First a note on the 'playing for keeps' thread. The pilots have a
particularly strong incentive to 'learn for keeps'--their lives will
depend on it!
Now to this thread. The discussion has drifted to longitudinal
studies. Let me suggest that we go back in the thread a bit and look to
what I think is really important in a good formal education--the ability
to keep learning. Some others have pointed out in both threads when
many of us (those who didn't understand General Relativity at age 5)
_really_ understoodd many of the physical concepts we discuss here.
When we started teaching. Even in graduate school, we seldom had to
really confront ideas about forces and momentum or even special
relativity (well I had to do the latter), but there we did have to READ
and understand the particular area in which we worked and many of us had
to learn computing and machining and experimental design and statistical
analysis, etc. While we knew what the basic concepts of introductory
physics were, many of us really hadn't thought about them to the point
of really understanding....we passed the quizzes and test just fine
without deep understanding. But we did have to understand when we tried
to teach the material...or at least use all our learning skills to try
and understand (this list helps us to continue doing so). I suspect it
is this way in almost every field that uses conceptual understanding at
its root (maybe not so much in fine arts?) Bet most engineers don't
really 'get it' until they get immersed in real projects.
The point here is that the skills for LIFELONG LEARNING are really what
are the key things to take from a formal education. What we really need
to know and understand may not emerge until long after we leave school.
But in school we do learn both some essential facts (maybe less
important in this age of fingertip information) but more importantly the
ability to work with those facts. 'Critical Thinking' may be the
overused buzz-word today, but it really is what almost every
College-level course (and if possible back into some High School
courses) should be doing. The longitudinal studies should concentrate
not on if one can still score well on the FCI ten years out, but rather
if one is capable of understanding the principles (once refreshed in the
memory) to solve real-world problems. To do this one is not likely to
have guidance in one's inquiry or a study group to work with. One will
need to be able to read and understand technical material, and yes one
will need to be able to 'think critically'. The question then, in my
mind, is whether these abilities are enhanced by 'new' pedagogical
techniques (few of which really are new) or do we really need (and least
to some extent) some of the old--you're responsible for your own
learning--types of pedagogy?
rwt
--
Richard Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College