Re: grading schemes

[Stanley Chiocchio <stanleychiocchio@HOME.COM>]

I have only been teaching two years, and my remarks may be premature.
Regarding demonstrating, there is a golly gee wiz Mr Wizard that can wake up
students. It can even impress them. Sadly, it does not teach much. It
entertains. My students have to get there hands on things and struggle with
them to learn concepts. I suspect most of us are like that.  Although I
sucessfully teach a physics B course to students in one, not two years,  I
really think that the course is too full of math problems and not enough
real physics. I took physics 50 years ago. I came to teach it without doing
anything with it for 50 years. The concepts were in place. I quickly
relearded the math. If the concepts are important.I remember them. The
concepts are the only thing that really is lasting, why teach all these math
constructs, that really do not duplicate the real world, which is far mare
complex, won't really be retained, to students who find them boring? I
strongly suspect teachers do this because it is all they know and find
interesting. Perhaps, it is the way they were forced to learn physics.  I
love discovery labs. Sometimes I give broad hints, sometimes none, sometimes
a how to do it , sometimes not...my students learn in the lab; they learn
when they read, they learn when I answer their questions. When I
demonstrate, when I lecture, I often wonder if I waste my time. I have
talked to few real heads in our field, two of which have Nobel Prises to
prove it and they say. Learn the math tools well when young, learn the
concepts. Then , you can work the real complex real world problems that
actually work. Sort of lets out the mindless algrfbra problems that litter
the AP exams.
Stanley Chiocchio
Physics Teacher
Isidore Newman School
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kossom" <MKossover@NEWMANSCHOOL.ORG>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: grading schemes


> Howdy-
>
> From: Rick Tarara [mailto:rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:42 PM
>
> > While they beg for 'extra credit', such is not built into
> > most of our syllabi (nor should it be).
>
> I'd say that this depends. In many physics courses, the only grade comes
> from exams and homework. These instruments test a very limited set of
> physics related knowledge. If a college course includes a lab component,
> then more types of physics knowledge are included. If projects are
included,
> then even more types of physics knowledge are appropriately included in
the
> grade.
>
> Physics is not just about solving problems. Although college physics
courses
> often are. Sadly.
>
> In my class grades do not come from just how well they solve problems.
> Graded items include having students write about physics, using complete
> sentences and coherent structure, not unlike what people do on PHYS-L.
They
> do traditional labs, but they also do labs where my guidance is minimal; I
> tell them what I want them to determine, and the method they can use
(within
> limits) is up to them. Each group might do it differently.
>
> I love projects, but they are very time consuming for the students if they
> are to do them right, so I rarely assign them. Projects are usually
> extra-credit these days. The projects usually require the students to
> investigate some field of physics and come up with a change in a how some
> device works to improve it and explain the physics behind the improvement.
I
> know that is vague, I approve the projects on a case by case basis.
>
> A student once investigated gymnastics and the changes that could be made
if
> gymnasts were allowed to use Heavy Hands (weights that are strapped to the
> ankles and wrists) in competition. She explained to the class what would
> happen -- three and four turn flips are much easier and weird balancing
> moves are possible -- and the physics that was behind them. Then she
> demonstrated what she discovered. Some have changed the shape of a
football
> or baseball, investigating the real world of air resistance. Several have
> tried to build better speakers.
>
> Actually struggling with physics in the real world is such a good way to
> learn. Further some students show tremendous knowledge in their projects
> that they do not in any other format.
>
> It seems to me that some of these kids are exceptionally strong
physicists.
> They are not number crunchers, but they do know how the world works, and I
> grade them appropriately.  I give no points for effort on these projects;
> they only receive points for the amount of physics they demonstrate. Of
> course failure can sometimes really well-demonstrate physics.
>
> This year a group is going to try to build a Battle Bots robot. Egads.
>
> I warn my students that college physics classes aren't like my class; most
> find college courses much easier. Some, though, will never make it through
> college physics courses because their teachers set up exams that test math
> and not physics, that give advantage to those who work especially quickly,
> that deal with silly abstractions, and that never see the real world.
>
> Sadly, few of my students go into the sciences. Over the nine years that
> I've been teaching, I've had about a dozen engineers and a couple of
> physicists of the many, many more that expressed interest upon graudating
> from high school. The most common problem is they find the college
programs
> dull.
>
> Marc "Zeke" Kossover