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] Economist Kern Alexander Explains theProblemwithSchool Choice

Yes, but the lab work needs to be exploration and not verification. Having
students debate various historical models has been shown to be effective in
building understanding, but I have not seen any evidence that it improves
understanding of the nature of science. One would assume that it would have
some effectiveness, but that has not been verified. But I know that most
teachers do not know the history well, and that most do not teach science in
even a rudimentary reasonable way so as to expose the NOS.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


All of which is why LAB WORK is so important. You don't get
the perfect graphs, you don't necessarily get the
predictions. Even 'cook book' confirm the value labs can be
instructive as they seldom produce zero discrepancy results
(we had plenty of 10-25% discrepancies in last week's
calorimetry lab). Using such exercises to get at the
limitations of experiment and/or the value of multiple trials
is again instructive. This problem of TRUTH is also a good
reason for using a semi-historic approach (not the full, real
history--too messy and time consuming) but maybe an Aristotle
to Newton to Einstein type of approach that emphasizes how
scientific thought evolves with time. Spending a few minutes
on Caloric Theory and its demise again shows this point. So
even with 'series of facts' textbooks, science can easily be
taught showing all the warts.

rwt

Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana

*******************************************
Free Physics Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Updates and new multi-resolutions versions now available.
********************************************

--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:20 PM
To: <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Economist Kern Alexander Explains the
ProblemwithSchool Choice

It has been my experience that science is taught as TRUTH. Look at
the conventional books which are used in over 90% of the
classes. It
just presents science as a series of facts. Students are told
Newton's laws first. They memorize them. It starts with
the teacher
asking what makes things falls. And then they tell students it is
"GRAVITY". So here they are presented with a piece of
mystical magic
called gravity which makes things fall. When I left my HS job, the
next teacher just taught out of a coventional book and taught it as
received truth. He didn't even know how to use the
computer based lab
equipment because he asked me for the password to the
computers half
way through the school year. There was no password.

PER and other research based methods have only penetrated a
fraction
of schools, so most are still teaching science and math by the
conventional method. Of course science works by consensus.
Once you
have enough evidence we tend to treat the models as facts, but they
are only models underpinned by facts. Students who doubt evolution
because a given fossil seems to support X and refute Y are
making the
mistake that you need a set of data points to paint a full
picture.
Now certainly there are simple things like did dinosaurs have skin
like reptiles. A single fossil showing a dinosaur with feathers is
enough to draw a conclusion. But the fossil record as a
whole is used
to support evolution. Students have gotten so accustomed
to the idea
that data is perfect that they then draw erroneous
conslusions. Part
of this can be laid at the doorstep of math where students do not
interact with "real" data. But part of it is the way the books are
constructed showing beautiful graphs (often erroneous) with perfect
data points. Just look at temperature vs heat in almost
any chem or
physics textbook to find a badly constructed graph.

MDs are always taught by lecture and given facts because
the teacher
think that any other method will not allow full coverage. I took a
number of engineering courses, and they were generally
taught the same
way. Also the physics courses and math courses were taught
that way.
But anyone who does research immediately begins to get the picture
that science is messy, and that the textbook picture of science is
false. Very few scientists doubt things like the big band or
evolution, but I have seen a number of engineers and MDs who reject
the scientific attitude. So my conclusion that it is the dogmatic
teaching is reasonable. I suspect that part of the support of
dogmatic science teaching stems from people who see
religion as black
and white, so science must also be black and white.
Remember the TX
Rep party rejected the idea of teaching critical thinking
because it
would lead students to question their upbringing.

I am positive that of the current crop of politicians who question
science were basically taught science by the usual black and white
method. Only a fraction of current students are seeing
science in a
more realistic fashion.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


This is the only portion of JC's comments that I would
take any issue
with (see below).

I believe the opposite is true... It is not that teachers teach
science as "truth"... it is that teachers teach science
(if they do
at all, but that's a topic separate from this
reply) as what it is... messy and changeable. Students are
brought up to regard things as "black and white" their
religion is
inalterable; politics nowadays is us or them.
So how can science be understood when it changes every time some
scientist discovers something that contradicts what was
supposedly set in stone years ago? Listen to conversations
in classrooms and on tv... "Why do you "believe" in evolution when
Dr. X just found a fossil that goes against Dr. Y's
theory?" "You scientists don't know what's true... so why
should any of it be true?"
As if "truth" is inalterable and if anything is found not to have
happened the way one scientist said it did then the whole thing is
false.

On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:10 PM, John Clement wrote:

Part of the
anti-science attitude stems from how schools teach science
and math as
if it were a received TRUTH, rather than something we
designed based
on observation and logical thought.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l