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] |
-----Original Message-----because
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Lapinski
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:19 AM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] The Make-Believe World of Real-World Physics
Compared to most other subjects they take in high school. This is
many physics concepts are counterintuitive. And then there's the maththat's apples
element, reading/interpreting word problems, graphing, etc. Physics IS
difficult. I'm not comparing physics to "living in the real world" --
and oranges. I'm talking about physics as a part or their academics.Toughest
(intro) subject they will take. This has been my experience.
You say many physics concepts are counterintuitive. As I get older and
teach more, I am doubting that more and more. I believe that what seems
to students to be "counterintuitive" is probably just a failure to
actually think about what is happening. Part of improving our teaching
is related to pointing the students to actually think about a situation
rather than merely reacting.
One of those counterintuitive concepts may be "falling objects near the
surface of the Earth accelerate at the same rate, ignoring air
resistance." (Don't pounce on my wording.) What we have to do is guide
the students to not think of acceleration as a "fundamental" property,
but to get them to examine the force. More massive objects DO have more
force on them , mg, where g is NOT the acceleration "of gravity" but the
strength of Earth's gravitational field. Another concept is that the
strength of the field doesn't depend on the falling object, but on
Earth's mass and distance, etc. Then get them to think what the
associated acceleration should be (a = F/m = mg/m = g (for a numerical
answer, NOT a concept)).
As physicists teaching physics, we need to rid ourselves of the idea that
physics concepts are counterintuitive and begin to develop better
explanations that emphasize the intuitive basis of physics. And that's
why we should oppose biologists and mathematicians who took one
introductory physics course or passed some education multiple choice test
from EVER teaching high school physics. I'd rather receive a student who
never had physics in high school vs. one who had a poor teacher.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l