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]

Re: Setting up problems



I think one of the problems we have as educators is that many of us DID
learn the concepts the way Promod describes. It is also quite possible that
many of us really didn't learn the concepts until we got back into teaching.
Unfortunately, what the research shows is that it is the exception, not the
rule, for students to get a good conceptual understanding by just doing the
problems. They can do certain types of problems through algorithmic methods
without really applying much physics. This is the reason for the
context-rich problem approach. However, without a significant amount of
time and effort expended towards having students learn the concepts, just
working problems is not enough for most.

In my mind then the challenge in combining a 'Conceptual' physics course
with a 'Problem Solving' course often with outside constraints such as
NEEDING to cover a certain amount of content in preparation for the next
course or in service to another discipline. No time right now to get into
HOW--need to give a 'problem-solving' test!

Rick

*********************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
********************************************************
Free Physics Educational Software (Win & Mac)
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Energy 2100--class project
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ENERGY_PROJECT/ENERGY2100.htm
********************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Promod Pratap" <prpratap@UNCG.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Setting up problems


(I love to watch where a thread starts and where it ends up... A
subject for a study in psychology or complexity, perhaps?)

I'm going to stick my neck out here. From the suggestions from
contributors, the general consensus appears to be that if we provide
non-plug-and-chug problems, things would improve -- i.e., we need to
teach concepts. OK, how does one do that? From looking back at my
school days, I seem to think that I learned concepts by doing problems
(e.g. Halliday and Resnick). I had the distinct recollection that I did
not necessarily understand the concept when I started doing problems in
a particular topic, but that the concept came much later (in an "AHA"
moment). I don't remember doing anything consciously to get to this
point.

Also, I think it was easier because it is my instinct that, when given a
problem, I tended to take it apart (literally and figuratively :)). I'm
not sure where I learned this, or whether some people are born with it
(and are therefore condemned to become Physicists and Engineers). This
curiosity (maybe?) about the real world appears, to me, to be essential
for learning Physics. If students want you to give them plug-and-chug
problems, does this mean that they have lost this sense of curiosity
somewhere along the line? (I think all humans have this at the
beginning of life.) Is this something they can reacquire, or is it
something that's gone for ever?

An aside: in the problem about the roller coaster by David Marx, the
concept being taught there concerns gravitational potential energy, and
that is why you don't need the mass (the assumption being that the
gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same). However, if instead
of climbing the second hill, the cart hit a spring and compressed it,
then you would need the mass.

Promod Pratap