Why? Why oh why do students have so much trouble in physics

[Count Iblis]

The students have trouble because they are learning things at age 18 to 24 that they should have learned at age 12.

 

[symbolipoint]

Why? Why oh why... That is a big part of the difficulty. More Mathematical courses are really important. The minimum "prerequisites" are not often enough. You really need most or all of Calculus 2&3 for the most effective study of Physics 2 (Electricity and Magnetism).

 

[davesface]

The way the classes are structured (at least where I'm at, I can't speak in generalities) I wouldn't even be able to graduate in 4 years if I waited until I had taken Calculus 2 and 3 before taking Physics 2.

 

[Count Iblis]

Just flip to Wikipedia and bingo

Wikipedia will soon be the place to go to learn something from first principles. You can already learn about topics such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method...80.93_logarithms_and_the_residue_at_infinity" that are explained in more detail than in most textbooks.

 

[symbolipoint]

The way the classes are structured (at least where I'm at, I can't speak in generalities) I wouldn't even be able to graduate in 4 years if I waited until I had taken Calculus 2 and 3 before taking Physics 2.

You're right, and not everyone can put all of their courses inside of 4 years. The academically less-developed people need to progress through some redemial courses, at least for Mathematics, before reaching Trigonometry or Pre-Calculus. Some of these people do not see the value in this effort and choose a major field that does not require Calculus; and others are very decided on studying one of the "hard" sciences and will go through the effort; doing so and finally graduating would require maybe 2 or 3 more years, depending on intermediary paths which such students might take.

 

[Sankaku]

Wikipedia will soon be the place to go to learn something from first principles.

I agree - I love Wikipedia.

What I am saying is that kids don't have to invest time or money into getting information now. Before, you would have to discover which book you needed for the topic you wanted to understand, then order it and pay a substantial amount of money. Then you would go home and devote some time to actually reading the thing.

Now, if they can't make sense of a wiki article in 3 minutes, they just give up and flip back to facebook.

It is the fallacy that knowledge should be instant because it is only a click away. Most people here know that the info is useless without a heck of a lot of work.

Not a criticism of wiki - it is a criticism of the instant culture...

 

[Jammin_James]

I don't know if people are being lazy, to be honest.

Some people are just raised to believe that if they don't grasp the material the first time they will never understand it. I used to be that way anyways.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think Andy Resnick has made some excellent contributions on potential difficulties and ways to avoid them by making the course RELEVANT.

Also, for a non-science major who may have more experience with classes where creative thinking or writing is the major skill being used, switching to problem-solving mode can be quite challenging. They're two different skill sets, and the same reason a physics major might struggle in an intro creative writing course that the English majors can breeze through.

This is a pretty typical explanation I hear. What I don't understand is that I do well in every other class I took, but I think I'm unique. Amazingly it seems like most people I know in my department have trouble in a lot of non-science course.

I must, again, object to the other comments being tossed around that the other sciences are somehow "soft" sciences. The same scientific method and rigor are applied to biology and chemistry as to physics. Perhaps, in such cases, it is the mindset of the instructor that the students are not as "worthy" that is putting them off from the subject. I'm also not sure what majors we are talking about here, since both biology and chemistry majors would also need to take calculus.

At my university, by most accounts the biology courses are very easy. I think a lot of people see biology as a possible means into pre-med or simply a soft science they can handle. With this in mind, I think a lot of people run into biology like a brick wall. I think our department has a 70% major switching rate or something ridiculous. I wonder if the professors dumb down their courses to keep this problem down at my university.

Likewise, are you adapting the curriculum and your expectations to the right level?

The course I teach the lab for is almost all taught by PhD professors (the lecture that is) who all teach is without a person having to even known what calculus is. Sometimes I think it's just people having a terrible grasp of algebra since we amazingly have a mathematics standards test to enter the university... yet we also have remedial classes that tecah stuff that... was on the test?

I also think there is a lot of bias in how people view student difficulties in their own subject area. Have those who are teaching physics ever taught any other subject to know how student complaints compare to other subjects? And, if the students ARE frequently struggling or complaining about the course, have they considered that it may be the teaching methods that need to be adjusted?

In my experience, it's the students who actually complain that physics is the hardest courses they take. I feel like sitting in on one of the classes the students complain about and see just exactly what their complaints are.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Maybe it's just that ridiculous proportions of people are going to college now, whereas it used to be only people who were better qualified went to college. Since the only people who can be added to the college pool tend to be those on the lower end of the scale, you would expect the average to drop.

That effect may not be able to explain away how many students have issue with working hard, since you would expect those good enough to have gone to college in the past to continue to work hard, but there's definitely a psychological knock-on effect. People who used to be at the bottom of the class in college, and would have to work hard to keep up with their peers, now sit comfortably in the middle range with little incentive to keep pushing.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I really uncomfortable with the quantity of people here blaming 'lazy students'. I think it's more of a reflection on the commenter- specifically, an elitist attitude that does not encourage the non-physicist to develop even a passing interest in physics.

You all who claim all "those students" are lazy and should not even be in college should remind yourselves that *they* outnumber *you*, *they* elect politicians that determine research funding levels, *they* elect people to school boards, etc. etc. So if you are not happy about the overall scientific illiteracy in this country, *you* should do a better job of reaching out to *them*.

 

[lubuntu]

I really uncomfortable with the quantity of people here blaming 'lazy students'. I think it's more of a reflection on the commenter- specifically, an elitist attitude that does not encourage the non-physicist to develop even a passing interest in physics.

You all who claim all "those students" are lazy and should not even be in college should remind yourselves that *they* outnumber *you*, *they* elect politicians that determine research funding levels, *they* elect people to school boards, etc. etc. So if you are not happy about the overall scientific illiteracy in this country, *you* should do a better job of reaching out to *them*.

Ok? So what? I do think it is a bit elitist but why shouldn't it be? To value hard work in difficult subject over not? Just because there is more of them doesn't mean they are correct. Certainly there is room to bridge the gap and allow non-physics people to learn about the science, but to be honest it seems like intro physics(as it is taught now) isn't a very good place to do it. The students I've seen in classes are indeed lazy and apathetic when it comes to physics. If you really want to change that and spark an interest it seems like a mickey mouse class in mechanics where you lie to them isn't the way to do.

 

[Count Iblis]

I agree - I love Wikipedia.

What I am saying is that kids don't have to invest time or money into getting information now. Before, you would have to discover which book you needed for the topic you wanted to understand, then order it and pay a substantial amount of money. Then you would go home and devote some time to actually reading the thing.

Now, if they can't make sense of a wiki article in 3 minutes, they just give up and flip back to facebook.

It is the fallacy that knowledge should be instant because it is only a click away. Most people here know that the info is useless without a heck of a lot of work.

Not a criticism of wiki - it is a criticism of the instant culture...

I agree that this is a problem. On the other hand, you now also have ten year olds who just by browsing the internet for a few minutes can pick up some interesting mathematics or physics that the previous generation would only have encountered at university.

If someone gets interested in calculus at the age of ten then that person will have a huge advantage over people who only learn it at university.

 

[rogerharris]

a different perspective on the original question is that the average mind does not cope well with physics. the average mind wants information that pertains to getting along in the social environment. Physics is about intrinsic deep understanding that's outwith all that, and uses different parts of the brain.

I read an article in scientific american that describes how these parts of the brain are competing for neural resources. Social information vs intrinsic physical information. I think this translates to a frontal lobe vs sensory cortices struggle. The frontal lobe is shutting out the physical world basically.

there is a new branch of physics which predicts social behaviour using physical laws, so that might be an angle to get the average socially orientated person interested in the subject.

 

[Dembadon]

I really uncomfortable with the quantity of people here blaming 'lazy students'. I think it's more of a reflection on the commenter- specifically, an elitist attitude that does not encourage the non-physicist to develop even a passing interest in physics.

You all who claim all "those students" are lazy and should not even be in college should remind yourselves that *they* outnumber *you*, *they* elect politicians that determine research funding levels, *they* elect people to school boards, etc. etc. So if you are not happy about the overall scientific illiteracy in this country, *you* should do a better job of reaching out to *them*.

I appreciate your perspective, Andy. I didn't mean to imply that all students who "don't get it" are lazy. I realize that there are many people who could possibly obtain an interest and a passion for science if they were properly mentored / instructed.

I was mainly expressing my disappointment with those who seem to give up without putting much effort into their studies.

 

[Sankaku]

I agree that this is a problem. On the other hand, you now also have ten year olds who just by browsing the internet for a few minutes can pick up some interesting mathematics or physics that the previous generation would only have encountered at university.

Yes, the internet is the ultimate double-edged sword. I really wish that I had had wikipedia when I was 10 years old!

What is happening is a kind of exaggeration effect. Those people who are motivated now have almost unlimited access to information in order to pursue their passions. Those that have been trapped by instant culture now have even less motivation to work hard at the sciences (or other 'difficult' subjects), because the homework assignments in their OTHER classes can just be copied from somewhere online.

I think that it is important to have mentoring and positive experiences early on in life. These can show the student that hard work brings rewards and that difficult subjects like the sciences are worth studying. Whether everyone gets a PhD is not the point. Whether we have a scientifically literate society is more important...

 

[General_Sax]

I've had difficulty in my into physics lab (min:47% max:67%), but I am doing fine in the course work (online hw: ~95% midterm: 81%). Mostly because I've no idea what is going on. I've never seen certain techniques to be utilized in the lab report, the lab report which is due two hours after the lab begun...

Things line calculating uncertainties were completely new to me, and were not covered in my class, but were described in the manual. The physics help room refuses to answer lab questions and my TA is incredibly difficult to get a hold of outside our two hour lab session. To top it off they deduct marks for seeking help! So you really are expected to learn it on your own. Unfortunately this leads to the solution I've often come across "Just study three hours a day for class/lab x"

That's why I find physics labs hard.

I've wish there was some type of lab tutorial session organized before the lab begun, in order to familiarize students with the techniques required for the labx.

 

[vickyc]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot- here's another item to consider:

In what other field (science or otherwise), does the curriculum start with a very simplified introductory explanation, and the as the student advances, they are told (time and again), that what they learned before "isn't really true, there's a better explanation, and here it is..."

I submit that Physics is the only branch of science that does this: not chemistry, not biology, not math, not any branch of study of any subject. To an outsider, this must appear very strange! How can physicists claim to know *anything*?

Chemistry, AS level.
The class fell from 18 in the first year to 6 in the second.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Chemistry they're told they were lied to all the time. Something that immediately comes to mind is the gas laws

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks to those who point out the Chemistry curriculum has some of the same deficiencies as the Physics curriculum. It sounds like student (non-)retention and apathy are common problems.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
I was mainly expressing my disappointment with those who seem to give up without putting much effort into their studies.

Dealing with these students is *really* demoralizing to the instructor, I agree. I don't have a magic solution, unfortunately.

 

[rogerharris]

"I've been thinking about this topic a lot- here's another item to consider:

In what other field (science or otherwise), does the curriculum start with a very simplified introductory explanation, and the as the student advances, they are told (time and again), that what they learned before "isn't really true, there's a better explanation, and here it is..."

I submit that Physics is the only branch of science that does this: not chemistry, not biology, not math, not any branch of study of any subject. To an outsider, this must appear very strange! How can physicists claim to know *anything*?"

Good point.

Maths, biology, chemistry etc provide tools which can hack away at little bits of life. Physics can also do that, but it also goes for everything in existence and is a work in progress until everything is understood.

Most peoples brains simply cannot handle that kind of thing. They want the security of thinking we are complete, and we can succeed by battling away at problems a little at a time. Physics as you say offers no clear strategy to that goal.

I think the reality is you need to be a bit out there to begin with to really get into physics.

 

[symbolipoint]

rogerharris has ONE of the right ideas. The other idea is that some people, while average, fail to accomplish Physics learning because of lack of sustained focused effort. How does a student know which one he is? If he has a goal highly related to critical and mathematical thinking, then he must try! He also may be able to use course-matter counseling and tutoring.

 

[renz]

This is exactly the problem I've been having.
I'm a TA for an intro astronomy class. I know it's not physics, so you would think students would have a better time with it. But they don't.

After two exams (with about 50% grade average), students keep asking me how to do better in the class. I told them that they have to spend time studying. Read the textbook and think about the material then come ask questions about it. Make sure you understand the concepts, not just memorizing things in the book.

That's it. What's the big mystery?
That's all you have to do to get good score on the test. Still, they don't believe me.
And they keep wondering why they can't do well on the test. I don't know what to tell them.

 

[geft]

This is exactly the problem I've been having.
I'm a TA for an intro astronomy class. I know it's not physics, so you would think students would have a better time with it. But they don't.

After two exams (with about 50% grade average), students keep asking me how to do better in the class. I told them that they have to spend time studying. Read the textbook and think about the material then come ask questions about it. Make sure you understand the concepts, not just memorizing things in the book.

That's it. What's the big mystery?
That's all you have to do to get good score on the test. Still, they don't believe me.
And they keep wondering why they can't do well on the test. I don't know what to tell them.

I'm having the same problem in my Economics course. The reason is that most people, including me, expect to understand the concept by going through the textbook once or twice. Deep down I know that I must re-read certain advanced concepts many, many times before truly understanding them. Yet most of us don't have that kind of patience, because it doesn't give the feeling of progress. I'd feel like I'm stuck in a chapter and that I'm never going to finish the book if I remain stuck, so I just skip it and move on.

 

[Pengwuino]

The physics help room refuses to answer lab questions and my TA is incredibly difficult to get a hold of outside our two hour lab session. To top it off they deduct marks for seeking help! So you really are expected to learn it on your own. Unfortunately this leads to the solution I've often come across "Just study three hours a day for class/lab x"

That's why I find physics labs hard.

Wow, any of those 3 problems would be pretty bad but to have all 3 at once is just criminal! What university is this? Have you complained to the department about it? That's why I'm sort of glad things like ratemyprofessor.com are around.

 

[General_Sax]

I'd prefer not to disclose the name of the university.

It is one of the top research universities in Canada though. I wish I would've started my degree at a CC.

Recently (last two labs) my TA hasn't even shown up. He's sent his friend (assumption) who barely speaks English, and I'm not even sure this person is a grad student.

There is another TA, for the other section preforming the lab simultaneously, that I try to direct my questions. He's helpful enough. We almost got in a shouting match once over a spreadsheet that my partner managed to foul up.

I've thought about complaining, but I don't really want to jeopardize his position. For all I know his mother just died, or maybe he has 'swine flu', etc.

 

[Sankaku]

I'd prefer not to disclose the name of the university.

It is one of the top research universities in Canada though.

I am curious as to why you don't want to disclose the name of the university? I would think it important to tell people where good and bad teaching occurs so that students can make educated choices. Surely the only way to improve things is to give feedback - either to the school or to other students...

 

[Pengwuino]

I've thought about complaining, but I don't really want to jeopardize his position. For all I know his mother just died, or maybe he has 'swine flu', etc.

If it is an isolated incidence or "just you", the department will realize it. If he actually is a bad TA, your complaint surely won't be the only thing that puts him in jeopardy. If the person was remodeling your house or fixing your car and you had problems with him, do you continue to let them work for you?

 

[Count Iblis]

This is exactly the problem I've been having.
I'm a TA for an intro astronomy class. I know it's not physics, so you would think students would have a better time with it. But they don't.

After two exams (with about 50% grade average), students keep asking me how to do better in the class. I told them that they have to spend time studying. Read the textbook and think about the material then come ask questions about it. Make sure you understand the concepts, not just memorizing things in the book.

That's it. What's the big mystery?
That's all you have to do to get good score on the test. Still, they don't believe me.
And they keep wondering why they can't do well on the test. I don't know what to tell them.

You should give them difficult practice problems.

 

[Klockan3]

You should give them difficult practice problems.

Yeah, one of my best teachers always handed out practice problems before every test, and the practice problems were always much harder than the actual tests. So just doing those you were sure to be prepared enough.

 

[JG89]

General Sax, is it U of T?

 

[kote]

That is very true. Many people when they see that they are struggling end up dropping the course because it will affect their GPA. They are not willing to work at it and put in the hours to understand the material on a deeper level. It's all about staying competitive and get the most money possible, which , in my opinion, is sad.

