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] Physics First Revisited



"I submit, in fact, that there is no credible evidence that effective
teaching is more or less than an art form."

Well if it isn't more, and it isn't less, then it must be "only" an art
form. Essentially I would interpret this as saying that teaching is not a
science, which is true the way it is conventionally practiced. Whether or
not it is effective is another matter.

The evidence of the science that should be used in teaching is in the
journals such as JRST. Anyone who wishes to be expert in a field needs to
read the journals in the field and JRST is one of the most important
journals (Journal of Research in Science Teaching). It is neither a
political nor a religious journal, so referring to my convictions as
religious or political is completely out of line. They were formed by
reading such journals, and then by observing some of the effects in my
classes.

All journal articles including physics articles are trying to convince the
reader of their point of view. One would not call articles in Phys Rev
political or religious, but they are trying to convince the reader of
something.

"Definitions of invective on the Web:
vituperation: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure
or bitter deep-seated ill will"

I don't think that anything I said in the previous post constitutes
invective. So that word was used to discredit what I had said by appealing
to an emotional argument. Also the words religious and political are
appealing to an emotional argument. This type of argument is often used
when a person's paradigms or beliefs are challenged.

There is far more to the science of teaching than just Hake's studies. If
you want just one reference than I would say read
"Science Teaching and Development Of Thinking" by Anton Lawson
Or "Teaching introductory physics" by Arons
Both of these cite plenty of research and provide guidance to a scientific
approach to teaching. These are based on scientific research and not on
political or religious views. Arons is a bit more outdated than the Lawson
reference.

At one time I would have said teaching was an art, or perhaps a craft, but
by looking at the evidence I am convinced that it can and should be a
science. The FCI is only just the intial wedge in the physics teaching.
Since then a lot of good research has been done, and people in PER have used
a lot of the good research prior to the FCI. But one can not get a good
picture of what is going on by just reading one or two articles, no more
than one can learn Shakespeare by reading a page or two of one of his plays.
Similarly one can not understand solid state physics by just going to a few
colloquia on it. The evidence is not just one paper, but an accumulation of
papers.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX




What a dialoogue!

First: "ONLY" an art. If I ever hinted that I believe that an ort
is "only", you can wash my mouth with soap. "Art" is for the gifted
individuals, the rest of us can only sit on the sidelines and applaud.

Second: How many referees would let me get away with citing a
reference, in one of my papers, with a phrase like, "if you would only
read" followed by words to the effect of "then you will see what I mean."
If you think that you know papers that respond to my specific criticisms,
then a credible response will cite the specific refernces that rebut my
criticisms, along with quotes that show that the reference states what is
claimed.. It may be relevant that I have followed Hake's studies from
somewhere near the beginning, and was one of the early critics of his
conclusions.

I object strenuously to the kind of communication that is of the nature of
"If you would only read ...". I have no idea of what you got out of
reading the particular items referenced, and I decline the invitation to
try and read your mind. I see that phrase repeatedly emanating from
newcomers to the net who are trying to persuade others to their political
or religious views, The invective I've referred to suggests that I have
transgressed on beliefs that are held with similar fervor.
Regards,
Jack