How can anyone have a decent understanding of global warming without
understanding seasons? How can anyone have a decent understanding of
semiconductors or liquid crystal displays without understanding electric
fields?
I'm reading Arnold Arons' _Teaching_Introductory_Physics_ (Wiley, 1997),
and just the other day I read Section 12.7 (pp.361-2) in which he
recommends against discussing applications of science if the students
lack an understanding of the underlying science.
Daniel Crowe
Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics
Ardmore Regional Center
dcrowe@sotc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
Behalf Of Frohne, Vickie
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 3:13 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: [PHYS-L] In the Private Universe
<snip>
Topic for conversation: How important is it, really, that most people
understand the seasons? We no longer use the motions of the Sun, Moon,
and stars for navigation or timekeeping, so most people have no
practical use for this information. The seasons will happen just the
same whether they are fully understood or not. Is this a topic worth
spending a lot of instructional time on? Or in an over-packed school
year of physics, is there something else more worthy of our limited
instructional time, like electrical safety, global warming, lasers,
medical imaging, or transistors? And whatever happened to Simple
Machines? Their loss is deplorable, as is anything else "applied." Why
don't we ditch electric and magnetic fields (a topic best understood at
advanced levels)in favor of basic semiconductors or liquid crystal
displays? What physics topics should be considered "essential" today?