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



There is little information that can actually completely resolve this
question. But once you understand that brain development is heavily
influenced by environment, aptitude would seem to be a developed response to
the environment which includes school, home, and society. So I submit as
per the previous post that aptitude is in a large part developed not just
born. But I can not say what percentage is developed and what percentage
genetic.

The ability to do honors work certainly needs to have a high math
background. But when you say that you have already presumed that the person
has developed an aptitude for math, which is a requirement for physics
achievement. Without interest, the student would probably not do as well.

It is well known to those who read the analysis of TIMS that foreign schools
do more than just teach conventionally. European teachers ask 10 times as
many conceptual questions that require analysis than American teachers do.
They also do have more physics. But I have a counter example of an exchange
student from Germany who did not have an "aptitude" for physics, and did not
do excellent work. Actually he was not tops in any subject. I also have an
example of a different student from Germany who absorbed the PER paradigm of
learning and upon return became the top student. Interestingly he already
had a math teacher in Germany who was using IE, and he has credited what I
did to make him the best student. Did I? I don't know, but I get energized
by that thought and like to think so.

Apparently the oriental system of teaching is fairly rigid and I have seen a
number of oriental students who memorize rather than think. I have no
statistics by country.

The individual is the sum of the various influences, and I think it is
impossible to say that just one thing made the difference. All of the
influences genetic, parental, societal, school, peers, natural
surroundings... combined to make a unique individual with unique talents.
There are examples of unique individuals who overcame bad parents, schools,
societies... but they are outliers in the statistics. Lincoln was obviously
driven by some inner compulsion or perhaps demon to study and overcome his
humble origins. But what influences caused this? I doubt we will ever know.
The average person does not have such a demon, but can it be developed and
should it be developed. Is it a type of obsessive compulsive disorder?

Of course these cases will provide lots of arguments and very little light.
You have to look at the research papers to be able to even begin to draw
conclusions from cases.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

The question as it relates to Bob's post would be whether you would see
this
level of performance in this student if she didn't have an aptitude for
math
and physics (and probably a serious interest). That is, would her
previous
background make her an honor physics student even if she couldn't do
Algebra
and was uninterested in science in general!


I have a foreign exchange students from Germany this year in my honors
physics class. She is by far my brightest students this year, and one of
the smartest I've ever taught. It's probably due to the European
educational system where (I believe) physics is taught over a number of
years (starting in middle school), not just for one year in high school.

This student is also very interested in learning about physics ideas on
a
deeper level, unlike most of my other students.

Wonder if there is some correlation here?