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] |
I'll go even farther. Is it really so terrible if students coming out of an
Introductory AND Terminal physics course have a 'fluid flow' vision of
energy? Such a vision will work well enough for them in their everyday
lives and is (hopefully) a _more_ accurate and useful model than they
probably had before taking the course.
I will continue to contend that students who go on to higher level courses
in physics SHOULD have the intellectual tools to move beyond early,
simplified, and often inaccurate models to a more sophisticated
understandings. Can we really get across the more abstract models of energy
to students who can't always grasp velocity and acceleration after 1/2 a
semester of intensive work on those topics? I'm not saying 'teach energy
and heat as a fluid flowing', but if that is the image that some student
come away with, that may not really be so awful. ;-)
Rick