Re: [Phys-L] Conceptual Physics Course

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

To advanced thinkers proofs are very convincing and they use the proofs to
establish connections between concepts.  But to lower level thinkers proofs
merely establish that it is alright to use the equation.  So the proof is
not lasting for them.  Remember that the original subject is conceptual
physics which means it will be taught to students who are at a lower level
of thinking.  So any answers to connundrums should be for students at the
lower level.

But of course the first physics course needs to be very conceptual with the
amount of algebra/calculus conditioned by the level of the students.  The
usual physics for poets course will have students who may be wonderful at
writing literature papers, but abysmal at math, and low level at scientific
thinking.  It is possible for people to be classed formal operational in on
area and still be concrete operational in scientific thinking.

Even in the calculus based course there are students who can't divide
fractions so when you ask what is (1/s)/s they will often come up with 1.
Then if you ask what is (1/2)2 they will also say 1.  They have no idea of
the meaning of division, and such students usually have trouble with
proportional reasoning.  If you ask them to give the meaning of 6/3 or worse
7/3 they will just come back with the answer and not a meaning or a picture.
So if you ask them what is (1/3)/(1/2) it is hopeless.  What sort of picture
would you give for this operation?  Of course you can always ask them if the
answer is bigger or smaller when you divide by 1/2, but the idea of checking
for reasonableness has not been stressed in previous classes.  They were
never taught to use alternate representations at the same time.

One assumes that a conceptual course would be taught at the level of Hewett,
but I don't know of any research evidence that Hewett's methods actually
work.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> > I've interspersed some comments below but first: Thank you 
> so much for a useful and thoughtful answer.  Your response shows that:
> > 1. You read the original question carefully so you knew it 
> was about x+y vs. 1/(1/x+1/y) rather than x+y vs. 1/x+1/y.
> > 2. You comprehended the question so you knew it was about 
> convincing people in a lasting manner rather than providing a proof.
> > 3. You gave some thoughtful, thought-provoking, and 
> potentially useful suggestions.
> > I am truly grateful.
>
> Proofs are not lasting?
>
>
> bc thinks carrying out the indicated operation would be lasting.