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]

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

Hi all-
John seems to mistake what it means to demonstrate that a proposition is true. By way of analogy, not too irrelefvant, consider Newton's laws. Nobody has exhibited an experiment, done with falling weights and pulleys, that violate Newton's laws. Does that mean that Newton's laws are true in general? Clearly it does not. It means that they correctly describe the results of experiments performed in a limited set of circumstances.
One must view the context of the experiments from which to draw general conclusions. And John looks to a limited set of experiments.

He is also mistaken when he says, "if you choose to disbelieve these studies..."
It is not a queswtion of belief or disbelief. It is a question, probably quantitive - a mode that John repeatedly skips - of the range of validity of the studies that have been done.
And, yes, there is a mass of data waiting to be mined, namely, the AP Physics Exams. The multiple choice sections of these exams are not terribly different from the FCI. The difference is that a student takes the AP only once, so there is no chance of being coached on the answers.
I think that John's medical analogy fails on two counts. (1) I wan't aware that the discussion is about producing students who want to become physicists, and (2) it remains to be shown that the process of a young person's choice of career is like catching a disease.
It also fails because there is nothing in the educational process that is analogous to exposure to an identifiable chemical substance, nor is there an identifiable outcome analogous to death.
Regards,
Jack



On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, John Clement wrote:

I basically read every study I can get my hands on, and I have not seen any
that show something different. Then there is the results of Joe Redish's
MPEX research. He found that physics courses generally caused a reduction
in attitudes towards physics to more novice attitudes. The only exception
to this were studio style courses such as Workshop Physics.

I am willing to read any studies which refute the existing research on
student attitudes towards physics specifically and science in general. An
it is possible to establish such a general principle, specifically for a
specific case namely conventionally taught courses. Notice there is an
exception in the MPEX research.

Now of course the research shows the result in the average. But since there
is a spread, a few students buck the average, and if they do it often enough
they end up as physicists. So the science courses degrade on the average,
and act a filter passing through favored few.

Now if you wish to disbelieve these studies, fine, find some published
studies which refute the existing ones. And by all means read the studies
in JRST, TPT, and AJP.

Doing educational studies is very much like medicine. Long before causal
mechanisms were found, we knew from studies that tobacco smoking caused lung
cancer and emphysema. But one could still point to individuals who never
got these diseases. Did the fact that a significant fraction ended up
surviving into ripe old age mean that cigarettes were not harmful? Does the
fact that a miniscule fraction of students end up as physicists mean that
the current system is the best?

By the logic in the previous post the medical studies can not logically
establish general principles either.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Hi all-
John Clement writes (in part):
The studies have shown that a liking of science goes down with each
science
course taken. One thing that is known is that students are humans are
more enthusiastic about something if they have success in doing it, and
are usually less enthusiastic if they just beat their head against the
<wall.
____________________________________
I contend that it is a logical impossiblity for any set of studies
to establish sucdh a general principle. The interpretation of the studies
referred to must take into account the time, place and manner of each
study. In experimental science this is part of the determination of the
"systematic uncertainty" of the study.
And if, as sometimes happens, it is claimed that there is no
variation among the "studies", than that is as much a defect as excessive
variation that hides the possibility of a clear conclusion. Measuring
intstruments must show a necessary minimum of fluctuation.
Also, before relying on conclusions from such "studies", the
proponent of the conclusions is expected, in most fields of science, to
make a diligent search for counterexamples to those conclusions. See,
e.g., Feynman's discussion of premonitions in the book (I think this is
the one) "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out".
Regards,
Jacdk

--
"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



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
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