Let me first apologize to Richard Hake for implying his participation in
a message that I did not take very well, when he obviously did not
participate.
Let me also apologize to Jack Uretsky and the whole list, for giving a
"shoot from the hip" response to Jack's comment that maybe my labs are
not teaching what I think they're teaching.
Next, I want to respond to Brian Whatcott who said that my response,
which began "I think...," was inadequate.. This will also be a response
to Jack and Richard and John Clement about using proven techniques and
proven testing instruments.
I admit I am not using the published techniques and tests that John and
Richard quoted. I am using another technique with a very long
history... working directly with students one-on-one. This technique is
not manageable at a large institutions with hundreds of students in the
class. My style is the "studio style" that John mentioned in a recent
post under the heading "Lab Reports - was Human Error."
My usual class size is 5 to 20 students. This past term I had 11
students in sophomore calculus-based physics. I meet with "the class"
for 50 minutes, 5 days a week. They come to lab alone or in groups of
two for as many hours as is necessary "to get the job done." I
continuously float between my office and the lab (30 yards apart) to see
how they're doing, kibitz over their techniques and lab notebooks,
answer questions (usually with a question), and they can come to my
office for help at any time.
[An aside that might be relevant... the class meets everyday at 8:00 am.
Over the years the greatest complaint by a landslide is the timing of
the course. I have taught 5 days a week at 8:00 for 27 years and likely
will do so until I retire. It is not my choice. I have no say in this.
To change it would upset a balanced schedule that was in place even when
I was a student here in 1968, except in 1968 the start of physics class
was 7:40 AM. There is no doubt there are morning people and people who
clearly are not morning people. I often wonder if many of my problem
students would not be problem students if there were a section of the
class at a different time.]
We have no teaching assistants. I personally grade every lab report.
There is often more of my ink on the reports than their ink - both
corrections and compliments. Students can come in to talk about their
reports both before and after grading.
I have dabbled with home-grown multiple-choice exams, standardized
exams, numerical problem-solving exams... but have gravitated toward
essay exams in which the questions begin "Please explain..." or "What do
you think about..." or "How would you... " Or they conclude, "What is
the significance of this?" or "What is tehe meaning of this?"
There is an old adage that you don't understand something until you
explain it to someone else. I have found this very true. In my own
personal and unpublished "educational research" I have had students take
multiple-choice exams, or numerical-based problem-solving exams, and do
reasonably well. Then, when given an essay exam over the same material
I have found both an inability to explain what something means, and the
revelation of various gross misconceptions that never showed up on the
numerical and multiple-choice exams. And yes... some of the
multiple-choice exams were will written... and sometimes were
standardized exams.
So perhaps at this point I should asked Jack, and Richard and John...
are your proven test instruments really telling you what you think they
are telling you? Can the students who do well on these exams sit down
and explain the physics concepts to you verbally or in writing? I have
found that many students cannot. Perhaps I am "old school," but I think
the ultimate test is to have extended verbal and written dialogue with
the students if you really want to know what they understand and what
they do not understand? Does it matter how many proven test instruments
indicate improved understanding if the student cannot put it all
together in an explanation to someone else? Or, conversely, is the
proven test instrument of any value if I already know from one-on-one
dialogue that the student can or cannot explain the physics concepts?
If I already know from one-on-one dialogue what the misconceptions are,
I don't need more diagnostics... I just need to get down to the business
of trying to clear up the misconceptions. Sometimes I do this with the
whole group, sometimes in groups of two or three, and sometimes
one-on-one.
The exasperation that prompted me to begin the Human Error thread came
from an unusual mix of students in this year's class that refused to
cooperate. John Clement's recent post is relevant to my experience with
this class...
<begin John Clement quote>
One might assume that this is purely an attitude problem. OTOH it might
be a cognitive problem. The two are very closely bound together. If
you do not see the logical necessity for taking care with your data,
then your attitude will be "who cares". It is also a sociological
problem. Our society is based on "getting the job done" in the fastest
easiest fashion.
<end John Clement quote>
Some students bring lab reports to me a few days before the due date and
ask for a quick review. This is something I always offer all students.
I especially encourage struggling students to do this. I actually had
more than one instance of the following type of dialogue in this year's
class.
(Me)... Ashley, you have listed human error as the cause of your
unexpected results.
(Ashley)... Yes, I know. I didn't know what else to say.
(Me)... You know I won't accept that.
(Ashley)... I know.
(Me)... Okay, let's talk about it. What do you suppose...
(Ashley)... I really don't have time for this.
(Me)... Then why did you ask me to review your report?
(Ashley)... Because you might point out some typos that would be easy
for me to fix.
(Me)... Ashley, I am not a proof reader. That's not the service I
volunteered to provide.
(Ashley)... Okay. Never mind. I gotta go.
(Me)... At least remove the human error comment and say that you don't
know why you didn't get the expected results. That would at least be
the truth.
(Ashley)... Okay
Two days later, the lab report came in unchanged. The human error
comment was still there.
(Me)... Ashley, you didn't change a thing on this report.
(Ashley)... I didn't have time. Just give me my grade.
I had several students with this attitude in my class of 11. It was a
depressing term. It's worse. The students who had this attitude were
in our program that leads to a teaching license for math and science at
the middle-school level. When I asked them (individually) why they
wanted to teach middle-school science and math, each responded that what
they really wanted to do was coach volleyball, or baseball, or
softball... and to do that you need to teach something, and the word is
that junior-high science and math teachers are in the highest demand.
When it becomes clear that this is the bottom line, perhaps the best
thing I can do is be a filter that helps purify the teacher stream.
Let me point out that last year I had a class size of 22, and five of
them were aiming for middle-school science and math... and these five
were wonderful. Three of them had better understanding and higher
grades than the physics and chemistry majors in the class. All five of
them are going to be middle-school science/math teachers with a very
good grasp of basic science and math.
I might also point out other examples of the roller-coaster quality and
make-up of physics classes in small colleges and universities. Last year
(Spring 2004) we graduated eight physics majors. We have a total
student body of 1200 students. If you divide 8 by 1200 and compare that
to other schools, you'll find that we had the highest per capita number
of physics majors in the state of Ohio. That means that in the
2001-2002 school year when these students were in calculus-based
physics, I had an incredible class (29 students and most were very
good). I worked my tail off with a class that large, and I thoroughly
enjoyed it. This year there are 11 students in the class and none is a
physics major. They are pre-med, biology, computer science, and
middle-school science.
I and our admissions staff have absolutely no explanation for the
roller-coaster of science enrollments that we see from year to year.
But the bottom line is... I am teaching in a studio style that might
also be called a mentor/apprentice style. I know what my students
understand and what they don't understand. I don't know what to do with
the ones who refuse to participate in the mentor/apprentice
relationship. I have tried various accommodations with difficult
students, sometimes with success, but it is very difficult to change
what is basically a bad attitude.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l