Re: [Phys-l] the twistorical approach

["John M Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

But there is evidence that when the historical approach is used, the 
students can gain a higher level of understanding.  There was a paper 
in AJP where a class in Australia did this.  As I recall the subject 
was optics.  It is very clear that the standard presentation does not 
work extremely well, and that there are other research based methods 
that work much better.  There are few papers on the efficacy of a 
historical approach, but the one mentioned is significant.

Again, before coming to a conclusion it is wise to read the relevant 
research.

John M. Clement



 John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:
> One sometimes hears "the historical approach" suggested as a way to
> motivate and to organize an intro-level physics course.  It just 
> cracks
> me up.
>
> In my experience, the folks who make that claim can do so with a 
> straight
> face only because they are so ignorant of the real history that they 
> don't
> realize how badly they are twisting the facts.
>
> An intro-level physics class should keep things simple and straight-
> forward.  Real history is neither simple nor straightforward.  In 
> intro
> classes we should use the best available evidence, which is rarely 
> the
> same as the most ancient evidence.
>
> As for the rest of us -- those who do not pretend to invoke history 
> --
> I see no reason why we should be required to know much about 
> history.
> I certaintly don't know much about it.
>
> Evidently a lot of other people don't know much about it, either. 
> During
> the last week (and on earlier occasions) quite a number of people 
> have
> argued that F "causes" ma, and until now nobody has commented on how 
> that
> idea collides against the history of physics.
>
> You don't need to know much to see how badly twisted the "history" 
> is in
> typical physics texts.
>
> If you want to study the history of science, that's commendable, but 
> bear
> in mind that it is an advanced, complicated, and difficult topic ... 
> not
> to be confused with intro physics.