[Phys-L] Re: Goals of the Introductory Course

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

On 03/23/05 15:00, Joseph Bellina wrote:
> Sadly, I don't believe the ability to solve a problem or set of
> problems, no matter has carefully crafted, will tell you if students
> understand the content.

That is self-contradictory.

I can't think of a "concept" that means anything
outside the context of using the concept to solve
problems ... preferably real-world problems, as opposed
plug-and-chug make-work problems.

>  There is lots of data, not just the FCI which
> strongly suggests that students can solve the problems at the end of the
> chapter and not understand the conceptual content.

That's OK, because it accuses only the end-of-chapter
problems, not problems in general.

The FCI is nothing more than a set of "carefully crafted"
problems ... yes, different from the usual end-of-chapter
plug-and-chug problems, but still just problems.

=====================

> | What good assessment problems have to avoid is
> | being structured exactly like example problems in the
> | books--such that memorized algorithms can be used to solve
> | them.  This takes some effort, but it is not all that
> | difficult.  Now how well students fare with such questions.......;-(
> |
>
> And these are exactly the kinds of problems that tend to earn you low
> marks in student opinion surveys

Well, that depends.

Mostly it depends on whether the students can _handle_
the assessment problems.  If they have been trained
on a steady diet of chug-and-plug problems, then
!pow! they get hit with an exam full of problems
that play by different rules, then they really do
have something to complain about.

But remember this sub-thread started from the idea
of working backwards from the exam.  Construct an
exam that assesses what you care about.  Then
your task is clear:  teach them what they need to
know to meet that goal.  If the text doesn't teach
them anything but plug-and-chugging, get a better
text, and/or supplement it like crazy.

I am not at all convinced that kids intrinsically prefer
plug-and-chug problems and abhor conceptual thinking.
Here's some rough evidence:  Go to the neighborhood
bookstore.  I predict you will find a goodly number
of _puzzle_ books (far outnumbering the physics books).
These puzzles commonly require out-of-the box thinking.
I think most kids have an innate attraction to this.
Indeed there is reason to suspect that the typical
educational process stifles this. when it should be
encouraging it.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l