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: Less is less




I've got to get my two cents in here, too.

First, there is a significant difference between the philosophy
that college
instructors should operate under and that which K-12 instructors
should work
from. In the K-12 arena we are not trying to make little scientists
(although many teaches at the high school level seem to be trying
to do just
that). We are trying to produce students who "know stuff" (whatever that
really means) and are interested in learning some more. Colleges
are trying
to make the scientists (at least in the courses for the majors).


Basically Steve's post is excellent, but I would propose that college is
often very similar to HS. The majority of college students who take physics
are not going to be practicing physicists. These students are ill served by
a course which is aimed at creating physicists. Richard Hake has already
eloquently argued this point in some of his posts.

Conversely in HS we are actually trying to make scientists. The point of
inquiry is that students learn to think like scientists, or increase their
capability to do scientific reasoning. I would also submit that the same
types of things that work to increase understanding in HS students are
equally effective with college students. Yes, we are not trying to make
"professional scientists".

Are we really trying in HS to help students "know stuff". Stuff that is
memorized fades in 2 weeks, but connected knowledge and procedural knowledge
tend to be permanent.

The major difference between HS and college is that it is possible to have a
college class composed of students who are willingly taking physics, and who
are 80% formal operational thinkers. However other physics classes will
resemble HS classes, but with a larger fraction of formal operational
thinkers than in HS. This difference depends heavily on the school, the
course, and other factors. I suspect in community colleges and in less than
Ivy League institutions that it is possible to have a class that is
extremely similar to those in HS, and even to have a class with no formal
operational thinkers.

For all of these students less concepts per minute can add up to more
understanding, but only if active engagement techniques are properly
utilized. Just slowing down a class without using research based techniques
will probably just cover less material and result in no significantly better
understanding. On the other hand, it may be impossible to properly use
research based techniques if you seriously try to cover the state mandated
HS curriculum. In other words, less traditional instruction really is less.
But, so little is retained from traditional instruction that it is hard to
tell the difference.

My own very limited experience with foreign students is that they do not
come into physics classes any better prepared in physics. However, they do
come in with better math preparation, which makes progress more likely.

That analogy seemed especially appropriate to me with the Georgia chemistry
and physics curriculum staring me in the face. The content that I am
required to cover is absurd if I am to expect the majority of the students
siting in front of me to truly master it. And y master mean internalize
the
concepts so the content becomes of some use outside of the four walls of my
classroom.

Chemistry is a very interesting case of how the curriculum writers do not
have a clue. There is evidence that factor label analysis is not as well
understood as other techniques, yet it is traditionally taught in HS chem.
It is a technique which is very useful when students have already acquired
proportional reasoning, and there is evidence that it is detrimental when
they have not. Since over 75% of HS chem students have not acquired
proportional reasoning, there is a gross mismatch here. In addition a large
fraction of HS students come out of chem courses with gross misconceptions
about molecules. For example many still believe that molecules are in
materials sort of like raisins in a rice pudding. Surely the chem.
curriculum is wasted when students have such misconceptions.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX