Re: Re: Physics First

[ken_fox@shhs1.ccsd.k12.co.us (ken fox)]

> It is safe to say that Piaget is _not_ the framer of these particular
> 'facts;' (1) that proportional reasoning is required to learning
> "meaningful, even conceptual, Physics" and (2) that proportional reasoning
> is "not normally achieved in the ninth grade."  Piaget's work in
> understanding the origins of knowing was not about limitations.

> Dewey

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I never meant to say that Piaget said that proportional thinking was needed
for Physics understanding, that is my own observation and one that I hold to.
One can teach about Physics and even get some rote understanding and problem
solving (if it is a familiar problem) with out proportional thinking but ....
 As for when that normally happens, he may not have limited it but he did
place it on a maturation spectrum. Most ninth graders I have taught are not
there, many are getting ready to blossom. 

I confess that I have no formal studies to support my statements but the
classes I teach (PSSC, International Baccalaureate,AP (calc) and Conceptual
Physics) have led me to these conclusions.

I also want to add a tag on the European model that appeared in a related
thread: In conversations with many exchange students who tell me how much
harder their schools are, we usually come to agreement that they are held
accountable for yesterday's notes more that are our students. However, they
are not expected to develop the kind of conceptual framework that we require
at my school and thus find the solution of unfamiliar problems harder. 


ken