Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)

[Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>]

My question is, I believe, very relevant.  The PER studies are being used to
strongly suggest that we entirely change the way physics is taught.  The new
techniques and  pedagogy seem to produce better performance on certain
assessment tools, such as the FCI and FCME.  However, a point I made years
ago is that we seem to have produced a reasonably good crop of scientists
and engineers throughout the last century.  So what is the educational goal
here?  Get good scores on a handful of conceptual tests or produce the best
educated scientists, engineers, and others?  These MAY go together, but that
is my question.  What evidence is there that active engagement courses with
whatever gains (and limitations) they may have, produces better graduates
than the current techniques and pedagogy?  I have this nagging fear that
there is something about the traditional educational approach that may be
really important (but unrecognized) in the process of training students.  We
might be fixing one problem (poor conceptual understanding in introductory
courses) for something else.  I hardly see why Brian should be sorrowed or
piqued, but it is right to be so.  ;-)

Rick




----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Whatcott" <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)


> At 08:20 AM 4/29/02, Rick Tarara wrote:
> >  My original question remains--do courses with high FCI/FCME gains
> > produce better Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Engineers, Doctors,
> > Accountants, Lawyers, Indian Chiefs, etc.?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > **********************************************
> > Richard W. Tarara
> > Professor of Physics
> > Saint Mary's College
> > Notre Dame, IN 46556
> > rtarara@saintmarys.edu
> >
> > FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE
> > www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
> > PC and MAC software
> > NEW! SIMLAB2001--AIR TABLE now available.
> > XP compatible upgrades and CD-ROM available
> > ******************************************************
>
>
> I cannot help but observe that a person who is not dismayed that
> the deferred gratification (so to speak) of providing corrected homework
>   assignments hours or days later, which is associated with sub optimal
> student uptake of material, should also be interested in a long-deferred
> measure of educational success, which is also already known to have
> unexceptional correlation with any objective measure of the
> educational process.
>
>   Do you doubt the role of happenstance in occupational
>   outcomes?  Still, if you want an academically respectable measure
> for occupational outcomes   [for males] - take details of height where
> above average height is an advantage, a distinctive or handsome
> appearance, superior social skills, a sporting background, and
> no more than a modestly bright intellect.  Or even total expenditure
> on the subject's education. I suggest that this is the kind
> of measure that is predictive for the fields mentioned: skip the
> FCI/FCME by all means, if this is the professional predictor that
> interests you!
>
> [Offered more in sorrow than pique]
>
>
>
>
>
> Brian Whatcott
>    Altus OK                      Eureka!