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] playing for keeps


On Jun 28, 2013, at 11:11 PM, John Denker wrote:

On 06/28/2013 07:29 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

Apparently it is well established by experiment that in general forgetting
follows a fairly universal power law.

Only if you let it!

Now, however, I would like to say something better: I teach
to the /standard/. I'm playing for keeps. That is, I want
the student to meet the standard on the day of the test, and
on the day after, and two years down the road, and twenty
years down the road. This is a much taller order! Playing
for keeps includes teaching to the test, plus a lot more....

So, how is it possible to evade the allegedly "universal law"
of forgetting? Well, I confront the thing head-on. I tell
students my job is to put myself out of job. That is, my job
is to get students to the point where they can teach themselves.
I make a very big deal out of this.

Before students can take the practical test, I have to certify
that they are ready. At that time, I tell them that I may
not see them again for six months or a year ... but when I do
see them, I expect them to fly /better/ than they do now. ...

===============

The same ideas apply to academic subjects such as math and
physics, except that people don't take such things nearly
as seriously.

All too often, each chapter in the book prepares students to
answer the end-of-chapter problems and not much more. All too
often, the course as a whole prepares students to pass the
almighty end-of-year test and not much more.

My point is simple: If you decide that long-term retention
is one of the essential goals, then it dramatically changes
how you go about teaching.



I think it is a fairly standard attitude among students (including me when I was a student) that "they don't _really_ expect me to learn and understand this stuff _deeply_ now; the 'spiral curriculum' means I'll see it again and my previous exposure will help me learn it easier next time." I knew maybe one or two students who went through college with me who internalized the concepts deeply the first time through (they're the ones whose homework solutions were more general than the professor's); the rest of us learned the stuff well enough to do the homework and pass the tests. We figured the curriculum was spiral for a reason--almost no one gets it the first time.

If I had been taught "for keeps" or had taken the personal responsibility myself to learn "for keeps" as John Denker proposes I wouldn't have had so many "AHA!" moments during my first few years of teaching. (I still have them, but they are fewer than those first couple of years teaching.)

I'm quite intrigued at John's assertion that the universal power law of forgetting should not be accepted and should, in fact, be reversed. I believe there are many psychological studies verifying the power law of forgetting. Maybe some psychological researcher will look into this idea of not forgetting, but getting better.

Are flying and physics comparable with regard to forgetting? I wonder if aviation students would not also forget (along a power law) if they didn't practice diligently and regularly. So, obviously physics students should practice what they've learned to retain it too, but they've gone on to the next chapter and have to learn a LOT of stuff in one year.

Larry