Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Extra Credit (was Where Have All the Boys Gone?)



2 cents from my soapbox, the following is full of opinion; any resemblence
between what I say and reality may be purely coincidental.


Interleaved comments from two posts:

Thomas O'Neill wrote:


My favorite class in college (Analytical Chemistry)
operated on
a "contract for grade" basis. There was a list of activities
(including
labs, tests, quizzes and homework) and a set number of points for each
final grade. You worked until you got your desired grade. . . .

My experience was quite the opposite, and in retrospect (from the
perspective of an instructor I still don't like it.) I took a contract for
grade Classical Mechanics course. The result was that I learned very little
in that course compared to standard style instruction. I looked at the
contracts, decided what I needed to achieve the 'A' grade and did precisely
that *and no more* (it took about 40% of the term to complete). My
objection is that things were too clearly spelled out for me as a student as
to what was needed to achieve the highest bar. I have always learned more
in classes where the requirements for an 'A' were fuzzy and not clearly
defined; this required me to learn a lot more in the class to ensure that I
achieved the highest marks available (I didn't achieve this in all courses,
but it was a goal as student).

So I will ask the question that has always bothered me: Once a
physicist/chemist/engineer/scientist leaves school, when will
he/she/it
ever take another test? Because the issue of extra credit and testing
assumes that testing is a better method of evaluating student
mastery of
the material. Tests revolve around solving known problems
with limited
resources in a fixed time. Most professionals that I am aware of, do
not approach problem-solving with those skills. . . .

This is a fairly common complaint regarding tests (particularly from
students) and I think it is mostly a red herring. I can think of little
reason why a test in a typical academic course (I'm not considering things
like Vo-tech, courses as in Dental school for example, where a test of
actually filling a cavity would be a counter example to what I'm saying)
should be thought of as replicating the professional experiences that the
student will have later on in life 10, 20 years hence. To my mind it is
silly for me to believe (it clearly isn't), or to believe that my
introductory physics tests are any such thing.

I do hope that the tests I give will in some degree test understanding of
some core material in a subject as well as abilities to solve "toy" problems
in novel situations, demonstrate logical thinking etc. The timed aspect of
a test also serves as an indicator of the student's familiarity with the
material; have they spent the time to be familiar with the material?

To be sure tests also measure other things that are important, but may not
be subject pertinent. Can the student do the things necessary to please the
"boss"; an important job skill. Can they time manage their activities (all
the other courses and tests they have to take, as well as fun time etc etc).

Probably the best evaluation for a students professional competence would be
actuall on the job performance (this would have to be done something like 6
months to a year into the first job experience. I don't think that one
should demand that tests be what they can't possibly be and then use that
fact as a criticism of testing.

BTW Most physics curricula has more than timed tests as the evaluation
instruments, lab reports, class projects, homework sets, etc etc.

Rick Tarara wrote in part:

". . .courses built entirely around individual problem solving (especially
back of
chapter problems) and 'cook-book' labs are not going to serve either the
students or the Physics profession very well."

If I interpret the above type course (perhaps not what Rick meant) as being
a standard style course, then I'd claim they have served the physics
profession quite well. These standard type courses have served in the last
sixties years or so in produces more than enough physicists than the economy
can handle, which is why we see articles on alternative careers for physics
majors.

end of rant for the moment

Joel Rauber