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: [Phys-L] Conceptual Physics Course



One reason for the conceptual physics course is the idea that the students
can not use math well. But some forms of math are absolutely essential to
understanding physics. However, algebra does not have to be used much.

The research going back to the 70s shows that students have to be able to
translate between various representations. They are usually listed as
descriptive, graphical, pictorial, and algebraic. If you leave out all but
the rudimentary algebraic descriptions, the graphical can be used to solve
many types of problems. Once they can draw graphs of position-time and
velocity-time, they can easily solve many problems by calculating slopes and
areas. They will often not recognize this as being math, and math phobia
will not cause problems. You can teach them rudiments of calculus diguised
as learning how to interpret graphs. I did this back in the 70s. I had one
student who had taken calculus, and at the end of the course, she commented
that she had made connections with calculus and now understood it.

They can solve energy problems in very approximate ways using bar charts to
help them guide their thinking. If they can identify where energy goes that
is a huge conceptual gain. You are helping them to use conservation
reasoning.

If you use the Lawson hand grade test of reasoning from his book "Science
Teaching and the development of thinking", this would be a good evaluation
of how well you are getting them to think. Certainly the FCI would be a
good evaluation of physics understanding, but the FMCE would be less
suitable for a conceptual course.

The HS book series "Minds on Physics" has many activities which are ideal
for conceptual physics. It also has many activities which you would leave
out because of the use of algebra and fairly advanced thinking. Basically
it starts with simple activities which could be used in middle school and
builds on them to very advanced activities. This is done in each part of
the books so you have simple activities to promote reasoning for each topic,
and you can leave out the very hard ones.

Even if they do not learn a lot of physics concepts, getting them to think
at a higher level should be the real goal.

Actually algebra is often introduced before students have learned to reason
about problems. So it blocks the formation of proportional and conservation
reasoning by hiding what is going on. Newton distrusted it because it
concealed the concepts and made getting results too easy. So emphasizing
the use of graphs can be used to build the necessary proportional reasoning.
The one caveat that I would make is that you need to point out the use of
proportional or compensation reasoning when it appears spontaneously in
class.

If you really want to improve thinking skills you could get "Thinking
Science" by Shayer, Adey, & Yates. Then follow some of the activities
exactly as they are designed. They are not strictly physics, but cross
scientific boundaries. You would not use them all, and they should only be
used every 2 weeks or so.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX