Some of D’s teachers in her previous school used this approach, and she really liked it better because then she was able to ask the teacher for help in things she didn’t understand. In the traditional approach with the teacher presenting the material first in class, she might be doing homework and then discovering that she didn’t understand things as well as she thought she did in class - and then there was no way to ask for help.
“And do you really want your doctor to have just checked their physics boxes?”
My H is a doctor. Yeah, it was ok that he pretty much checked the physics box.
I’m sorry your new technique isn’t giving you the positive response you’d hoped for. It certainly must be frustrating, as obviously you have a lot of passion for your subject. It pretty much sounds from your last post that you want to do this method regardless of what anyone has to say about it. So then go ahead and do it, but if it doesn’t seem to be improving the outcomes, not sure why you’re so wedded to it.
I do think there is a difference between reading a few chapters of a book in literature class before coming to the class, and trying to teach yourself physics. I don’t need an explanation to know how to read a book – the value of the class is in the discussion with others after we’ve all read it. I do need an explanation on how to understand physics before I can answer any questions about it.
At our local 4-year, professors who want a large class to do pre-reading use the I>Clicker in class to ask simple questions about the reading. Only difficult enough to verify reading (and attendance), not mastery of problem solving.
Ideally, students would be enthusiastic about every course in their curricula. Realistically, lots of students are just checking boxes for some of the courses that they are required to take.
Sometimes, the way you present the task can be as important as the task itself. If the students know the reason for this method of teaching and if you introduce it gradually with baby steps that allow them to observe the benefit, they may be more open to it. If you keep reiterating that you want them to succeed and reflect that with your comments in the classroom, that may end up getting them on your side, also. Holding a (time limited) virtual office hour for questions might be useful, but that’s more of a drag on your time.
NB: I know nothing about physics or engineering tech, so my comments may not apply.
I want to do it again with some modifications. I’m going to an online homework system (Mastering Physics), to try to get more students to actually DO the homework problems. I have to work out what other modifications I want to make. Making the homework worth fewer points, probably. One of the primary problems leading to their poor performance is that many/most of them simply copy the homework solutions from the internet (or from each other).
I don’t know if you can really say this without being there. There is nothing in my “explanations” which is not in the textbook itself. The book has all the formulas, all the same words, numerous worked examples, and conceptual questions to see if you are getting the idea or not. All the intro physics texts have lots of bells and whistles.
The problem I see with the “lecture than assign” method, is that when I lecture, they sit passively and it looks easy to them. I make the problems look easy, the concepts seem easy. Then they go home and cannot do the problems by themselves. Maybe they try to read the book then, but as tutumom2001 points out, I’m not there to help them. If they have to read the book, then they seem to complain that they “had to teach themselves the material” whether they are reading it before or after the lecture. I’m convinced that very few of them actually read it at all, despite the hefty price tag.
I would also like them to learn that, yes, the answers to all or most of their questions are in the book, and yes, they can learn things by themselves. They just need to learn how. I would also like to spend more of the class time getting them to actually DO things in front of me, so I can clarify what their issues are.
^No, Stradmom, that’s actually very thought provoking. I explained in the beginning of the semester, but maybe that is something that needs to be reiterated constantly.
Our school does some of the math for the highly mathematical kids this way, and it works really well because they get to think about what tools they’d bring to a problem, and in comparing solutions, they engage in other approaches.
It has not worked well for the simply bright or average kids. They want to be shown what to do and why aND then they want to practice.
Which is all to say that there’s nothing wrong with the approach but it may not be right for the mix of kids you have. DS was in such a class and found it fun, but he would have learned better in the more traditional way.
If you want to continue this, I’d advise a very consciously deliberate framing at the start of the semester, and along th way. Make sure they understand what your purpose is, why you think this can work best, and what other supports are there to help them master it. I second the idea of building the stakes slowly. I also would recommend giving them ways to get help–of course office hours, but is there tutoring in the school? Maybe assign study groups (possibly voluntary; I hate mandatory groups myself). do you reply to email questions? (I do, but I acknowldge they can get onerous.)
