In his 10/19/98 Phys-L posting of the above title, Jack Uretsky writes:
"Dario, I think I agree with you, except that I'm not sure
what your point is. If you are saying that the FCI is oversold
as a measure of what physics teaching should be about, then I
have a suspicion that you may be correct."
I agree with Jack that the FCI is sometimes oversold. My discussion of
this issue (1) is attached.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<hake@ix.netcom.com>
<http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>=20
ATTACHMENT (from ref. 1)
......it should be emphasized that (a) "the FCI was developed to assess
the effectiveness of mechanics courses in meeting A MINIMAL PERFORMANCE
STANDARD : to teach students to reliably discriminate between the
applicability of scientific concepts and naive alternatives in common
physical situations" (37c) (our CAPS); (b) the Mechanics Baseline test
is "the next step above the inventory in mechanics understanding
....(and).... emphasizes concepts that cannot be grasped without formal
knowledge about mechanics."(3) Thus these tests do not pretend to
measure advanced mechanics competence, but rather only a minimal
facility which might be hoped for at the end of an introductory course.
Among desirable outcomes of the introductory course that the tests do
not measure directly are e.g., students=92 (a) satisfaction with and
interest in physics; (b) understanding of the nature, methods,
and limitations of science; (c) understanding of the processes of
scientific inquiry such as experimental design, control of variables,
dimensional analysis, order-of-magnitude estimation, thought
experiments, hypothetical reasoning, graphing, and error analysis;=20
(d) ability to articulate their knowledge and learning processes;=20
(e) ability to collaborate and work in groups; (f) communication skills;
(g) ability to solve real-world problems; (h) understanding of the
history of science and the relationship of science to society and other
disciplines; (i) understanding of, or at least appreciation for,
"modern" physics; (j) ability to participate in authentic research.=20
It can be argued that some outcomes "a" - "g" [e.g., "b"(73a)] are more
likely to have been achieved by students who do well on the FCI/MD and
MB tests. Nevertheless, because evidence for these outcomes cannot be
directly offered by such testing, and because most instructors would
regard at least some of "a" - "j" to be important objectives of the
introductory course, the FCI/MD and Mechanics Baseline test scores
should not, in my opinion, be uncritically taken to measure the general
effectiveness or success of a course. They can, however, be TAKEN TO
MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS IN THE NARROW SENSE OF THE ATTAINMENT OF MINIMAL
COMPETENCE IN MECHANICS. Most instructors would probably agree that this
should be a prime objective of an introductory mechanics course.
REFERENCES
1. R.R.Hake, "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics
courses," submitted to the potential new =93Journal of Physics Education
Research=94 on 6/19/98 and on the Web at
<http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>.
3. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, "A Mechanics Baseline Test," Phys. Teach.
30, 159-166 (1992).
37c. "Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers," in "The Changing Role
of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the
ICUPE," ed. by E.F. Redish and J.S. Rigden, (AIP, Woodbury, NY, 1997),
p. 935- 957.
73a. I. Halloun, "Views About Science and Physics Achievement: The VASS
Story," in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern
Universities: Proceedings of the ICUPE, ed. by E.F. Redish and J.S.
Rigden, (AIP, Woodbury, NY, 1997). p. 605 - 613; I. Halloun and D.
Hestenes, "Interpreting VASS Dimensions and Profiles," Sci. and Ed., in
press.