I got a note last night asking me to help settle an argument. Since it's the second or third time this summer I've heard the meme, I figured I should address it publicly.
The question: Is projectile motion part of AP Physics 1?
The argument: But the Physics 1 curriculum framework does not include any learning objectives with the word "projectile" in them.* No LOs even say "two-dimensional motion" or anything similar. Since the problems must be written directly to the learning objectives, nothing about projectiles can be asked.
* The Physics 2 framework includes one learning objective that requires students to recognize the similarity between a charge moving through a uniform electric field and a projectile.
Well, that argument takes an overly literal interpretation of the curriculum framework, I believe.
1. Projectile motion is explicitly mentioned within "essential knowledge" 3.E.1: "The component of the net force exerted on an object perpendicular to the direction of the displacement of the object can change the direction of the motion of the object without changing the kinetic energy of the object. This should include uniform circular motion and projectile motion."
2. Granted, the subsequent 3.E.1 learning objectives don't explicitly refer to projectile motion. But I certainly could find a way to write a good problem involving a projectile that matches the 3.E.1 learning objectives, as well as to several others. Problems can be written to multiple learning objectives.
3. At the AP reading, one of the points made by a College Board representative warned us about mechanistic teaching to learning objectives. She said that in the biology redesign, a good number of teachers were flummoxed after they spent the year posting the learning objectives and teaching a course narrowly tailored to doing literally and word-for-word what the LOs said to do. Her point: the learning objectives are meant to be interpreted in the context of the "essential knowledge" statements, and are all interrelated. The AP development committees are creating science exams, not the Law School Admissions Tests. The learning objectives are intended to be flexible enough to allow for coverage of all the course material described in the framework; they are not intended to be narrow prescriptions of the precise questions that will be asked on the exam.
4. Look at the released AP Physics 1 practice exam: questions 5 and 6 include a diagram with a projectile on it. QED.
So teach projectiles. Don't merely teach "here's how to plug numbers into equations to get answers to three significant figures," because that approach is just as doomed to failure in projectile problems as in other topics in AP Physics 1. Be sure students understand the independence of vertical and horizontal motion, how a vertical acceleration alone produces a parabolic trajectory, how the velocity, acceleration, net force, kinetic energy of/on a projectile change or don't change depending on various aspects of its motion, etc. But do teach projectiles.