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]

[Phys-L] Re: In the Private Universe



This debate is easily resolved as it has some answers from research. It
clearly shows that exploration or the physical example MUST come first.
This research goes back to Piaget, Karplus, Renner and Lawson, and others.
Lawson continued to explore this line of research, and has provided much
more evidence over the years. This has formed the basis for virtually all
of the reformed physics pedagogies which have shown greater gain.

Student learning can and has been researched, and sometimes what you
logically think works, does not.

Then there are volumes of research that show that just the math model alone
is not sufficient. Students have to translate between various
representations of the physical situation, equations, pictures,
descriptions, and graphs. This has come out of a number of research studies
in PER and also science education (Jour of Res in Sci. Teaching).

This question has been solved by the research, so any debate at this point
should cite the relevant research rather than opinions.

Incidentally the correct method, the learning cycle, not only improves
content knowledge, it also raises the level of student thinking as measured
either by a Piagetian test or a standard IQ test. The standard method has a
much lower effect if any on student ability to think. Again, there are a
number of articles by Lawson, Karplus, Renner in JRST. You can search the
abstracts online.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


There has been some discussion here about whether we should talk about
applications (physical models) or theory (math model) first in a physics
course. It is as though they are two different and independent things;
they
are not. And that is why Physics is so difficult and so disliked by so
many
students. Chronologically, I think it is safe to say that the physical
model
always came first in the mind of the scientist. Yet, there are so many
teacher/instructors who insist that we should just present the math model,
then maybe throw in a few examples later and move on. How many students,
majors and nonmajors, can understand a math model that is coming out of
theory? Maybe 1 in a thousand. If the student can make sense of the math
model, great. Then he just makes a few deductions to get the physical
model.
If he can make sense of a physical model, he makes a few generalizations
and
ends up with the math model. Maybe it would help to come at it from both
ends. One thing is certain, it ain't workin the way we are doin it now.

Fred Bucheit retired Physics teacher I think is the
antidote
to I believe.