Well, it seems that the argument has come to "jumping on a messenger"
because he is a ... and he is trashing ... and we need to see *real* data.
Amid all of this I am still wondering why it is okay to make
self-referential arguments (to a tiny fraction of previous output of
science/physics instruction) to support one's arguments, insist as a
consequence that all is well and others need "data" to 'prove' the
contrary. In this I am *not* saying that some particular method does or
does not work. (Someone else may have in this thread, but I did not.) I
am merely asking why and how we understand the situation, in which we find
ourselves, as we do.
I am still wondering why it is that it's okay to ignore the reports (data)
of 100's of published articles which illustrate the students notions
concerning scientific phenomena and how they do not change their
understanding as a result of traditional physics/science instruction.
There's plenty of people, physicists, who are responsible for the
collection and interpretation of this data. Some of it is even published
in AJP. Many of these have *real* physics degrees, Ph. D's, just like many
of you and me. Are they all deluded, dupes of the _philosophy_ of
educational research, if there is such a thing? Is it really all
dismissable because somebody is "p.o.'d" at a messenger or because the
messenger is a ... or he does such and such?
So, is it okay to say that everything is all right when the best part of
95% of the people who receive science instruction come away believing that
science is something they cannot understand and that's pretty much all.
In this discussion I have initiated nothing about method. Method is not
the point here. (It *might* be considered later, but for now it is
immaterial.) I'm just asking how it is okay to focus only on what supports
one's position and to ignore all that does not when what supports is a
distinct minority of the available data and the majority appears not not to
support the position. We generally don't do this in physics. I'm
wondering why it is okay to do it in physics education when we pride
ourselves on how well we and our predecessors have NOT done this in our
work in physics.
Looking at a 'different' side of the issue, one could ask are our "results"
really 'ok' for the reasons we have been hearing (we have enough
physicists, *we* learned well enough, we must have been doing *something*
ok for the last few centuries, so and so is really a such and such, we
haven't seen any *real* data, etc.) or could it be that the 'ok parts' are
actually 'ok' for *different* reasons? If we decided the latter, then we
might find ourselves in a position to consider our effect on the other
'parts' of our "product" (the bulk of the 99% who do not become physicists
or engineers) in a different light.
This is not a radical constructivist argument concerning the *nature* of
traditional instruction. Instead if anything, it is quite an empiricist
question. In fact what I am trying to point to is *not* about the nature
of traditional instruction with respect to its *methods*. Sure, I have
ideas of my own about what to do and some of you have seen some of my
thoughts on this list and maybe elsewhere, BUT I have not been talking *my
answers* here. Instead I have been talking *questions*; questions about
"our" results and questions about how "we" seem or can be seen to handle
these questions.
Furthermore, there has been nothing in this thread which is *uniquely
characterizable* as *only* coming from a radical constructivist point of
view. However, if you want to 'call somebody a name' and use the term
'constructivist', that's obviously something that is possible. (As for
being "PER constructivist" I'm *really* at a loss as to how to understand
what is intended here except as an accusatory name. I've never seen such a
construction before.)
In this discussion I *do not* claim to be representing any kind of
constructivism and there is nothing I've seen which corresponds to any
position of constructivism (either trivial or radical) in this discussion.
Nor do I claim to represent PER. The question is not the sole 'property'
of PER. One would be hard pressed to find a unique, solitary "philosophy"
among those who are interested in the learning of physics who are from the
physics community, as is clear from discussions on other lists and in the
literature. One would also be hard pressed to find a "_philosophy_ of
current educational research" if one really bothered to look for one.
Suppose I am a Christian, does this mean that everything I have said on
this thread is some kind of "Christian" view or program; that it cannot be
essentially independent of, or not uniquely, "a Christian view" ? ...or
that automatically *everything* I say or do is "Christian"? Is relativity
a "Jewish" theory? Are Newton's laws Christian(1) laws? (I was recently
sent a document which made these claims, so someone would say so, but would
most of the members of this list?)
Is it always the case that *what* someone points to can always be
associated with a label (religious, philosophical, professional, gender,
etc.) applied to that *person* and, thus, dismissed? It is a well known
human behavior to give something a name to identify and isolate it so that
it can be ignored. Is this a maneuver that we think is worthy of our
profession in which we pride ourselves in being objective? (I know it
happens, but is letting such things pass *really* worthy of *our*
profession?) I realize that things are not always simple, but are we
really this far apart?
I'm not going to address everything that has been claimed about me or what
I've said. If I agreed with all the claims about me and what I have said
in recent notes, I wouldn't have written what I have. The archives of both
lists are available and the readers are urged to draw thoughtful
conclusions for themselves. All I ask is that the reader look at what *I*
wrote. Credit or blame for what *other* people have written should go to
*them.*
Is this how we address data that is offered and ideas that are presented,
just call 'the messenger' names, claim that 'the messenger' is trashing
everything, only look for confirming evidence and say that data to the
contrary does not even exist?
Dewey
(1) Actually Newton's religious views might more correctly be characterized
as Unitarian. This may make a difference to some, but not to the point
being argued in the paragraph.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and
are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external
world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld,
1938
"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++