Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Again, remember that it was you who argued strongly that NO LEARNING takes
place via the lecture format!
However, (and I repeat myself here), when you try to make your case for
radical change by dismissing the accomplishments of those who have been
educated via the methods you want to change by insisting that those methods
and that instruction has no positive effect on the accomplishments,
when you claim that everyone who doesn't become a physicist (or possibly
an engineer or other scientist) has been BADLY served by their physics
instruction (without adequate proof),
when you claim certain traditional
techniques are WORTHLESS for instruction--then you RISK being labeled a
'religious zealot', of having your (useful) insights branded as 'fad', and
the status quo maintained.
The argument really goes the other way--the success of Science and
Technology argues for the ultimate success of the teaching methods that
produces the scientists and engineers. Then (rejecting the 'they learned
in spite' argument) there is some reason to believe that the non-scientists
and non-engineers also have profited from such instruction.