[Phys-L] Re: First Day Activities or Demos

[rmcder at PEOPLEPC.COM (R. McDermott)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbellina" <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: First Day Activities or Demos


> Ok John, how come you keep throwing down the gauntlet?
>
> On Aug 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, John Denker wrote:
>
> > jbellina wrote:

Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's play nicely! ;-)

I suspect we can agree that no one learns anything unless s/he is engaged
with it intellectually (thinking about it, wondering about how it "fits"
with past experiences, explores how it might apply to other things, etc)?  I
suspect we also agree that the student will not do this unless s/he is
interested enough to take the time and energy to DO these things?  Can we
also agree that SOME people can be mostly just "spoken to" and still learn
(isn't that true for many/most of US)?  I'm pretty sure we all agree that if
kids are enthusiastically involved asking questions, experimenting, and
discovering, then they are likely to learn?

Ok, assuming the answers to the foregoing are yes, yes, yes, and yes, I
think there are two issues being raised:
Is "inquiry" practical as the ONLY process going on in the classroom?
Is "telling them" never necessary nor effective?

Inquiry takes a lot of time.  I can't do it anywhere near exclusively and
finish my curriculum.  Otoh, if I simply talk at them, most are unlikely to
become interested enough to interact with the material (although some WILL).
I get extremely nervous when someone acts as if they have found the Holy
Grail of teaching, because I don't believe that there is any one approach
that is superior for every student.  Inquiry and group work would have
driven me around the bend as a physics student, but I was INTERESTED in
science, so it really didn't matter HOW I was taught!  Most students are not
budding physicists, however, so we have to cause them to BECOME interested.
Inquiry is a way to DO that.  Socratic questioning is a way to do that.
Collection and evaluation of data is a way to do that.  And, yes, relating
an interesting "story" is ALSO a way to do that (which is a dressed-up way
to "tell them" what you want them to know).

As John points out, however, there are limits.  They can't be left to
"discover" all of physics.  I think that's self-evident since it took
brilliant minds hundreds of years to do!  Also, in any group of ten people
there may be two real leaders, two anchors (dead weight), and six worker
bees of various degrees of efficiency.  Simply turning them loose isn't
likely to be especially productive.

As I see it, then, we have to strike a balance between:

1. "Telling them" which has the virtue of time efficiency, but which only
works well for some (pure lecture)
2. Letting them "discover" things, which has the virtue of doing a better
job of generating interest and interaction, but greatly limits the breadth
of learning (potentially, with respect to someone who CAN learn from
lecture).

The extremes of these two approaches requires the LEAST from the instructor.
On the one hand, s/he simply has to know the material well, and on the
other, lets the kids do all the work.  The hard job is to BLEND these two
approaches without SEEMING to!  It LOOKS like the kids are doing most of the
work, but the instructor is subtly directing through the questioning and
choice of activities.  The "lecture" becomes "discussion", and the whole
process becomes a diologue where knowledge is built up from first
principles.  Getting everyone (or most everyone) interested and interacting
is VERY difficult to achieve, and doing so requires more than one
technique - imo, for whatever that may be worth ;-)