Re: Why work before energy in texts

[Joe Heafner <heafnerj@VNET.NET>]

> From: Rick Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kowalskil" <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
> > 3) We are not discussing zero temperature oscillators,
> > or other advanced QM topics. We are discussing an
> > introductory physics sequence.
>
> This is a very important point.  In most of our Phys-L
threads, what starts
> out to be a discussion of a topic AS presented in intro
texts, usually
> blossoms into post graduate level quibbling.  There are
fundamentally 2
> groups of physics education 'consumers', the physics
majors and all the
> others.  Within the others, one can subdivide again, into
'general
> education' students, and science/engineering students.
At the
> college/university level, the intro physics course is the
terminal physics
> course for a very large percentage of the students
(95%-??).  The textbooks
> used in these intro courses are the same for both the
majors and the others
> (at least at the calc level) and must reflect the fact
that the majority of
> users are taking their last course in physics.  This fact,
I'm sure, colors
> the presentation and content of these texts.  Serway for
Physics Majors
> might well be a different text than Serway for Scientists
and Engineers.  I
> think it has been accepted that the incomplete,
oversimplified, and
> sometimes 'wrong' presentations in the intro texts will be
completed,
> expanded, and corrected in higher level physics major's
courses.
>
Artificial divisions among our students is silly, and should
be abandoned. Physics is physics, and if it is to be learned
at the introductory level, then it must be learned --
period. Newton's laws work the same way for all who use them.


> The point here (I'm rambling) is that we have to be very
aware of the
> audience when talking about major changes in the
> curriculum/content/pedagogy.  What might be an ideal
ordering of topics for
> a Physics major might not work well at all for a Bio major
in an algebra
>
So a good explanation shouldn't be used across the board?
Very interesting.

> level course.  The 'nits' that are constantly picked here
on the list are
> usually meaningless for a 'general education' class.  I
would suggest that
> if _some_ of the discussions here were followed in
teaching such a class, it
> would be a disaster.  This is what makes teaching physics
so difficult--you
>
Hold on! The distaster would be from an instructor
attempting teach something the way he/she was taught in grad
school, which is usually not the best way.

> can't necessarily teach work/energy/forces/weight/etc. the
same at all of
> these course levels.  It is not JUST a matter of math
level--it is much more
>
I do. It CAN and MUST be done.

It is precisely this type of "inertia" that is partially
responsible for the poor state of physics instruction we
face today.



Cheers,
Joe

CVAC Home Page <http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/cvac.html>
My Book <http://www.willbell.com/new/fundephcomp.htm>
My Home Page <http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/>
Please -- no Microsoft attachments. They're a security risk.