[ValentinA23]

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.

[Gooblebrai]

> 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

IMO This is one of the most depressing things about teaching teenagers online in real-time. But I don't know what we can do about it. Should we adapt to it? Are there any benefits to enforcing the cameras and voice dialogues?

[quacked]

The only way you can get teenagers to really engage with any kind of instruction is to take some of the guardrails off and let them interact freely. This means they'll ask controversial questions, use slang, curse now and again, crack jokes, and go off into tangents that they've been thinking about. Adults are allowed to do all this at work, but teenagers aren't allowed to do it at school, and virtual education makes this even more boring.

One example: for online teaching, that may require a streaming model where there's a live, mostly uncensored chat where they can keep side conversations going and react to the material. I'm not sure if that model would be of use, but I do know that trying to get teenagers to engage requires the same thing it always has, which is taking them seriously as adults and not censoring them.

[LoganDark]

I'm autistic and prefer text for virtually all communication because it's easier for me to control a keyboard than it is for me to control my voice.

[kitd]

Now I have questions about the Oxford postgraduate quantum physics exam :)

[sesm]

Exactly, how can one pass a postgraduate level exam 'without complex math'?

[ndriscoll]

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.

[gus_massa]

> from 36 UK schools

> and after eight weeks were given a test

Was the test remote or in-person? I've seen children (and adults) cheating even for stupid tests that have no grades/prices/whatever.