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: Aristotelian thinking among modern students



A really innovative text does not sell well because most teachers
prefer a conventional approach and do not understand the innovations.
So Beichner collaborated on a "stealth" research inspired text.
Unfortunately there is no evidence that it alone produced
improvements in learning. Similarly, it is very difficult to prove
that any text alone produces improved learning because teachers will
fight the text by doing traditional things.

Before writing such a text it needs to be piloted by first testing to
see if the innovations actually producing improved understanding. I
suspect that most innovations actually do nothing to improve
understanding. Priscilla Laws commented that her intuition about what
works is better, but still not perfect. She is still surprised by
what doesn't work.

There are many other issues besides the one of momentum first rather
than force first. These have been addressed by some texts. Even the
most innovative texts do not use consistent notation which could be
helpful. For example all forces should be labled F with subscripts
for the type of force, g, s, f... and possibly agent/object notation
F_(g earth on ball) or object agent if you prefer. All energy should
be E. This gets rid of the KE, PE notations. In addition g should be
introduced as 9.81 N/kg because that is much more transparent to
students and after all it is derived from the gravitational equation.

Each issue can be chipped away by various strategies. The one book
which has much more consistent notation is the HS algebra based book
Minds on Physics, but it still does not go quite far enough. It does
have more consistency, ranking tasks, rich context problems, strobe
diagrams, graphs galore, the new mechanics sequence, bar charts for
energy balance, anchor and bridging analogies, and a host of other
features which contribute to better student success. It has even
ventured to treat general perceptual and mathematical difficulties of
various kinds. As a result it has not been a runaway best seller. It
also firmly guides the teachers to do the right types of things by
presenting them with activities for the students rather than just text
with formulaic problems. It does help both teachers and students, but
alas, it can not meet most state standards because it is not an
encyclopedic tome stuffed with way too many facts. All of these
strategies have been researched by various groups and found to be
beneficial.


Anyone who wishes to get some good ideas at any level of teaching
could profitably look at this book.

There are also other issues. If math and physics are coordinated,
there is firm evidence that the students do better. Engineering
schools could do well to take a page from PER and then put together a
consistent coordinated program.

BTW for those who wonder whether PER inspired curricula produce
permanent change, the answer is probably yes. An article in TPT
showed that FCI scores do not change appreciably over as long as 3
years. I have also found that FMCE scores do not change much during a
long Christmas break.

I am very pessimistic over the possibility of having a truly
innovative text becoming a best seller.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

1) I hope that somebody planing to write a really innovating
Introductory Physics textbook pays attention to some of our threads.
Most textbooks are essentially similar because authors (and
publishers)
do not want to take a chance. On the other hand, a really innovating
text is needed. An author and publisher willing to take a chance
might
be able to produce something that is not only useful but profitable
as
well.