Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

I will put the case more directly.

Physics is an aspect of science.
The scientific approach is to subject a claim to experimental verification.
The usual method to elicit independent verification is by making a protocol
 known - to publish it in fact.

The scientific question under present review is physics teaching,
and how to improve physics teaching.

If it is found that having students develop their own understanding by
group or individual exploratory methods provides better results
than chalk and talk of the usual kind,  (better results however sensibly,
objectively defined) - then physics teaching would  sensibly adopt such
 techniques.

Persons who do NOT think this way  might profitably review their
understanding of the way scientific research makes headway?

Or to put it more directly: if you, Fernanda, do not think this way -
that this is the way that science should be conducted, why not?

Hint: if student performance is measured by student polls of teacher
performance, rather than measures of physics insight, then you would
stay with chalk and talk, it seems.

Brian Whatcott      Altus OK

At 08:29 AM 5/9/2004, you wrote:
> I'm glad no other person thinks that way, because there would be no
> scientific ingenuity.  People ought to try new methods, fail or succeed...
> and what if something works?  Maybe one of us should take the lead at
> publishing and not wait around for others to get there first.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 12:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Feynman (was pedagogy)
>
>
> > Perhaps, Fernanda,  it is better to say,
> >
> > "Thank goodness that Thomas Edison had the perspicacity to subscribe
> > to Scientific American, so that when his research staff read the
> > experimental finding of Swann's,  (who used a carbon filament to make
> >   a short-lived incandescent lamp), they were able to cease their
> > mindless testing of plausible materials in favor of a published
> > improvement?"
> >
> > Brian Whatcott
> >
> >
> > At 10:08 PM 5/8/2004, Fernanda Foertter [Advanced Physics Forums] wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > /snip/
> >
> > > > >John M. Clement
> > > > >Houston, TX


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!