🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Bowman writes:

 > Donald Simanek makes a good point about their being a lot more physics to
 > dropping eggs so that they do not break than can be explained with
 > elementary physics concepts.  On the other hand, I think this is true about
 > many, if not most, of the topics we discuss.  (Friction is one such obvious
 > topic.)
 >
 > But I think the real question is can thhe concepts the students have
 > learned (are learning) able to at least give a basic understanding to the
 > physical situation?  Maybe the egg drop contest meets this criteria; maybe
 > it doesn't. What do others think?
 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Richard L. Bowman
 > Dept. of Physics, Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, VA  22812
 > <rbowman@bridgewater.edu>                     703-828-5441
 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am in complete agreement.  I do not have a Ph.D. or a significant amount of
graduate experience in physics so that most of what I teach in high school is
surely based on simplified models.  But that is not so bad.  When we teach
anything to a third grader we must simplify it and leave out most of the
truth.  Then in junior high we teach it more in depth, in high school deeper
yet, and so on.  The learning happens in layers: with each layer there is
more complexity and a greater understanding of the truth in question.

I am a firm believer that learning cannot wait for complete explanation (ask
those who tried the "new math" twenty years ago!)  When some good learning
happens I believe the project is worthwhile.  It may even be some learning
that is not in accord with my written objective.  I don't see that as a
detriment but as a bonus.

Barry S. Riehle