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] Feynman's messenger lectures now available

The implicit definition here is that "learning"="gain on FCI" and thus that is how the effectiveness of all teaching must be judged. This is surely debatable. But in any case, I don't think that Bill Gates meant to say: "Boy, if I had only seen those lectures, my FCI score would have skyrocketed!". Lectures can inspire, and entertain, they can guide, they can lay the groundwork for the individual study that must follow, or they can bore, intimidate and overwhelm. So many variables to this vast undertaking, hard to reduce to a meaningful single factor -- FCI gain or any other.

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:16 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Feynman's messenger lectures now available

The big question is: Do they work better than alternate methods for some,
or do the alternate methods work better for all?

What fraction of students benefit from lectures, or could they learn just as
well by being given the text?

This question has not been well researched of answered. Most of the studies
have concentrated on the bulk of students. I would say the percentage who
can learn from lectures is probably very small. Hake's indirect study of HS
students shows that they get about 10% gain on average, which indicates that
the number who learn well from the standard methods of teaching is fairly
small.

Now as to being a "bright" kid, what makes one bright? There is now
substantial evidence that intelligence can be modified and increased. That
there is a genetic component is undeniable, but the ratio of "nature" to
"nurture" is not well known. We also know that many bright students still
have the same misconceptions after the standard physics course.

So when Gates thinks that the Feynman lectures might have changed his life,
this is a judgment after the fact. Feynman's lectures may need a specific
level of understanding and a particular frame of reference or paradigm for
effectiveness. Gates is a different person with a set of life experiences
that may make Feynman very compelling, but it is very likely he didn't have
the necessary experiences when he was in school.

Those who defend lectures find them compelling at this stage in their
development. But as you develop and go to different stages you tend to
forget what it was like being at the previous stage. You can see this in
children who manage to rise from the concrete operational level to the
formal operational level. The formal operational students think the younger
ones are "irrational", as indeed they are from the older student's
perspective.

Actually if you watch the first Mazur lecture that I referenced, he points
out that what you literally see and remember is determined by your existing
paradigm. So if you hold the wrong paradigm, you will remember something
which is at odds with what you saw. This is the problem with lectures. The
lecture does nothing to change paradigms, so the student will remember
things that were not said, or the complete opposite of what was said. We
keep our misconceptions gathered from lectures secure in our memories
because up until now it was impossible to go back and replay what was
actually said. Memories are not pictures, but rather reconstructed
paintings of what we now consider to be reasonable.

In either case lectures can only be defended for perhaps 5% or fewer of the
students. In medicine a compound that only cured 5% compared to something
that cured 50% would be considered a failure. But if it is true that
lectures also do not work as well as alternate methods for even that 5%,
then lectures can not be said to "work very well". I have seen the very top
students achieve excellent to 100% gain, while even the lower ones do show
gain. I do not have data for straight lecture classes because I changed my
methods at the same time I started taking data.

We appreciate Feynman because we have the necessary frame of reference to
see how good they are, but students do not have the same frame of reference.
Mazur's talks bring home how he had to change his paradigm. I suspect that
if Gates had attended Mazur's class, he might have gone in a different
direction. But I strongly suspect that Feynman's lectures would have turned
him off just as other college lectures did. We can appreciate Feynman's
lectures as wonderful artifacts, but even he said they were pedagogically a
failure.

So I repeat that Gates is under the misconception that lectures are
effective, despite the fact that he dropped out of school. Actually he had
already formed his basic proclivity to like programming, so it is also
doubtful that he would have found Feynman interesting.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Yet for some people, they *do* work very well. Gates, by most accounts,
was a very bright kid, and certainly one to was able to learn quickly and
figure things out. Physics lectures may have been very effectual.

On the other hand, I don't find Feynman's Messenger Lectures to be
particularly good teaching (for myself). The showmanship is there, but the
infamous "Chinese meal effect" is evident.


Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates believes that if he had been able to
watch
physicist Richard Feynman lecture on physics in 1964 his life might
have
played out differently.


I doubt it. Look at 2 lectures by Eric Mazur.
mms://svs.cfa.harvard.edu/smgdvl/cvl/Mazur_1500k.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI

The real problem is that Gates believes in lectures despite persuasive
evidence that they do not work very well.



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