Article View: bit.listserv.physhare
Article #692Re: math requirements for con...
From: Cherie Lehman
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 02:05
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 02:05
45 lines
3068 bytes
3068 bytes
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:03:10 -0500 Joseph Spaccavento said:
>Thanks to all why have backed up my points on this matter, including Jim,
>Harold, Hank, and Paul Hewitt himself.
>
>
>Finally, No one will argue the ties between Physics and Mathematics, but to
>say someone cannot gain a qualitative appreciation for physics is a bit much!
> Physics is more than problem solving! F=ma is more that finding how much
>force you need to accelerate something!
>
>If the High Schools of the US are going to meet the National Science
>Standards that are being proposed, (for everyone, not just the top 10), then
>there has to be a way to expose all youngsters to the wonders of the
>"Mechanical Universe" not just the good math students!
>
>Joe
I would like to echo the above sentiments and add the further comment
that Conceptual Physics does NOT mean physics without formulas.
However, it does mean that formulas are used as "guides for thinking"
about physical quantities. Proportional reasoning and graphing are
important components of the course. The object of the game becomes
using the mathematical relationships to understand the phenomena
rather than choosing the right formula to solve for the unknown.
I had been teaching physics for several years before finding Paul's
book, and I thought that I had a pretty good understanding of physics.
However, I learned a great deal more physics the first year that I
used Conceptual Physics. Do not sell this approach short.
This course can be quite challenging to the students. It is not
a skate or bunny course just because the students aren't solving
problems involving the quadratic formula or the 2 equations in 2
unknowns. Which reminds me -- why is being able to locate an
image using the lens equation indicative of greater understanding
than that shown by being able to locate an image with a ray tracing?
I don't understand why a symbolic approach indicates more understanding
than a graphical one. I would say the same about adding vectors.
Good Energy!
Cherie Cherie Lehman
clehman@purccvm.bitnet West Lafayette High School
clehman@vm.cc.purdue.edu West Lafayette IN 47906
:) VOICE 317-775-1300
FAX: 317-775-1375
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<PHYSHARE%95031321222876@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU!CLEHMANShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 16cfd8,caf6cc47d3b3b8dc X-Google-Attributes: gid16cfd8,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-13 18:05:29 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU!CLEHMAN Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Newsgroups: bit.listserv.physhare Message-ID: <PHYSHARE%95031321222876@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:05:29 EST Sender: Sharing resources for high school physics <PHYSHARE@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> From: Cherie Lehman <CLEHMAN@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU> Subject: Re: math requirements for con... In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 13 Mar 1995 21:03:10 -0500 from <JSPAC@AOL.COM> Lines: 44