Is it better to do traditional physics problems...or would there be value in structuring problems so that the answer is stated in the problem?
For example, when I think of a "traditional" physics problem, I think of something that looks like this:
If air resistance is negligible, determine the maximum height (above its release point) of a ball that is thrown straight upward which is in the air for a total of 3.0 seconds.
But, what if the problem were stated more like this:
Show that when air resistance is negligible, a ball thrown straight up that is in the air for 3.0 seconds reaches a maximum height of 11 meters above its release point.
In my mind, the second version explicitly puts emphasis on the process and the reasoning behind the process, whereas the traditional problem naturally emphasizes the answer to the question. I can see this way being done in the classroom setting, for homework practice as well as assessment purposes.
What am I missing here? Why isn't this done for intro physics classes?