[Phys-L] Re: First Day Activities or Demos

[jbellina at SAINTMARYS.EDU (jbellina)]

Ok John, how come you keep throwing down the gauntlet?

On Aug 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, John Denker wrote:

> jbellina wrote:
>
> > Before we talk about content, I'd like to suggest the process ....
>
> Yes, that's a good thing to talk about.
Why do you feel the need to approve of my statement.  Its stands well
enough on its own.
> > I don't like the faith in physics examples because it begins a pattern
> > of the teacher knows and students have to find out, rather than we all
> > work together to make sense of our experience.  The former is a
> > teacher
> > centered activity, and latter is a student centered activity.
>
> Yes, respected teachers have been advocating that sort of
> approach for 2400+ years.
> We all agree that you can't pour
> knowledge into a kid the way you pour coffee into a cup.

nice words, but when push comes to shove, I don't think they do...I'm
not sure about you.
> As a rule, kids *like* to figure stuff out.
>
> That all sounds great, like motherhood and apple pie and
> patriotism ... but there can also be too much of a good thing.


> The hard cold fact is that I know stuff the customers are not
> *ever* going to figure out ... so I might as well tell them.

THEY ARE NOT CUSTOMERS, they are students who may have to be sold on
the value of what we do, but they are LEARNERS.
If you tell them will they know any more than if you don't,  If a child
cannot substract, cannot remember how to do it, does it make sense to
tell them how to subtract...perhaps you feel better, but so what.
> Let's be clear:  Both extremes are bad.  Coffee-pouring is bad,
> and the blind leading the blind is bad.  Wisdom and practicality
> lie in the middle.

No one ever said anything about the blind leading the blind.  I feel
like I am dealing with someone in an argument over intelligent
design...don't create straw men and then happily knock them down.
> Yes, teaching should be very largely student-centric.  You shouldn't
> do the demo because *you* like it;  you do it because the customers
> like it and learn from it.  OTOH you don't sit around like a potted
> plant waiting for some student to suggest tying a bowling ball
> to the ceiling.  The teacher must literally start the ball rolling
> (or in this case, swinging).

Why the need for the adjective "largely"  if it isn't focussed on the
student what good is it.  Few would toss a bunch of stuff on the table
and say "ok kids play".  If you recall any of my comments in the past,
the issue is GUIDED inquiry, where the mentor creates a situation in
which the student is enabled to learn for themselves in an efficient
manner.
> The process may be student-oriented and student-centric, but it
> is still teacher-led.
>
> I've read some of the standard references on "inquiry" and they
> give me the heebie-jeebies, because they grossly understate the
> amount of guidance that the teacher must provide in order to
> make "inquiry" work.  Sometimes the guiding hand is obvious;
> sometimes it is more subtle ... but you cannot do without it,
> especially early in the year.
You can't do without it EVER...look at professional scientists, they
all work with guidance from peers, no one works in isolation.
> (Of course it is a moving target;  the sort of guidance required
> for students starting HS physics class is different from the sort
> of guidance required for students finishing their PhD research.)

Au contraire, the sort of guidance required for grad students is the
same as that needed for HS students or 1st grade students.  The guide
must be aware of the audience and communicate in a grade appropriate
way about grade appropriate content.
> ==========
>
> Now for some more tactical remarks: I really like the swinging ball
> demo, because it works on a number of levels:
>  -- Physics is about making predictions.
>  -- In particular, physics allows you to predict things that
>   might have been a bit hard to predict otherwise.
>  -- Conservation laws are a big part of physics.
>  -- In particular, energy is conserved.
>  -- Energy is primary and fundamental.  You don't need to know
>   anything about work or force or acceleration or vectors to
>   know what energy is, and to know that it is conserved.

Frankly, I think this is way too much too soon...it's fine for the
initiated like you or I, but not for the uninitiated.  That's one of
the problems, we fail to see it as they see it, and hence miss the
opportunity to engage.

A friend once said "Men are like male dogs, they have to mark every
fire hydrant they see."

cheers,

joe


Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556