|
| Unfortunately, it is usually impossible to diagnose student
| thinking by the usual end of chapter problems. This is why
| concept inventories have been developed. A good concept
| inventory has several questions which probe the same concept,
| and can be used for diagnosis of difficulties.
|
. . .
|
| If back of the chapter questions were generally good, then
| traditional Halliday and Resnick students would achieve hig
| FCI scores. But they don't.
|
Me thinks that you are building up a bit of staw-man. The post below
merely said that you can get some idea from end-of-chapter problems.
And it has been my experience that , indeed, one can get some idea of
misconceptions from end-of-chapter problems.
Admittedly, this isn't the same as the carefully designed concept
inventory tests; but it wasn't claimed to be. Furthermore, as I read
the post, it wasn't claimed that end-of-chapter problems alone were
going to achieve large gains in measures derived from concept inventory
testing.
|
| > Bill Rachinger wrote:
| > > My earlier email indicating that I was seeking Diagnostic
| tests on
| > > LCR circuits and opamps was regrettably ambiguous.
| >
. . .
And John D. responded, in part, with:
| >
| > You could get some ideas from the end-of-chapter problems in a
| > suitable text. Horowitz and Hill is still pretty much the gold
| > standard. I like it, and I've never heard anybody say anything bad
| > about it.
| >
|