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] proportional reasoning, scaling laws, et cetera



Learning physics is challenging for most students, and they learn
differently. We all have to ask ourselves what we want students to learn
in our courses. How fast should the pace be? How many topics will be
covered? The slower/weaker students will fall behind and not do as well.

I'm curious how many topics people teach. I'm in a high school with around
165 teaching days. I teach only 10 topics.

Phys-L@Phys-L.org writes:
The modeling physics approach emphasizes an approach along these lines.
Collect data, plot the graph. Determine the math model.
A lot of emphasis (after the initial development of the model) is spent
on the eqn for the model (relating y=mx+b to the graph) the slope of the
graph, and the area under the curve.
I've been using it with h.s. freshman. Trying to use area of rectangles
and triangles under v vs t graphs to find displacement. Slow going with
the bottom 1/2 to 2/3 of the grade. They need to understand the v vs t
graph first. They'd rather plug and chug.



Paul Lulai
St Anthony Village Senior High

----- Reply message -----
From: "Philip Keller" <PKeller@holmdelschools.org>
Date: Sat, May 19, 2012 3:45 pm
Subject: [Phys-L] proportional reasoning, scaling laws, et cetera
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>

No defense necessry! I agree completely. In fact, I almost mentioned in
my last post that students DO gush when they see calculus used to derive
with ease what we struggle to show without it. I think that's another
example of making a deeper connection.

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org [phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org] on
behalf of Bill Nettles [bnettles@uu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:52 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] proportional reasoning, scaling laws, et cetera

In defense of my use of "gushing" about the derivation of the const.
accel. position/time equation: The students are in cal-based physics and
were told to "use this equation" in high-school, and then in calculus
they learned to do integrals but had little context for using them. When
I start with a=dv/dt and v=dx/dt, let a be constant and get "the"
equations, the light bulbs go on for both calculus and why those
equations "are" what they "are." Of course, at that point I throw a
non-constant accel problem at them and make them find areas under curves.
I also mix this up with graphical results. Then there are the students
who don't care where it came from and treat every problem (even pendulums
and springs) as constant accel no matter what I do. I try to discourage
them from becoming engineers.
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org [phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org] On
Behalf Of Philip Keller [PKeller@holmdelschools.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:10 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] proportional reasoning, scaling laws, et cetera

I don't think they are gushing because they can use the graph instead of
the equation. In fact, most of them continue to prefer using the
equation. What (I believe) they are happy about is that the graphical
interpretation gives them another level of understanding.

I'll give you another example: early in the year in AP physics, I want
to show my students that for small angles, theta, sin(theta) and
tan(theta) are really close to each other (working in radian measure).
So I draw a unit circle subtended by a central angle, theta. Most of
them "know" that arc length = radius times angle. But they are surprised
to see that the intersected arc length on a unit circle = theta.

But the real surprise comes next: I've never had a student who knew what
segment represented the "tangent" of the angle -- or why the word
"tangent" is used for that particular ratio. But my most successful,
nerdy students LOVE this. It doesn't change their ability to solve
problems. It just makes a deeper connection. [BTW, the classes that
respond to this with this kind of enthusiasm are a pleasure to teach all
year.]

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org [phys-l-bounces@mail.phys-l.org] on
behalf of Robert Cohen [Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:00 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] proportional reasoning, scaling laws, et cetera

Jeffrey Schnick wrote:
On a related note, what do you do to convince a person in a lasting
manner that the reciprocal of (1/x + 1/y) is not, in general, x+y?

Rauber, Joel wrote:
x = x_0 + v_0 t + 1/2 a t^2
is one I think is OK

Philip Keller wrote:
I've never had a student gush over the algebra that leads to delta X =

Vo t + 1/2 a t^2

But I have seen many happy faces when we explain that the Vo t is a
rectangle and the 1/2 a t^2 is a triangle, and the formula gives the
area of the trapezoid on the V vs t graph.

I believe the three notes above all reveal a common problem.

I don't have an answer to Jeffrey's question. You can try having
students try x=y=2. They can then see that it doesn't work. However,
knowing that their "trick" doesn't work does NOT help them solve the
problem. All it does is tell them that their "trick" doesn't work.
They will still search for an alternate "trick". Then, they'll likely
forget the alternate trick and end up using the original trick that
doesn't work.

This is because they only know how to use tricks.

I've gone to professional development sessions for K-8 math teachers and
it is easy to see that they are also looking for "tricks". The clearest
example of this is with dividing fractions. They teach that one should
"invert and multiply". This allows students to get the right answer
without understanding what they are doing (i.e., without understanding
proportions and ratios) -- as long as they can remember the "invert and
multiply" trick. Some teachers are surprised to learn that there are
"other" tricks for dividing fractions, like getting a common denominator
and then cancelling the denominators. However, they see no use for
those "other" tricks -- why memorize more than one trick when one trick
alone will work?

Joel writes that x = x_0 + v_0 t + 1/2 a t^2 is OK. I don't think so,
because to students it does not represent any physics. Instead, it is
an equation that gives them the right answer. It is no different than
the "invert and multiply" trick -- this equation is simply a "trick"
that gives them the position. They likely don't even know why it works
or what it has to do with acceleration. [I'm assuming an algebra based
class with students who have poor proportional reasoning skills -- in a
calculus class, the physics is represented by the definitions of
position and velocity, which they can then integrate assuming a constant
acceleration]

You have to keep in mind that a lot of students are looking for ways to
do physics without actually thinking about the physics. Finding an
equation that "works" is what they are looking for, in the same way that
they are looking for a rule that works to solve the reciprocal of (1/x +
1/y) problem.

It seems to me that these are the same type of people who "want" the x =
x_0 + v_0 t + 1/2 a t^2 equation. Yes, this is a useful equation if you
are faced with such a problem repeatedly. However, once they finish
their course with you, what use is that equation?

Finally, I want to comment on Phillip's point that students don't gush
over the algebraic derivation but are happy to see how one can find the
displacement via the "area under a curve".

The reason they don't gush over the algebraic derivation is because the
derivation has no value to them -- all they need is the result, not the
derivation. In fact, I think every derivation one does in class is
simply ignored by the students we are talking about (problems with
proportional reasoning, scaling laws, et cetera).

As for the graphing, I admit this likely gives *some* students an
insight into the "physics" they did not have previously. However, my
guess is that for the students we are talking about, this will simply
give them another "trick" for solving a problem without really
understanding the physics (e.g., what this has to do with acceleration).
After all, displacement is not DEFINED as the area under a velocity vs.
time curve, is it?

Instead of using the graphing or the equation, why not have students
predict the displacement by using the idea that the average velocity
should equal the displacement over time? Yes, it is more steps than
simply using x = x_0 + v_0 t + 1/2 a t^2 equation (after all, they have
to know what is meant by an average and how an acceleration changes the
velocity over time), and yes students with poor proportional reasoning
skills will struggle mightedly. But isn't it better than giving them a
"trick" that allows them to solve the problem without really
understanding it?

Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l