Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
it is very clear that their
"street" notions concerning acceleration (acceleration is speeding up,
slowing down is *either* deceleration or negative acceleration, and there
can be no acceleration if the speed or velocity is zero) is NOT a mere
sub-set of the "scientists'" notion of acceleration. Acceleration is *just
not the same entity* for them as it is for "us."
As is implied in the Chapter in the Fosnot edited book, a consideration of
statics appears not to even yield a net force idea for many students, at
least not one which shows up when they move to consider forces on moving
objects. Maybe the problem is that they do not see "no motion" as merely a
case of "constant velocity." The fact that they do not generally see "no
motion" or "stopped" as such is also documented in the research literature,
I'm pretty sure, but I can't give a ref right off hand. Hence, they do not
seem generally to be inclined or see it natural to extrapolate things
learned about the static situation to the moving one. This seems to come,
looking back on thing, rather than when moving on to what they consider a
different situation.
Dewey