It seems we have collectively addressed this topic every six or eight months
for as long as I've been a part of phys-l--and that means 12 or 14 years.
I want to raise some larger issues before this discussion goes too far.
1. This topic is well covered in the literature. There is very strong
evidence for the effectiveness of computer data collection; consult most
anything written in the last ten years by Sokoloff, Thornton, Laws, or
Beichner. Without considering educational experiments, we are only throwing
around opinions that are often not well founded.
1a. We must guard against what I like to call the
"My-opinion-is-better-than-your-research" dismissal of educational
experiments. This is a popular technique of both extreme conservatives and
extreme liberals.
2. Computers do not contribute to innumeracy. Computers are neutral. They
can be used well, and help students understand math and physics. They can
also be used badly, and so can give an illusion of understanding that only
hides basic ignorance. Saying computers are bad for student students is
like saying that hammers are evil. A hammer can be used for good--you can
build a house--or for evil--you could destroy in moments the creation of
another. Computers, like hammers, are neither good nor evil.
3. The old instruments that make so much sense to a physics professor may be
incomprehensible to a student. On the other hand, the motion detector may
make perfect sense. What could be simpler--you stand a meter from the
detector, and it reports one meter. You stand two away, and it reports two.
What matters is that the student understand and trust the input/output
relationship of the device. What goes on in between is of less importance.
Grappling with that input/output relationship is often a useful way to learn
about a concept.
3a. This understanding of the input/output relationship that I refer to
still applies to the old tools. Consider the mechanical stopwatch. Why and
how does it keep time? Few students could answer that question--indeed, to
answer it requires the knowledge of a substantial body of physics (Hooke's
law, etc.). If you insist that a student understand how a tool works before
using it, you can't even use a stopwatch to measure velocities in an intro
physics course. Instead, we ask that a student understand what the stopwatch
_does_. The computer is no different.
Those of you who know me know that I have written and published much
material for using computers and calculators in physics education. Lest you
think that I feel that the computer is the answer to all problems in
education, I will immediately tell you that it is not. Example: My all time
favorite lab activity is the first homework problem in the Chabay/Sherwood
Electromagnetic Interactions text (a freshman level E&M book). In that
problem students measure the charge density of charged scotch tape. It is a
wonderful integrative activity that takes no computing power at all, aside
from a little long division. A computer would only be a distraction.
Finally, remember that all absolute statements are false. ;-)
JEG
--
John E. Gastineau john@gastineau.org
140 Tenderfoot Road (301) 387-8494
Oakland, MD 21550 (301) 387-8495 fax
USA http://gastineau.org