Unit 9B - Angels on a Pin
Angels on a Pin
Alexander Calandra
Some time ago, I received a call from a colleague who asked if I would be the referee on the grading of an examination question. He was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question, while the student claimed he should receive a perfect score and would if the system were not set up against the student. The instructor and the student agreed to submit this to an impartial arbiter, and I was selected.
I went to my colleague's office and read the examination question: "Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer."
The student had answered: "Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower the barometer to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building."
I pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit, since he had answered the question completely and correctly. On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade for the student in his physics course. A high grade is supposed to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. I suggested that the student have another try at answering the question. I was not surprised that my colleague agreed, but I was surprised that the student did.
I gave the student six minutes to answer the question, with the warning that his answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, he had not written anything. I asked if he wished to give up, but he said no. He had many answers to this problem; he was just thinking of the best one. I excused myself for interrupting him, and asked him to please go on. In the next minute, he dashed off his answer which read:
Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula S=(1/2)at^2, calculate the height of the building.
At this point, I asked my colleague if he would give up. He conceded, and I gave the student almost full credit.
In leaving my colleague's office, I recalled that the student had said he had other answers to the problem, so I asked him what they were. "Oh, yes," said the student. "There are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of a simple proportion, determine the height of the building."
Fine, I said. "And the others?"
Yes, said the student. "There is a very basic measurement method that you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units. A very direct method."
Of course, if you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and deter-mine the value of 'g' at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of 'g' the height of the building can, in principle, be calculated.
Finally he concluded, there are many other ways of solving the problem. "Probably the best," he said," is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent's door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: 'Mr. Superintendent, here I have a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of this building, I will give you this barometer.' "
At this point, I asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. He admitted that he did , but said that he was fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach him how to think, to use the "scientific method," and to explore the deep inner logic of the subject in a pedantic way, as is often done in the new mathematics, rather than teaching him the structure of the subject. With this in mind, he decided to revive scholasticism as an academic lark to challenge the Sputnik-panicked classrooms of America.
参考译文——大头针上的天使
大头针上的天使
亚历山大·卡兰德拉
前些时候，我接到一个同事的电话，问我可否就一道考题的打分作一下仲裁。他打算给一个学生的物理考题答案打零分，而那位学生却声称，如果现行的教育制度不是专门要和学生作对，他就该得满分，也一定会得到满分。师生俩同意把这事交给一个不带偏见的仲裁人来处理，于是我就被选中了。
我来到同事的办公室，读了考题：“证明如何借助气压表测定出大楼的高度。”
学生答道：“把气压表带至楼顶，在气压表上系一根长绳，将表下垂至地面，然后将其收回，量一下绳子的长度。绳子的长度即为大楼的高度。”
我指出，该生确实有充分的理由得满分，因为他圆满而正确地回答了这道考题。话又得说回来，要是给满分的话，这位学生的物理课成绩就能得高分。高分应证明学生在物理学方面的能力，而这一解答并不能证实这一点。于是我建议再给该生一次机会，让他再解答一遍。我同事答应了，这我不觉得奇怪，但我没料到那学生居然也答应了。
我给这学生6分钟时间答题，并提醒他答案必须显示出物理学方面的某些知识。5分钟过去了，他仍一字未著，我问他是不是想放弃，他说不。对这问题他有好几个答案；他只是在考虑选取最佳的一种。我抱歉打搅了他，请他接着思考。在最后一分钟，他匆匆写出了如下答案：
“将气压表带上楼顶，在顶沿俯身抛下气压表，同时用秒表测定气压表的下落时间。随后用S=(1/2)at^2的公式，即可求出大楼的高度。”
到这时候，我问我的同事是否肯让步。他同意了，我差不多给了这个学生满分。
我正要离开办公室，突然想到这学生说过他还有别的解答方法，便问他具体有哪些。“哦，有呀，”他说。“借助气压表，能有多种方式测得大楼的高度。例如，你可以在一个晴朗的日子把气压表拿到室外，量出气压表的高度及其影长，以及大楼阴影的长度，然后用个简单比例法就可求得大楼的高度。”
“很好，”我说。“还有呢?”
“还有，”他说，“有种最基本的测量办法你一定会喜欢。用这种办法，你拿着气压表开始爬楼，一边爬一边在墙上标出气压表的髙度。然后数一下有多少个标记，这样就能用气压表的单位长度，计算出大楼的高度。这是种相当直接的办法。
“当然，要是你想复杂一点的话，可以把气压表拴在绳子的一端，让它像钟摆那样摆动，然后分别测出它在街道水平面及大楼顶部的g值。根据这两个g值的差数，按理可计算出大楼的高度。”
最后他说，这一问题有多种解答方式。“最便捷的一种办法可能是，”他说，“拿着气压表去底楼，敲敲主管人的房门。主管人来开门时，你这么跟他说：‘主管先生，我有个挺不错的气压表。要是你能告诉我这幢楼的高度，我就把气压表送给你。’”
这时我就问这个学生，他是否真的不知道这道题的常规解法。他承认他知道，但是他说，他厌倦了中学和大学教师们的教学方法，因为他们总想教他如何思考，如何运用“科学方法”，如何用一种学究式的方法探索学科深层的内在逻辑，就像在“新数学”中常做的那样，而不是把这一学科的结构教给他。有了这个念头，他便决定重新搬出中世纪烦琐经院哲学的那一套来开个学术性玩笑，向患有人造地球卫星恐惧症的美国课堂教育进行挑战。
Key Words:
contribute [kən'tribju:t]
vt. 捐助，投稿
vi. 投稿，贡献，是原因
score [skɔ:]
n. 得分，刻痕，二十，乐谱
vt. 记分，刻
colleague ['kɔli:g]
n. 同事
calculate ['kælkjuleit]
v. 计算，估计，核算，计划，认为
attach [ə'tætʃ]
v. 附上，系上，贴上，使依恋
impartial [im'pɑ:ʃəl]
adj. 公平的，不偏不倚的
arbiter ['ɑ:bitə]
n. 仲裁人，裁决者
credit ['kredit]
n. 信用，荣誉，贷款，学分，赞扬，赊欠，贷方
referee [.refə'ri:]
n. 仲裁人，调解人，裁判员 v. 仲裁，裁判
competence ['kɔmpitəns]
n. 能力，管辖权，技能
shadow ['ʃædəu]
n. 阴影，影子，荫，阴暗，暗处
vt. 投阴
lark [lɑ:k]
n. 云雀，百灵鸟 n. 嬉戏，玩笑 vi. 嬉戏
logic ['lɔdʒik]
n. 逻辑，逻辑学，条理性，推理
explore [iks'plɔ:]
v. 探险，探测，探究
academic [.ækə'demik]
adj. 学术的，学院的，理论的
revive [ri'vaiv]
vt. 使重生，恢复精神，重新记起，唤醒
vi
determine [di'tə:min]
v. 决定，决心，确定，测定
conventional [kən'venʃənl]
adj. 传统的，惯例的，常规的
pedantic [pi'dæntik]
adj. 卖弄学问的，假装学者的，吹毛求疵的，钻牛角尖的
proportion [prə'pɔ:ʃən]
n. 比例，均衡，部份，（复）体积，规模
参考资料：
2621
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
