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: [Phys-l] teaching physics conceptually



I agree with this! It often feels like "conceptual" = "we do the mathematical analysis off stage and hand you the result".

One particular context where this always bothers me is when I am teaching circular orbits. You can say conceptually: "the centripetal force is supplied by gravity" or something like that (and in this course, I would not choose to say that the centrifugal force is balanced by the gravitational force, though in other courses I might -- but let's not hash this out again :)

But then, if I want to get to a really interesting point, I have to do algebra. I think it is really interesting that when it comes to satellites, we only get to pick radius, time or speed, but only one: that pick determines the others. But why is that? Well, conceptually, it is because the gravitational force is acting as the centripetal force. Do you think students find that to be an enlightening or complete answer? Seems to me, you have to do the algebra.


________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] on behalf of William Robertson [wrobert9@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 6:40 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] teaching physics conceptually

I'm glad I'm not the only person with that impression of Hewitt. I
only used it once, but found that his "conceptual" explanations really
didn't foster understanding. Rather, they encouraged the student to
memorize the "conceptual" answer. In later versions since I used the
book it might have changed its approach to math, but I found that he
avoided even the simplest math in some cases, math that would have
made the conceptual image clear. Instead, he went around the math and
came up with his non-mathematical explanation that gave students the
impression they should be able to do the same thing. Students became
frustrated that they couldn't just "look at a situation" and figure
out what was going on.

Bill



On Feb 12, 2011, at 4:01 PM, John Denker wrote:

I know Hewitt's book is called "Conceptual" ... but that does not
make it so. It rarely calls for more than rote regurgitation.

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l