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: Feynman (was pedagogy)



so you'll continue doing it your way until something is published?

thank goodness Thomas Edison didn't think that his candles we're enough...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)


Thank Goodness for John Clements, who reminds us time and again,
that no matter how plausible & attractive the teaching initiatives -
(e.g. to demonstrate problem solving cold - complete with warts) -
if there is no experimental improvement shown, then there is no
scientific basis for a method.

Brian Whatcott


At 05:08 PM 5/8/2004, John Clements, you wrote:
In all of this discussion there has been no firm evidence presented
that any of these methods actually improve problem solving.
In the case of Feynman I think we should remember that he said
that his lectures were a failure in
that they did not improve student understanding of physics.

As far as problem solving goes there is evidence that having
students in groups solve rich context problems rather than the
usual back of the chapter problems actually improve problem
solving ability. This is the pedagogy designed by the Hellers.
Rather than having the professor or TA solve the
problems, why not have the students do it and question each
other about what they did to solve them (whiteboarding).
Their material is actually free over the web. Unfortunately
the method of having the instructor work the examples really
involves little engagement on the part of the students, but
when the students must present the problems, and question
other students the engagement is increased substantially.

As to whether the thinking aloud is beneficial, remember that
even when you think aloud, the students often do not really
understand what you are saying. The very idea that you can
transmit understanding is extremely
suspect. The students must build it themselves.

Then there is the use of books. If you want the students
to read the book, just do what Mazur does and give a brief
reading quiz on a regualar basis.
OTOH having students read the books after the exploration
may be even more beneficial as this follows a learning cycle
approach of exploration, concept development, application.
This approach is embodied in the research based
curricula put out by the U. Mass Amherst (UMPERG) group
of Leonard et al.
the UMPERG group's material apparently can produce the
ability of students to solve problems in an expert like fashion.

From what I can see most books are actually far from the
optimal solution to having students become expert problem
solvers because the material is generally presented in the
wrong order with definitions first. The learning
cycle approach has been tested in reading material and has
been found to promote better understanding of material.

Of course most of the existing research has been done on
introductory and HS courses, but eventually it will extend
to higher level topics. So far the research shows that the
same types of problems found in intro material also
happen in more advanced topics, and similar solutions also
work there.

As to evidence in favor of texts, Priscilla Laws gets superior
results on the FCI, and she commented that the students
seldom open the textbook.
There is also the published evidence that shows higher
college physics grades when HS physics courses do not
use a textbook.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!