Profile photo of Andrew Normand


I think the aim is to map the whole of Physics (11-19) and then to add teaching considerations.

Did anyone ever actually say we weren’t dealing with ages below 11 ?

I think a lot of the statement 1 and 2 comments at the very least begin to form there as well as a lot of jumping to 5. I know lots of five year olds who are already rabbitting on about there being ‘no gravity in space’ for instance and more creepily start getting confused by seeing the moo. There seems to be some work at Sheffield about trying to get the physics taught properly in primary schools (Prof Gillian Gehring seems to be in charge of that, I think) and that would be worth at least a look.

As for the atomising, I tend to agree. As it stands, an output from this system will look eerily like a current A Level specification, a set of terms that needs to be covered. Perhaps there need to be groupings, little bubbles around the statements, a bit like the ones they already came in (particle theory, currents, waves etc.) but of varying size, purpose etc. and with the ability to overlap. These bubbles might themselves have connectors between them, I suppose, showing some larger scale structure of the whole thing (eg how kinematics and statics combine to produce dynamics).

Is there any mileage in that?


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?