Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

Edmiston, Mike wrote:
> ... The following statement by Robert Cohen
> has finally prompted me to ask it.
>
> Robert said, "In my experience, there are several things that can be
> used to increase the gain and they always have to do with increasing
> inquiry.  Sequencing ideas in (what I think is) an intuitive way,
> interesting lectures, appropriate demos, and such, have had
> insignificant impact (as far as I can tell)."
>
> And later he said, "You would think that it would be possible, given the
> sloppy experimental setups that are tolerated, that someone, somewhere,
> could show a very high gain using traditional methods."....

> Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
>   
I see that this proposition of Robert Cohen's lodged with Mike 
Edmiston's sensibilities,
as it did with mine. Ed was even moved to sketch in possible causes for 
the apparent
superiority of interactive/inquiry methods.

It is indeed a striking assertion, which seems to have enough legs to stand
on its merits without needing much academic support with the people who are
in fact teaching every day (unlike me).

If I try to analyze the "Cohen proposition" as just  (no more than, no 
less than? :-)
a successful rhetorical device, I fall back on his observation concerning
"the hounds that are not barking in the night", so to speak.
The asserted superiority of inquiry/interactives by interested parties 
ought to be
easily? balanced by gain measurements, however arranged, from traditional
practitioners, surely?

Brian W