Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 10:32 PM 3/10/98 -0500, Donald E. Simanek wrote:
I do think (from my experience) that the student's experience in
constructing the graph greatly increases the likelihood that the student
will intelligently interpret such graphs.
This is the logical connection that my experience does not back up. The
two are certainly correlated, in that better students can do both, and
lesser students can do neither. However, I do not understand how
increasing a student's skill of graph construction increases graph
interpretation. To me, it's like claiming that learning how to change
the oil is a great way to become a good driver. The two are probably
correlated, but there is no essential connection. That's the point I'm
trying to make about graphing. Let's not be misled by the correlation
into thinking that we'll make better drivers by teaching everyone to
change the oil.
As Jerome E. wrote,
The difficulty is with these log graphs that students can usually only
do it by rote. Very few have the slightest clue of what things like the
slope mean.
Maybe our students have been different over the years, but I doubt it.
Another issue to keep in mind is that what worked for US, in OUR own
learning, won't necessarily work for our students. In terms of learning
styles, we physics instructors who have made it through all the filters
are the exception, not the majority.