At 03:22 AM 6/21/02 -0500, Ronn wrote: <snip> >Some (not all) recent books I've seen seem to go to great pains to never >show the beginning student anything that looks like a "miniature solar >system" diagram, but from the beginning show "fuzzy electron clouds" >because "that's how it really is" even when the idea of electrons in >discrete orbits makes the concept being discussed easier to grasp. So >far, I haven't found that switching back and forth loses the students, >particularly if one is careful to point out from the beginning that no >model can possibly show what the interior of an atom "really looks >like." After all, we have to switch back and forth all the time between >the wave nature of light (most optics) and its particle nature (spectral >line production and the photoelectric effect) . . .
I've not looked at any textbooks for a long time... I guess some of them are giving up on a partial historical background then? I always thought it was a great way to get at the innards of atoms a little at a time. Of course I was also always a fan of presenting things in as many ways as I could think of to catch the greatest number of students (office hours tended to run long...). Since that and the conviction that teaching causes ulcers are the extent of my philosophy of teaching, I'm trying to stay clear of academia. ;-) >><snip> >Most students, however, seem to see P-chem as something that must be >endured and gotten over with as soon as possible, sort of like a root >canal . . . ;-) Honk if you passed P-Chem! (actual bumper sticker) Sean
