Re: [Phys-l] Any teaching tips

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

My top-posted response:    As I said, it's fine if you wanted to use  
the opportunity to argue for a change in introductory physics.  
However, the post was from a physics teacher who needed help with  
basic kinematics. He is unlikely to drop everything he's doing at the  
moment based on an argument in this forum, so I think it is  
appropriate for the members of this forum to help said teacher with  
the situation at hand. Or do you not think that's part of the purpose  
of this forum for EDUCATORS? Personally, had I been a relatively new  
teacher posting such a question to this forum and had I received your  
answer, I would never come back to the forum. I have offered help to  
this teacher privately, and others have posted helpful replies on the  
list.

I have no objection to a discussion of how much emphasis there should  
be on textbook problems in introductory physics. But to respond to  
someone with a serious question about teaching by saying it's just a  
game and you don't want to participate, is just wrong. Physics  
teaching is not a game for the vast majority of teachers, regardless  
of their emphasis on standard textbook problems.

Bill


On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:00 AM, John Denker wrote:

> On 01/26/2011 10:22 PM, William Robertson wrote:
> > Well, if you are not interested in that game, I'm wondering why you
> > answered the question. If you wish to use the opportunity to argue  
> > for
> > a change in how intro physics is presented, then fine. But it's clear
> > that the question is predicated on standard types of problems
> > presented in standard types of textbooks.
>
>
> There are some teachers who think that teaching is not
> a game, that it has a /purpose/, and the purpose has
> something to do with solving real-world problems, not
> just textbook problems.
>
>
> There are some teachers who are not robots performing the
> script set forth in the text.  They teach what they think
> is right, without waiting for somebody to change the text.
>
>
> Do you really want to defend the alleged importance of
> "knowns vs unknowns"?  There's a lot more that could be
> said about this, if anybody is interested.
>
> Hint:
>  http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/astrophysics/webpages/barometer_story.htm
>
> Additional examples and discussion:
>  http://www.av8n.com/physics/thinking.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l