←back to thread

238 points treetalker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ValentinA23 ◴[] No.42317153[source]
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/dec/16/physicist-bo...

Your educational experiment involved 54 schoolchildren, aged 15-17, who were randomly selected from around 1,000 applicants, from 36 UK schools – mostly state schools. The teenagers spent two hours a week in online classes and after eight weeks were given a test using questions from an Oxford postgraduate quantum physics exam. More than 80% of the pupils passed and around half earned a distinction. Were you surprised by their success?

At one point, I was going to call off the whole thing because I thought it was going to be a complete disaster. We’d originally wanted the kids to interact with each other on social media or communicate online, but that wasn’t allowed due to the ethical guidelines for the experiment. I thought, what sort of educational experience is it, if you can’t talk to each other?

This is the Covid generation: none of them put their cameras on [for the online classes], so we were looking at a black screen. None of them asked questions using their voices, they just typed. It was a difficult teaching challenge by all standards. We also saw a self-esteem problem with the students. But the majority of kids liked that we had announced that you didn’t need a complex maths background. The maths had been a barrier to kids who had wanted to access this knowledge.

And then we got back the numbers. They did significantly better than we see from university-level students. Exams were marked blind, so we don’t know how many came in with the aim of pursuing Stem. We are processing that data now.

replies(6): >>42317332 #>>42317483 #>>42317547 #>>42317591 #>>42318803 #>>42323474 #
1. ndriscoll ◴[] No.42318803[source]
That sounds neat, but it seems like it's specifically for certain (discrete) processes? Like can you use this to e.g. derive the shape of atomic orbitals or predict something about spectra (which are kind of important parts of quantum mechanics)? If not then the implication that it's somehow teaching people years of material in 16 hours is about as silly as it sounds.

The "famously bizarre" parts are the parts that tie it back to the questions that first motivated it, e.g. what is "stuff" made out of, why do molecules behave the way they do, and how to reconcile that with naive predictions you might have from Coulomb's law.