From francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz  Wed Nov 12 19:07:34 2008
From: francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz (Bryden, Francis)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:34 +1300
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF4FAABE0F@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>

Don't know how many people have had a look at the draft of the new matrix for level 1 science.

Instead of having Physics (science) and also all the separate physics standards, the proposal is to have only two standards. One internal (4 credit) and one external (5 credit)

The external is demonstrate an understanding of how physical phenomena impact on everyday life.

The internal is demonstrate an understanding of how physics knowledge is used in applications

This seems to take away the opportunity we have presently to extend the more able students. We presently have the flexibility to design courses to suit different level students.

To me it seems physics is being seriously dumbed down.

Apparently the full Human Bio course is being retained because there "is a demand for it"

I'd be interested in other people's take on this.

If you are concerned, make sure you get to the consultation meetings being organised



................ Francis

Francis Bryden
HoD Physics
St Cuthbert's College
122 Market Rd               or Box 26 020
Epsom                              Epsom
Auckland 1051                   Auckland 1344
New Zealand                      New Zealand

ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808

fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz<mailto:fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081113/969a1bb1/attachment.html>

From jjaffrey at slingshot.co.nz  Fri Nov 14 16:55:03 2008
From: jjaffrey at slingshot.co.nz (Jonathan Jaffrey)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:55:03 +1300
Subject: New matrix
In-Reply-To: <mailman.13.1226692811.3296.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
References: <mailman.13.1226692811.3296.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
Message-ID: <74C64D079D5D499586010066A006A3F5@handjstudy>

I haven't seen this.
I'd be fascinated to have a copy, where can I get one?
Jonathan Jaffrey
HoD Physics
LBC

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz
Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 9:00 a.m.
To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

Send Phys-teach-talk mailing list submissions to
	phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz

You can reach the person managing the list at
	phys-teach-talk-owner at nzip.org.nz

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-teach-talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1.  (Bryden, Francis)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:34 +1300
From: "Bryden, Francis" <francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>
To: "'Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz'" <Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>
Message-ID:
	
<6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF4FAABE0F at stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Don't know how many people have had a look at the draft of the new matrix
for level 1 science.

Instead of having Physics (science) and also all the separate physics
standards, the proposal is to have only two standards. One internal (4
credit) and one external (5 credit)

The external is demonstrate an understanding of how physical phenomena
impact on everyday life.

The internal is demonstrate an understanding of how physics knowledge is
used in applications

This seems to take away the opportunity we have presently to extend the more
able students. We presently have the flexibility to design courses to suit
different level students.

To me it seems physics is being seriously dumbed down.

Apparently the full Human Bio course is being retained because there "is a
demand for it"

I'd be interested in other people's take on this.

If you are concerned, make sure you get to the consultation meetings being
organised



................ Francis

Francis Bryden
HoD Physics
St Cuthbert's College
122 Market Rd               or Box 26 020
Epsom                              Epsom
Auckland 1051                   Auckland 1344
New Zealand                      New Zealand

ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808

fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz<mailto:fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/200811
13/969a1bb1/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz


End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1
**********************************************



From dking at christscollege.com  Fri Nov 14 20:26:05 2008
From: dking at christscollege.com (David King)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:26:05 +1300
Subject: New matrix
In-Reply-To: <fc.3b9aca00a9ac316e3b9aca00fa8dbd69.9c8db4@christscollege.com>
References: <mailman.13.1226692811.3296.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
	<fc.3b9aca00a9ac316e3b9aca00fa8dbd69.9c8db4@christscollege.com>
Message-ID: <3F15EE30-8E21-4040-AB0A-EEE6A3ED5789@christscollege.com>

Me too - I cannot find it on the minedu / tki websites....

but then perhaps I have just missed it.

Shouldn't it be out there in big flashing letters, rather than us  
having to find it?

(If it is in either large letters or flashing text, but I have missed  
it, then accept my humble apologies!)


Cheers


David King
Physics HoD
Christ's College
Private Bag 4900
Christchurch
New Zealand




On 15/11/2008, at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Jaffrey wrote:

> I haven't seen this.
> I'd be fascinated to have a copy, where can I get one?
> Jonathan Jaffrey
> HoD Physics
> LBC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
> [mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz
> Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 9:00 a.m.
> To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> Subject: Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1
>
> Send Phys-teach-talk mailing list submissions to
>         phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach- 
> talk_nzip.org.nz
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         phys-teach-talk-owner at nzip.org.nz
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Phys-teach-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1.  (Bryden, Francis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:34 +1300
> From: "Bryden, Francis" <francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>
> To: "'Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz'" <Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>
> Message-ID:
>
> <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF4FAABE0F at stcc- 
> exchange.stcuthberts.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Don't know how many people have had a look at the draft of the new  
> matrix
> for level 1 science.
>
> Instead of having Physics (science) and also all the separate physics
> standards, the proposal is to have only two standards. One internal (4
> credit) and one external (5 credit)
>
> The external is demonstrate an understanding of how physical phenomena
> impact on everyday life.
>
> The internal is demonstrate an understanding of how physics  
> knowledge is
> used in applications
>
> This seems to take away the opportunity we have presently to extend  
> the more
> able students. We presently have the flexibility to design courses  
> to suit
> different level students.
>
> To me it seems physics is being seriously dumbed down.
>
> Apparently the full Human Bio course is being retained because  
> there "is a
> demand for it"
>
> I'd be interested in other people's take on this.
>
> If you are concerned, make sure you get to the consultation  
> meetings being
> organised
>
>
>
> ................ Francis
>
> Francis Bryden
> HoD Physics
> St Cuthbert's College
> 122 Market Rd               or Box 26 020
> Epsom                              Epsom
> Auckland 1051                   Auckland 1344
> New Zealand                      New Zealand
>
> ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808
>
> fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz<mailto:fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/ 
> attachments/200811
> 13/969a1bb1/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
>
>
> End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1
> **********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081115/64cad917/attachment-0001.html>

From dhousden at xtra.co.nz  Fri Nov 14 20:38:42 2008
From: dhousden at xtra.co.nz (David Housden)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:42 +1300
Subject: New matrix
In-Reply-To: <3F15EE30-8E21-4040-AB0A-EEE6A3ED5789@christscollege.com>
References: <mailman.13.1226692811.3296.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>	<fc.3b9aca00a9ac316e3b9aca00fa8dbd69.9c8db4@christscollege.com>
	<3F15EE30-8E21-4040-AB0A-EEE6A3ED5789@christscollege.com>
Message-ID: <005201c946dc$0a100020$1e300060$@co.nz>

Hi All

My understanding from NZASE is that the matrix is not yet available.
Francis has seen a draft from what he has indicated to me.  I understand
that it will be posted on the NZASE website some time early next week.

There clearly will need to be changes to the current matrix as there is now
a rule that only 3 externals can be assessed in a 3 hour examination.  There
are also rules relating to credit parity and value, duplication etc.  When
the matrix does arrive it is very important that everyone provides feedback
via the appropriate channels.   NZASE have appointed John Whakamoe from NZIP
to run the consultation.  John will use lists such as this to convey
information etc.

It is also very important that everyone is familiar with the underlying
principles - if you haven't seen a copy this can be downloaded from
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/news/releases/2008/170608.html - these are the
"rules".

All the best

David

 

From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of David King
Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 5:26 p.m.
To: PHYSICS TALK
Subject: Re: New matrix
Importance: Low

 

Me too - I cannot find it on the minedu / tki websites....

 

but then perhaps I have just missed it.

 

Shouldn't it be out there in big flashing letters, rather than us having to
find it?

 

(If it is in either large letters or flashing text, but I have missed it,
then accept my humble apologies!)

 

 

Cheers

 

 

David King

Physics HoD

Christ's College

Private Bag 4900

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

 





 

On 15/11/2008, at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Jaffrey wrote:





I haven't seen this.

I'd be fascinated to have a copy, where can I get one?

Jonathan Jaffrey

HoD Physics

LBC

 

-----Original Message-----

From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz

[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of

phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz

Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 9:00 a.m.

To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

Subject: Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

 

Send Phys-teach-talk mailing list submissions to

        phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

        http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

        phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz

 

You can reach the person managing the list at

        phys-teach-talk-owner at nzip.org.nz

 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

than "Re: Contents of Phys-teach-talk digest..."

 

Today's Topics:

 

  1.  (Bryden, Francis)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Message: 1

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:34 +1300

From: "Bryden, Francis" <francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>

To: "'Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz'" <Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>

Message-ID:

        

<6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF4FAABE0F at stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>

        

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

Don't know how many people have had a look at the draft of the new matrix

for level 1 science.

 

Instead of having Physics (science) and also all the separate physics

standards, the proposal is to have only two standards. One internal (4

credit) and one external (5 credit)

 

The external is demonstrate an understanding of how physical phenomena

impact on everyday life.

 

The internal is demonstrate an understanding of how physics knowledge is

used in applications

 

This seems to take away the opportunity we have presently to extend the more

able students. We presently have the flexibility to design courses to suit

different level students.

 

To me it seems physics is being seriously dumbed down.

 

Apparently the full Human Bio course is being retained because there "is a

demand for it"

 

I'd be interested in other people's take on this.

 

If you are concerned, make sure you get to the consultation meetings being

organised





................ Francis

 

Francis Bryden

HoD Physics

St Cuthbert's College

122 Market Rd               or Box 26 020

Epsom                              Epsom

Auckland 1051                   Auckland 1344

New Zealand                      New Zealand

 

ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808

 

fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz<mailto:fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>

 

-------------- next part --------------

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

URL:

<http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/200811

13/969a1bb1/attachment-0001.html>

 

------------------------------

 

_______________________________________________

Phys-teach-talk mailing list

Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

 

End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

**********************************************

 

_______________________________________________

Phys-teach-talk mailing list

Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 14/11/2008
1:36 p.m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081115/dfe60cc1/attachment-0001.html>

From dking at christscollege.com  Fri Nov 14 21:20:14 2008
From: dking at christscollege.com (David King)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:20:14 +1300
Subject: New matrix
In-Reply-To: <fc.3b9aca000f1ad18e3b9aca00fa8dbd69.9c8e90@christscollege.com>
References: <mailman.13.1226692811.3296.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>	<fc.3b9aca00a9ac316e3b9aca00fa8dbd69.9c8db4@christscollege.com>
	<3F15EE30-8E21-4040-AB0A-EEE6A3ED5789@christscollege.com>
	<fc.3b9aca000f1ad18e3b9aca00fa8dbd69.9c8e90@christscollege.com>
Message-ID: <14AB9EA3-99AE-499E-AFD0-74814C70E7F8@christscollege.com>

Thanks David,

Credit parity / duplication etc is an admin matter (or is there  
deeper meaning that I have missed)

Changing to 3 externals (As opposed to 4 in NCEA level 1 Physics)  
could be cosmetic (disband Heat and Nuclear and put Heat with  
Mechanics and Nuclear with Waves for example) and is not something of  
much importance to me.

Changing to 3 externals and losing one paper (say electricity or  
waves!) would be of significant impact

Losing Physics altogether at that level would be of monumental impact  
at a school like mine.

I wonder if the rule "Standards should not duplicate one another."  
will rule out "Physics' running as well as Science.



If the draft is released now and consultation is conducted over say  
the Summer, when will the definitive answer come?

We'll need to know early enough to plan staffing levels for 2010.  
(Rough calcs on my part say that if separate sciences (L1) are out  
and only science remains, then 1 teacher equivalent in the science  
dept at my school is redundant. Hmmmm I was last in....)

Perhaps I can make a case for IGCSE? or I believe McDonalds are  
recruiting ;-)

Cheers


David King
Physics HoD
Christ's College
Private Bag 4900
Christchurch
New Zealand




On 15/11/2008, at 5:38 PM, David Housden wrote:

> Hi All
>
> My understanding from NZASE is that the matrix is not yet  
> available.  Francis has seen a draft from what he has indicated to  
> me.  I understand that it will be posted on the NZASE website some  
> time early next week.
>
> There clearly will need to be changes to the current matrix as  
> there is now a rule that only 3 externals can be assessed in a 3  
> hour examination.  There are also rules relating to credit parity  
> and value, duplication etc.  When the matrix does arrive it is very  
> important that everyone provides feedback via the appropriate  
> channels.   NZASE have appointed John Whakamoe from NZIP to run the  
> consultation.  John will use lists such as this to convey  
> information etc.
>
> It is also very important that everyone is familiar with the  
> underlying principles ? if you haven?t seen a copy this can be  
> downloaded from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/news/releases/ 
> 2008/170608.html - these are the ?rules?.
>
> All the best
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz [mailto:phys-teach-talk- 
> bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of David King
> Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 5:26 p.m.
> To: PHYSICS TALK
> Subject: Re: New matrix
> Importance: Low
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Me too - I cannot find it on the minedu / tki websites....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> but then perhaps I have just missed it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shouldn't it be out there in big flashing letters, rather than us  
> having to find it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (If it is in either large letters or flashing text, but I have  
> missed it, then accept my humble apologies!)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David King
>
>
>
>
> Physics HoD
>
>
>
>
> Christ's College
>
>
>
>
> Private Bag 4900
>
>
>
>
> Christchurch
>
>
>
>
> New Zealand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 15/11/2008, at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Jaffrey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I haven't seen this.
>
> I'd be fascinated to have a copy, where can I get one?
>
> Jonathan Jaffrey
>
> HoD Physics
>
> LBC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
>
> [mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
>
> phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz
>
> Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 9:00 a.m.
>
> To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
>
> Subject: Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1
>
>
>
> Send Phys-teach-talk mailing list submissions to
>
>         phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
>
>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
>         http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach- 
> talk_nzip.org.nz
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>
>         phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz
>
>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>
>         phys-teach-talk-owner at nzip.org.nz
>
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>
> than "Re: Contents of Phys-teach-talk digest..."
>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>
>
>   1.  (Bryden, Francis)
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Message: 1
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:34 +1300
>
> From: "Bryden, Francis" <francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>
>
> To: "'Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz'" <Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>
>
> Message-ID:
>
>
>
> <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF4FAABE0F at stcc- 
> exchange.stcuthberts.local>
>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> Don't know how many people have had a look at the draft of the new  
> matrix
>
> for level 1 science.
>
>
>
> Instead of having Physics (science) and also all the separate physics
>
> standards, the proposal is to have only two standards. One internal (4
>
> credit) and one external (5 credit)
>
>
>
> The external is demonstrate an understanding of how physical phenomena
>
> impact on everyday life.
>
>
>
> The internal is demonstrate an understanding of how physics  
> knowledge is
>
> used in applications
>
>
>
> This seems to take away the opportunity we have presently to extend  
> the more
>
> able students. We presently have the flexibility to design courses  
> to suit
>
> different level students.
>
>
>
> To me it seems physics is being seriously dumbed down.
>
>
>
> Apparently the full Human Bio course is being retained because  
> there "is a
>
> demand for it"
>
>
>
> I'd be interested in other people's take on this.
>
>
>
> If you are concerned, make sure you get to the consultation  
> meetings being
>
> organised
>
>
>
>
>
> ................ Francis
>
>
>
> Francis Bryden
>
> HoD Physics
>
> St Cuthbert's College
>
> 122 Market Rd               or Box 26 020
>
> Epsom                              Epsom
>
> Auckland 1051                   Auckland 1344
>
> New Zealand                      New Zealand
>
>
>
> ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808
>
>
>
> fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz<mailto:fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> URL:
>
> <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/ 
> attachments/200811
>
> 13/969a1bb1/attachment-0001.html>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
>
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
>
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
>
>
>
> End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1
>
> **********************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
>
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
>
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date:  
> 14/11/2008 1:36 p.m.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
> <Attach0.html>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081115/ca0188ec/attachment-0001.html>

From jjaffrey at slingshot.co.nz  Fri Nov 14 23:23:57 2008
From: jjaffrey at slingshot.co.nz (Jonathan Jaffrey)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:23:57 +1300
Subject: New matrix
In-Reply-To: <mailman.6.1226723938.22631.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
References: <mailman.6.1226723938.22631.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
Message-ID: <9F546FBF53B74405ACFD7C471AC3363A@handjstudy>

Having read the "rules" (It is also very important that everyone is familiar
with the underlying principles - if you haven't seen a copy this can be
downloaded from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/news/releases/2008/170608.html -
these are the "rules".)Seems like classic "hair on dog's tail defining
direction of dog wagging..."
1 std = 1hr so max 3 stds??
Bio/Chem/Phys/Geo/Astro merge into 3 how for L1 Sci??
Mech/Waves/EM/Nuke at L2 & 3 go how??
Unless of course we do more internals.....think I want $60+/hour for that!
Jon Jaffrey

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz
Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 5:39 p.m.
To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3

Send Phys-teach-talk mailing list submissions to
	phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz

You can reach the person managing the list at
	phys-teach-talk-owner at nzip.org.nz

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-teach-talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. RE: New matrix (David Housden)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:42 +1300
From: "David Housden" <dhousden at xtra.co.nz>
Subject: RE: New matrix
To: <phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>
Message-ID: <005201c946dc$0a100020$1e300060$@co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi All

My understanding from NZASE is that the matrix is not yet available.
Francis has seen a draft from what he has indicated to me.  I understand
that it will be posted on the NZASE website some time early next week.

There clearly will need to be changes to the current matrix as there is now
a rule that only 3 externals can be assessed in a 3 hour examination.  There
are also rules relating to credit parity and value, duplication etc.  When
the matrix does arrive it is very important that everyone provides feedback
via the appropriate channels.   NZASE have appointed John Whakamoe from NZIP
to run the consultation.  John will use lists such as this to convey
information etc.

It is also very important that everyone is familiar with the underlying
principles - if you haven't seen a copy this can be downloaded from
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/news/releases/2008/170608.html - these are the
"rules".

All the best

David

 

From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of David King
Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 5:26 p.m.
To: PHYSICS TALK
Subject: Re: New matrix
Importance: Low

 

Me too - I cannot find it on the minedu / tki websites....

 

but then perhaps I have just missed it.

 

Shouldn't it be out there in big flashing letters, rather than us having to
find it?

 

(If it is in either large letters or flashing text, but I have missed it,
then accept my humble apologies!)

 

 

Cheers

 

 

David King

Physics HoD

Christ's College

Private Bag 4900

Christchurch

New Zealand

 

 





 

On 15/11/2008, at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Jaffrey wrote:





I haven't seen this.

I'd be fascinated to have a copy, where can I get one?

Jonathan Jaffrey

HoD Physics

LBC

 

-----Original Message-----

From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz

[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of

phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz

Sent: Saturday, 15 November 2008 9:00 a.m.

To: phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

Subject: Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

 

Send Phys-teach-talk mailing list submissions to

        phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

        http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

        phys-teach-talk-request at nzip.org.nz

 

You can reach the person managing the list at

        phys-teach-talk-owner at nzip.org.nz

 

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

than "Re: Contents of Phys-teach-talk digest..."

 

Today's Topics:

 

  1.  (Bryden, Francis)

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Message: 1

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:34 +1300

From: "Bryden, Francis" <francis.Bryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>

To: "'Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz'" <Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>

Message-ID:

        

<6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EF4FAABE0F at stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>

        

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

Don't know how many people have had a look at the draft of the new matrix

for level 1 science.

 

Instead of having Physics (science) and also all the separate physics

standards, the proposal is to have only two standards. One internal (4

credit) and one external (5 credit)

 

The external is demonstrate an understanding of how physical phenomena

impact on everyday life.

 

The internal is demonstrate an understanding of how physics knowledge is

used in applications

 

This seems to take away the opportunity we have presently to extend the more

able students. We presently have the flexibility to design courses to suit

different level students.

 

To me it seems physics is being seriously dumbed down.

 

Apparently the full Human Bio course is being retained because there "is a

demand for it"

 

I'd be interested in other people's take on this.

 

If you are concerned, make sure you get to the consultation meetings being

organised





................ Francis

 

Francis Bryden

HoD Physics

St Cuthbert's College

122 Market Rd               or Box 26 020

Epsom                              Epsom

Auckland 1051                   Auckland 1344

New Zealand                      New Zealand

 

ph: 64 9 5204159 ext 7808

 

fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz<mailto:fbryden at stcuthberts.school.nz>

 

-------------- next part --------------

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

URL:

<http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/200811

13/969a1bb1/attachment-0001.html>

 

------------------------------

 

_______________________________________________

Phys-teach-talk mailing list

Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

 

End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

**********************************************

 

_______________________________________________

Phys-teach-talk mailing list

Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz

http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 14/11/2008
1:36 p.m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/200811
15/dfe60cc1/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz


End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3
**********************************************



From g.foster at clear.net.nz  Sat Nov 15 22:26:32 2008
From: g.foster at clear.net.nz (g.foster)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:26:32 +1300
Subject: Assessment matrix
Message-ID: <491fbd18.318.61f7.9905@clear.net.nz>

Re new assessment matrix

I hope before anyone continues to discuss the assessment
matrix that we all become very familiar with the revised NZ
Curriculum. We must remember that the assessment matrix
reflects the curriculum, not simply what we would prefer to
teach.

Potentially there are big changes ahead for all of us as we
implement the new curriculum.
There is a re-focusing of teaching and learning that brings
the focus more towards values, pedagogy, values, key
competencies etc so there is a more balanced view of
learning.

May I strongly recomemnd the NZASE magazine article in
September 2006 about "Imroving achievement in the Sciences -
what will it take?" and the NZ Curriculum pages on TKI and
the Centre 4 website. Also the NZCER website
"shifting-thinking.org.nz". These changes are necessary as
Jane Gilbert and Rose Hipkins have maded clear for us. I
hope you have read the NZCER publication "Disciplining and
drafting or 21st century learning". It is a MUST read before
we start commenting. 

At last assessment will not dominate the teaching and
learning (hopefully), but teaching and learning will take
its rightful place at all levels of student development.
Before we can comment on the new matrix we need to have a
clear understandng of the revised NZ Curriculum and its
implications for us all as teachers and for the students. 

Thanks

Graham Foster
Director of Science/HoD Physics EGGS   

Graham Foster
Director of Science, EGGS
AMI Learned Society


From dking at christscollege.com  Sat Nov 15 23:09:19 2008
From: dking at christscollege.com (David King)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:09:19 +1300
Subject: Assessment matrix
In-Reply-To: <fc.3b9aca0003314ad33b9aca00d34a3103.9c93bc@christscollege.com>
References: <fc.3b9aca0003314ad33b9aca00d34a3103.9c93bc@christscollege.com>
Message-ID: <78215FB2-BA6E-4112-8EAA-667224A4136A@christscollege.com>

Thanks Graham,




I think that there are different levels of discussion that can take  
place.

