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] Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2



The "religious zeal" is actually on both sides. But for some reasons the
conservatives use the term against the liberals. I think both sides feel
that the other side causes problems. I know that this has happened at some
schools. The physics department at one school changed to using interactive
engagement and PER researched materials. The conservative biology
department started telling students that the physics teachers were being
unprofessional.

As to specifically prescribed techniques, the referenced AJP article
strongly implies that what you do is what makes the difference, and not who
you are.

This current discussion came about because I objected to using the observed
Chinese lecture as proof that their lecture system works better. There is
no evidence that the lectures are the important factor in their system of
education. But then all kinds of peripheral evidence was advanced. I still
maintain that my original observation is correct.

I also think that impugning the motives of other researchers is not a wise
thing to do. The PER researchers are dedicated, motivated, and from what I
can see fairly honest. They are achieving what the cognitive scientists
have failed to do, namely make some improvements in instruction. To do that
you need both expertise in the subject as well as some understanding of
cognitive science. The cognitive scientists generally lack the
understanding of physics.

Science works by having people who propagandize their point of view and by
having others confirm or refute that point of view through experiments.
Scientific revolutions happen when the conservatives retire and the new
ideas gain currency with the younger scientists. There are many examples of
how each side considered the other to be obstinate, opinionated, and pig
headed, so we are seeing this same thing now. Time will eventually tell
which side is right.

There are many possible alternatives such as both are equally right, one is
wrong and the other right, both are wrong, or a split like 60-40%, or even
that each side is only partially right. But saying that the system has
worked so far is exactly the same sort of attitude that preceded things like
the Copernican revolution. But I suspect that one can find other counter
examples where the proposed idea was off base.

In either case using terms like "religious zeal" is basically using code
words which indicate that the other side is not being scientific, and using
loaded code words.

(Please be aware the conservative and liberal are used in a generic and not
a political sense. They are being used to mean those who think the current
system is OK, and those who think it is not and wish to reform it.)

I have been told that I should not use guided inquiry in class. The point
was that the supervisor was a "conservative", so those of us who use guided
inquiry feel that we are being oppressed. If it is not professional to
speak out in favor of our ideas, it is also not professional to try to
suppress our ideas. I ignored his advice, which I am sure did not endear me
to him. When committees get together to create standards for courses, the
conservatives generally prevail, so the liberals feel that they are again
oppressed, and the conservatives do not have an understanding of the issues.

Please be aware that the exasperation can be on both sides!!! And I
recommend keeping loaded words like religious zeal out of the discussion.
The other side may feel the same way. I have even been told by some
reformers that they deliberately suppress debate because of the way that it
is opposed.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX