Unit 2 focused on numerous methods to analyze, interpret and represent constant (or uniform) velocity. The models explored were graphical, motion mapping, and equations, including "area under the curve" or "area bounded between the relationship curve and the horizontal axis" representing the displacement of the object. We used constant velocity "buggy" cars and motion sensors connected to logger pro in order to obtain the graphical data, and then used logger pro to develop the equations that fit the curves. From this we discovered that the slope of the position time graph represents the velocity of the object. We culminated the unit with a "practicum" whereby we attempted to collide two different constant velocity cars at an "X" placed in the center of the room. Though most groups were not successful (only 1 in 4 collided), it was decided that most failures were attributed to the "curvature" of the cars.
Similar to unit 1, I liked how this unit included relatively straight forward experiments that provided meaningful and useful graphical representations from which basic physics relationships are derived. Questioning techniques helped bring forward the relationships that were developed by the students.
Unfortunately, I missed a day of this unit due to illness. So, although I found the unit useful, I know there is quite a bit of material I missed which I'll need to review in the provided literature.
I can see real value in performing these activities in my own classroom. Unfortunately, I have been having hardware (and software) issues with my "datastudio" equipment and will need to get it fixed in order to fully employ the modeling method.
Having the right technology is nice - really nice. I don't know how you would find the acceleration of a cart on a ramp, which is key for model development, with out being able to find the slope of a velocity - time graph. Even if you had just 1 good set up for demonstration purposes, that would be better than none!
ReplyDelete