At the end of the day, almost regardless of values, pedagogy, key  
competencies, balance et al, everyone in my yr 11 Physics class will,  
at some point,  take out a raybox and shine a ray through a glass  
block, they will trace the beams and label the diagram. We will talk  
about refraction etc and write a couple of lines of notes. (The  
lesson has not altered much in the last 15 years of change). They  
won't, of course, be doing that if there are no waves / light  
questions in Science at Level 1 and I only get them for the  
equivalent of 1/3 year! I think also Pandora's box has been opened.  
Pupils continually ask -"is this on the exam" and like it or not I  
think we cannot help but be assessment driven

I'm not too bothered by the FORM of the assesment matrix so much as  
the content. It will have major implications good and/or bad and I do  
not want to be caught off guard by the changes as they have a knock  
down effect on year 10 and 9 teaching for me (the boys I will be  
teaching this coming year ready for 2010!)

Maybe you're right and I shouldn't comment until I have read everything.

I shall see what the meeting tomorrow has to say!


Cheers



David King
Physics HoD
Christ's College
Private Bag 4900
Christchurch
New Zealand




On 16/11/2008, at 7:26 PM, g.foster at clear.net.nz wrote:

> Re new assessment matrix
>
> I hope before anyone continues to discuss the assessment
> matrix that we all become very familiar with the revised NZ
> Curriculum. We must remember that the assessment matrix
> reflects the curriculum, not simply what we would prefer to
> teach.
>
> Potentially there are big changes ahead for all of us as we
> implement the new curriculum.
> There is a re-focusing of teaching and learning that brings
> the focus more towards values, pedagogy, values, key
> competencies etc so there is a more balanced view of
> learning.
>
> May I strongly recomemnd the NZASE magazine article in
> September 2006 about "Imroving achievement in the Sciences -
> what will it take?" and the NZ Curriculum pages on TKI and
> the Centre 4 website. Also the NZCER website
> "shifting-thinking.org.nz". These changes are necessary as
> Jane Gilbert and Rose Hipkins have maded clear for us. I
> hope you have read the NZCER publication "Disciplining and
> drafting or 21st century learning". It is a MUST read before
> we start commenting.
>
> At last assessment will not dominate the teaching and
> learning (hopefully), but teaching and learning will take
> its rightful place at all levels of student development.
> Before we can comment on the new matrix we need to have a
> clear understandng of the revised NZ Curriculum and its
> implications for us all as teachers and for the students.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham Foster
> Director of Science/HoD Physics EGGS
>
> Graham Foster
> Director of Science, EGGS
> AMI Learned Society
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081116/fa75e14d/attachment.html>

From dhousden at xtra.co.nz  Mon Nov 17 22:12:32 2008
From: dhousden at xtra.co.nz (David Housden)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:12:32 +1300
Subject: FW: Climate change / filmmaking education survey for NZIP members
Message-ID: <002a01c94944$a4e7d3b0$eeb77b10$@co.nz>

Hi All
Jenni Adams President NZIP has asked me to forward this to the listserv.
Thanks
David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ClimateChange_Filmmaking_SecondarySurvey.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 169472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081118/3e5b037d/attachment-0001.doc>

From andydyson at actrix.co.nz  Tue Nov 18 17:44:32 2008
From: andydyson at actrix.co.nz (andydyson at actrix.co.nz)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:44:32 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: nuclear energy levels
Message-ID: <52097.202.89.50.16.1227059072.squirrel@my.actrix.co.nz>

In explaining why energy is generated in fission reactions the assessment
schedule in the level 3 atoms paper from 2005 says

The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium. This extra energy
must be lost when the strontium and
barium nuclei are formed.

as well as

The binding energy per nucleon is the
cause of the mass deficit per nucleon. As
the number of nucleons is conserved and
the products have a higher binding energy
per nucleon, they also have greater mass
deficit. The overall loss in mass is
converted to kinetic energy and radiation.


Is it normal at level 3 to teach nucleon energy levels?

Andy Dyson, Kerikeri



From mike.reid at canterbury.ac.nz  Tue Nov 18 17:55:41 2008
From: mike.reid at canterbury.ac.nz (Mike Reid)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:55:41 +1300
Subject: nuclear energy levels
In-Reply-To: <52097.202.89.50.16.1227059072.squirrel@my.actrix.co.nz>
References: <52097.202.89.50.16.1227059072.squirrel@my.actrix.co.nz>
Message-ID: <C7E5AE46BFE16B48AC73AD66E21FB9377ABBAC@ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz>

Hi Andy, 

I would say that the first bit is not correct: 
"The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium."

Yes, the binding energy is less, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't
really make sense. 

Mike

-- 
Dr Michael F Reid
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
andydyson at actrix.co.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:45 p.m.
To: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: nuclear energy levels

In explaining why energy is generated in fission reactions the
assessment
schedule in the level 3 atoms paper from 2005 says

The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium. This extra energy
must be lost when the strontium and
barium nuclei are formed.

as well as

The binding energy per nucleon is the
cause of the mass deficit per nucleon. As
the number of nucleons is conserved and
the products have a higher binding energy
per nucleon, they also have greater mass
deficit. The overall loss in mass is
converted to kinetic energy and radiation.


Is it normal at level 3 to teach nucleon energy levels?

Andy Dyson, Kerikeri


_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz


From loneill at jameshargest.school.nz  Tue Nov 18 18:12:25 2008
From: loneill at jameshargest.school.nz (loneill)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:12:25 +1300
Subject: nuclear energy levels
In-Reply-To: <C7E5AE46BFE16B48AC73AD66E21FB9377ABBAC@ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz>
References: <52097.202.89.50.16.1227059072.squirrel@my.actrix.co.nz>
	<C7E5AE46BFE16B48AC73AD66E21FB9377ABBAC@ucexchange2.canterbury.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <224F2325E5E249B98A06C56C2B0DA19A@jhhs.inet>

In the ESA level 3 text (p196, 197) it states that "A larger binding energy
per nucleon means the nucleons have less energy" and for fission:" In a
large nucleus the binding energy per nucleon is less than in a smaller
nucleus. Thus the nucleons in a larger nucleus have MORE energy than the
nucleons in a small nucleus. It follows that, when a large nucleus splits
into smaller nuclei, energy must be released."


Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of Mike Reid
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:56 p.m.
To: andydyson at actrix.co.nz; Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: RE: nuclear energy levels

Hi Andy, 

I would say that the first bit is not correct: 
"The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium."

Yes, the binding energy is less, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't
really make sense. 

Mike

-- 
Dr Michael F Reid
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
andydyson at actrix.co.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:45 p.m.
To: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: nuclear energy levels

In explaining why energy is generated in fission reactions the
assessment
schedule in the level 3 atoms paper from 2005 says

The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium. This extra energy
must be lost when the strontium and
barium nuclei are formed.

as well as

The binding energy per nucleon is the
cause of the mass deficit per nucleon. As
the number of nucleons is conserved and
the products have a higher binding energy
per nucleon, they also have greater mass
deficit. The overall loss in mass is
converted to kinetic energy and radiation.


Is it normal at level 3 to teach nucleon energy levels?

Andy Dyson, Kerikeri


_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz





From dking at christscollege.com  Thu Nov 20 00:15:20 2008
From: dking at christscollege.com (David King)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:15:20 +1300
Subject: New Draft matrices
Message-ID: <7F757D5C-10F7-4ADE-9E91-68AF0F4D9D4A@christscollege.com>

The draft martices and supporting notes doe L1 science and L2,3  
Physics etc are now on the NZASE website.

There is also a questionnaire form.

All in all, I don't think it is all bad, but I am a bit confused by  
how it will work and by the amount of internal standards. (Yes, I  
will feed back on the questionnaire)


In the meantime, as I know there are people more in the know out  
there than me, can I ask a few questions:

Upon first reading, P1.3 has much of the 4 Physics ach. standards we  
are doing now, but less on the nature of waves and, of course, no  
fission/fusion.

It looks a a lot like the Science AS90191 but with waves (light) added.

Am I missing anything?

The presenter at the meeting on Monday said that a lot of the maths  
was disappearing from the P1.3 Physics paper (at least, that is what  
I thought she said), but I'm not sure how you can teach/test much of  
the content of this P1.3 without quite a bit of maths.

Perhaps I misheard, or can anyone shed light on the 'mathemetical  
content'

I am not sure what the 1.2 Internal will look like. I am probably  
being dense, but again, is anyone there able to flesh out the bones?

Also, I can't find the exact quotes, now that I am looking for them,  
but am I right that 1.1 and 1.2 internals are not (at present) to be  
done for EACH science, but once only for Science?

If you can't do a 1.1, 1.2 say JUST for physics - is it possible to  
justify a full PHYSICS year 11 course on say P1.3, P1.4 and perhaps  
PS1.5 = 13 credits plus a shared few credits from the 1.1 / 1.2 done  
perhaps in biology?

We have in the past run most courses as 24 credit courses (with a few  
exceptions!). There is a clear message coming through that we ought  
to be offering only around 20 credits. That said, I know of some of  
my pupils being offered places at universities based on gaining the  
full 24 credits offered in Physics (medicine, I think). Will that  
change?

Another question. (Sorry, I am still quite new to NCEA and am having  
the greatest of trouble catching up....). If there are to be a  
maximum of three papers per sitting and 5 externals in science...what  
happens if someone JUST wants to do Physics for example. Do they  
enter the exam and do one paper in 3 hours, discarding the other two?  
Would this show on their certificate/grades?


If anyone is able to share any deeper knowledge I (and possibly  
others on the forum) would be most grateful ;-)

Cheers



David King
Physics HoD
Christ's College
Private Bag 4900
Christchurch
New Zealand




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081120/e270faac/attachment.html>

From dhousden at xtra.co.nz  Thu Nov 20 02:13:15 2008
From: dhousden at xtra.co.nz (David Housden)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:13:15 +1300
Subject: FW: nuclear energy levels
Message-ID: <007101c94af8$9a7c6c00$cf754400$@co.nz>

On behalf of Rob Campbell

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Campbell [mailto:robcampbell at actrix.co.nz] 
Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2008 10:28 p.m.
To: 'loneill'
Cc: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
Subject: RE: nuclear energy levels

Hi folks,

If you decided to pull a deuterium nucleus apart - with remarkably small
fingers - you'd do work, supplying potential energy to the component
particles.  This increases their potential energy and hence their mass.  The
energy you supply is called binding energy; really, it's unbinding energy.

Say you wanted to divide a Pu nucleus into its component parts.  You want to
do the entire thing simultaneously, so obtain 'special gunpowder' that can
be shaken into the nucleus.  Light the touch paper and watch it pop.

If the amount of energy released equals the unbinding energy, the particles
will separate but not go anywhere.  Too much gunpowder will blow the thing
apart; too little and the nucleus stays together.  (This is not a great
classroom experiment.)

If you have the right isotopes, strontium and barium nuclei could, in
theory, be squashed together to form plutonium.  Trying the special
gunpowder with Sr and Ba works too, but the total required is more than for
Pu.

You could say the binding (unbinding) energy per nucleon is higher in the
smaller nuclei - which shouldn't be a surprise.  After all, you had to
squash them together to form plutonium, so the Pu nucleus is a little less
stable than the other two on their own.

So it requires less 'gunpowder' to unbind it.

Should this be taught?  Only if the world has nuclear reactors in it.


Rob Campbell


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of loneill
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 3:12 p.m.
To: 'Mike Reid'; andydyson at actrix.co.nz; Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: RE: nuclear energy levels

In the ESA level 3 text (p196, 197) it states that "A larger binding energy
per nucleon means the nucleons have less energy" and for fission:" In a
large nucleus the binding energy per nucleon is less than in a smaller
nucleus. Thus the nucleons in a larger nucleus have MORE energy than the
nucleons in a small nucleus. It follows that, when a large nucleus splits
into smaller nuclei, energy must be released."


Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of Mike Reid
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:56 p.m.
To: andydyson at actrix.co.nz; Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: RE: nuclear energy levels

Hi Andy, 

I would say that the first bit is not correct: 
"The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium."

Yes, the binding energy is less, but the rest of the paragraph doesn't
really make sense. 

Mike

-- 
Dr Michael F Reid
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of
andydyson at actrix.co.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:45 p.m.
To: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: nuclear energy levels

In explaining why energy is generated in fission reactions the
assessment
schedule in the level 3 atoms paper from 2005 says

The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium. This extra energy
must be lost when the strontium and
barium nuclei are formed.

as well as

The binding energy per nucleon is the
cause of the mass deficit per nucleon. As
the number of nucleons is conserved and
the products have a higher binding energy
per nucleon, they also have greater mass
deficit. The overall loss in mass is
converted to kinetic energy and radiation.


Is it normal at level 3 to teach nucleon energy levels?

Andy Dyson, Kerikeri


_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz




_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz





From loneill at jameshargest.school.nz  Thu Nov 20 16:22:04 2008
From: loneill at jameshargest.school.nz (loneill)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:22:04 +1300
Subject: mind blockage
Message-ID: <080DEB4123034DA29388A893A065D954@jhhs.inet>

HI all

 

Mind blockage. If a current decreases, do less charges leave the battery, or
do they leave slower (ie speed changes)?  Does current "slow"?

 

Lee

 

Lee O'Neill

TIC Physics

 

James Hargest College Senior Campus

288 Layard St

Invercargill

 

loneill at jameshargest.school.nz

Ph (03) 2176-129 ext 304

Fax (03) 2170-351

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081121/4c9eeab1/attachment.html>

From jjaffrey at slingshot.co.nz  Thu Nov 20 23:19:40 2008
From: jjaffrey at slingshot.co.nz (Jonathan Jaffrey)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:19:40 +1300
Subject: Andy Dyson - nucleon energy levels
In-Reply-To: <mailman.7.1227211219.8818.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
References: <mailman.7.1227211219.8818.phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz@nzip.org.nz>
Message-ID: <0C9059FC6FEE4ADA9895B43D8665CFAB@handjstudy>


Hi Andy,
I do BE / A or Z curves and their interpretation, extended to peaks for
"Magic Nos" (Nx4) & some mention of shell models c/w electron shell filling
in chemistry but that's as far as I go in school.
Cheers,
Jonathan Jaffrey
LBC

Subject: nuclear energy levels

In explaining why energy is generated in fission reactions the
assessment
schedule in the level 3 atoms paper from 2005 says

The binding energy per nucleon for
plutonium is less than that for strontium
and barium. This means that the nucleons
in the plutonium nucleus are at higher
energy levels than those in the nuclei of
strontium and barium. This extra energy
must be lost when the strontium and
barium nuclei are formed.

as well as

The binding energy per nucleon is the
cause of the mass deficit per nucleon. As
the number of nucleons is conserved and
the products have a higher binding energy
per nucleon, they also have greater mass
deficit. The overall loss in mass is
converted to kinetic energy and radiation.


Is it normal at level 3 to teach nucleon energy levels?

