Re: [Phys-l] not our majors now!

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Monce, Michael N. wrote:

> I'm teaching E&M to a class of 8 majors.  I'm using Griffiths as  
> I've done for over many years, and actually think I'm doing a  
> better job in teaching the course than ever (practice makes  
> perfect).  I think the "disease" that seems to be infecting the  
> general student population has made its way into our majors.  The  
> students are not engaging the material; i.e. they are not putting  
> in the work to stay up with the course and often wait until the  
> last night to start the problem assignment.  They don't seem to  
> have a grasp of even basic concepts from the intro. course.  I gave  
> a pop quiz to confirm my suspicions which consisted of intro course  
> level problems and except for 2 students, the other 6 failed.  I've  
> talked to them about keeping up, how this is a challenging course  
> for majors, etc. etc. etc.  The worst of it is for the "6" their  
> problem sets are near perfect and closely resemble Griffiths'  
> solution manual, yet when I ask them basic question  in class, none  
> can come up with the answers.  I've told them that I can't stop  
> them from using such a manual, but it will do them no good on the  
> exams, and will probably contribute to their failure if they are  
> not truly trying to work on the material.  I've never expected this  
> from junior level physics majors.  GE students in an intro course,  
> yes, but not here.  I've taught this course probably 15 times and  
> this is the first instance that I've seen such a lack of effort on  
> the part of the students. Oh, by the way, the 2 who seem to be  
> keeping up are both foreign students, the "6" are American.
>
> Rant off.  Any ideas folks?

It would be easy to use Mike's "rant" as generic permission to  
indulge in some good old fashioned student bashing and I really DO  
try to avoid that, but I must say that this struck a very particular  
nerve with me.

I taught our upper division E&M sequence last winter and spring also  
using Griffiths, as inviting a text as I've ever used in any subject  
with his informal style, supremely clear writing, and his awesome  
ability to anticipate and comment specifically upon objections that  
"a careful reader" would be likely to have to his arguments.   
Although I have regularly taught other upper division courses in  
mechanics, optics, mathematical physics, nuclear, and plasma this was  
my first time teaching E&M and it was--BY FAR--the most disappointing  
upper division experience of my teaching career.

In order to encourage engaged reading of the text I have students  
submit "reading memos" in which they are to point specifically to  
things they encounter in their reading that they don't understand,  
that make a connection with something else they know, that they think  
is wrong, etc.  I tell them that I'm not interested in getting  
remarks like, "I didn't understand the derivation of ---," that when  
that happens they should reread the section, with pencil in hand,  
working along with the author until they get to the FIRST thing that  
they can't make sense of and then tell me what they're problem is  
with that specific thing.  I tell them that I am quite confident that  
if they do so, they will often find that writing about it will clear  
it up for them and then they can move on to the next thing.   And so on.

In the past I've always had a fair amount of success with this  
method.  A fair number of students REALLY get it and have told me how  
much they appreciate my emphasis on HOW to read and extract  
understanding from advanced physics texts.   But this class was very  
different.  I've never had a group of students that was SO resistant  
even to TRYING to take my advice.  Many thought I was just being  
completely unreasonable.  Reading memos were routinely filled with  
utterly superficial comments no matter how many times I pointed to  
insightful ones or things they SHOULD have been concerned by or found  
enlightening if they were reading carefully.  In class I got bogged  
down by general difficulties with introductory level things and the  
performance on exams was simply abysmal.

Because this was my first time teaching the E&M class, I did and  
still do write off at least some of the difficulties to my own novice  
status and the possibility that the vector calculus and the more  
abstract nature of the material render it more difficult for the  
students than other courses I have taught.  Still, the attitude of  
the students toward taking the reading memos and homework seriously  
and using them to prepare for exams was most uncommon and  
disappointing.  And, of course, Mike's tale tends to reinforce my  
sense that it wasn't JUST the material or my teaching.

In my dark moments I wonder if this isn't all a symptom of the very  
discouraging times we live in, the corruption of our democratic  
processes, and America's general decline as a force for morality  
among nations and as an engine of economic progress.  It seems to me  
that, even with the social upheaval of the sixties (or maybe BECAUSE  
of it), the future looked a LOT brighter back in the 60's and 70's  
when I was in college and it was a lot easier to believe that  
preparing for the future would pay off--or at least that it wouldn't  
all be for naught.

And on that depressing and politically inflammatory thought ...

John Mallinckrodt

Professor of Physics, Cal Poly Pomona
<http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm>

and

Lead Guitarist, Out-Laws of Physics
<http://outlawsofphysics.com>