Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] God as an explanation (WAS: Darwinism underattack?andthephysicsclassroom)



At 08:58 -0500 8/2/08, Jack Uretsky wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.
I remain sceptical.
It's all about communication. A communication is never complete
until the recipient has repeated the communication ("Roger, bogey 10
O'clock high").
My own frustration is with the student who is unable to repeat any
part of yesterday's lecture. Once, in a calculus class I spent a week
trying to teach induction - the proposition is true for n=1, assume true
for n and show that truth for n+1 is thereby implied. The attempt was a
total failure, as I learned from asking the students to apply the process
to some simple cases.
I liken teaching to experimental physics. The experimenter tests
a theory by trying to prove it wrong. We need to test our students by
letting them show that they did not learn what we were trying to teach.
I no longer try to teach induction to first year students in local
colleges. Maybe the reequisite prefrontal cortex ain't there yet.

I agree with your assessment. I never knew right away if the lesson took. It was repeated often and I got some fragmented feedback on exams and other written work, and, as I mentioned, some long-term feedback (which i consider to be the most reliable measure). These concepts are very difficult to get into the students' heads. First, they are rather abstract, and a lot of students just aren't ready for them (I probably wasn't in HS, either--my realization of these concepts didn't come until much later), and second, because they have mostly had just the opposite concept of science hammered into them by all of their earlier teachers (with a few exceptions, fortunately). But I think they are important enough that they must be out there for the students to see, since, for many of them, mine will be their last science course, and they will take their understanding of science, for better or worse, with them to the rest of their lives.

If they get it wrong, we are the losers, along with the rest of civilization. The ignorance of the nature of science among our political leaders (not just the current ones, although they are exemplars of it) has had significant effects on the health of science in this country. The only way I can see to correct that is to make sure that the population in general, not just those who end up as scientists, understand the nature of science, even if they don't understand science itself.

Hugh
--

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

So called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko tree huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it!!
Chip Giller, founder of Grist.org