The school is telling students, through grades, that it's not worth it for them to understand the material on a deeper level. No one is taking one class at a time. The odds are very good that putting in the hours to do well in your class will cost them grades in other courses, or will cost them research time, or time for involvement in sports or clubs, etc.

Why is understanding the material in your class worth more than understanding the material in other classes that more efficiently reward one for his time? If the problem is students dropping the course because other courses are easier, that's an institutional problem. There are a lot of very legitimate reasons one might not want to spend a disproportionate amount of time on a single course.

My senior year I took psychology 101 pass/fail instead of taking additional upper level electives as I had done previous years. Without doing this I wouldn't have been able to devote the time required to simultaneously earn As on my philosophy honors thesis and engineering senior project while acting as treasurer for the rugby team and president of the engineering society. It probably bothered my psych professor when I stopped coming to half of his classes. He probably also thinks I'm a sad lazy student. The fact is simply that his class does not exist in a vacuum, and more relevant and rewarding things took priority.

Of course there are students who are just lazy, but there's a lot more to it. It's not just about the paycheck either... I won't get into how earning money and participating in a strong economy are actually very good things. Many students can actually just learn more by spending their time on other subjects.

Back to the original question, besides a lot of the good thoughts that have been posted, it's simply not worth it for many people to put in the effort. What's the incentive? Learning for the sake of learning is not an answer, since other courses teach students for the sake of learning but also have the nice side effect of making them more useful to society. You'd have a tough time making the argument that algebra based physics is going to make one a more efficient participant in society and the economy than, say, accounting, or even dance.

 

[kote]

I'll also add that from my experience now in the business world, this sort of blame the student mentality simply would not be tolerated, no matter how much it actually may or may not be their fault. If, as a manager, I ever told my boss that we didn't meet our production targets because the operators were slacking all quarter, I would be fired. It's my job to motivate. It's my job to make sure they understand and are able to do the work. If additional resources are required for them to be successful, it's my job to figure out what those resources are and to supply them on time to successfully complete the job. If an operator isn't motivated or isn't capable, I am 100% responsible for that failure - period.

I don't believe the OP was expressing a "students these days are lazy" point of view, but it has certainly appeared in this thread. This is the wrong view and will accomplish nothing. We should be asking questions like, How do we convince nonmajors that physics is worthwhile? How do we actually make it worthwhile? How do we compete with other majors for students' time? How do we teach students so that they are successful and don't lose motivation or interest?

Frankly, professors in other departments are better prepared and have done a better job in answering those questions. Physics professors are not known for marketing abilities. Focus on questions like those above though, and I think you'll be amazed at the impact it can have on the quality of the students in your classes.

 

[Count Iblis]

General Sax, is it U of T?

Given his name, it could also be the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

 

[Dembadon]

<snip> If an operator isn't motivated or isn't capable, I am 100% responsible for that failure - period.

I don't believe the OP was expressing a "students these days are lazy" point of view, but it has certainly appeared in this thread. This is the wrong view and will accomplish nothing. We should be asking questions like, How do we convince nonmajors that physics is worthwhile? How do we actually make it worthwhile? How do we compete with other majors for students' time? How do we teach students so that they are successful and don't lose motivation or interest? </snip>

While I agree that stating all students are just lazy if they are having a hard time is disingenuous, I would argue that putting all of the responsibility on the Instructor, or even a peer, is also wrong.

At what point does the student (or operator, per your example) need to take personal responsibility or be held accountable for their poor performance? Would you not express your displeasure with a subordinate after taking the heat for their mistake? Having a direct role in another's success should not justify (or be used as an excuse to buck personal responsibility) their poor performance based on lack of effort.

Just for clarity; I am talking about a blatant lack of effort. It is not the Instructor's fault if a student decides to go home and fire up the gaming console instead of working on whatever it is he / she is struggling with. Also, if you just took the fall for a subordinate's lack of effort or blatant apathy towards their job, it is up to _you_ to approach the operator and tell them that there is a need for improvement; otherwise you are just encouraging the poor behavior to continue.

-Robert