Re: #6: WOMEN'S WAYS OF KNOWING (final excerpt!)

["Dewey Dykstra, Jr." <dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu>]

Mark,

> Dewey,
>
> 	To quote an old spiritual "...all of God's children have a place
> in the choir, some sing low and some sing higher....."  It seems to me
> that you are arguing that we should sacrifice the brightest 5% in favor of
> the other 95%.

On the contrary, just because this is the way we 'get' physics majors now
does not mean that it is the only way.  I don't see _any_ sacrifice at all.
In fact we might have even more and better to choose from.  Recall at the
end of my last note I said:

"...we are likely end up with more really thoughtful and intellectually
sharp candidates wanting to be physics majors than we ever imagined and who
are much better in a position to take advantage of the professional
training we have to offer..."

> I don't see that as my obligation as an educator.

Me, either!  Wouldn't it be better to find a way not to do what we do to
the 95% while _still_ getting the physics majors we desire?  Wouldn't it be
better if we found a way that _also_ resulted in physics major candidates
who were intellectually and philosophically ready to do physics at the same
time?  I think we can.

> I feel obliged to do my best to help 100% of the student population.

The defense of elitism and attention to the 5% given what we do to the
other 95% make it hard for me to understand what you mean here.

> 	For better or for worse each of my students comes to me with
> unique capabilities and potential.  I can do my best to help that student
> make the most of his or her capabilities and potential.  If the student is
> willing to use his or her capabilities and potential to their fullest, we
> can go a long way.  However, no matter how hard we both work some students
> will learn more than others and some will succeed better than others in
> what they attempt.  The worst thing that I could try to do as a teacher is
> to make them all equal, because I could do that only by not trying as hard
> with the more capable than I try with the less capable.  In the long run
> we all lose from that strategy.

I agree.  But, I have not been arguing for equality or that students are
identical or that they should be equal or identical in performance when
they exit school.  But I will say that those who choose not to be science
majors appear to be a lot more capable of making reasonable sense of the
physical world than they are generally give credit for.  (For just one of
many examples, an article published by Thornton containing data from here
at Boise State illustrates that it is possible for 'arts & letters',
elementary ed, and phys ed majors to generate a qualitative understanding
of motion and to read and translate between graphs of motion in a way
equivalent or better than calculus-based physics students do in typical
courses of that level.}  In so doing it appears that they begin to see
themselves in a different light.  Sure, different students end up at
different "qualities" of refinement of their ideas, but way more who really
participate in the process seem to have a better view of themselves, their
capabilities and their relationship to knowledge of the physical world.

It's not "proof" but I have students, elementary ed majors, who ask if
there are any other courses like this because they "didn't know the liked
science," and at least one elementary ed major who switched and finished
with a major in Bio and a minor in Chem.  (I wish she had not switched
majors, but focused on science teaching, but it is her life.)  In the last
couple of years there have been a few physics majors who have gotten
involved in the course.  I have had two physics majors (one an honors
student) who for their own reasons have taken the course and suggested
without soliciation that they think that all physics majors should take it.
And, finally a physics major in the secondary ed option (planning to be a
HS teacher) who after being a participant/observer in the course for a
semester who has suggested that he thinks maybe this is how physics
instruction ought to start.

It still seems to me that as long as we continue with a focus on vocational
training and filtering from the earliest opportunities both physics and
sports will continue to get the same results.  In sports we get a few
superstars and the masses are couch potato 'athletes', consumers of the
output of professional sports.  In physics we get a few superstars and the
rest of the population are couch potato 'scientists', who only choose to
watch 'free' science programs on tv when there's not a good movie on an
extra cost channel.  We can do better than this.  We must do better than
this.  But, it is extremely unlikely as long as we continue not to look
beyond the attitudes and belief systems which determine and justify the
practice of science teaching as-it-is.

I suspect there's not a lot of others commenting on this thread or any
other because of the season and the AAPT meeting.  I hope they all enjoy
the meeting.  I'm headed for a short working visit to Mexico City on
Wednesday.

Dewey




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr.                   Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics                    Dept:  (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418        Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University                  dykstrad@bsumail.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.
"Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct
of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence."
--E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958.
"Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe."  --K. Amdahl in
There Are No Electrons, 1991.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++