Re: [Phys-l] Student engagement--GAIN

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

Well Duh.  The research clearly shows this.  Anyone who disagrees needs to
READ THE RESEARCH.  Actually using geometry instead of lowering is actually
raising the standards.  The geometrical interpretation used in an algebra
based course partially elevates it to the calculus level without frightening
the students.  At the calculus level it gets them to use the calculus in a
practical way.

The SVT equations have the problem that the students become equation hunters
rather than concept based problem solvers.  So if limited to one or 2 basic
equations, and graphical methods they tend to use concepts first and then
equations last.

Unfortunately personal experience can not serve as a proxy for research.
Research shows what is going on when personal experience often shows the
opposite.  Personal experience has taught students that trucks/car
collisions have the truck pushing on the car harder than the car on the
truck.  Only compelling experiments where they have to figure out what is
going on will firmly convince students of NTN3.

Going back to my medical analogy, the idea of spraying carbolic acid over
patients seemed like it was very bad, but the research showed that the
survival rate was much higher.  How could a caustic material improve patient
outcomes?  So of course the traditionalists pooh-poohed it and refused to
look at the research.  Only research can show what is actually happening
with students.  If they keep getting worse, maybe it is time to do something
radically different, or retire and let others handle the problem.  That is
what happened in medicine, the older doctors retired, and the newer ones
embraces antiseptics.  The early crude spraying of carbolic acid eventually
yielded to more targeted antisepsis.

I was hired by a traditional teacher to teach a course.  He told me the text
was ideal, and he could not understand why I rearranged the topics.  I said
the research showed that the different order worked better.  But that notion
did not penetrate.  Also the text was ideal for a physicist to review the
ideas, but very poor for the students.  He judged it from his perspective,
and not from the student's perspective or better yet a research based
perspective which considers the student perspective.  He did not interfere
with what I did, and he treated me like a good colleague despite the
school's acting like a HS rather than a college.  He at least understands
that there are alternative methods that might work better, but he is not yet
ready to buy in.  He is close enough to retirement that he can just continue
with usual business, and I understand that.  Radical change is hard, and
especially hard if you have an opposing paradigm.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> A quick note from a retired HS instructor who gained insight from a
> coupla Priscilla Laws Workshops and generally was looking for better
> ways to do things.
>
> d,v,a,t equations are GARBAGE ! ! ! ! ! ! You might work up to them
> eventually - but until the students have a THOROUGH understanding of
> velocity time graphs. (and position time graphs too of course).
> Sonic Ranger exercises are where it starts. Matching, predicting etc.
>
> The velocity graph of straight line segments solves most 'd,v,a,t'
> problems that Rick is concerned about. Finding the area of rectangles
> and triangles  is the analysis they need. The 'smart' ones will even
> use the trapezoid area 'formula', but that's unnecessary gravy.
>
> How many college profs are willing to lower their teaching  style to
> using geometry instead of the usual dvat formulas?
>
>
> 	(Oh, and teaching momentum before KE works really well too -
> but that's for another day)