Re: devil's advocate--more ramblings

["Roger A. Pruitt" <phrp@fhsuvm.fhsu.edu>]

Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote:
> Rick says:
>
> > I do think everyone on this list (and in general teachers everywhere) want
> > to be more effective, and are (at least somewhat) open to change.
>
> While I'd like to think so, it sure sounds like some very vocal ones are
> defending the status quo, while choosing to ignore pretty effectively
> evidence that things may not all be well.

Dewey,

I don't see Rick as defending the status quo, and I certainly am not. I
ask a simple question concerning the validity of the teaching
innovations that you are defending. Their validity must be based on
longitudinal studies and no one has come forward with data that a
physicist would want to acknowledge. I will acknowledge that Laws, 
Thornton, Sokoloff, Hake, Van Heuvelen, Mazur and others have classroom
assessment data that show outstanding success. Are the successes of
these innovations in instruction real or are they a result of the
"Hawthorn effect"? Are student's successful because of the reduced
number of topics? Can these students be successful in subsequent courses
in physics and engineering? Do we want these people who would have been
less successful in more traditional classes to go on to design aircraft,
bridges and sky walks? Where are the data to these questions? 

Roger Pruitt