Andy Dyson, Kerikeri


_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz

_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz




_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz






------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Phys-teach-talk mailing list
Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz


End of Phys-teach-talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9
**********************************************



From jgladwyn at xtra.co.nz  Fri Nov 21 01:36:06 2008
From: jgladwyn at xtra.co.nz (Joan Gladwyn)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:36:06 +1300
Subject: mind blockage
Message-ID: <1e75f85c80fe3068f77730487beabe84@xtra.co.nz>

Current, I =nAve so if I decreases then v must have decreased since n 
(electron density) depends on the metal of the wire, not the battery. 
But this must mean that fewer electrons per second leave the battery, 
so both things happen.  (At least I think so!)
Cheers
Joan Gladwyn
Outreach Coordinator
College of Science
University of Canterbury



From robcampbell at actrix.co.nz  Fri Nov 21 03:26:43 2008
From: robcampbell at actrix.co.nz (Rob Campbell)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:26:43 +1300
Subject: mind blockage
In-Reply-To: <080DEB4123034DA29388A893A065D954@jhhs.inet>
References: <080DEB4123034DA29388A893A065D954@jhhs.inet>
Message-ID: <A78BE40EA08244D4A9DF00663AFD39D4@robert972970e8>

Hi Folks,

 

All windows and doors shut?  Even in a draught-free room, air molecules are
batting by at random speeds greater than a rifle bullet.  For any one
component gas (e.g. oxygen) the total KE (linear + rotational) is
proportional to absolute temperature.

 

If you open a window, creating a breeze, the motion is no longer random.
There's a low drift velocity superposed on it.  The particle speeds haven't
changed, just the presence of a non-random component brought about by
pressure differences.

 

The breeze appears to start throughout the room at once, even though it may
be quite 'slow'.  Information about the pressure difference travels far
faster than the rate of air drift.  It travels at the maximum speed of
information in air: the speed of sound.

 

As with air, so with free electrons in a conductor.  The mean electron speed
in a piece of wire may be very high (and within wide limits, is proportional
to absolute temperature) but with no potential difference, the electrons are
going nowhere.  A potential difference imposes a non-random component on
their velocities - current, in effect - which is proportional to the p.d.
producing it.  And while the drift velocity may be low, mm/s or less, news
of the potential difference travels down the wire at the maximum speed of
electromagnetic information: light.

 

So yes, current (drift velocity) 'slows' but the electrons don't.  Their
almost random speed is set by the temperature.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob Campbell

 

  _____  

From: phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz
[mailto:phys-teach-talk-bounces at nzip.org.nz] On Behalf Of loneill
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2008 1:22 p.m.
To: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: mind blockage

 

HI all

 

Mind blockage. If a current decreases, do less charges leave the battery, or
do they leave slower (ie speed changes)?  Does current "slow"?

 

Lee

 

Lee O'Neill

TIC Physics

 

James Hargest College Senior Campus

288 Layard St

Invercargill

 

loneill at jameshargest.school.nz

Ph (03) 2176-129 ext 304

Fax (03) 2170-351

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081122/58d1f16d/attachment.html>

From sjohn at diocesan.school.nz  Fri Nov 21 22:22:40 2008
From: sjohn at diocesan.school.nz (Susan John)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:22:40 +1300
Subject: mind blockage - another electricity query
Message-ID: <22965F83F48DDE4AB0749350A4FD573A08F195EF@server32>


This is a question sent to me by one of my students regarding last year's electricity level 3 paper. Can someone throw some light on this query. Thanks

1 have just been looking at the 2007 NCEA electricity paper and I have a question about it. I hope you don't mind responding to questions by email. I

My query is about question 2. l), which asks you to find the maximum energy stored in the capacitor at resonance. To do this you need to know the maximum voltage across the capacitor. The answers suggest that the value of the maximum voltage is XI, where I = the current in the circuit at resonance as given by I = V/R. It was my understanding, however, that the formula I = V/R gives the RMS current only - the maximum current would be greater. Presumably, then, the maximum voltage across the capacitor would also be greater, and this would give a greater maximum energy? Clearly I am making a mistake in my reasoning somewhere but I am not quite sure where!

I was under the impression that the value for current, 0.833, is the RMS current through the resistor, and that the current would have to be higher than that at some point.  At that moment, then, the energy stored in the inductor would be greater than the value calculated, sinceEp = 0.5LI^2. Am I misunderstanding the meaning of the value 0.833 for current?
Many thanks for this.

Cheers
Susan
________________________________

 
CAUTION: The information contained in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message is prohibited. Thank you.


From robcampbell at actrix.co.nz  Sat Nov 22 08:33:11 2008
From: robcampbell at actrix.co.nz (Rob Campbell)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:33:11 +1300
Subject: mind blockage - another electricity query
In-Reply-To: <22965F83F48DDE4AB0749350A4FD573A08F195EF@server32>
References: <22965F83F48DDE4AB0749350A4FD573A08F195EF@server32>
Message-ID: <58BEBBB92877472EB6FF2408BE975773@robert972970e8>

Hi Susan!

 

I don't have access to the question, but have never allowed total ignorance
to stand in my way yet.

 

 

The maximum pd across the capacitor will indeed be XI if I is the maximum
current.  And I don't see anything in this segment of the question that says
whether the values are peak or RMS ones.  If the V in I = V/R is RMS, then
you'd have to convert.  Maybe someone with the question in front of them can
shed light on this.

 

Cheers,  Rob

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan John [mailto:sjohn at diocesan.school.nz] 
Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2008 7:23 p.m.
To: Rob Campbell; 'loneill'; Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: RE: mind blockage - another electricity query

 

 

This is a question sent to me by one of my students regarding last year's
electricity level 3 paper. Can someone throw some light on this query.
Thanks

 

1 have just been looking at the 2007 NCEA electricity paper and I have a
question about it. I hope you don't mind responding to questions by email. I

 

My query is about question 2. l), which asks you to find the maximum energy
stored in the capacitor at resonance. To do this you need to know the
maximum voltage across the capacitor. The answers suggest that the value of
the maximum voltage is XI, where I = the current in the circuit at resonance
as given by I = V/R. It was my understanding, however, that the formula I =
V/R gives the RMS current only - the maximum current would be greater.
Presumably, then, the maximum voltage across the capacitor would also be
greater, and this would give a greater maximum energy? Clearly I am making a
mistake in my reasoning somewhere but I am not quite sure where!

 

I was under the impression that the value for current, 0.833, is the RMS
current through the resistor, and that the current would have to be higher
than that at some point.  At that moment, then, the energy stored in the
inductor would be greater than the value calculated, sinceEp = 0.5LI^2. Am I
misunderstanding the meaning of the value 0.833 for current?

Many thanks for this.

 

Cheers

Susan

________________________________

 

 

CAUTION: The information contained in this email is confidential and may be
legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution,
or reproduction of this message is prohibited. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081123/4de86a40/attachment.html>

From Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz  Sat Nov 22 15:01:46 2008
From: Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz (Skelton, Mo)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:01:46 +1300
Subject: level 1 matrix
Message-ID: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7B0E66B@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>

Hi All

The level 1 (2 and 3) matrices are out on the NZASE website and your feedback is asked for: http://www.nzase.org.nz/consultation.html
I have filled in the online evaluation form but there was no reference to the fact that level 1 physics as a separate subject (ditto for chem and bio) disappears off the landscape to be replaced by level 1 science only. If this a concern to you then I guess the feedback comments form is the place to feed back - although not asked for.
Is the abolishing of these level 1 subjects also up for discussion or have these decisions been made? The changes in aligning the standards to the curriculum seems rather minor in comparison. Action to be taken?

