Re: [Phys-L] Commentary on teaching in Physics Today

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 03/08/2017 04:04 AM, antti.j.savinainen via Phys-l wrote:
> there is an interesting commentary on teaching undergraduate physics
> in PT: it contrasts text-book problems and creativity. The author is
> a student himself, although he has already published two papers.
> Richard Feynman's recommendations on teaching and creativity have a
> prominent role in the commentary. 
> http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3477

Title: "Commentary: How to teach me physics:
        Tradition is not always a virtue"

This is an important topic.  I agree with the article about 98%.

There is one detail that is open to misinterpretation in a couple
of ways:

*) The discussion should not be about homework versus no homework.
 It should be more a discussion of good homework versus bad homework.

 As an example (not an appeal to authority) I would point out that
 Feynman assigned homework in every course he ever taught.  Even
 the exceeeeedingly non-traditional Physics X "course" had homework.

 Typical Physics X homework consisted of a perpetual motion machine.
 Not a Rube Goldberg machine, but something really simple, with
 maybe one moving part.  The goal was to explain why it didn't work.
 Students would invest huge amounts of effort, individually and in
 groups, without success.  The next week Feynman would spend a few
 seconds explaining how to solve it, using some combination of
 simple ideas, well known to everybody in the room, such as symmetry,
 conservation, principle of virtual work, and dimensional analysis.
 There was then a slight pause, so that everybody could dope-slap
 themselves and start breathing again.  Then ... at the end of the
 hour he would assign another perpetual motion machine, and the
 whole process would repeat.

*) It's not just about homework.  The whole course --  including
 syllabus, grading scheme, strategy, and tactics -- has to be
 designed around encouraging creativity rather than squelching it.

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

To move forward, we need two things:

A) We need people to recognize that we have a problem, and

B) We need specific constructive suggestions on how to improve
 things.


Even with the benefit of this Physics Today article, we are
nowhere near completing task (A) ... never mind task (B).

Just three days ago, in the PER discussion group (PHYSLRNR-LIST),
I tried to bring up the topic of thinking and creativity, as
opposed to rote, regimentation, and equation-hunting. This
generated very little discussion: only two replies.  The first
reply put the word "thinking" in scare quotes.  I never thought
a teacher would do that, but evidently in the PER community
that's just fine.  The thrust of the message was that I was
wrong to suggest an exercise that required a modicum of this
quote "thinking".

It's going to take a lot more than one Physics Today article
to get things moving in the right direction.

See also next message.