Re: [Phys-l] Physics job opening in Texas for 2008-09

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Generations of physicists, students of Sommerfeld, Pauli, Landau and 
others evidence succesful physics teaching.  These are the people who 
created modern physics.

Calling an approach "research based" does not necessarily make it so, nor 
does it address the quality of the so-called research.  We know now that 
the human brain is not fully formed until about age 25, and the last part 
of the brain to form is important for understanding physics (and for 
staying alive in automobiles).  Nevertheless, the process of intellectual 
development is far from linear, and I'm not aware (and I've looked) of 
evidence that it is well understood.

Most of the post-docs who are accepted at Argonne (for three year stints) 
camef foreign schools and have established reputations.  As far as I can 
tell, they are products of traditional education.

Where is the evidence of PER success in creating productive physicists and 
engineers?
				Regards,
					Jack


On Mon, 12 May 2008, John Clement wrote:

> Feynman saw the problem, but never the solution.  He admitted that students
> were not learning well.  His paradigm was to improve the lectures, which did
> not work.  Redish also tried it, and failed, but then found that some PER
> remedies did the trick.  His research has been published.
>
> The lifeblood of PER is RESEARCH, the same thing that fuels physics.  The
> religion metaphor is totally inappropriate, it is the last refuge of people
> who can not bring up evidence to bolster their views.  Everyone has things
> that they believe, but PER is based on evidence and research.  So one can be
> convinced or can believe that PER works better based on the evidence.
>
> I have taught students who have gone through traditional courses, and they
> still come in with very low understanding.  There are many ways to teach
> more effectively, but the traditional method is NOT one of them.  I have
> never seen any evidence that the traditional method can achieve the same
> gain as PER based methods.  Perhaps someone can provide evidence from a
> traditional course that achieves high gain?????
>
> Citing authority is very faith based, or perhaps one can treat them as
> celebrity endorsements, sort of like cigarette ads.  So please bring up
> evidence and not received enlightenment from past "authorities".
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
> > > The big problem is that they have paradigms that may prevent them from
> > > becoming better.
> >  		Every Ph D has such a paradigm?  Maybe there are a couple
> >  	who sneak off on the side and get washed in the blood of the PER
> >  	lamb?
> >
> >    But traditional HS teachers also have paradigms that
> > > prevent them from becoming better.  Traditionally trained teachers tend
> > to
> > > use traditional methods no matter the level of education.
> >
> >  		And traditional methods are per se wrong?  Sommerfeld,
> > Pauli, and Feynman never saw the light of PER?  There is only 1
> > effective way to teach?  How could anyone possibly know this?  It sounds
> > to me like faith-based educational theory.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley