I've lost Joe Bellina's last note on this, but he was stressing DOING rather
than READING. That is, doing physics to learn physics. The problem is that
the context here was post graduation learning or at least the tools and
experience to pursue our education outside structured classrooms. I do not,
can not, DO Global Warming. I can't DO string theory. I can read about and
learn about these topics. It seems to me that there are many things within
a science (physics) curriculum that can't necessarily be done and to limit
the curriculum to only those topics which can be done seems far too narrow.
Again it is a question of goals. What are the goals for the majors' class,
the other science majors' class, the engineering class, the pre-med class,
the general-education class. Aren't these goals likely to be very
different. Can they all be effectively served with an inquiry approach
and/or is such really the best approach in each case. That is, with
different goals come different criteria for 'success'. Improved FCI (or
whatever test) scores may be clear evidence of superiority in one type of
course with one set of goals, but could be pretty insignificant to the goals
of a different course.
Rick --who wonders when the last time a program in inquiry based education
was all the rage, since such things do seem to be cyclic in the education
world. ;-)