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: Thinking Level of students



At 11:34 9/9/01 -0400, John Denker responded incredulously to
Wes Davis's note, as follows:

Shocking as it may be, most[ college ]
students are intrinsically unable to grasp ... relationships
[ such as the earth/moon/sun geometric relationship ]

Well, we can agree that it's shocking. I'm shocked.

In particular, here's where I'm coming from. Please take a moment to
consider the following hypotheses:

1) There is a general skill category called "geometric relationships".

2) Within this skill category, there is a lot of transference. That is,
the ability OR INABILITY to learn one skill in this category is correlated
with other skills in this category.

3) Geometric relationship skills are necessary (but not sufficient) for
learning any of the following activities:
-- playing volleyball or basketball or practically any other team sport,
since it involves visualizing where the ball is going and where other
players are going.
-- playing chess.
-- folk dancing.
-- sewing, macrame, origami, ....
-- riding a bicycle or driving in traffic.
-- et cetera.

4) The assertion that "most" college-age kids are intrinsically
incapable of learning the geometric relationships involved in such tasks is
highly implausible. Some of these tasks are hard, but the geometric
relationships are not the hard part.

Indeed, most !blind! children, well below college age, can learn geometric
relationships.

5) Visualizing the earth/moon/sun geometric relationship is no harder
than any of the other tasks mentioned.


I really don't want to get into a big argument /discussion

Fine. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will continue to
believe that assuming "most" college students are "intrinsically incapable"
of learning basic geometric relationships does the students a disservice.

Others are free to believe whatever they want.



I begin by assuming the integrity and good faith of both sides of this
debate. Moreover, I will assume that both parties have a foundation of
evidence in their favor.

What I will ponder here, is a possible basis for these opposing
conclusions.

I begin by remembering that Ludwik asked in recent days if people would
execute a one question test (of a seemingly relevant and straight forward
physics question) and report on results.

No one queried this - but they certainly should have.
I used to ask prospective technical employees,
"Can you tell me if the collector should be connected to a positive or
negative supply when you select a PNP transistor?".

I placed a heavy weight on a correct answer, until I realised my error.

Even the highest-stakes test tries to use a statistically respectable
assortment and quantity of questions, and so should we.

I want to suppose that like Ludwik, Wes is using a narrow criterion to
verify understanding of a topic. He will then confidently assert of
students who do not answer his question correctly, even exactly, that
they do not understand the quality of the Earth Moon Sun spatial
relation.
I hope so, anyway.

This brings back to mind, the exam maker quote on the GRE Physics
battery - who all but accused Asian teachers of cheating in
jealously accumulating past papers for the benefit of their students.

A message which one *could* carry away from that thread, is that
making statistically respectable academic tests is no picnic,
and academics who undertake such tests are more than willing to
hope that "gentlemens' agreements" about not showing off particular
years of prior test papers will save them the unwelcome effort
of providing each new year's test takers an even playing field,
where all are at liberty to practice on prior questions,
with the guarantee that previous years answers will not figure
in current test results.

Brian W



brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net> Altus OK
Eureka!