Re: Historical material

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

Here I think that the research shows something very different.  The AJP
article and the JRST paper that I recently cited shows that historical
material can have a dramatic effect on the conceptual understanding of the
material.  Other research shows that the usual problems in physics texts do
not have a dramatic effect on understanding, and unfortunately they do not
have a dramatic effect on the ability of students to be expert problem
solvers.

Another paper in the AJP PER supplement S1 Vol 67 "Evaluating innovation in
studio physics" about the RPI research shows that conventional courses even
when augmented by studio surface features do not produce good conceptual
understanding.  However conceptual understanding was dramatically improved
in these courses by the Interactive Lecture Demonstrations available from
Vernier.  Sections that used the rich context problem solving of the Hellers
also showed some conceptual gain, but not as much as the ILDs showed.
Essentially the problem solving produces lower conceptual understanding by
itself.  When the both methods were combined the gain was greater than
either one alone.

The research clearly shows that conceptual understanding needs special
techniques targeted at the misconceptions.  This can be either historical
material, research based labs, or interactive lecture demonstrations.
Research based problem solving can be beneficial, but it does not produce as
much conceptual gain.  However the UMPERG group at UMass Amherst has found
that research based problem solving can produce expert like problem solving
behavior.  Research based problem solving essentially mainly attacks problem
solving skills with some effect on understanding.  BTW to my knowledge there
is no published evidence showing that the Hewitt approach is any better than
other conventional approaches.  All evidence points away from the standard
glossy texts towards other material.  There is no published evidence that
any standard glossy HS or college text is any better than another.

As to the value of historical material the NARST paper showed that not only
did students have good conceptual gain, but they did not feel that their
ideas had been attacked.  Essentially the historical material because it was
removed from their lives allowed them to change their way of thinking
without being threatened.  Some of the other techniques such as the ILDs
threaten students' ways of thinking.  During the NTN 3 ILD they will exclaim
"That can't be" when they see some of the results.  As a result I think one
may reasonably conclude that properly used historical material can have just
as dramatic effect as problem solving or as research based labs.

One of the problems with teaching is that "feelings" have been used rather
than hard evidence for the use of particular techniques.  There is now a
large body evidence for research based techniques.  I will admit that many
of these techniques can be misused and result in the same gain as
conventional pedagogy.  This usually happens when the technique is mandated
by a higher authority rather than being willingly and intelligently
implemented.  However, anyone who is willing to try to learn how to use
these techniques will be pleased with the results.  Trying to use these
techniques without training can be extremely daunting, but it can be done.
Teaching needs to be a form of research rather than only an art.  I always
ask my students "How do you know that?".  We should be asking this about the
effectiveness of pedagogy, and looking for hard evidence in the answer.

For those who do not have copies of the AJP articles you should be able to
get to the abstracts online at http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/ , but not to the
actual articles unless you have a subscription.  The NARST paper is freely
available.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



> Your simile is close to the way I described to him my feelings about an
> essentially conceptual approach (like watching a great movie on a
> 14-inch black and white TV) vs. teaching students how to approach and
> analyze physics mathematically (like watching the same great movie in
> color in a nice theatre with stereo).
>
> So, no, I don't think learning about the history of physics adds
> anything as dramatic as colorization to the conceptual fabric upon which
> physics is built.  But I think learning to use the mathematics does that
> for a physics class.
>
> BTW, I also believe that an introductory physics course which is *all*
> mathematics is like many of todays's offerings from Hollywood:  all
> color and noise, lousy screenplay and direction :-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Larry
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Larry Cartwright   <exit60@cablespeed.com>
> Retired (June 2001) Physics Teacher
> Charlotte MI 48813 USA
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~