(a) object to cross-posting as a way to tunnel through
intra-disciplinary barriers, or
(b) have zero or less interest in "The bulb-with-one-wire task,"
(c) have any other reason for trashing this post.
In his PhysLnrR post of 21 Feb 2005 19:36:00-0800 of the above title
Tim Erickson wrote:
"I know I enjoy the sport [testing hapless subjects on the
one-wire-plus-battery-plus-light-bulb task] as well as the next guy .
. . . but I was just struck by the idea that the bulb task is, in
fact, so tricky it may not tell us what we think it does."
I agree that it's probably a poor test for K-8 or even K-12 students
who have not actually taken a bulb apart to see how it works.
However, I think MIT graduates - the future elite of U.S.
engineering/technology - should be able to figure out how to make the
connections from their knowledge or observations that:
1. most metals DO conduct electricity,
2. most glasses DO NOT conduct electricity,
3. there are two metallic contacts on the light bulb which are not in
EXTERNAL electrical contact,
4. current must flow into the filament and then out of the filament
that can easily be seen though the glass,
5. ergo, why not try connecting the battery so its positive pole is
connected to one of the metallic contacts, and its negative pole is
connected to the other metallic contact?
I haven't been near a K-8 classroom in about a century, but I think
the one-wire-plus-battery-plus-light-bulb task would make a great
Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Lab for K-8 students. See e.g.,
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> and Hake (1992).
Unfortunately SDI Labs are almost unknown to both PER's and physics
teachers, one reason being that most of them confuse the Platonic
Method illustrated in the Meno with the Socratic Method of the
historical Socrates as researched by Gregory Vlastos [see e.g., "Re:
Socratic Method Misunderstood" [Hake (2004)].
For the real Socratic Method see Hake (2002a,b,c).
My thanks to Jim Kernohan whose Ericksonian email to me stimulating
the above thoughts.
"I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by
understanding; they learn by some other way - by rote, or something.
Their knowledge is so fragile! ...So this kind of fragility is, in
fact, fairly common, even with more learned people."
Richard Feynman in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" pp. 36-37.
Hake, R.R. 2004. "Re: Socratic Method Misunderstood," PhysLrnR post
of 7 Nov 2004 15:49:04-0800; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=physlrnr&P=R887&I=-3&X=3C4E60212136212883&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net>.
The encyclopedic URL indicates that PhysLrnR is one of the few
discussion lists that denies archive access to non-subscribers.
However, it takes only a few minutes to subscribe by following the
simple directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" where "/" means "click on." If
you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!