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] Another alternative theory horror



John: where did you get the 160hour figure? Can I get a cite to that?? is it a recent cite???

Dan M

On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:43 AM, John Clement wrote:

Of course my question is: Do you have a good way of assessing the outcomes
of these lectures?

Joe Redish found that the standard lecture/lab/recitation courses pushed
students toward more novice like views, while studio style courses made them
somewhat more expert like. So how do you know that the student attitudes
are actually changed? For example based on experience, one estimage that I
have heard is that it takes about 160 hours or so to change teacher's
paradigms. Paradigms are very resistant to just short term interventions,
especially lectures.

They will gladly parrot back what you tell them, but then you need an
independent way of assessing that does not involve just looking at what they
parrot.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX




On 30 Aug 2011 at 21:31, John Denker wrote:

I explain that over time, we
correct our models until in the end there is one
remaining model for the given phenomenon.

Slight nitpick: We are not necessarily restricted to "one"
remaining
model. Commonly there are multiple models with overlapping
coverage.
This is where the correspondence principle comes in.
Physical optics says that geometric optics is OK in
certain limits.
Quantum mechanics says that classical mechanics is OK in
certain limits.
Special relativity says that non-relativistic mechanics
is OK in certain limits.
General relativity says that the flat-spacetime model is
OK in certain limits.
You can do chemical reactions neglecting nuclear
reactions in certain limits.
Et cetera. Other examples abound.


John, you are quite right. These points are made in my next
lecture to the class when I talk about how
Newton's laws are widely applicable, but then point out
observations which resulted in Special
Relatvity. I have been careful with my students to explain
the limited applicability of a given model and
that there may be overlap with other models, etc. I just
didn't want to recreate my whole presentation
in my e-mail to the list.

My point is that it is up to us as educators and even with
speaking with other scientists to use the
coreect language of science, so that we can put to rest these
notions that science is a lot of hand
waving and guess work that can be dismissed to promote a
religious or political agenda.


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