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]

Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)



From: Rick Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>

Here's the question in my mind. First, I have no doubt that some of the
newer methodologies in teaching physics are superior for certain clientele
and for certain course/educational goals. Certainly for prospective
teachers and certainly for some intellectual/philosophical course goals such
as one might find in a General Education course. I can also argue that
pedagogy that yields high FCI gains (or the like) are not so important for
other courses with different goals, a 'Science and Society' type of course
for example. But what about for Physics and other science/engineering
majors?

Why pretend that there is different physics for different people? I have come to realize that this is unnecessary. Only when we expose ALL of our students to the same ideas will we have them speaking the same language. Maybe this isn't important though. Physics for engineers...physics for scientists...physics for poets...physics for high school teachers...physics for consumers...physics for dog catchers...gimme a break.

With that group the question revolves around the fact that 'standard
instruction' (whatever that is) has been producing some pretty good
scientists and engineers. While some people offer that this is 'in spite
of' the instruction, I will dismiss that as too demeaning to generations of

Failure to admit there is a problem is symptomatic of the whole ordeal. I am quite comforted that Arnold Arons and I discussed this very issue at a meeting at Davidson College (one year before he passed away) and we were in complete agreement with each other.

physics instructors. _Something_ in this style of instruction prepares
students to be professional scientists and engineers--let's not try to
analyze it any farther.

I contend that no matter what instruction style one uses, there will always be students who succeed and there will always be students who fail. The idea is to maximize the possibility of succeeding for EVERYONE, not just those who are predestined to succeed. THAT, my friends, is what teaching is all about.

Now apply the new techniques in a systematic way to the full undergraduate
(maybe even the graduate) curriculum of science and engineering majors. Do

Usually (but certainly not always) by the time a students hits grad school, he or she has figured out the "how to think" thing and can manage quite well. I'm more concerned with the undergrad situation.

we get better scientists and engineers in the end? Will the quality be the
same? Might it be worse? My only real concern here is that we rush
headlong into reform (as has often been done in the educational community

...inertia...

To be sure, a full reform curriculum might do wonders, but I'd like to see
that happen in a few test programs before diving in with both feet and
completely abandoning a system that HAS worked.

...chicken and egg...

I'm signing off this list. I'm very depressed and don't see any improvement in sight. Farewell.


Cheers,
Joe Heafner - Instructional Astronomy and Physics
CVAC Home Page <http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/cvac.html>
My Book <http://www.willbell.com/new/fundephcomp.htm>
My Home Page <http://users.vnet.net/heafnerj/>