Re: Beichner's book

[Joseph Bellina <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

I have mused of and on about find some way to finesse acceleration,
while still having students develop a good understanding of force, then
coming back to descriptions of motion through conservation principles.

It seems to me that the need to develop a good conceptual understanding
of acceleration rests on how we come to force, so if we came to it a
different way.  Could we, for example, discuss vector change in velocity
and then vector change in momentum to get to force?  Seems to me to have
some historical precedent :-), but of course that does not necessarily
imply what would happen pedagogically.

cheers

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Joe Heafner
wrote:

> Hi.
> Well, I'm fully prepared to hear the chins hit the
> desktops and the whispers of "Joe's an idiot" when I
> say this, but I don't care. Here goes. Traditional
> kinematics has GOT to go! It's the "bane of introductory
> physics instruction" (Paul Hewitt's quote, not mine). It's
> boring to teach, and it's more boring to sit through as a
> student. There' s no useful physics there either (cue the
> dropping chins). All of the results of traditional
> kinematics can be derive much more elegantly from
> conservation principles. Break with tradition and trash
> traditional kinematics and start with dynamics from day
> one.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Joe Heafner - Instructional Astronomy and Physics
> Home Page http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/index.html
> I'll never be able to afford a Lexus, but I do have a Mac. Same thing.
> DO NOT USE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ANYWHERE ON THE WEB!

Joseph J. Bellina, Jr.               574-284-4662
Associate Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556