Re: [Phys-l] Faith in science and/or psychology

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

Very well said.  But I suspect that the conventional pedagogy also works
against the creative individuals in physics.  Remember that Einstein just
barely squeaked by his final exams, while his future wife did not.  Of
course she had a disability at the time because she had morning sickness,
and the examiners may well have been prejudiced.  Einstein did not like the
conventional pedagogy and sometimes only conformed just enough to get by.
So pedagogy which improves transfer also improves creativity.  We can do
much better by producing creative experts rather than routine experts.

The US used to have an advantage because we were more creative than other
countries.  This advantage needs to be maintained and improved.  The
referenced Schwartz paper addresses this issue.  I suspect that the high
scorers on the FCI actually achieve this by being both precise and more
creative, or having more ability to transfer.  So PER may be able to bring
the middle group up, and at the same time promote more flexible expertise in
the top tier.  If as I suspect it accelerates the top tier, there might be
the possibility that they can rise faster.  After all theoreticians only
have a short early productive life.  It may also improve retention in the
top tier.  Since PER improves scores on standardized testing more for women
than for men it would also help alleviate the imbalance between men and
women in physics departments, which in turn would give physics a better
reputation.  This latter research was reported using the MCAT as an
evaluation, so the FCI is not the only evaluation used in PER.

I contend that PER and its brethren actually work for all levels, as shown
by comparisons between low, medium, and high gainers.  We can't know what
effect it might have had on the rare geniuses.  That is like looking for the
"missing link".

> From what I have read about Einstein, I think he might have liked the PER
pedagogy.  But that is my prejudice.

There are very few highly perceptive teachers.  I had one in 4th grade.  I
had taken the reading book home and finished it.  It was an enjoyable story
at that age.  The teacher noticed I was not reading the book during the
class reading period.  So she asked why.  When she realized I had already
read the book, she said that during the normal reading period I could go to
the back of the room and read any of the books on her library shelf.  I was
as happy as a clam, and not longer bored after that.  I think that the
research based approach is attempting to do this in an organized fashion.
(Yes this is anecdotal, but is true, and also heart warming)

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> I think we also have to consider another possibility (in reference to
> producing more/better scientists/engineers, etc).  Being successful in
> school, whether in physics or anything else, requires engagement of the
> student.  S/he has to think about the material, work with it, try it out,
> extend it, practice its application, etc.  A student who is naturally
> inclined and interested will do all these things pretty much despite what
> the teacher does.  Otoh, a student who is disinclined/disinterested will
> do
> very little in this regard.  Students in a college course are self-
> selected,
> and scientists/engineers come from, and are probably the best of, this
> self-selected pool.  They are also most likely to learn effectively by the
> conventional methodologies - After all, that's probably how they GOT there
> in the first place.  This may be gradually changing, but I think it is
> probably still an accurate appraisal.  PER-inspired methodologies may not,
> in fact, impact on this group significantly.  Otoh, at "lower" levels of
> physics, where we get LOT of disinterested, unmotivated students, it is
> imperative to capture their interest, and even to teach them HOW to think
> (more deeply) about the material.  I think the real impact of PER
> methodologies are experienced at these levels, where the sheer number and
> range of abilities of the students participating is far greater.  If there
> is an urgency involved in making changes in methodology, I think we in
> high
> school or middle school feel it more acutely.  If, otoh, the concern is
> the
> production of scientists/engineers, it's clear to me that we will probably
> never again be able to produce nearly the numbers or percentage
> domestically
> to overcome the huge disparity in population between ourselves and the
> Asian
> nations, so scientists/engineers are likely to more and more be a major
> export of those nations and an imported "product" for us.  We, however,
> may
> very well lead the world in the production of lawyers... ;-)