Re: Devil's Advocate

["Rick & Bea Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

A few quick (maybe not so quick) responses:


> >
>
> So Rick, it's okay to do what we do to the 95%, because we get what we
need
> from the 5%?
>
> ;^)
>
> Dewey

I've not said that I'm satisfied with the status of physics instruction for
the 100% that take physics, only that in my mind, some groups (such as the
constructivists -- a group in which you are clearly a major player)
over-state the failure of more traditional techniques.  I don't stand at
the board and lecture the whole class (haven't for 15 years), but I DO use
some lecture  and 'traditional' demonstrations as part of the MIX which is
my instructional style.  Most of this thread though, has been to say that
THERE IS evidence that the older, more traditional methods of delivery HAVE
worked for many.

I DO get very tired of the "they learned IN SPITE OF the instruction"
argument.  It is self-serving to those who make it, not objective at all,
and frankly derogatory to several generations of dedicated, hard working
instructors--at all levels.

Of course we can do better, but there is a tendency to want to ignore the
past achievements because they don't fit it to the _philosophy_ of current
educational research.  

>           The FCI might have problems, but no one has developed
>           anything better.  (By the same argument "our students get
>           jobs", the FCI is then sufficient.) Please do. What is
>           subjective about the interactive vs. noninteractive
>           breakdown of the Hake plot?
>
>           Beth

In the versions presented at AAPT meetings, there are a number of courses
classified as 'traditional' despite using interactive techniques for
various subjective reasons.  One example I can recall off the top of my
head was that the instructor wasn't committed to using the interactive
techniques.  All this might have been cleaned up by now.  However, I've
proven to myself that I can increase performance on the FCI by testing and
quizzing in a manner similar to the FCI questions, and the amount of time
spent on the material, the enthusiasm of the instructor, etc., etc. all
play a role.  Yet, I'll accept that some of the newer classroom techniques
CAN improve performance on the FCI, but that still doesn't  mean that these
students have been taught the kind of physics course that is most useful TO
THEM.  Maybe yes, but also maybe no.

>      
> I don't recall seeing the term "constructivist" previously in this thread
> either.

Really Dewey, like no one on this list knows that you are a PER
constructivist!  ;-)

> While I'd like to think so, it sure sounds like some very vocal ones are
> defending the status quo, while choosing to ignore pretty effectively
> evidence that things may not all be well.
>
> It seems to me that this sort of response that someone (I?) am "TOTALLY
> trashing" everything when the suggestion in previous notes have been made
> is like assuming that someone has said that NO cats are Persian just
> because he has  said he thinks that a *particular* cat is not Persian.

Again, remember that it was you who argued strongly that NO LEARNING takes
place via the lecture format!  (I think that discussion slopped over onto
this list, but it may have been isolated on PHYSLRNR)

It's these absolutes, and the implication (if not directly stated) that
we've done NO GOOD for the 95% that end up weakening the important things
you and the whole PER group have to offer.  We can take a vote, but IMO,
you have TRASHED (maybe not totally--but almost) the last couple hundred
years of physics instruction OFTEN over the past two years I've been
involved with PHYS-L and PHYSLRNR.

> If one was happy or satisfied with what is then why change?  Heaven knows
> that in most educational institutions it pays to fit in and it decidedly
> does not pay to try to make major changes regardless of one's reasons.
>    

Again, I don't think we're against change--not even radical change--if the
case is made strongly enough.
However, (and I repeat myself here), when you try to make your case for
radical change by dismissing the accomplishments of those who have been
educated via the methods you want to change by insisting that those methods
and that instruction has no positive effect on the accomplishments, when
you claim that everyone who doesn't become a physicist (or possibly an
engineer or other scientist) has been BADLY served by their physics
instruction (without adequate proof), when you claim certain traditional
techniques are WORTHLESS for instruction--then you RISK being labeled a
'religious zealot', of having your (useful) insights branded as 'fad', and
the status quo maintained.

> If everybody thinks that everything is pretty much okay, fine don't
bother.
> I was just asking if everybody really thinks that everything is fine
given
> how "well" we do overall.  I never said that we do not have a
satisfactory
> number of scientists/physicists/engineers.  I never said that these few
> don't eventually end up with an understanding of physical phenomena and
the
> vocational skills to make up the profession.  All I am saying is that I
> only see people making the case for defending the status quo from 5% or
> less of our "product" and/or rejecting other evidence without any more
> justification as they accuse others of others of having.
> Dewey

The argument really goes the other way--the success of Science and
Technology argues for the ultimate success of the teaching methods that
produces the scientists and engineers.  Then (rejecting the 'they learned
in spite' argument) there is some reason to believe that the non-scientists
and non-engineers also have profited from such instruction--(I personally
am more concerned with the content taught to this group than necessarily
the method--the content not being ideally suited to this group in most
cases).  It is then the responsibility of those calling for change to
CLEARLY show the need for that change, to document the failure of the
instruction, and to offer working alternatives.  I personally have only
been convinced that we can do better and that new instructional techniques
can be useful in so doing, but not to the point that I am willing to
seriously bad-mouth traditional styles, totally abandon some of the old
techniques, or jump on any particular band-wagon.  

A topic for another thread (perhaps)-- but in my mind, the effectiveness of
most instructional techniques--especially the older 'traditional' ones,
involves a large degree of student responsibility and seriousness.  Could
it be that for some (maybe even many) who don't learn, that it is at least
partly THEIR FAULT, and not entirely ours?

Rick