Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

Nice? Nah - nasty!

Let me explain with a parable:
    Once upon a time, airlines and defense agencies paid substantial 
sums for  flight simulators, which they hoped would help them 
familiarize crews with the mishaps and malfunctions which form 
infrequent but sometimes disastrous interludes to flying revenue 
passengers, armaments or supplies  from point to point.     They would 
enlist the aid of their most experienced crews to determine the fidelity 
of the simulator product.    And it often happened that after the 
training equipment was conformed to the edicts of their most experienced 
crew, all would go well until another highly experienced crew  decided 
that there was something wrong with the simulator's behavior.    And it 
would happen, that the behavior in question was that specified by the 
previous HEC (highly experienced crew).

At length, the FAA (and other airworthiness authorities) intervened and 
specified that all observable behavior possible was to be stimulated 
objectively, and responses were to be recorded and stored for 
inspection. They further specified allowable excedences from the 
aircraft data used for comparison.


 So when you read a HEC (in teaching or in a subject area) pronounce on 
the superiority of the judgment of HECs to any (trivial?)  objective 
test, it is well to step back, and consider the virtues of objective 
tests.    You could say it is part of the difference between religion, 
appeal to authority, and science in fact: that what is a trivial datum 
to one HEC (does the aircraft attempt to return to its previous altitude 
when subjected to a sharp pitch deflection?) develops in terms of 
objective testing to measures of characteristic frequencies, damping, 
and so on, which are essentially denied to any and every HEC.

Respectfully,

Brian Whatcott   Altus OK

On 6/24/2013 9:18 AM, John Caranci wrote:
> NICE!!!
>
> John Caranci
> OISE Physics Teaching Instructor
>
> On 2013-06-24, at 9:50 AM, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:
>
> > It has been known for a while now -- almost 2500 years if not more -- that there is a difference between an animal and the /shadow/ of the animal.  There is a difference between a chair and the /shadow/ ofthe chair.
> >   http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html
> >
> > Sometimes you can indirectly measure some properties of the chair by measuring the shadow ... but only /some/ properties ... and moreimportantly, the chair controls the shadow, not vice versa.  If you try to grab the shadow, you get nothing.
> > /snip/