Re: [Phys-l] Feynman's messenger lectures now available

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

> Referring to a previous post -- I think JC is missing Bill G's point.. He
> wouldn't necessarily learned much from the lectures, but fascinated
> would'a changed his major and then learned.   Also referred -- if lectures
> fascinate and therefore, motivate then they've done their job -- the
> learning will come from section, the text, lab., etc.

I did point out that lectures are effective when you already have the
necessary paradigm to learn from them.  As to the attractiveness of lectures
that is entirely unproven.  We know from the research at AZ state that the
dynamic lecturer did not get any better results than the one who merely
followed the book.  And Mazur has shown that surface attractiveness can
distract from essential points.  Indeed research has confirmed that students
tend to remember things from lectures that were exciting, while completely
forgetting the point.

I made the point that since lectures require the correct frame before coming
in, Gates was probably not ready to be receptive to the Feynman lectures
when younger.  However after becoming more mature, he can see and be
fascinated by them.  His frame or paradigm has changed.  From what I have
read of his bio he was fascinated by programming and computers from fairly
early on.  This would have to have been self taught.  But he never completed
college.  His receptivity to Feynman was probably very low in HS and
college.  But he has been a great success any way.  BTW what was his major?

Again, lectures are effective when the frame of the presenter lines up with
the frame of the listener.  But if the listener is at too low a level, the
lecture might just as well be in Esperanto.  But if the listener is too high
the lecture may be trite and boring.  The most effective lecture would be
one where the listener is just a bit below the presenter's message level, so
the message is a bit puzzling, but not too puzzling.  But then, the listener
has to take active possession of the message which Mazur insures with his
questions.

As to Feynman being a good motivator, that is not proven.  Indeed the role
of outstanding lectures as motivators is not proven.  People believe in it,
but can one come up with good evidence for it?  We all give lectures, and
assume they are being effective, but I for one no longer believe in their
effectiveness, except in certain circumstances.  The best lectures I even
attended were in psychology and even better in British Literature, but I did
not change my major because of them.  These literature lectures were
considered to be the best on campus!

> Finally the definition of bright kid is if (s)he learns from lectures!

This is patently not true.  Since the paradigm that you have before a
lecture determines what you perceive, what you remember may not be an
accurate reflection of what has been said.  You can be bright, but have the
wrong paradigm.  Actually there is a good definition of brightness and that
would be the ability to ask what if questions.  This is
hypothetico-deductive reasoning, which Lawson has shown to be of vital
importance.  Indeed he even showed that inductive reasoning is actually base
on HD reasoning.  And this ability can be learned!  People who actively use
HD in the classroom build mental models, and those who don't tend to just
memorize.  Actually HD reasoning can often be used in social situations, but
then people turn it off in the classroom.  This is probably school learned
behavior.

> BTW,  I taught one semester of HS Chem. (second semester) to a small class
> (ten?)   At the end I found no one had even cracked the text -- several
> said they got it all from my lecture.  My non-inflated grading was only
> one C rest B's and A's.  (this was their elective class.)

The big question then is could they have passed some of the chemistry
inventories?  I have no doubt that you are convinced that this is what
really happened, but can it be proven?  I would assume they had to do tasks
such as problems which may have helped.  Also it is much easier to make
lectures which are consistent with the student's existing understanding when
you have only 10 students.  In addition it is much easier to build a group
where the students work together when you have only 10.

The other problem is that memory is really tricky.  You often think you
learned something from on source, when it may have come from another.
People convince themselves of things that are not true.  Ronald Regan did
this habitually and told stories where the ending was inconsistent with what
actually happened.  Then when challenged he said "But it sounds true".  My
grandfather, an actor, did the same thing with a story that he had told many
times.  When my grandmother said, this is nice, but it never really happened
to you, he got really huffy and said it had.  But later he admitted that she
might have been right.  What you believe determines what you hear or see.

The Mazur videos dramatically show some of the limitations of memory and
perception.  I am acutely aware of this because I have some severe memory
limitations in being able to remember names.  Also I occasionally have a
processing problem where what I hear sounds like complete gibberish.  But
once the context of the statement is established, I rehear what was said
correctly.  This hasn't happened as much in recent years, but it did happen
recently at a party where I heard a conversation as complete gibberish, but
once the context was established I heard them speaking very understandable
Texian.  So I have learned to doubt memories.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX