Re: [Phys-l] What are your answers for this teacher?

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

You left out the second half of my statement, so your disagreement is with
an out of context statement.  Please, do not react like the politicians.

Unfortunately there is a BIG problem.  Raising understanding of proportional
reasoning and other types of reasoning requires time.  Shayer & Adey showed
that when you did this, there was NO effect on the usual tests of short term
learning.  But there was a BIG effect on long term learning several years
after the intervention.  Cognitive acceleration may not immediately jump
start the high stakes test results.  Higher thinking skills have to be in
place BEFORE the effective learning can happen.

The choice is between a temporary increase in the immediate test results, or
a permanent increase in thinking skills.  But the permanent increase may not
save your job, while the temporary increase will.  This is the Sophie's
choice of education.  Doing the moral and ultimately more effective thing
might not put food on your table.

So while I think that teaching the triangle is extremely poor education, it
may be necessary for job retention.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX
 
> I completely disagree. If your job depends on their getting higher  
> scores, you should help them understand, really understand, the  
> process of dealing with simple algebraic equations. Whatever test  
> problem might be helped by them using a triangle will be trumped by  
> problems in which they need to understand basic relationships. There  
> is never an excuse for using mindless procedures when 
> understanding is  
> not only possible, but simple. Folks, we are talking about three  
> variable equations! If we abandon understanding there, then 
> we abandon  
> understanding everywhere!
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:23 PM, John Clement wrote:
>
> > So your choice is clear.  If your job depends on their 
> getting higher
> > scores, you might have to teach the triangle.