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]

[Phys-L] Re: Whither Introductory Physics Labs? (was Lab Reports - was HumanError)



Well, I've attended enough talks by some of the PER folks, doing interviews
as their analysis tool, to understand that one really can't remove
'experimenter bias' from such. Then there is the whole 'FCI thing' where
one can equivalently ask--'and just what do the results of these tests
really show?' -- a topic we've hashed out before.

I'm with Edmiston on this....with a reasonable amount of experience, most
of us know what students are 'getting' and what they aren't. We also know
what we want to be teaching which is not necessarily what is necessary for
high scores on a particular third party test.

In the end, we can go around and around on teaching methods but the proof
is in the product. What kind of scientists and engineers are we
graduating? What kind of teachers are we preparing? What kind of
citizens are we educating? Those questions end up being difficult to
answer because of the barrel full of variables--not the least of which is
the attitude brought by too many students towards their own education
(attitudes that start all the way back in elementary school).

Rick

****************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

**********************************************************
FREE: Windows and Mac Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
***********************************************************


[Original Message]
From: James McLean <mclean@GENESEO.EDU>


John Clement wrote:
Generally students who do well can discuss and tell you what they
understand. So I do see a correlation between high evaluation scores
and
other indicators. But more to the point, these tests were developed
using
other written and verbal evaluations. They were developed using
interview
protocols, so they are certainly fairly accurate.
...

The bottom line is that you may be achieving exactly what you think,
but you
have little hard evidence unless you pre and posttest using these
instruments.

Does this strike anyone else as internally inconsistent?
* The basis for the validity of "these tests" is detailed interviews, etc.
* Yet, having the results of detailed interviews (as Edmiston described)
is considered "little hard evidence".

Sure, the detailed interviews would make comparisons between
institutions difficult, even if they were recorded (which I'm sure they
were not). But such a comparison is irrelevant to the conclusion being
drawn.

Sorry for a post that will be meaningless unless you have followed the
thread...
--
Dr. James McLean phone: (585) 245-5897
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l