| 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] |
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 stru
ggle 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.
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l