Mo Skelton
StCC


From alanwest at xtra.co.nz  Sat Nov 22 23:50:40 2008
From: alanwest at xtra.co.nz (Alan West)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:50:40 +1300
Subject: level 1 matrix
In-Reply-To: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7B0E66B@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>
References: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7B0E66B@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>
Message-ID: <6F403CFD-7D46-4087-929D-90BB8504FB48@xtra.co.nz>

Hi everyone

There seems to be a number of people concerned that Physics will no  
longer be a level 1 subject. I don?t think this should be a real  
concern as I believe that at level 1, students should be encouraged  
to have a broad general education. There is plenty of time to  
specialise later and I think that people who later go into a  
scientific career will be better off for having some arts or commerce  
in their background and vice versa for those entering careers based  
on the arts or commerce having some science behind them. Yes, and I  
am a Physics teacher advocating this.

However, for those who wish to specialise or run multiple science  
programmes, there is huge flexibility to design courses as  
illustrated in the supporting notes (Possible assessment for  
different courses from L1 matrix) and these notes imply that there  
could well be two exam slots for Science.

I hope people will look at these matrices positively and not be tied  
to what we have traditionally taught in the past. The world is  
changing and we must look at the way we teach as well as what we  
teach as we prepare our students for their futures. The matrix has  
been constructed with the NOS strand built into each standard and we  
are also to take into account the key competencies as we prepare our  
lessons.
There are challenges for us all, but lets be imaginative and creative  
and look for ways of using the new curriculum and the matrices for  
improving science education for our students.


Alan West
HOD Science
Ashburton College


On 23/11/2008, at 12:01 PM, Skelton, Mo wrote:

> Hi All
>
> The level 1 (2 and 3) matrices are out on the NZASE website and  
> your feedback is asked for: http://www.nzase.org.nz/consultation.html
> I have filled in the online evaluation form but there was no  
> reference to the fact that level 1 physics as a separate subject  
> (ditto for chem and bio) disappears off the landscape to be  
> replaced by level 1 science only. If this a concern to you then I  
> guess the feedback comments form is the place to feed back -  
> although not asked for.
> Is the abolishing of these level 1 subjects also up for discussion  
> or have these decisions been made? The changes in aligning the  
> standards to the curriculum seems rather minor in comparison.  
> Action to be taken?
>
> Mo Skelton
> StCC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz



From Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz  Sun Nov 23 16:21:41 2008
From: Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz (Skelton, Mo)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:21:41 +1300
Subject: those that knew Clive Wilson
In-Reply-To: <6F403CFD-7D46-4087-929D-90BB8504FB48@xtra.co.nz>
Message-ID: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7BA11AD@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>

For those of you that taught with Clive Wilson (35 years of teaching physics in various schools throughout Auckland), he sadly passed away on Friday after a brief battle with cancer. His funeral is on Friday with details in today's Herald.

Mo Skelton
StCC


From Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz  Mon Nov 24 15:13:24 2008
From: Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz (Skelton, Mo)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:13:24 +1300
Subject: level 1 matrix
In-Reply-To: <6F403CFD-7D46-4087-929D-90BB8504FB48@xtra.co.nz>
Message-ID: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7BA11B6@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>

The new Level 1 matrix looks very well-suited to fulfilling the goals as outlined by Alan below. And yes, I do think future students will respond positively to some of the changes. And here I'm referring to the bulk of the students passing through our classrooms.

However, NCEA is meant to be about choice - not providing a prescribed course, but one that can be put together by students and teachers to suit needs. Where one wants to specialize at Yr 11, that pathway should be provided - as stated on Pg 29 of the curriculum document! I still see no need to limit choice by cutting out level 1 physics (and chem and bio). Physics is traditionally seen as the most difficult subject - yes, let's make it more accessible as is the aim of the new matrix - but let's not forget the kids who relish the extra challenge and are gaining excellence in every topic test and exam in the current achievement standards - leave the choice there.

Mo Skelton
StCC

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan West [mailto:alanwest at xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 8:51 p.m.
To: Skelton, Mo
Cc: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
Subject: Re: level 1 matrix

Hi everyone

There seems to be a number of people concerned that Physics will no
longer be a level 1 subject. I don't think this should be a real
concern as I believe that at level 1, students should be encouraged
to have a broad general education. There is plenty of time to
specialise later and I think that people who later go into a
scientific career will be better off for having some arts or commerce
in their background and vice versa for those entering careers based
on the arts or commerce having some science behind them. Yes, and I
am a Physics teacher advocating this.

However, for those who wish to specialise or run multiple science
programmes, there is huge flexibility to design courses as
illustrated in the supporting notes (Possible assessment for
different courses from L1 matrix) and these notes imply that there
could well be two exam slots for Science.

I hope people will look at these matrices positively and not be tied
to what we have traditionally taught in the past. The world is
changing and we must look at the way we teach as well as what we
teach as we prepare our students for their futures. The matrix has
been constructed with the NOS strand built into each standard and we
are also to take into account the key competencies as we prepare our
lessons.
There are challenges for us all, but lets be imaginative and creative
and look for ways of using the new curriculum and the matrices for
improving science education for our students.


Alan West
HOD Science
Ashburton College


On 23/11/2008, at 12:01 PM, Skelton, Mo wrote:

> Hi All
>
> The level 1 (2 and 3) matrices are out on the NZASE website and
> your feedback is asked for: http://www.nzase.org.nz/consultation.html
> I have filled in the online evaluation form but there was no
> reference to the fact that level 1 physics as a separate subject
> (ditto for chem and bio) disappears off the landscape to be
> replaced by level 1 science only. If this a concern to you then I
> guess the feedback comments form is the place to feed back -
> although not asked for.
> Is the abolishing of these level 1 subjects also up for discussion
> or have these decisions been made? The changes in aligning the
> standards to the curriculum seems rather minor in comparison.
> Action to be taken?
>
> Mo Skelton
> StCC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz



From g.foster at clear.net.nz  Mon Nov 24 21:13:20 2008
From: g.foster at clear.net.nz (g.foster)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:13:20 +1300
Subject: Level 1 matrix
Message-ID: <492b8970.234.5425.10249@clear.net.nz>

Greetings

The Level 1 Matrix should provide plenty of challenge for
the students with special abilities. The P1.3 draft standard
seems to include a wide range of subject material for 5
credits. Presumably the depth will provide the critical
thinking skills needed. 

It may be of some concern that the breadth of topics may
limit the intention of the curriculum to re-focus on Key
Competencies, values, etc. It is hoped that the NoS strand
for communication is not limited by the breadth of ideas
students need to learn.   
It shall depend on the final interpretation of the standard
so that we can understand the depth of the concepts.

What may be a concern is the very large difference between
Level 1 P1.3 and the Level 2 sections of work. With no
separate 'Physics' standards the more able students shall
find a good challenge to move to Level 2, but of real
concern is the possible difficulties that students of
average and lower ability may find to move to Level 2
Physics.

Physics is a relevant, exciting and very fulfilling study
for students even if they do not wish to move on to Level 3.

However it remains to be seen if the big hurdle of moving
from Level 1 to Level 2 may discourage students taking Y12
and y13 Physics. This is certainly the opposite of what we
need to happen. Perhaps P1.4 Applications of physics might
help students and teachers overcome this. 

I was wondering if there may not be some consideration
similar to B1.5 where there is some choice given to teachers
to match the learning to the students' needs in their
school?

I hope that teachers attending the consultation meetings and
replying to the survey shall keep in mind not only the
concepts coverage but, more importantly, the range of
students we need to encourage to study Physics at and beyond
Level 1 and the progression steps from L1 to L2.  Each
student group has particular needs and we need to think
about these needs, our teacher support strategies for the
students and how we might encourage students to stay with
Physics. How do we personalise learning for students when we
are 
caused to teach a wide breadth of content ? How does the new
matrix structure help us avoid, or at least minimise, being
forced to teach to the standard rather than place the
curriculum and students'needs first?   
  
