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] |
I suspect that the issue is how much we can teach these students in
My question is, I believe, very relevant. The PER studies are being used to
strongly suggest that we entirely change the way physics is taught. The new
techniques and pedagogy seem to produce better performance on certain
assessment tools, such as the FCI and FCME. However, a point I made years
ago is that we seem to have produced a reasonably good crop of scientists
and engineers throughout the last century. So what is the educational goal
here? Get good scores on a handful of conceptual tests or produce the best
educated scientists, engineers, and others? These MAY go together, but that
is my question. What evidence is there that active engagement courses with
whatever gains (and limitations) they may have, produces better graduates
than the current techniques and pedagogy? I have this nagging fear that
there is something about the traditional educational approach that may be
really important (but unrecognized) in the process of training students. We
might be fixing one problem (poor conceptual understanding in introductory
courses) for something else. I hardly see why Brian should be sorrowed or
piqued, but it is right to be so. ;-)