Re: a slightly different thread

["Richard W. Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

> From: Rauber, Joel              Phys <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>
>
> Breadth Vs. Depth.
This IS a primary question.  If the newer techniques COULD cover the
breadth, then I think there would be a lot less resistance to at least
trying them.

As I see it the argument goes like this:

What good is it to cover A-Z if the students don't really understand much
if any of the material?

or

Can we really say we've graduated a physics major (chem major, engineer,
etc) if they have never had any exposure to K-Z no matter how well they
understand A-J?

No easy answers here.  I would love it if students came to college with a
good conceptual understanding of a few basic topics.  This is what I hope
the outcome of the PER work provides--that the REAL introductory courses,
those taken at the primary, middle-school, and high-school levels will
develop into EFFECTIVE conceptualization courses.  Then the colleges and
universities can provide the depth and the other skills needed by the
technical students.  We're a long way from that.

Rick