[Phys-L] Re: Aristotelian thinking among modern students

[Dan.MacIsaac at NAU.EDU (Dan MacIsaac)]

Yes and no.  The book is very well done, and has enough chapters on
favourite obscure topics to make the most reactionary faculty happy.
The presentation is PER-informed (e.g. inclined planes are
downplayed, the chapter on current works from surface charge creating
E fields in wires).   However, I feel that the real treasure is the
workbook, with lots of great activities to whiteboard in class.  If
you require students to read and don't lecture, you can do lots of
wonderful whiteboard discourse with the workbook.

So the stealth impact is adopting the workbook.  I don't think any
text really changes a class; what makes a class reformed is changing
what you do in class
with or without that text.

Dan M

Dan MacIsaac, Associate Professor of Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College
222SciBldg BSC, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 USA 716-878-3802
<macisadl@buffalostate.edu>  <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu>

On Oct 20, 2005, at 4:16 PM, Rauber, Joel wrote:

> |
> | 1) I hope that somebody planning to write a really innovating
> | Introductory Physics textbook pays attention to some of our threads.
> | Most textbooks are essentially similar because authors (and
> | publishers) do not want to take a chance. On the other hand,
> | a really innovating text is needed. An author and publisher
> | willing to take a chance might be able to produce something
> | that is not only useful but profitable as well.
> |
>
> Does Knight's book
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805386858/
> qid=1129839072/
> sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7872580-1829513?v=glance&s=books
>
> Qualify in your opinion?
>
> Why/why not?
>
> IMO, it more or less qualifies, but curious as to opinions from phys-L
> members.  I haven't actually used the book in a course; so those
> who are
> currently using it should chime in.
>
>
> Joel R.