No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In secondary education, 'energy' is often introduced by distinguishing different 'forms of energy' for different phenomena. Of these forms of energy, only kinetic and potential energy are accepted in current science. The question has been raised whether 'forms of energy' should be eliminated from secondary school science curricula. As a contribution to this discussion we have analysed 'forms of energy' language for inconsistencies and limitations of validity in Part I. In this second part, results are presented of two teaching experiments at university level, each involving five students. In these experiments attempts are made to build on students 'forms of energy' language as well as to challenge its limitations. Details of student and teacher reasoning are presented. The conclusion is drawn that 'forms of energy' language must be reformulated before it can be evaluated with reference to experience. A reformulation in terms of 'value' (cf. Scheler 1997) proved to be productive.