Check for buy-in along the way–are you making progress? What issues are you experiencing? Any a-ha moments to share?
I teach composition, which is of course far different, but I have found that the more I go over the meta of the class’s construction, the more I can get them to at least grudgingly assent to buying in.
There is nothing more frustrating than taking a required course (with little or no background, and no interest in the subject) and having it not taught in a clear manner.
At least 35% of your class are not engineering students. You do owe those students something. Ask me to read something that I have no background in? And figure out what is important in that assignment before you have presented the information? It might as well be written in a foreign language. I’m having so much difficulty just trying to get through the surface meaning that I’m missing the point, and I’m certainly not getting any deep meaning out of the passage.
A terrific exercise in understanding how difficult even the “easiest” reading assignment is for students who are still trying to decode the basics, is to have a very simple paragraph rewritten in nonsense alphabetic symbols, and ask a person to read the paragraph and answer questions when not all the nonsense symbols have yet been taught. Some people are able to extrapolate the meaning of nonsense alphabetic symbols, but many people are not, and frustration sets in quite quickly.
( That exercise is one given to people learning how to reach reading skills to young children. As adults we are so far removed from the difficulty of remembering symbols and their linked sounds, combining those symbols and sounds into words, decoding the meaning of each word, and then reading a sentence or paragraph smoothly enough to comprehend what was read… We can have a difficult time understanding how difficult this is for a new reader.)
If I was in a college level intro to physics class, I would be the equivalent of a “new reader”. Ask me to read, comprehend, and then solve problems for physics material that I have no background in? That hasn’t been taught yet? I would be hating life. I would be one of your students complaining that you aren’t teaching me anything. I wouldn’t have enough background in the subject to be able to benefit from the method you are using.
But it is really difficult for a more advanced physics learner to see how difficult that would be for a novice.
If I were structuring a course in this way–which I think is interesting–I would grade the first round of homework on each topic on an effort-only basis. That is, if a student turned in anything that indicated that he/she had made an effort on the topic, that would get full credit. You might also encourage students to indicate what their knowledge base was initially, and to frame questions, if credit is given for questions when a topic is started. One of the chief difficulties in introductory physics (as I understand the pedagogical issues) is that the pre-conceptions that people have formed are often incorrect, and it is difficult to confront the pre-conceptions with reality (and have reality win).
Just wanted to add: The very nature of physics involves figuring things out for oneself. It involves more than the ability to follow a pattern that has been presented, and then “solve” problems that have the same pattern. If one only taught that, one would be short-changing the students. Even if that is what they expect from science, there is a difference between introductory physics and Introduction to IRS Form 1040EZ, which could be taught in a pattern-following mode.
Everything ultimately involves figuring out something else for yourself, but if you don’t get the basic vocabulary and concepts down first, you can’t get past that. I think eastcoastcrazy’s point is well taken and I suspect that is how I would feel if thrown into a physics class.
Sylvan, Is there a way you could post what the typical “first reading” looks like and those of us who are not science-y could provide feedback on whether it is understandable or gobbledygook to us? We might be more objective since we don’t have grades on the line.
Those of you who hate this idea - here is what typically has happened in previous semesters: Class is 50 minutes MWF. I start with any questions they had regarding their homework, etc. Typically only one or two ask anything. Then I lecture, presenting new ideas and do some example problems. I stress this or that, point out where I have seen the typical pitfalls in the past, ask them questions, they respond here and there or in unison. They leave, copy their assignments from the internet, and turn them in when due. Their homeworks look great.
We have an exam. Most of them do poorly. Rinse and repeat. Things get worse as the semester progresses and the material gets more difficult. Sometimes I manage to fit in an in-class worksheet or group problems, wherein I can see that many of them are beyond lost. During the labs, I try to fix it, but labs are only 90 minutes a week. They don’t come to office hours. Some of them will ask about the tutoring center. I don’t like the tutoring center, because they are not stressing what I am stressing, but I will send them over anyways. I always suggest they come to my office hours. Many of them fail the course or get D’s (not a good enough grade for the Tech program) .
We have to cover a lot of material. I can’t just do half of the course. Last semester, I started having recitations 45 minutes before class in order to be able to spend more time helping them with problems. They got extra credit for coming to recitation.Only 10% of the class came to the recitations (it should have been 60%+).
I have a huge DEW rate (D grade, Fail, and Withdrawal) and I’m not sure what else I can do. They hate everything. You hate everything. The whole enterprise is a dismal failure, IMHO. Round 9 starts in August - intro physics adjunct position has a high burnout rate. 
I think you’re on the right track, @sylvan8798 . If you read the article I posted earlier your approach - there called “active learning” (“This approach provides increased structure, feedback and interaction, prompting students to become participants in constructing their own knowledge rather than passive recipients.”) has been shown to work better, especially with kids who struggle with the lecture format.
You’re basically forcing them to make a pass at “figure it out” solo then really get time with you to finalize that process rather than go it alone.
I agree that tweaks can be made - “effort” grade for trying to answer the questions suggested earlier is one - you want them to read and think and try but mainly grades are based on the exams. Frequent “low stakes” quizzes in class are also effective, according to the studies cited in the article.
What is the goal of the class? How does it connect to their everyday lives? Do you want them to have more interest / passion / whatever for the topic?
Office hours…a lot of kids think that’s an imposition on you for them to come, especially low income/first gen kids. IDK if you make clear that coming is an expectation, or want to throw out some donuts or something, or give credit to them for coming x number of times. I had to pound into my kid’s head that professors wanted her there and she should bring problems she wasn’t able to solve on her own with her. I wasn’t able to get her over her fear of that in high school but in college, she goes, and it helps.
Is there any topic that interests THEM? Not just you, who loves physics. I have to confess, you still haven’t articulated what it is you actually teach and why they should be interested. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating clowns and jugglers, but WHY would this class interest me? What current controversies might they think more clearly or differently about as a result of mastering this material? What “things you thought you knew” do you debunk?
“You might also encourage students to indicate what their knowledge base was initially, and to frame questions, if credit is given for questions when a topic is started.”
I really think this approach invites students to assume a role in the classroom which may lend to students an air of authority, or at least dispel the growing suspicion their presence may be dispensable and of little consequence.
“One of the chief difficulties in introductory physics (as I understand the pedagogical issues) is that the pre-conceptions that people have formed are often incorrect, and it is difficult to confront the pre-conceptions with reality (and have reality win).”
I have an excellent recording of an interview with a Harvard professor of physics who began to glean exactly the points in @QuantMech’s statement about the incorrect assumptions students hold (even those bright kids at Harvard) and having the students “confront the pre-conceptions with reality…”
The focus of this professor’s approach was to institute and facilitate peer-to-peer instruction in the classroom, to enormous success. I will look for the specifics if you would like to give a listen, I’m sure it must be in the NPR archives.
Pizzagirl, I think a good example of pre-conceptions that aren’t really right comes from Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Quite a few people can state this, yet have great difficulty applying it to an actual situation, because they don’t understand what it means.
I don’t know what sylvan8798 is teaching, specifically, and would be interested to know.
I think one of the advantages of a good physics course is that it discourages simplistic thinking, if the student actually comes to grips with the subject. Physics of everyday life: Angular momentum is all around us (joke), but I don’t think most people become interested in angular momentum until they have at least a glimmering of the concept. The difference between classical and quantum physics is at the heart of many current devices–but to have an idea about how they really operate, one needs both elementary classical physics and elementary quantum physics.
I am curious–what is anyone else on this thread interested in, that might be covered in elementary physics? And did you take a college course at the level of introductory physics, with or without calculus? Not meaning this as a put-down in any way at all–I am just interested in the answers. I don’t teach introductory physics, but might be able to generalize to classes I do teach.
One topic that I teach to undergrads that has deep interest to me is the origin and nature of the “arrow of time” and causality. There are still unresolved issues in this area, although several answers have been proposed, and some would argue it is a settled issue. I am not so sure.