Unplugging Plug and Chug
Friday, August 3, 2007 
Yo - Memorize This!In a disturbing coincidence, the stomach-turning "Plug and Chug" phrase cropped up in 2 situations this week. In physics class on Wednesday, a student made a comment about "plugging and chugging" to get a solution. I stopped him at that point and did my typical rant against that type of approach to doing physics. (Note - he was NOT advocating it!)
In short, there's nothing more revolting to me as a physics teacher, and a physicist than the thought that somehow physics can be taught, and learned, by memorizing formulas and simply plugging in numbers and calculating.
How then to explain a quote by Erika Gebel in the Aug, 3, 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer? In an article titled "Masters of 'spring' theory: Physics Teachers embrace a new method", Gebel is describing exciting new changes to the way that physics is taught in high school. Citing the approach known as modeling physics , which had just been taught to local physics instructors in a faculty-development workshop in the Philadelphia area, Gebel reports that
Modeling is a departure from the traditional method, often referred to in physics circles as "plug and chug." That is, solving problems by plugging numbers into memorized equations - F = ma, F = mg, F = kx, and so on - then chugging through the math.
In traditional physics, students are expected to memorize the equations before they really understand their meaning - that force, for example, is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration.
Now I am all for the modeling approach. In fact I know the instructors quoted, have observed their teaching, and have observed their students really catching on to physics concepts at an amazing level. In short, modeling works when it is done well.
But I sincerely doubt that any physics instructor would make a comment such as given by Gebel. In all of my years in physics, with different instructors, many different schools, I have never heard anyone espouse this "plug and chug" approach. The line that really bothers me is that "students are expected to memorize the equations before they really understand their meaning." I have never seen a textbook that simply gives an equation to be memorized.
Now I can imagine a statement to the effect that students often understand the meaning of an equation only after solving a set of problems using the equation. But this is after the text and instructor have presented either a deductive argument, or plausible explanation (that includes experimental evidence) for the equation.
Claiming that instructors expect memorization before understanding does a great disservice to those physics instructors who have labored for years to make sure that understanding physics is the ultimate goal of teaching and learning in the physics classroom.
And I'm sure that all physics instructors - regardless of whether they teach modeling or a more traditional approach - are all too familiar with a sizeable number of students who actually would prefer the "p& c" approach. These students are the most challenging to teach, and when they finally realize that approaching physics by focusing on concepts and unifying principles, with the mathematics in a supporting role, well, this is the reason I love to teach introductory physics more than anything else.
Reader Comments (6)
Dear Dr. DiDio,
It's a pleasure to be referred to in a post, even if the subject is as distasteful as "P&C." I could not agree more, especially after taking the MCAT, that the method is hopeless and probably harmful to academics.
That said, I have had at least a few teachers who have directly espoused the P&C method to their students, especially in math classes. While they certainly would never publicly declare P&C as their fundamental approach, these instructors revert to this pedagoguery when faced with students who simply cannot grasp the fundamentals. "Just get something down on the page so I can give you partial credit."
The problem here seems that the types of questions asked on physics tests focus narrowly on specific problems that are math-heavy and concept-lite. These are the types of test problems that have basic, easily memorized structures allowing variables to be dialed in and an answer churned out. The focus on numberless problems in 106 accompanied by essays explaining a physical phenomenon was certainly heading in a better direction.
Bryan
Bryan - I am really surprised that you heard P&C from a math instructor!
Nevertheless, I am not naive, and I know that it exists - although more at the secondary level.
You have identified several pertinent issues, particularly the cookie-cutter physics problems that are prevalent - both in most texts, and on exams.
For me, I have always given partial credit when a student can at least display a knowledge of correct concepts.
rad
I did not mean to imply that physics teachers discuss the "plug and chug" methodology directly - though I guess some do according to Bryan. My point it that students of the traditional method don't get physics, so memorization and plug n' chug is their only hope for passing.
Erika - I would add that many students believe that their only hope for passing is M and P&C. In all of my discussions with other physics teachers, and readings on pedagogy, it seems that most of us spend the bulk of our time trying to convince the students that they may indeed pass using P&C, albeit with a lower grade than they would otherwise get if they could only master a few concepts and apply them in a variety of situations. And they can forget about remembering anything fundamental a few weeks after the course is over.
(I know that this is the main issue, of course. Some students will claim that they can't do this, i.e. focus on the concepts first, then "build" solutions from there. I counter that they are locked into the P&C mode - perhaps as a result of a high school course that featured tests similar to those described by Bryan.)
Do you teach physics?
huazi Sharp tools make good workhttp://www.replicashoesbuy.com/bally-leather-shoes-replica-shoes-987.html
Venice resident Rhonda DeVictor said she noticed the empty lot when she first moved into the neighborhood 12 years ago zwiyzf zwiyzf - <a href="http://www.moncler-outlets-shop.com">moncler outlets shop</a>.