🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi:

  Paul (Namkcihp@aol.com) wrote:

    "It seems that there is not only disagreement here on this forum
but also in print. I was very interested in the contrast between
Cliff Swartz's Editorial p202 April, 1995 TPT and Leon Lederman's
Editorial p11 April, 1995 Physics Today. So, where do YOU stand?"


   There should be no inherent contradiction between a conceptual
(Lederman) and a numerical (Swartz) approach to teaching physics.
Students, of course, need both. Leon Lederman is afraid that a great
deal
of ignorance can be hidden behind mechanical problem solving; but it is
up to the teacher to demand that students be exposed to a wide
enough variety of problems -in class, on homework assignments -
and on tests - to prevent this. Furthermore, students can just as easily
hide their ignorance behind a few well memorized but glib verbal
explanations as they can hide it behindmechanically applied
algorithms..

  However, Leon Lederman makes several other proposals that are cause
for concern. He advocates moving physics to the ninth grade. I have
(succesfully, I think) taught physics to ninth graders and once even
to a bright group of eight graders. But I would be deluding myself to
think that these students learned as much as my juniors and seniors
do. If we move physics to the ninth grade, students will leave high
school knowing less physics.

  Leon Lederman says that his approach might induce more students
to major in physics in college, and he praises the recent iniatives
in New York and Chicago to require three years of high school science.
But the concern among teachers is that this will inevitably lead to a
weakening of course content. I suspect that most students with a
sufficient interest and ability for careers in science, already find
their way to these careers. I think we need to seriously examine how
much untapped potential really exists and whether we should really
risk the quality of science education we give to out motivated
students in pursuit of what mat well be a chimera.