Re: [Phys-L] Sequence

["Dan L. MacIsaac" <danmacisaac@gmail.com>]

Dewey Dykstra wrote 2 very interesting but lengthy papers called
_Why Teach Kinematics? I_ and WTK II_ that contain details and data.
I believe he was unable to get them published, but I will ask that he
share them with us.  I found them quite provocative and insightful,
but I appreciate well-thought-out heresy :^).

Dan M

Dan MacIsaac, Associate Professor of Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College
462SciBldg BSC, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 USA 1-716-878-3802
<macisadl@buffalostate.edu>  <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu>
Physics Graduate Coordinator & NSF Investigator for ISEP (MSP) and Noyce


On Mar 18, 2014, at 4:21 PM, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

> On 03/18/2014 12:59 PM, James Cibulka wrote:
> > Anyone here have an opinion on sequence?
>
> All experience indicates that the sequence doesn't matter,
> within broad limits.
>
> The only thing that has ever made sense to me is the spiral
> approach.  On the first turn around the spiral, introduce a
> lot of things, touching them only lightly.  On the second
> turn, revisit everything, emphasizing connections between
> concepts.  And so on, gradually adding breadth and depth.
> Before long, nobody knows or cares where you started.
>
> SOMETIMES there are are external reasons for starting one
> place rather than another.  For example, in the context 
> of private pilot ground school, there are life-and-death 
> reasons for starting with energy.  Other contexts will
> sometimes produce different considerations.
>
> Mostly, though, it's a question of taste.
> De gustibus non disputandum.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l