Re: Pedagogy of misconceptions.

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> I was not questioning the pedagogy. But JohnB brings a
> new and interesting issue. I try to follow the logic of the
> textbook and I am confused by it. That is a penalty imposed
> on me for NOT having wrong preconceptions. Is this OK?
>
> John Barrer wrote:
>
> > I believe the book may be written to take into account
> > the probable viewpoint(s) of a student new to the
> > topic and to recognize the likely preconceptions he or
> > she is likely to have. ...

I don't see that C&S are specifically trying to address
misconceptions or preconceptions at all and I don't see that
having or not having misconceptions or preconceptions should be
either an aid or a barrier to following their presentation.  What
C&S are trying to do is to present a *highly* logical, systematic,
patient, and above all *coherent* approach to understanding all
electromagnetic phenomena.  I find the approach at once both
brilliant *and* obvious.

The pedagogy of this book has very clear roots in the
painstakingly careful work that Sherwood did back in the era of
the Plato project.  It seems to me that anyone familiar with that
work can only marvel at Sherwood's early and innate understanding
of so many of the subtle points that only much later have emerged
from PER.

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm