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]

Re: AP Students



Hugh Haskell writes:

" . . . The lesson we should take from this is that we ought to try to
teach science the way it is done, which implies that guided discovery and
constructivist ideas should be our guidelines. . . ."

I have seen/heard this argument a lot lately. I actually agree with the
GENERAL SPIRIT of this concept--that an introductory course (in any
subject) should give the students a feel for the skills that academicians
and professionals in the subject use on a regular basis, especially those
that distinguish the subject from other fields. However, this does not
necessarily have to be the primary basis for choosing eduactional
methodology.

Currently popluar (note I am not saying necessarily correct) general
educational theory (supposedly applicable to all subjects) emphasizes that
the approach that works best for a given student depends on the nature of
the particular student. There is a lot out there about "learning styles,"
"multiple intelligences," etc. I have mixed feelings about most of this,
but I am willing to accept that any given approach--including the "guided
discovery and constructivist ideas" mentioned above may not work well for
many students. It is very popular these days to "bash" the lecture as an
ineffective way to teach. Yet there are students--myself among them--who
learn very well from lecture. The best teachers, by student consensus
among my fellow physics majors, were a few professors who were noted for
being outstanding lecturers--eloquent, passionate, clear and
well-organized in their lectures. If these are rare qualities among
typical high school physics teachers, perhaps credential programs should
spend at least as much time developing these characteristics as they do
studying things like learning styles, multiple intelligences, etc.

I admit I did not have any exposure to instructors using discovery and
constructivism, other than in labs where the students worked essentially
independently. Thus, I cannot say whether I might have learned even more
if I had been exposed to the more modern techniques, but even in lectures
that were geared almost entirely toward the quantitative, I had no trouble
picking up an excellent conceptual understanding. I do not know what
fraction of students are like me, but I suspect that there are a fair
number of us among those who did very weel as students under the
traditional methods, and this may be, in part, what defines physicists as
a population. At this point, some would argue that the question is whether
a concerted effort should be made to broaden the type of persons/thinking
in the physics community, either because novel ways of thinking may help
the advancement of physics, or strictly for political reasons (equity,
social engineering, etc.) The alternative is to take a stand that physics
has been taught in a manner that is perfectly consistent with allowing
those who have talent for it to succeed, and we should not be catering to
those who do not have the talent just for politically correct reasons.
This argument continues that most of the profound ideas of physics were
developed by geniuses and only a few people have the ability to understand
it anyway--and they are the ones who succeed under the traditional
approach--so, no educational reforms are necessary.

The truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes stated above.
Where my point goes is that we may choose to teach using discovery and
constructivism because we philosophically believe that this approach is
more suitable on the basis of its harmony with how the body of knowledge
develops. This is fine, but we should keep in mind that is based on a
philosophy of the nature of science. On the other hand, we may choose to
select our teaching methodology on the basis of our philosophy (guided,
where possible, by educational research) of how students learn best. If we
take this latter approach, we find that no single approach works best for
everyone. I do not know of any conclusive evidence that the vast majority
of students learn better through discovery and constructivism. I don't
know, and I suspect that even for a given individual the best method may
depend on the nature of what is to be learned. In particular, it may be
that what works best for teaching quantitative problem solving may be
different from what works best for teaching conceptual foundations. My
bottom line is to point out that "the nature of science" and "learning
theory" are two different reasons for choosing how to teach. (Although,
who knows, they may lead to the same conclusion.) In light of the
uncertainly, it seems clear that the best thing is to use a variety of
approaches. I am comfortable with discovery and constructivism, and use
them in my own teaching and in teacher training workshops I lead, but I
would never go as far as to say they are best for all students in all
situations, and I never discount the effectiveness of an excellent
lecture.

Respectfully,
Mike Ugawa
St. Ignatius College Prep
San Francisco


--
**********************************************************************
* *
* MICHAEL B. UGAWA *
* *
* PHYSICS * CHEMISTRY * COMPUTER SCIENCE *
* *
* EDUCATING THE YOUTH OF TODAY *
* TO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF THE NEW MILLENIUM *
* *
* mugawa@quark.sfsu.edu *
* *
**********************************************************************