John C. wrote in part:
|
| I do not agree with everything that was written in the posted
| paper, but I do see the utility of treating energy as if it
| were something you can transfer. If a fluid analogy is used,
| that is OK at the beginning. Actually students really have
| to go through some models in sequence, and some discarded
| models serve as bridges to the next level of understanding.
It seems you being put in the position of defending something you don't
entirely agree with. And I don't disagree with the above, however
|
| The field concept is an important model that gives the
| student a handle on energy. After all it does away with
| spooky action at a distance. More modern understanding of
| energy can come after they can handle a model where the
| potential energy resides in the field or in the connection
| between the objects. After all there is a connection between
| the objects or there would not be any forces.
|
The trouble I'm having is that IMO, the field concept is one of the more
abstract things one comes across in beginning physics. My students have
more trouble with fields than they do with "action-at-a-distance". If
one is using an idea of "locating energy" I find it hard to believe that
locating it in the field is any more concrete than locating it in the
interaction between two objects. But perhaps that is just me.
| The paper in question needs to make it clear that pedagogy is
| the focus. Indeed the philosophy behind modeling really takes
| the word right and wrong out of physics discussions, but
| focuses on getting student to build coherent models that
| successfully predict physical phenomena.
Perhaps, the paper wouldn't have seemed a bit odd to me if they really
had taken the words "right and wrong" out of their discussion. :-)