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]

Re: [Phys-l] Sir, Can We Do Something Easier?


It gave the size of the school and the number of teachers.
In this area, 3 physics teachers is unusual for a public high
school of that size.

But beyond
subsequent performance,

Which is not the topic, The topic is fun, which translates into
getting students to take the course.

The "original topic" was the fact that in the UK and by extension the US,
the hard sciences are languishing. Within the context of that topic, I
seriously question whether it is possible to increase the number of students
who continue in hard science by just consciously making the course fun.

While it is possible to suck them into an intro HS course, will they
continue because of this? If the course does not improve conceptual
understanding can they continue? And of course you need to test for this
understanding. The only available widely distributed tests that you can use
for comparison are the FCI or FMCE for mechanics.


you need to factor out the effect of high SES. High
SES is the only reason for superior performance of private schools as
two
recent studies have confirmed.

That's easy for you to say, John. Where's the proof? Not
all asiatics are rich. My parents were scraping along during the
depression - one counterexample, even if anecdotal, should suggest that a
general rule is false.


The proof is in two recent large scale statistical studies that have been
released by the US Department of Education, but have been studiously ignored
by them because it conflicts with their ideology. One of these was
prominently reported by the NYTimes.

> The evidence is that on the average private
schools in general do a poorer job of education once the output scores
are
corrected for SES.

That may be someone's conclusion, but it's a misnomer to
call it evidence. But, again, that's another topic.

The reason for this comment is that while it may be possible to show that
your school in question has improved enrollment in physics, and it may be
possible to show that a larger number of students went into hard science,
one must then compare this school with another school of similar
demographics. SES is one identifiable indicator that seems to make a
difference. Social background would obviously be another indicator, but
that is much harder to determine. If the family values education vs if they
do not is hard to determine. The conclusion was based on the evidence that
once you correct the scores for SES, private schools on average are below
public schools. Essentially the analysis compares schools with equivalent
SES.


> There are also no Nobels for raising student thinking from low to
high levels.
In the context, the suggestion that FCI scores measure how much
student thinking is raised is pure pontification. The total content of
the suggestion is that John chooses to define the phrase
"high FCI gain"
as equivalent to the phrase
"raising student thinking from low to high levels".
Justification for that equivalence must await another decade or two of
investigation. The same comment suffices for the rest of John's quote,
for I grow weary.

The comment about Nobels was originally irrelevant because until recently we
have not had a strong research base for physics education.

Reuven Feuerstein does this routinely and will never get a
Nobel. I consider his work to be far more significant for human
progress
than most Nobels. However FCI scores do track well with the ability to
think. And thinking ability seems to be a limiting factor for the FCI.

Again, that seems to be easy for John to say. I await the
proof in the form of direct quotes from relevant papers (as opposed to
suggest reading assignments).


This data has been presented in various talks by me at AAPT meetings. The
only published paper on this is:
Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and
scientific reasoning ability Vincent P. Coletta and Jeffrey A. Phillips
Am. J. Phys. 73, 1172 (2005)

I would also recommend:
Comment on ''Cognitive level and college physics achievement''
Anton E. Lawson Am. J. Phys. 47, 652 (1979)

Scientific papers seldom offer proof, but rather persuasion, so a snippet
would not suffice. Real scientists read full papers.

--------------------------
There is a large amount of evidence for the use of FCI or FMCE gain (or
properly normalized gain as defined by Hake) as a measure of the ability of
students to understand and then use physics ideas. Once can certainly
criticize these tests as being incomplete, but they are all we have at this
point and they are a good beginning. Science seldom produces a persuasive
proof that then immediately changes the minds of all practitioners. It
slowly over time amasses evidence, and when the conservatives die the
revolution is complete. I see signs that we are now in the beginning of
such a revolution in science education.

The reason for bringing these test in is that when you make a course fun,
you also need to find out whether the students have learned more physics,
and also whether they have increased ability to reason. For the latter
topics you need to read Anton Lawson and Reuven Feuerstein. Eugenia Etkina
at Rutgers is now jumping onto this topic, so reading her papers, or
attending the AAPT and talking to her might be profitable.

It should be evident that focusing on fun is useless if the students do not
learn enough to be able to think clearly about some new topics. I also
contend that the real reason why the hard sciences are declining is because
of two factors. The first is social. Students want to take courses that
will give them a large income and a desirable lifestyle. We can have little
influence on this factor. As a result of it business is booming, and
biology is temporarily OK. The second factor is the ability to reason
scientifically, and the test for that has been developed by Anton Lawson.
In England there is evidence that this ability has slipped, and it may have
also gone down in the US. We can have an influence here.

So if the problem of declining hard science is to be fixed we need to attack
the problem of low thinking skills. The evidence from Shayer & Adey "Really
Raising Standards" is that it can be done, but it needs to be attacked at
earlier grades. I have statistical evidence that FCI gain is better
correlated with the Lawson test as a posttest than as a pretest, so raising
thinking can have some effectiveness in the physics classroom.

As to pontificating, that is name calling, and NOT a rational argument. It
would be wise to avoid such things. Yes, I do hold a conviction that PER
and science education research have important findings that need to be
implemented. But all this is saying is that I find the evidence convincing,
and at this point the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of my convictions.
I have also read every article and paper that I can get, including the few
that arrive at contrary conclusions.

There is one further piece of evidence that needs to be considered in light
of the original topic. Philip Sadler in a large scale study of college
physics grades vs HS physics found that taking HS physics was a very small
factor and that taking a HS calculus course was a much more important factor
in success. This of course is surveying conventional courses because even
now the PER inspired courses are a small fraction. So putting together a
fun conventional HS course vs a more serious one will possibly have no
effect at the college level. Incidentally I question many conclusions that
can be draws from Sadler's survey. I contend that students who do well in
college physics have the necessary thinking skills in place. Then because
they have the thinking skills in place they are capable of taking a HS
calculus course.

In conclusion, my contention is that "fun" is not the important parameter in
improving the number of physicists. The thinking ability of the student is
probably much more important to increasing the number of people who go into
hard science as a career. Students can find the activities that raise
thinking to be fun, but they were not designed to be fun.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX