Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)

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

In all of this discussion there has been no firm evidence presented that any
of these methods actually improve problem solving.  In the case of Feynman I
think we should remember that he said that his lectures were a failure in
that they did not improve student understanding of physics.

As far as problem solving goes there is evidence that having students in
groups solve rich context problems rather than the usual back of the chapter
problems actually improve problem solving ability.  This is the pedagogy
designed by the Hellers.  Rather than having the professor or TA solve the
problems, why not have the students do it and question each other about what
they did to solve them (whiteboarding).  Their material is actually free
over the web.  Unfortunately the method of having the instructor work the
examples really involves little engagement on the part of the students, but
when the students must present the problems, and question other students the
engagement is increased substantially.

As to whether the thinking aloud is beneficial, remember that even when you
think aloud, the students often do not really understand what you are
saying.  The very idea that you can transmit understanding is extremely
suspect.  The students must build it themselves.

Then there is the use of books.  If you want the students to read the book,
just do what Mazur does and give a brief reading quiz on a regualar basis.
OTOH having students read the books after the exploration may be even more
beneficial as this follows a learning cycle approach of exploration, concept
development, application.  This approach is embodied in the research based
curricula put out by the U. Mass Amherst (UMPERG) group of Leonard et al.
the UMPERG group's material apparently can produce the ability of students
to solve problems in an expert like fashion.

From what I can see most books are actually far from the optimal solution to
having students become expert problem solvers because the material is
generally presented in the wrong order with definitions first.  The learning
cycle approach has been tested in reading material and has been found to
promote better understanding of material.

Of course most of the existing research has been done on introductory and HS
courses, but eventually it will extend to higher level topics.  So far the
research shows that the same types of problems found in intro material also
happen in more advanced topics, and similar solutions also work there.

As to evidence in favor of texts, Priscilla Laws gets superior results on
the FCI, and she commented that the students seldom open the textbook.
There is also the published evidence that shows higher college physics
grades when HS physics courses do not use a textbook.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



> Hi all-
>         I sent John D's remarks about Feynman to a colleague who was once
> Feynman's TA.  Here are John's remarks followed by my friend's comments:
> John wrote:
> Richard Feynman interacting with undergraduates.  He
> > was known for being a bit gruff with colleagues who
> > didn't know what was going on, but he was more than
> > patient with freshmen and sophomores who didn't know
> > what was going on.
> >
> > When he was working problems at the blackboard, he
> > didn't just show the solution.  He commented on the
> > method of solution as he went along, which is where
> > this story makes contact with the subject of this
> > message.  He would often say "At this point, you
> > may be tempted to try XXX, but that's a trap.  You
> > can recognize traps of this sort by noticing ....."