From: "JACK L. URETSKY (C) 1996; HEP DIV., ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB, ARGONNE, IL 60439" <JLU@hep.anl.gov>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 12:48:49 -0600 (CST)
Hi Margaret-
You ask:
**************************************************************
I've seen several references on the list to The Mechanical Universe,
and I've visited their www site. However we don't have easy access
to the videos or text to trial this series.
Could anyone who has used this material in their
university-level teaching of introductory physics give me an idea of
how useful they've found it, and what the teaching level is (i.e.
what standard physics text the level most resembles)? Also, how old
is it - i.e. is the video series "dated" at all? I've used some
relatively old astronomy videos, only to lose student concentration
while they laugh at the old hairstyles etc!
Thanks
Margaret Mazzolini
*************************
Hi Margaret-
I have taught a three-quarter calculus-based physics course
using "Mechanical Universe" and "Beyond the Mechanical Universe", and
some of the videos. I think that the series is a model of what an
elementary physics text should be, and that there is nothing comparable
on the market.
First, a word of caution. I am NOT referring to the "advanced
edition" TMU, which can be distinguished because the first author of that
edition is Frautschi. I AM referring to the version which has Olenick
as the first author. The book got a bad review from Arons because it
(the book) purports to be written for people who had never taken calculus
and was intended to replace the non-calculus texts. I have found it
ideal for a calculus-based course.
I have discussed the latter use of the book with Arons and,
although I can't represent his views, I was left with the impression that
he shares at least some of my views about the book.
This is a "less is more" text. It starts out with physics (how
do things fall?) rather than the review of math that all the other texts
(the "clones", I call them) start with. It ends with planetary orbits.
The few chapters on thermodynamics are included apologetically, and I
skipped them. The book, without those chapters, is a unity, encompassing
everything that I would want to include in an introductory mechanics
sequence, all in the context of motion dominated by gravity.
The chapters alternate. First comes a chapter developing a
concept, then a chapter developing the mathematics of the concept.
There is continuous cycling back to earlier concepts, so the student
is not invited to learn and forget. The chapters are short and
eminently readable, so the students actually read the entire chapters
and not just the examples. There are only about 20 problems per
chapter, all intended to be thought provoking (and no answers in the
back of the book). Thus a pace of about a chapter/week is actually
quite comfortable.
The students seem to enjoy the book and make fun of the
"plug'n chug" texts such as Sears, Young, and the rest (of the clones).
The original videos are much too long and spend too much time on
actors walking around looking wise, thoughtful and famous. All have
been edited down (except for the calculus parts) into a series of
15 minute tapes which are made up into quads for a "high school" TMU
course. Each tape is accompanied by teaching material, including a
questionnaire for the students to fill out while watching the tapes.
These are great!, without them students tend to lose contact with
the videos. I don't mind 15 minutes/week of videos, but the 1/2 hour
needed for the original ones was too much.
I ran the course using my modification of Hake's Socratic Dialog
Inducing labs.
Some of this is described in my TPT article (Nov. '93, I think
- the month is right, the year might have been '94).
I evaluated the students using old Advanced Placement
tests, so that I had an objective standard of student performance. The
AP people publish the the grade distributions for students who took the
test. Students who excelled in the TMU course also excelled on the
AP tests, and conversely.
Regards,
Jack