As the author of a widely used thermal physics textbook, I get a steady stream of email from students around the world who are using the book. By far the most common type of inquiry is requests for answers to the end-of-chapter problems. Some students ask for the answer to a particular problem; others want copies of the entire solution manual.
To most of these students, my standard response is “Ask your instructor.” However, not all of them are using the book in a traditional classroom setting. Some have moved on to advanced studies or workplace settings where for various reasons they need to go back and brush up on their undergraduate thermal physics.
Of course I’m delighted that people are using the book in such diverse ways. But I’m also dismayed that, even after earning an undergraduate degree, so many scientists and engineers still believe that answers come from textbook authors.
The whole point of science is that you can figure out answers for yourself, without relying on any authority. For physics textbook problems, that usually means you have to do some sort of calculation. And how do you know if the calculation is correct? Not by consulting a teacher or solution manual or some other authority! Mathematics has its own internal logic that tells you whether it’s correct, without reference to anything external.
But what about careless errors, which everyone makes from time to time? There are endless ways to catch them without any appeal to authority. Do the calculation a different way. Compare the answer to other known facts. Ask one of your peers to check your work.
Our educational system does a lousy job teaching these skills. In our fervent desire to “cover” as much material as possible in our courses, we don’t give students time to ponder their results and root out their own mistakes. Instead, we authoritatively mark their answers right or wrong, then hurry on to the next problem.
Nor is this situation unique to the mathematical sciences. Students of biology, economics, sociology, and history must all learn to distinguish truth from falsehood without an instructor’s help. Critically examining one’s methods, and thus developing confidence in one’s answers, is fundamental to every discipline that deals in hard facts.
It’s not enough to teach facts, or even to teach specific technical skills. We somehow need to help our graduates develop the intellectual toughness to know when they’re right, so they can become leaders in their chosen fields.
(I stole the phrase "intellectual toughness" from my former professor Leonard Susskind, who uses it in his book The Black Hole War to describe his ally in the "war", the great theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft.)
ReplyDeleteI’m also dismayed that, even after earning an undergraduate degree, so many scientists and engineers still believe that answers come from textbook authors.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of science is that you can figure out answers for yourself, without relying on any authority. For physics textbook problems, that usually means you have to do some sort of calculation. And how do you know if the calculation is correct? Not by consulting a teacher or solution manual or some other authority! Mathematics has its own internal logic that tells you whether it’s correct, without reference to anything external.
But what about careless errors, which everyone makes from time to time? There are endless ways to catch them without any appeal to authority. Do the calculation a different way. Compare the answer to other known facts. Ask one of your peers to check your work.
Our educational system does a lousy job teaching these skills. In our fervent desire to “cover” as much material as possible in our courses, we don’t give students time to ponder their results and root out their own mistakes. Instead, we authoritatively mark their answers right or wrong, then hurry on to the next problem.
In American RadioWorks’s series Don't Lecture Me Harvard physicist Eric Mazur advocates abandoning lecturing in favor of a peer-to-peer problem-solving teaching method. But in comments following the broadcasts, Mazur acknowledged that both professors and administrators resist his teaching reforms – in part because they take longer than teaching. The goal of the educational institution is to SEND material to students; whether students absorb the material is someone else’s problem.
Thought of you today while watching NASA land an SUV on Mars. I discovered that a guy named Daniel J. Schroeder worked with NASA and thought “Ok -- could be….”
But when I saw the NASA gang celebrating Curiosity's landing, that synched it. Google "Proof that NASA has a time machine" to see a picture of you at the NASA controls.
Honestly, it’s amazing what you can accomplish while simultaneously pursuing the best weed Utah has to offer!
Eric the Cleric
Whoops. Make that "Mazur acknowledged that both professors and administrators resist his teaching reforms – in part because they take longer than lecturing." Professors need to be able to report that they covered a large amount of material during a class. Whether students understand or remember the material is a secondary concern.
ReplyDeleteEric the Cleric