[Phys-L] Re: Ambiguous Question

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

Dan MacIsaac wrote in part:

> recognizing we all fall into this sort of trap, and we usually
> negotiate out of it.

Yes.

> I believe
> discourse lies at the center of good teaching and should be
> encouraged.

Yes.

> I believe it is inappropriate to expect
> significant discourse and verbal negotiation  during a written exam,

Yes, that describes how things are.

> so exam questions need to be as clear as possible.

Yes and no.

Yes, under the current exam structure, that seems to be the way it has
to be.  The downside is that we forfeit an opportunity to train students
to handle ill-posed problems.

Exams are the way they are for various reasons ... but I am enough of
an idealist and optimist to imagine that there is some way to improve
the structure, so that somehow we can teach -- and test -- the ability
to deal with ill-posed problems.

Alas at the moment I have no particularly good ideas for how to blend
ill-posed problems into the established exam structure.  Perhaps clever
people on this list will have some suggestions.

==========

Michael E. spoke of "modeling bad behavior".  When described that way,
it sounds like irremediably the wrong thing to do, but there are other
ways of thinking about it.

For every valid conception, there are innumerable misconceptions, and
therefore there is no possibility of discussing (or even mentioning)
all possible misconceptions.

But some "bad" things are so common and/or so prevalent that they need
to be discussed.  The general topic of ill-posed problems is certainly
in this category.

There is a difference between _incoming_ and _outgoing_.  Ill-posed
problems come _into_ my office every day, and I need to be able to
deal with them.  In contrast, that doesn't mean I should send _out_
ill-posed problems if I can avoid it.

We don't need to make the teacher into an object example of bad behavior.
The simplest _framing_ remarks should suffice:  "Here is an example of
how *not* to do it ...."

In most areas of education, IMHO students do not get enough training
in dealing with ill-posed problems.
      A bizarre exception concerns special relativity.  There is IMHO
      too much emphasis on "paradoxes", making SR seem much more weird
      and counterintuitive than it really is.  It would be easy to
      cobble up confusing "paradoxes" in ordinary mechanics, but we
      don't do that to any great degree.
For sure there needs to be a balance between good examples and bad
examples ... plus clear framing, i.e. clear demarcation of which is
which.

==================

Some people seem to have a policy of never admitting that they've made
a mistake.  I suppose they are afraid they are going to lose face.

I find that the opposite policy works just fine.  When I make a mistake,
I say "Did you see what I just did?  Don't ever do that."

That gives the students a chance to learn from my mistakes.  Also it
gives me a reputation for integrity, which is important to me.  Furthermore
the notion that I am fallible teaches the students to think for themselves,
which is vastly preferable to having them place blind faith in my authority
(or any other authority).
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l