A subscriber said about the Force Concept Inventory:
"The only thing that it unequivocally shows is the 'standard' instruction
(whatever that means) is inadequate to attain high scores on the FCI.
Everything beyond that is interpretation by the researchers (perhaps valid,
perhaps not). ;-) "
Hmm, let's consider this carefully. David Hestenes said, in his article
entitled Who needs Physics Education Research!? [Am. J. Phys. 66: 465-467
(1998)]: "The FCI is not comparable to the off-the-cuff multiple-choice
tests that teachers construct on their own. The carefully constructed
distracters for each item are not typical multiple-choice throwaways, but
common sense alternatives to Newtonian concepts that amplify the
significance of student responses."
For more detail and the context, here is the beginning of David Hestenes'
article:
*******************************
David Griffiths has used the occasion of his well-deserved Millikan award
to raise serious questions about the reform movement in physics education
and the 'Hestenes test' in particular. Since my name has been taken in
vain, so to speak, I feel compelled to respond.
Along with F. K. Richtmeyer in his inaugural article for the AJP, I
concur with Griffiths' dour assessment of the amateurish state of physics
teaching generally. However, I do not believe that substantial improvements
can be achieved without a strong program of physics education research
(PER). The problems are too difficult and complex to yield to amateurish
efforts. Nearly two decades ago I penned a diatribe on the need for a
ìScience of Teaching. I have since seen PER emerge as a credible discipline
in its own right, with a growing body of reliable empirical evidence,
clarification of research issues, and, most important of all, an emerging
core of able and committed researchers within physics departments across
the country. Most of our colleagues have been oblivious to this movement,
if not contemptuous of it. Some are beginning to realize that it is more
than another 'educational fad. It is a serious program to apply to our
teaching the same scientific standards that we apply to physics research.
What does the FCI tell us?
I will focus on Griffiths' concerns about the Force Concept
Inventory (FCI) and its implications, but I wish to place it in the larger
context of PER. By the way, the FCI should not be called the 'Hestenes
test,' because its design, construction, analysis and validation was a
cooperative effort in which Ibrahim Halloun and Malcolm Wells played
crucial roles.
Griffiths is right to be skeptical about the FCI. A healthy
skepticism is an indispensable component of the scientific mind; it drives
the search for evidence and justified belief. Unfortunately, an unhealthy
skepticism is all too common among physicists, especially with respect to
education; it seeks to deny and discredit claims that conflict with
cherished beliefs.
Griffiths' concerns are important, because they occur to every
thoughtful physics teacher confronted by FCI results. I have heard them
time and again for years. It would be a poor sort of educational research
that failed to address them. The fact is that efforts along this line are
far more extensive than casual observers like Griffiths suspect. My
personal observations and conclusions are offered here, but teachers must
consult the literature and their own classrooms for supporting evidence.
Critics of educational reform need to do their homework. Anecdotal evidence
is no more adequate in education than it is in science. At best, it
suggests directions for productive research. More often, it is misleading
or altogether wrong. Some critics doubt that hard evidence is possible in
education. The FCI results stand as a counter example.
The data base of results from the FCI is enormous and growing
rapidly. I have direct knowledge of data on more than 20,000 students and
300 physics classes spanning the range from high school to graduate school.
Judging from the steady stream of FCI reports at AAPT meetings, the FCI has
undoubtedly been used in hundreds of other physics classrooms. Richard Hake
has compiled, analyzed and published a substantial portion of that data.
Halloun and I are analyzing more extensive data on high school students and
teachers. Altogether, the data provides overwhelming support for our
original conclusions. The data base is now so broad that the unsettling
message it brings can no longer be attributed to bias or incompetence of
the original investigators.
Having administered the FCI at his own school and seen the dismal
results, Griffiths does not doubt the published data or its importance.
Rather, he questions the validity of the FCI and the urgency of the
results. His doubts are based on a general skepticism of multiple choice
tests and his own arm chair analysis of test items. It is precisely to
answer such doubts that the FCI has been carefully validated with extensive
student interviews. All this has been thoroughly documented in the
literature and repeatedly checked by many different people. The FCI is not
comparable to the off-the-cuff multiple-choice tests that teachers
construct on their own. The carefully constructed distracters for each item
are not typical multiple-choice throwaways, but common sense alternatives
to Newtonian concepts that amplify the significance of student responses.
**********************************
Jane Jackson, Dir., Modeling Workshop Project
Box 871504, Dept.of Physics, ASU, Tempe, AZ 85287
480-965-8438/fax:965-7331. http://modeling.la.asu.edu
The more receptive you are, the more you can receive.