All food for thought I hope? 

Graham Foster
Director of Science/HoD Physics
EGGS 

Graham Foster
Director of Science, EGGS
AMI Learned Society


From dking at christscollege.com  Mon Nov 24 21:25:14 2008
From: dking at christscollege.com (David King)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:25:14 +1300
Subject: Physics Level 1 MAtrix
Message-ID: <3C2667D2-50BF-4E2B-AE00-9AFC5691B9D8@christscollege.com>

One thing I am a bit confused about...

I f I teach P1.3 - 5 credits...I should spend 50 notional hours on  
it. Say 1/4 of the year

Currently I spend most of the year (4 periods x 50 mins per week)  
doing mechanics / light / electricity / heat transfer.

So in that sense their cannot be the 'breadth' the separate Physics  
Standard, even if the internal offers some extra depth?

Hmmmm, I am still not sure how I am going to do this.


I am also greatly concerned that if we do cobble a Physics Course  
together I would be offering all of it bar 5 credits for internals!  
Lots of extra work for no gain?

David King
Physics HoD
Christ's College
Private Bag 4900
Christchurch
New Zealand




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nzip.org.nz/pipermail/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz/attachments/20081125/640bb0cc/attachment.html>

From parkerprice at clear.net.nz  Tue Nov 25 01:36:23 2008
From: parkerprice at clear.net.nz (Kerry Parker and Andy Price)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:36:23 +1300
Subject: level 1 matrix
In-Reply-To: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7BA11B6@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>
References: <6AC36C5F0F8E364CBEC8178DD499F3EFC7BA11B6@stcc-exchange.stcuthberts.local>
Message-ID: <E22397E1CCF84FBB93B8455004E96026@study>

Hi Mo, Alan etc.

Looking over the a la carte menu of level 1 standards is a bit bewildering. 
I am wondering if it might be helpful to us if we try to think about what 
students need and what we can do to ensure that the range of standards on 
offer through NCEA can be written to meet their needs.

I have taught students who are only doing physics 'because they have to' for 
too long now.   Surely you must all have many students who work just because 
"I need physics to get into medicine/engineering/pilot training..."  About 
15 years ago I remember asking a class for hands up to show how many would 
prefer not to have to learn any physics if they could just have the 
qualification.  100% of my class wanted to remain ignorant.  I still haven't 
got over the shock.  I didn't think I was that bad a teacher!

Many assessment schemes also promote a really narrow view of 
learning -sometimes called credit farming.  This is not unique to New 
Zealand.  It is not why I am a teacher.

One of our goals from this reallignment is surely to devise an assessment 
system that promotes real learning and a love of life-long learning. (Or at 
least, it should do this better than last time!)

The needs of our students are paramount - but who knows what those needs 
are?

Do we ask our students what they want to study?  How do they know?  They 
haven't studied it yet.  And, like a 15-year old's food choices, if we give 
them a wide variety from which to choose, how would they know what is good 
for them?
Do we ask parents?  Inevitably the parents who have the strongest voice are 
those who have become successful as a result of their education.  Without 
any further information about curricula (and how many parents really have 
time to get acquainted with school curricula?) parents like this will very 
sensibly expect their kids to have an education like the one they had: 
proper subjects like physics, chemistry, maybe even latin, but add in some 
computing...
I belive that as the professionals we have a responsibility to be the main 
advisors for our students.  We devise the menu, allowing some choice but 
making sure that students and parents know about what is really on offer.

It is not the names that matter : 'physics' or 'science', 'scientific 
studies'... actually I quite like the old fashioned 'natural philosophy'. 
Each word brings certain expectations, but the proof of the pudding, as it 
were, will be in what is learned by(not taught to) the students.

So what physicsy stuff do we really think all school leavers should learn, 
and how should we best cater for the very important minority that want to 
continue studying physics beyond level 1?
The standards are not written yet, so we haven't even begun with teaching 
schemes and resources.  Can I put in a plea that we think beyond 'what we've 
always done' and think of the needs of a young adult in the 2010's?   If we 
share our our best ideas on this, as the matrix gets tweaked and some of you 
people start writing standards for us, I think that we could really end up 
with an assessment system that promotes inspired teaching.

optimistically
Kerry

Kerry Parker
The Correspondence School


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Skelton, Mo" <Mo.Skelton at stcuthberts.school.nz>
To: <Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: level 1 matrix


> The new Level 1 matrix looks very well-suited to fulfilling the goals as 
> outlined by Alan below. And yes, I do think future students will respond 
> positively to some of the changes. And here I'm referring to the bulk of 
> the students passing through our classrooms.
>
> However, NCEA is meant to be about choice - not providing a prescribed 
> course, but one that can be put together by students and teachers to suit 
> needs. Where one wants to specialize at Yr 11, that pathway should be 
> provided - as stated on Pg 29 of the curriculum document! I still see no 
> need to limit choice by cutting out level 1 physics (and chem and bio). 
> Physics is traditionally seen as the most difficult subject - yes, let's 
> make it more accessible as is the aim of the new matrix - but let's not 
> forget the kids who relish the extra challenge and are gaining excellence 
> in every topic test and exam in the current achievement standards - leave 
> the choice there.
>
> Mo Skelton
> StCC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan West [mailto:alanwest at xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 8:51 p.m.
> To: Skelton, Mo
> Cc: Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> Subject: Re: level 1 matrix
>
> Hi everyone
>
> There seems to be a number of people concerned that Physics will no
> longer be a level 1 subject. I don't think this should be a real
> concern as I believe that at level 1, students should be encouraged
> to have a broad general education. There is plenty of time to
> specialise later and I think that people who later go into a
> scientific career will be better off for having some arts or commerce
> in their background and vice versa for those entering careers based
> on the arts or commerce having some science behind them. Yes, and I
> am a Physics teacher advocating this.
>
> However, for those who wish to specialise or run multiple science
> programmes, there is huge flexibility to design courses as
> illustrated in the supporting notes (Possible assessment for
> different courses from L1 matrix) and these notes imply that there
> could well be two exam slots for Science.
>
> I hope people will look at these matrices positively and not be tied
> to what we have traditionally taught in the past. The world is
> changing and we must look at the way we teach as well as what we
> teach as we prepare our students for their futures. The matrix has
> been constructed with the NOS strand built into each standard and we
> are also to take into account the key competencies as we prepare our
> lessons.
> There are challenges for us all, but lets be imaginative and creative
> and look for ways of using the new curriculum and the matrices for
> improving science education for our students.
>
>
> Alan West
> HOD Science
> Ashburton College
>
>
> On 23/11/2008, at 12:01 PM, Skelton, Mo wrote:
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> The level 1 (2 and 3) matrices are out on the NZASE website and
>> your feedback is asked for: http://www.nzase.org.nz/consultation.html
>> I have filled in the online evaluation form but there was no
>> reference to the fact that level 1 physics as a separate subject
>> (ditto for chem and bio) disappears off the landscape to be
>> replaced by level 1 science only. If this a concern to you then I
>> guess the feedback comments form is the place to feed back -
>> although not asked for.
>> Is the abolishing of these level 1 subjects also up for discussion
>> or have these decisions been made? The changes in aligning the
>> standards to the curriculum seems rather minor in comparison.
>> Action to be taken?
>>
>> Mo Skelton
>> StCC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
>> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
>> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phys-teach-talk mailing list
> Phys-teach-talk at nzip.org.nz
> http://nzip.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/phys-teach-talk_nzip.org.nz