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] |
No, what I saw was an aversion to teaching concepts that are often associated with calculus, to non-calculus students. I asserted that many of these ideas (not all of them, and when I would come upon one, I would clearly state that and indicate that its demonstration would have to wait) can be presented without having to delve into higher mathematics. Often very sophisticated ideas could be presented with some explanations, a bit of arm-waving, and followed by student exercises that illustrated the principles, but didn't involve deep mathematics. The relation between forces and momentum don't require calculus, only an appreciation of some simple experiments and some careful thought--mostly involving an understanding of what is important and what can be ignored in a given situation.
I think Hugh read into what I was saying to infer that I advocate teaching physics as a set of isolated facts, when really I'm simply in favor of placing active learning above passive learning, especially in the context of derivations.