| 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] |
This debate has been around before, and has never been resolved. Why is
this?
I think the answer lies in the way in which the debate has proceeded. Most
arguments have been based on particular theoretical considerations about how
energy should be taught. Often a particular model for energy is invoked,
and in that model work may be considered to be irrelevant. Absolutely no
empirical evidence has been presented to show that students either
understand energy or work better by taking a particular approach. As a
result none of the answers can be shown to result in better student
learning, so the question can not be decided.
Let me cite an example. Various texts consider the topics of momentum and
energy in different orders. Sometimes the author introduces energy first,
and sometimes momentum first, and the choice until now has been a purely
personal preference. Priscilla Laws tried both approaches in her Workshop
Physics course and has used test scores to see which one results in better
student understanding. She found better student learning by introducing
momentum first. Admittedly, whether or not this result applies to other
pedagogical approaches is unknown. However this is, as far as I know, the
only firm reported evidence in favor of a particular sequence. As a result
a number of texts have been reordering topics to adhere to what has now been
dubbed "the new mechanics sequence".
The only way one can firmly decide this question is by teaching energy both
ways, with and without work, and then using testing to see if one approach
is superior. I have not seen any papers on this experiment.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX