unbelievably odious and ignorant sentiment. If it's not in the humanities that's...still an unbelievably odious and ignorant sentiment, but potentially less directly damaging to the minds of the people they were teaching.

He was a history professor. He said that America can't afford "dumb young fools" and idiotic demographic groups that are lazy to show up in off-years. Crazy, foolish guy.

That is crazy and foolish. I feel bad for his students.

[GaussLaw]

To all interested, I have conducted an item analysis on my last cumulative physics test that I gave my class, consisting primarily of 11th graders of average academic abilities. 

The following questions were missed by more than 50% of the students:
13. A catapult fires a projectile at a speed of 50 m/s 30 degrees above the horizontal.  What is the initial horizontal and vertical speed of the catapult? 
18. An object with mass 8 kilograms experiences a force of 20 N applied to it.  What is the acceleration of the object?
22. Find the angular momentum of an object with mass 7 kg, radius 2 meters, and velocity 10 m/s. 
27. Find the equivalent resistance of a 2-ohm resistor and a 7-ohm resistor connected in parallel. 

Anyone with any kind of physics background would realize how easy these problems are. 

Sigh.......it's nearly impossible to teach my students anything even remotely resembling physics.  They just refuse to learn or take responsibility for themselves, and they're fed this narrative that they're "so special" by their parents.  It's sickening.  It's not the unions that are the problem; it's the parents.  They just refuse to hold their kids accountable for anything.

These are really easy questions. How my physics teacher from junior year would ask them:
13.   A catapult fires a projectile at a speed of 50 m/s 30 degrees above the horizontal. Find the distance traveled and the total time before it hits the ground.

18. A car with mass 1000 kilograms is traveling at 20 m/s applied to it.  After 10 seconds it collides with another car weighing 20000 kg traveling the same direction at 10 m/s. If the collision is perfectly elastic, calculate the resulting velocity of each car.

22.  A round ball with radius .5 m is rolling down a slope of angle 30 degrees. Calculate its velocity <moment of inertia for a sphere given on test>

27. A circuit with 8 resistors in both series and parallel given (too lazy to draw it now). Find the power across resistor x.

I'm proud to say that with the possible exception of question 22, I can still do these problems a year later.

And re: math in science, I really do think that people shouldn't be taking physics until they've taken at least trig and some sort of calculus involving integrals and derivatives. With the knowledge that by integrating distance you get velocity, and by integrating velocity you get acceleration, and by integrating force you get energy, kinematics literally becomes a breeze. Yet without understanding the concept of integration of shading in the area under the curve, the laws become haphazard, and it becomes much harder to understand the concept behind memorizing equations. Also, I could not imagine someone doing banking angles, forces at an angle, and acceleration down a non-frictionless ramp without trig.

That's quite impressive.  Is that an AP Physics class or an Honors Physics class?  Those are pretty complex problems.  The elastic collisions one is a real pain as it involves annoying systems of equations and complex circuits can be pretty challenging.  If I gave those problems to my students, they would fail miserably.

[MalaspinaGold]

AP Physics B (we don't have honors- just regular, AP B, and AP C- the latter of which I don't think I'm currently capable of mastering)

One of my favorite questions from last year appeared on the first test- if you drop a rock down a well and here it 3 seconds later, how deep is the well? In order to solve it you need to incorporate both freefall acceleration and the speed of sound.

Part of me thinks that in 8th grade or 9th grade they should make it part of the curriculum to understand the concept of derivatives and integrals- just the idea that it is possible to find the rate of change of a function at a certain point and the area underneath two points, and maybe some basic examples of each.  On the other hand, knowing kids, that might not be a good idea.

[dead0man]

I don't think it's fair to blame a students poor performance on his teacher's décolletage.

You totally missed the point.  Clearly the replacing of eyeglasses with contact lenses is the source of our educational decline.

Perhaps I'm missing the joke here, but I assumed the image was blaming parents that are too emotionally involved in their children's grade school performance.

[GaussLaw]

AP Physics B (we don't have honors- just regular, AP B, and AP C- the latter of which I don't think I'm currently capable of mastering)

One of my favorite questions from last year appeared on the first test- if you drop a rock down a well and here it 3 seconds later, how deep is the well? In order to solve it you need to incorporate both freefall acceleration and the speed of sound.

Part of me thinks that in 8th grade or 9th grade they should make it part of the curriculum to understand the concept of derivatives and integrals- just the idea that it is possible to find the rate of change of a function at a certain point and the area underneath two points, and maybe some basic examples of each.  On the other hand, knowing kids, that might not be a good idea.

I assume your Physics C teacher makes the class harder than the exam, but I have no doubt you'd do well on the AP Physics C exam (at least Mechanics)  based on what you told me.  While our school doesn't have an AP Physics course now, I have studied the required material for it.  Physics C Mechanics is 20% kinematics, and merely knowing the basic kinematics equations and the calculus component is enough to ace that.  Since a 5 on Mechanics only requires ~55%-65% of the points depending on the year, one would only need around 50% of the remaining types of questions right.  Some basic knowledge of dimensional analysis, net forces, momentum, and kinetic energy (which I'm sure you've covered), and you'd easily get a 5.  

As a teacher, I am curious how your teacher would teach Physics C.  The level of difficulty of many of the problems you described are far more in line with C than B by most teachers I've talked with (I'm certain you attend at a much, much, much more rigorous high school than the one I teach at in central Missouri though).

[beaver2.0]

I disagree.