Difference between revisions of "Core curriculum"
m (→References) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
+ | [[Letter on threat of core curriculum to physics]] | ||
+ | |||
http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/PDF/race_to_the_top_comments_final.pdf | http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/PDF/race_to_the_top_comments_final.pdf | ||
http://www.CoreStandards.org/Standards/index.htm | http://www.CoreStandards.org/Standards/index.htm | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:PhD]] |
Latest revision as of 12:07, 7 December 2010
The impact of delineating a core curriculum
Sometimes called "literacy education" or "back to basics," core curriculum is considered the standard set of knowledge and skills that all students need to be a productive member of society. This core curriculum, while helpful in identifying useful knowledge and skills, ends up causing the neglect of other useful and interesting curriculum. On the general level, basic math and language skills are considered the core, with science often playing second fiddle.
There is a parallel situation in physics curriculum
The same could be said of the core of physics curriculum as opposed to the diversity of topics in physics that are not part of the canon. It is believed, very widely, that students must first learn about Newton's laws, energy, momentum, and vectors before learning anything else. The evidence is in the consistent layout of physics textbooks, in course syllabi, in sequencing of course requirements for majors, and in comments and justifications from teachers.
References
Letter on threat of core curriculum to physics
http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/PDF/race_to_the_top_comments_final.pdf