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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of John Clement
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:35 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Work and Energy: which first?
This is not actually my way. This type of formalism is used
by Modeling and Minds on Physics. Taking the average has a
lot of appeal, but the area is always correct. The average.
of course, does not work well for anything but a linear
graph. Students do have the tendency to just multiply a
value of the force x distance and ignore the fact that the
force is changing. So they either multiply by the initial
value or the final value. I suspect that taking the average
might help a bit with this problem, but would make things
more difficult for other cases. MOP has some examples of
curves rather than just straight line examples, so the area
becomes an important method. It also is bringing in calculus
ideas without the formalism.
Defining the energy of a spring first has the advantage of
defining energy when the student can readily identify where
it is stored.
I do not know of any research which shows which sequence works better.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX