I replied privately to the request from Anne Duffy at Worth Publishers for
input on Interactive Physics, but then thought (especially given the low
volume on this channel at the moment) that this might stimulate some
interesting discussion (and/or flames directed my way.) So here is the
text of my response:
----------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Duffy,
I have used Interactive Physics (IP) extensively through all
versions since it was first released in 1988 (89?) and written two
substantial reviews for "Computers in Physics." I have used IP
for in-class demos and as backdrop for in-class discussions. I
have also developed a set of IP modules and worksheets on Newton's
Laws to help guide some out-of-class use by students and have
conducted a modest study of the effectiveness of this use compared
with a, perhaps, more traditional "writing to learn" approach.
I'll match my enthusiasm for IP's usefulness in exploring
moderately complex models and developing genuine physical insight
with anyone.
Having disclosed my credentials and my personal biases allow me
now to offer some sober reflections:
For me, personally--and for most other professional physicists who
have spent any time with IP--it has provided endless miniresearch
opportunities and has often provided me with enormous insight.
However, I remain to be convinced that IP can be used productively
outside of class--even in guided situations--by more than a few
introductory students. Despite the plethora of supplementary
materials produced either as generic intro course supplements or
in support of specific texts, I know of no published study that
would support the hypothesis that any are effective.
I am willing to entertain the notion that this is because of the
poor quality of so many of these materials. With a few exceptions
(which I won't name so that everybody can think I mean them), I
find these materials variously to display poor design, poor
choices of parameters, poor debugging, and poor proofing.
Furthermore, the physical situations are generally just too simple
and/or too artificial (often because they are based on textbook
problems which are at least as execrable) to maintain any
interest. Nevertheless, I suspect the real problem may be more
intrinsic.
I *do* believe--but also have no real evidence to support my
belief--that the use of IP in class (as a "dynamic chalkboard")
and in lab (as a supplement to real experiments) *is* effective
and I have devoted most of my attention to developing materials in
support of the first of these uses.
You can take a look at some examples of my use of IP at
John Mallinckrodt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A. John Mallinckrodt http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~ajm
Professor of Physics mailto:ajmallinckro@csupomona.edu
Physics Department voice:909-869-4054
Cal Poly Pomona fax:909-869-5090
Pomona, CA 91768-4031 office:Building 8, Room 223