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]

Re: Setting up problems



The Greek 'Polya' said, more or less, that one learns to solve problems by
solving problems. That 'aha' moment only arrives through struggle. Most
students, these days, do not have the the staying power for a struggle, as
there is so much more vying for their attention than in the past. My advice
is, give them the tools and a few type examples, then drop them in it. Help
them as they seek help, but only enough to move them in the right direction,
and do not solve a problem for them until they have slept on it, cried over
it, and care enough beg. This is a slow process, but once 'aha' is
experienced, their journey is ended, without the need fo further drill.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Promod Pratap" <prpratap@UNCG.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Setting up problems


(I love to watch where a thread starts and where it ends up... A
subject for a study in psychology or complexity, perhaps?)

I'm going to stick my neck out here. From the suggestions from
contributors, the general consensus appears to be that if we provide
non-plug-and-chug problems, things would improve -- i.e., we need to
teach concepts. OK, how does one do that? From looking back at my
school days, I seem to think that I learned concepts by doing problems
(e.g. Halliday and Resnick). I had the distinct recollection that I did
not necessarily understand the concept when I started doing problems in
a particular topic, but that the concept came much later (in an "AHA"
moment). I don't remember doing anything consciously to get to this
point.

Also, I think it was easier because it is my instinct that, when given a
problem, I tended to take it apart (literally and figuratively :)). I'm
not sure where I learned this, or whether some people are born with it
(and are therefore condemned to become Physicists and Engineers). This
curiosity (maybe?) about the real world appears, to me, to be essential
for learning Physics. If students want you to give them plug-and-chug
problems, does this mean that they have lost this sense of curiosity
somewhere along the line? (I think all humans have this at the
beginning of life.) Is this something they can reacquire, or is it
something that's gone for ever?

An aside: in the problem about the roller coaster by David Marx, the
concept being taught there concerns gravitational potential energy, and
that is why you don't need the mass (the assumption being that the
gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same). However, if instead
of climbing the second hill, the cart hit a spring and compressed it,
then you would need the mass.

Promod Pratap