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] Student engagement




Reminds me of a story I read in a book recently.

Paraphrasing from memory:

A sales associate sulked into the sales manager's office complaining that he
had lost a big sale.

The associate said, "I guess it just goes to show you that you can lead a
horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

The sales manager replied, "Son, it's not your job to make the horse drink,
it's your job to make him thirsty."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, how do you do that?

The salesman case is very simple. Once the customer buys, that is the end
of it. But a teacher has to have continuous engagement of the right kind
with the right type of activities, and with the right paradigm. Schools
have tried things like chess clubs. They are very powerful at creating
chess masters among minority students, but they do not translate into
substantial classroom gains. On the other hand the Feuerstein program and
the Shayer & Adey programs of cognitive enhancement do translate into
classroom gains.

Somehow I am reminded of an interesting case of salesmanship. FM radio
first started as a quality outlet for classical music. Of course RCA fought
it, but one of the big problems it had was the listenership. Advertisers
were unwilling to spend much money on FM ads because a survey had found that
FM listeners were not as affected by ads as AM listeners.

One thing that has come from psychology research is that punishment and
rewards do not really produce engagement. They produce a simulation of
engagement, but once the motivator ceases so does the engagement. Similarly
punishment can produce good behavior, but it teaches that one should not get
caught. Internalized moral values do not come from punishment, and
internalized moral values guide actions much better than fear of punishment.
So again it comes down to the best motivator is success. Once students
begin to understand and find it interesting they will engage more.

I think from what I have observed in class that the PER methods do produce
more interest. For example doing a lab where you deduce the physical law
produces a mental picture which can then be used later. The student
actually begins to gain a good model for how the physical system works. I
have seen just enough students who have become wildly enthusiastic that I am
convinced that this works as a motivator beyond the mere FCI scores. I also
see the ones who work dutifully for external rewards, but they usually do
not really become engaged. I have also diagnosed LD problems and had them
confirmed when the students go to the developmental psychiatrist. These
students then also become more engaged. I have seen students who struggled
in conventional classes blossom in mine. The students who have learned to
work hard will do better later without my help, but I have managed to
motivate some of the second tier. But I do not have any firm way of
measuring success except by the existing conceptual and Piagetian exams, and
by the occasional anecdotal evidence. For example I had a German student
who studied for 1 year in the US and he totally credits his success as the
top student upon return to Germany to my effors. But I freely admit that is
not "proof", but it is a powerful motivator for me.

Incidentally the Modeling method has shown that teachers who use it become
more motivated and less likely to drop out of the teaching pool. They also
show higher FCI gain, but again, beyond that it is difficult to measure
other effects. So PER can actually be a teacher motivator!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX