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] |

*From*: "John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>*Date*: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 18:55:01 -0600

Better results would be higher scores on the evaluation test, the FMCE, and

possibly other evaluations. As to how much better you would have to ask her

or Sokoloff, or Thornton. As I recall she said that energy turned out

better, but that may be a faulty memory.

As to the ordering, I suspect there is a best order, but that has not been

fully explored. In either case IE pushes up scores so much that the

ordering is probably a secondary effect, but a measurable one. In

conventional courses the gain is so low that ordering effects can probably

not be determined.

Incidentally teaching style has little to do with how well the students

learn and what you get the students to do in class is paramount. The early

test of several conventional instructors classes using the FCI revealed that

the radically different styles made no differenc in the low post-test

scores.

John M. Clement

Houston, TX

What does "better results" mean?

I prefer teaching momentum after energy so I can analyze

energy losses in collisions. This works very well.

Similarly, I teach circular motion/gravitation after forces,

and projectile motion after motion.

Not sure if there is a "preferred" topic order for mechanics.

I imagine some teachers start the year with forces.

We each have our own comfort level and teaching style.

Phys-L@Phys-L.org writes:

According to Priscilla Laws they found that they get betterresults if

momentum is done before energy. This has been dubbed the "new"

mechanics sequence and is now incorporated in some texts.

John M. Clement

Houston, TX

_______________________________________________

Forum for Physics Educators

Phys-l@www.phys-l.org

http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________

Forum for Physics Educators

Phys-l@www.phys-l.org

http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

**References**:**[Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem***From:*Paul Nord <paul.nord@valpo.edu>

**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem***From:*Bill Nettles <bnettles@uu.edu>

**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem***From:*"John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>

**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem***From:*"Anthony Lapinski" <Anthony_Lapinski@pds.org>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem** - Next by thread:
**[Phys-L] Laws of Goodhart, Campbell, and Dunkenfeld** - Index(es):