Re: AP students

[Tim Burgess <tburgess@JAGUAR1.USOUTHAL.EDU>]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Jack Uretsky wrote:
> the teaching of problem solving.  This puzzled me.  I don't know how
> to do problem solving without understanding concepts.  But it all became
> clear with John's use of the word algorithms.  Then I remembered that
> there are teachers who do teach physics as a set of algorithms - formulas
> to be dusted off and used in various circumstances.
>         For shame!  Although there are unfortunately texts that
> encourage this kind of teaching.

   Do you think that the "set of algorithms" approach to problems solving
is limited only to the students of teachers and/or books where this
shameful approach is taken? If so then I disagree.  The problem
solving you describe reflects your expertise.  You may "not know how to do
problem solving without understanding" but I think many students probably
do get "answers marked correct" without understanding.
   In my review of Hake's writings concerning the FCI I get the
impression that many students who pass the best of courses with
the finest of teachers are apparently doing so through the use
of the "algorithmic buffet" [my label of your description].  The FCI items
students miss at the end of the typical introductory physics course
appear to indicate that many students may be passing through such courses
without the full understanding that we would want for our students.
   You seem (probably for good reason) very confident that this is not
true for your students. The day to day exchanges I hear of my students
fail to make me so confident.  I guess that is why I read the postings
of phys-l.

Tim Burgess
UMS-Wright Preparatory School