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] Student engagement



This is the hubris typically displayed by enthusiasts from any new or rediscovered discipline - the rest of us don't accept their approach because we are stuck in the old paradigm. Unfortunately this is the exact same argument used by proponents of acupuncture, Laetrile cures, underwater birthing, chiropractry, etc. Just because something is new is no reason, per se, to jump on the bandwagon. For most of us on this list, the traditional approach (lecture) got us to where we are - so it obviously works - despite any statistically based "evidence" to the contrary.

In reference to overeducation, I have to look back at my own life. I grew up speaking both French and English at home. However, the only Catholic school in my predominantly Polish neighborhood was staffed by Polish nuns, hence I had to learn Polish as well. As I have stated previously on this list, we had no science instruction of any kind in my elementary school - the nuns of that particular order had no training in it. Since elementary school, I have never once used my knowledge of Polish, but I did learn basic physics late in high school and enjoyed it enough to pursue it as a career. Not having experienced the fruits of cognitive science research in elementary school was no hindrance whatsoever to learning physics later in life. What did help me was aptitude. Mathematics was simply obvious to me - and physics came easily because of a combination of aptitude and a willingness to struggle through the subtleties of the concepts. On the other hand, biology was a constant struggle and I never did learn it - in fact I'm not to this day sure exactly what that discipline is except when it entails use of physics and chemistry. Forcing me to take two years of biology in high school and 8 years of Polish in grammar school was a complete waste of my time - overeducation.

To me, grammar school, and to some degree high school, is a place to gain skills - like reading, writing, music, mathematics - that can be used later when the mind is ready to "think". I see little benefit from young students performing "discovery labs" or using other techniques promoted by PER. In fact I think that any science education in elementary school is a complete waste (overeducation). The basic skills are far more important and are useful to almost everyone, regardless of whether they pursue a college education later in life or are part of that minority that pursue science as a career. I look to Louis deBroglie, the creator of wave mechanics, as a model. His basic training was in the humanities (his degree was in history) - yet he was able to make the transition to physics as his interests changed because he had the capacity to think. The exact subject matter in his early education was irrelevant.

Bob at PC


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:28 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Student engagement


We are at the same point medicine was when it changed from physicians
in
stained tweed coats to sanitized gowns with antiseptic. Medicine
including
psychology is a science which most resembles education. So the analogy
is
quite apt. We have both cognitive science research and education
research
in abundance to draw on. And the education practitioners need to be
trained
in the scientific knowledge applicable to their specialty. We have
people
resisting the new ideas because they do not fit into their paradigms,
just
as they did in medicine. Actually all scientific revolutions have
this.