a little more sparring

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

> Apparently, the indication that most students do not do well on something
> ike the FCI isn't important either.  Hmmmm.....

Maybe, maybe not  HMMMMMM....

> If the fact that the overwhelming end result of physics instruction for 95%
> of the students who receive it is dislike, belief that they cannot
> understand it, and no evidence of understanding of it (FCI and other tests)
> isn't data ("The plural of anecdote is not data!"), then where's the "data"
> that says "that rigorous work in problem solving has... sharpened their
> critical thinking skills, that they ... have a better understanding of the
> physical world than before instruction, that they ... have a better feel
> for the methods of science is hardly objective."?

True anecdotes are data, because they are observations about the world about 
us.  Although, one must be very very very very very careful about drawing 
conclusions from a few anecdotes.  However, many many anecdotes taken over 
the course of a life time, strikes me as often being valid.

BTW the overwhelming result of the required drownproofing course I had in 
college was of dislike; yet it was a very valuable course for me to have 
taken.

> Finally, for now, I'm wondering where the fact that I am pointing to the
> failure with the 95% says automatically that I am _also_ referring or
> specifically saying failure with the 5%.  (I have suggested that the 5%
> might be better for a different kind of initial instruction, but have I
> specifically said that the 5% are failed too?  I don't think so.)

Good, point and this point recognizes that to a significant degree folks are 
argueing past each other here.

> So it's okay then to ignore our effect on the 95%?

HERETICAL IDEA

I have an opinion, (not well thought out , but discussed with scientist 
friends, not all physicists) that non-science majors shouldn't take an 
introductory physics course; and for a lot of the reasons Dewey mentions.  I 
might really be needed for these students is something more along the lines 
of year course in Science, i.e. a science 101 if you will.  This would 
undoubtably be a multi-disciplinary course with a heavy physics component 
and laboratory work.  But would necessarily involve important scientific 
ideas coming from other disciplines then physics; modern molecular biology 
is an obvious need; for scientific literacy and understanding in the general 
college educated non-science major population.  That is, these 95% that 
aren't being served well.  I would like to see more physics educators think 
in these terms and try to develope such courses with their other physics 
colleagues.  It would take a lot of work, but I think would serve this 
population better, society better than taking a non-science major physics 
course, or chem course or bio course to fulfill the science core.

I hope the above paragraph, will start a blizzard of discussion and 
comments.

Joel