Re: a history debate...ref found

["John M. Clement" <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

The last AJP PER supplement had an article that actually tested the idea of
using the historical approach.  Students came out with much stronger
conceptual understanding of optics, than similar students taught in a
conventional course.  The historical approach used an active engagement
format, so it is not clear if a non historical active engagement approach
would be equivalent or better.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators
> [mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu]On Behalf Of Bob & Kathie Yeend
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 9:35 AM
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject: Re: a history debate...ref found
>
>
> I think this is missing Kuhn't point. As I remember his remarks, he didn't
> consider an historical approach a good one for introducing and teaching
> physics concepts. Students would be exposed to too many wrong turns along
> the way. But I don't think he opposed the idea of scientists learning
> accurate history, in fact his earlier work on the Copernican Revolution is
> an excellent piece of science history.
>
>  --
> Bob and Kathie Yeend <ryeend@earthlink.net>
>
>
> ----------
> > From: "Dewey Dykstra, Jr." <dykstrad@EMAIL.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> > To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> > Subject: a history debate...ref found
> > Date: Fri, Feb 2, 2001, 4:02 PM
>
> > > The idea that it is not desirable for future scientists to be taught
> > > accurate history, to which some of the above remarks are directed, was
> > > expressed by Thomas Kuhn in his STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS