Re: forces

["Paul Camp" <pjcamp@coastal.edu>]

> > I personally think it would be hard to do this but your concerns are
> > well taken and the need for a longitudinal study, which you seem to
> > be suggesting, is apparant. My gut feeling is that a carefully chosen
> > set of topics that are well-understood will hang around a great deal
> > longer than a broad set of topics covered superficially. 
>
> That carefully chosen topics that are well-understood, etc. is a
> straw-horse set up to knock down. No data in the world, I believe, will
> support broad superficial coverage over in depth coverage. Perhaps you
> have stated the problem--what are a basic set of topics that should be
> covered?
Indeed. If one tries to be all things to all people, one ends up not 
being anything to anybody. The chemists need some thermo, the 
computer engineers need some quantum, the marine scientists need some 
hydrodynamics, the biologists need . . . well, whatever it is that 
biologists need. 8-) And, of course, we all want to give them the 
benefit of a physicist's thinking on each topic. However, if all that 
is piled on top of the essential Newtonian core, the pace is simply 
too swift to allow absorption and integration on the part of the 
student. For example, if we cover hydrodynamics we will really have 
little time to do much beyond Archimedes' principle and the Bernoulli 
effect. But a marine science student is going to take a full year 
course in physical oceanography, a substantial amount of which is 
taken up with hydrodynamics. Does it not make more sense to be 
certain that the student has become really comfortable with the 
essential ideas of force and energy? But then that makes it not a 
straw-horse.

One of my students from last year recently commented to the physical 
oceanography professor that he thought intro physics had really 
helped him prepare for the class, not because he learned a lot about 
hydrodynamics, but because he learned a great deal about how to tease 
a problem apart and apply rigorous quantitative reasoning based upon 
fundamental principles. If that is true, then I consider that I have 
succeeded even though we never did a thing in hydrodynamics. The 
detail can be provided by the people in his major department. I can't 
do it all in one year.

> Perhaps the success of these
> programs taints my thinking, but I still ask the question. What is the
> success rate of students in the technical areas as a result of these
> "watered down" beginning courses?
>
>
> Roger Pruitt

Having attended the Workshop Physics program this summer, I must 
point out that it is hardly "watered down." What it *is* is 
refocussed. Rather than being content-driven, the Workshop approach 
is reasoning-driven. The content has been pared down to the essential 
core (as they see it-- you could make some arguments here and there 
but in general they have done a creditable job) in order to provide 
room for exploration and investigation. In short, they are taught to 
reason by being required to reason. But you cannot do that without 
giving them some elbow room. 

What we *can* say, I suppose, is two things: traditional approaches 
(non-watered-down) are a dismal failure any way you wish to measure 
them except for the fortunate few who would not have needed us 
anyway. Secondly, at least in the short term, at least some of the 
new approaches exhibit a great deal more success in terms of depth of 
understanding as measured by such things as the Force & Motion 
Conceptual Evaluation or the FCI. Whether that understanding persists 
is, as you point out, quite another matter and deserving of study. 
However, if it wasn't there to begin with, in the majority of the 
students, then it has little chance of persisting. 

What I find most curious is that all of the active learning-type 
approaches make similar claims on this score despite a wide variety 
of approaches to the material (and choices of how to pare it down). I 
think this is very interesting and argues favorably for the idea that 
active learning in and of itself, regardless of the specific content, 
is a valuable and noteworthy approach and more nearly in keeping with 
the ideal of a liberal education.

Paul J. Camp                   "The Beauty of the Universe
Assistant Professor of Physics  consists not only of unity
Coastal Carolina University     in variety but also of 
Conway, SC   29528              variety in unity.
pjcamp@coastal.edu                    --Umberto Eco
pjcamp@postoffice.worldnet.att.net    The Name of the Rose
(803)349-2227                         
fax: (803)349-2926