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] Conceptual Physics Course



Yes, the lower level thinkers are often more resistant. But cognitive
science research has found that students do change their thinking if you can
convince them that this is possible. Actually I have found that some higher
level thinkers are so confident in their abilities that they don't recognize
how badly they are reasoning. So the goal should be making people think
better, and we have to try to convince them that it is possible. Research
has shown that when you do convince them, they actually do improve.

This is similar in some ways to how incompetent people react. The truly
incompetent tend to think they are very competent. But if you give them
training in recognizing competence, they begin to realize when they are
incompetent, and they improve. Of course a frontal attack of telling them
they are incompetent doesn't work.

So while some may not consider it tactful to say you are improving thinking
ability, that is actually what you must do to get the maximum gain. But it
must be done tactfully by showing some research that it is possible to do
this. You must convince students that they can improve. I always do some
work at the beginning to convince students, and along with bringing out
reasoning in class, I have shown good gain on the Lawson published test of
Scientific thinking. Actually I see gain on sections that are never touched
on in class even indirectly, so I see good transfer. But of course I use
various PER techniques, especially Modeling.

I sometimes get comments like "I had to think so hard my head hurt", but
from those students I have seen incredible gains in thinking. I subscribe
to the concept that good learning is necessary before satisfaction. In
other words you learn that reading can be fun after you have gotten to a
decent level of competence in reading, and before that reading is often just
drudgery. So concentrate on good learning, rather than enjoyment. Tailor
the activities to the students' abilities. The big turn off is when the
material is tailored only to artificial expectations rather than to the
students. After all if you always go beyond their ZPD, they will only
resort to memorization rather than reasoning. And if you don't put the
material far enough out, they will just assimilate rather than accommodate.
(If you don't know these terms look up Vygotsky, then Piaget) Yes there can
be some fun, but please not by doing gee-whiz experiments. The students
remember only the sizzle, and not the point.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Also note the following, which is true but unfair and ironic:
a) Suppose the track coach says his goal is to teach people to run
better. That's OK. Everybody knows how to run, but a good coach
can teach them to run better.
b) Suppose the physics teacher says his goal is to teach people to
think better. That is not a tactful thing to say. People think
they know how to think and to learn, and they get resentful and
defensive if anybody suggests they should change their ways. The
ones who would benefit the most, the ones who have no clue what
hundreds (or thousands) of years of learning theory tell us ...
those are the ones who are most resistant.

There is a vicious circle here that can (in favorable cases) be
turned into a virtuous circle, if you can find a way to reverse
the momentum: If they enjoy learning, they will get better at
it, and if they get better they will enjoy it more.