Re: AP students

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 01:38 PM 4/27/01 -0500, Jack Uretsky wrote:

> > >        I totally don't understand Hugh's logic.  Yes, concepts do not
> > >come easily.  How in the world does this fact justify teaching students
> > >a bunch of algorithms?
> >
> > [Hugh wrote] I didn't say to just teach algorithms.
>
> Then we are not talking about the same thing.  So I need for you
> to define what it is that you are talking about as "algorithmic teaching."
> What I deplore is the pretend to be teaching physics while actually
> just giving the student a bunch of algorithms.

I think we are all pretty much in agreement, but we need to say it more
carefully.  Here is perhaps a step in that direction:

  a) I think we agree that there are situations where non-physical
algorithmic approaches are appropriate.  For instance, when a young child
asks "what makes the hall light come on" the appropriate answer is probably
something like "there's a switch in the living room right by the corner"
--- and in contrast a full physical answer involving Maxwell's equations
etc. would not be appropriate.
  b) I think we agree that the algorithmic cookbook approach should not be
called physics.  Physics involves principles of great power and
generality.  We need to teach people the principles and how to use them.
  c) The interesting case is between the two extremes, as illustrated by
Kirchhoff's laws:  They are _not_ the best description of the physics that
we have.  They are a handy approximation, applicable in certain special
cases.  Kirchhoff's laws are more principled than the "switch in the living
room" but less principled than Maxwell's equations.


As physicists, each of us has made a long journey:
 1) learning empirical rules, then
 2) learning deeper principles, and finally
 3) learning how the empirical rules emerge as consequences of the deeper
principles.

To the student, who has not yet made such a journey, the world looks very
different.

=======

A certain amount of algorithmic cookbook knowledge is a prerequisite to
real physics -- so we shouldn't disparage it too much.  And it will, for
better or worse, need to be taught in physics classes, unless there is a
miraculous improvement in the preparedness of students.  This creates some
risk that misguided souls will confuse this small part of the story with
the whole story.  But we know better.