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: forces

Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote (only the last part is here):

To all:

A couple of comments on Roger Pruitt's notes from yesterday:

2. In your other note, you ask (for reasons I can only guess) do we
produce better engineers with an approach like Workshop Physics? Just
because you have seen no data presented, does not mean that some exists.
Of course, Dickinson College does not produce engineers, but it does
produce physics majors. I bet if you actually asked for "data" from
Priscilla Laws or others who are trying to use the approach you would find
some "light on the subject."

It sounds to me like you are saying that we should continue teaching
physicists and engineers the same way, yet, if anything the person who made
the decision to construct the overhead walkways differently than designed
took physics taught in the traditional way. The presumption that appears
to be behind the recommendation to keep teaching them the same way is that
it actually 'works.' Obviously, if everything is okay then why change?
The problem, in my view, is that everything is not okay and furthermore I'd
like to see us do better. Hence, I don't agree with the suggestion for
that reason as one among several other important ones.

It also sounds like you are saying that all the rest of the students who
experience physics instruction are less important. One might be able to
take this position if what we do to prepare engineers and physicists had no
effect on the rest of the population. The trouble is that it does affect
the rest of society. Just to point to the most proximate effect: If the
person making the construction site decision about the walkways was not an
engineer who took physics in the traditional way, then it was a
construction manager who took either physics for engineers or an
algebra-trig level intro physics course.

For the by far bigger effect on society, I point to the fact that probably
the MOST LASTING lesson learned by people exposed to physics instruction is
that there is something they *cannot* do; i.e., make sense of the physical
world. This lesson is by far the dominant one over time and in relative
'weight' for 99+% of the population. It is learned very early in school
life. It would be one thing if it were true. If it were true, it still is
nothing to be proud of. BUT, it is *not* true. I'm not saying that
everyone can "do" theoretical physics, but I am saying that people can make
more sense of the physical world than they do via physics instruction than
they do now and at a much earlier age than most who teach physics think
they can. This makes the situation all the more horrible that this ONE
LESSON is the main one taken from the enterprise of physics teaching as we
generally know it today. (I will add that it is not even a desirable or
responsible lesson that some learn that the "can" do physics and most
others cannot.)

One might still be tempted to focus on the notion that we cannot 'cover' as
much material by "the Workshop Physics" approach. To this I ask, why do we
have to wait until college to accomplish all this stuff? Much of this
could be accomplished before or by the 9th grade, but all of the teachers
come to the university and get taught the traditional way. But they could
be taught differently, yet *we* do not do this. In a better world, if we
choose to make one, I can imagine that students would have done alot or
most of the conceptual front end by the time they get to college and in
doing so would not only have changed their initial notions, but the major
lesson would NO LONGER BE that *they* cannot make new sense of the
phenomena. Now that I could live with much better!

Dewey

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad@varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dewey makes some good points, but my concern is not an "either or"
situation. Dewey says, "For the by far bigger effect on society, I point
to the fact that probably
the MOST LASTING lesson learned by people exposed to physics instruction
is
that there is something they *cannot* do; i.e., make sense of the
physical
world." This is a very important point, and I'm afraid physics
departments in the past have ignored and disregarded this sector. The
result is to create a large population of people who say with distaste,
"I took physics once" with the same expression and tone of voice that
they might say, "I had chicken pox once." However, my question still is
concerned with the effectiveness of using these new approaches with
science majors and pre-engineering students where there are expectations
by engineering departments and physics faculty who teach the upper level
courses in the major that students have some breadth of the discipline.
Does anyone out in cyberspace have hard data from longitudinal studies
that we produce better engineers and physics majors in the "less is
more" approach?

Cliff Swartz writes in the Oct. 1996 TPT:

"Many of the innovations [in physics teaching] consist of administrative
techniques for classes--small-group instruction, new methods for
monitoring homework, interactive lectures. Ususlly these methods are
based on current learning theories--constructivism, modeling,
cycling...."

"One of the problems with education innovations is that it's very hard
to demonstrate their efficacy. Students may do better for awhile, but is
it because of the intrinsic nature of the method or because the students
worked harder or longer on fewer topics? Was the teacher more
enthusieastic and perhaps more caring? Is the system
transportable--i.e., witll it work in other schools? How much retraining
of teachers is required and is that realistic? Is anything known about
the long-term effects? Are graduates more competent some years later,
and how do we test?"

I echo his concern, and my question still remains. What are the
long-term effects and are graduates more competent some years later?

I think educational innovation is fine, and there are many reasons for
trying new techniques. We must, however, be careful that we don't end up
producing graduates that are less competent some years later.

Roger