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

[jbellina at SAINTMARYS.EDU (jbellina)]

Sorry about the outburst...sometimes things get under my skin.

I wonder about the oft spoken claim on this list that we learned from
lectures.  Have any of us really teased out what we did when we
listened to lectures.  What else did we do, when and how did the
learning occur.  I'm not thinking so much in terms of upper division
courses where we were already part of the culture, but rather of
beginning courses, and for each of us the beginning might be in a
different place.

Just a question.

I would also like to dispose of the concept of discovery in the way you
used it, and I think John hinted at it, that is working on something
with no guidance.  There is always guidance, if for no other reason
that we have ideas in our heads which guide the choices we make.  It
may be a case the blind leading the blind as John suggested, but it
still is guidance.  In that sense all inquiry is guided, its just that
some guidance is better than others.  So the best teacher is the best
guide.

joe

On Aug 10, 2005, at 2:25 PM, R. McDermott wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbellina" <jbellina@SAINTMARYS.EDU>
> To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: First Day Activities or Demos
>
>
> > Ok John, how come you keep throwing down the gauntlet?
> >
> > On Aug 10, 2005, at 10:57 AM, John Denker wrote:
> >
> > > jbellina wrote:
>
> Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's play nicely! ;-)
>
> I suspect we can agree that no one learns anything unless s/he is
> engaged
> with it intellectually (thinking about it, wondering about how it
> "fits"
> with past experiences, explores how it might apply to other things,
> etc)?  I
> suspect we also agree that the student will not do this unless s/he is
> interested enough to take the time and energy to DO these things?  Can
> we
> also agree that SOME people can be mostly just "spoken to" and still
> learn
> (isn't that true for many/most of US)?  I'm pretty sure we all agree
> that if
> kids are enthusiastically involved asking questions, experimenting, and
> discovering, then they are likely to learn?
>
> Ok, assuming the answers to the foregoing are yes, yes, yes, and yes, I
> think there are two issues being raised:
> Is "inquiry" practical as the ONLY process going on in the classroom?
> Is "telling them" never necessary nor effective?
>
> Inquiry takes a lot of time.  I can't do it anywhere near exclusively
> and
> finish my curriculum.  Otoh, if I simply talk at them, most are
> unlikely to
> become interested enough to interact with the material (although some
> WILL).
> I get extremely nervous when someone acts as if they have found the
> Holy
> Grail of teaching, because I don't believe that there is any one
> approach
> that is superior for every student.  Inquiry and group work would have
> driven me around the bend as a physics student, but I was INTERESTED in
> science, so it really didn't matter HOW I was taught!  Most students
> are not
> budding physicists, however, so we have to cause them to BECOME
> interested.
> Inquiry is a way to DO that.  Socratic questioning is a way to do that.
> Collection and evaluation of data is a way to do that.  And, yes,
> relating
> an interesting "story" is ALSO a way to do that (which is a dressed-up
> way
> to "tell them" what you want them to know).
>
> As John points out, however, there are limits.  They can't be left to
> "discover" all of physics.  I think that's self-evident since it took
> brilliant minds hundreds of years to do!  Also, in any group of ten
> people
> there may be two real leaders, two anchors (dead weight), and six
> worker
> bees of various degrees of efficiency.  Simply turning them loose isn't
> likely to be especially productive.
>
> As I see it, then, we have to strike a balance between:
>
> 1. "Telling them" which has the virtue of time efficiency, but which
> only
> works well for some (pure lecture)
> 2. Letting them "discover" things, which has the virtue of doing a
> better
> job of generating interest and interaction, but greatly limits the
> breadth
> of learning (potentially, with respect to someone who CAN learn from
> lecture).
>
> The extremes of these two approaches requires the LEAST from the
> instructor.
> On the one hand, s/he simply has to know the material well, and on the
> other, lets the kids do all the work.  The hard job is to BLEND these
> two
> approaches without SEEMING to!  It LOOKS like the kids are doing most
> of the
> work, but the instructor is subtly directing through the questioning
> and
> choice of activities.  The "lecture" becomes "discussion", and the
> whole
> process becomes a diologue where knowledge is built up from first
> principles.  Getting everyone (or most everyone) interested and
> interacting
> is VERY difficult to achieve, and doing so requires more than one
> technique - imo, for whatever that may be worth ;-)
Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556