Re: [Phys-l] Premed Requirements Commentary

["John M Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

A third interpretation is that students are not good judges of what 
they learned.  Richard Hake has cited some research which validates 
that conclusion.

One "problem" with "reformed" courses is that students learn process 
more than facts so they tend to be negative about what they learned, 
so a possible fourth interpretation is that they could not put their 
fingers on what they had learned.  Of course the "problem" is the poor 
PR, not necessarily the learning.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> > ... the interesting part was that for the most part the students who 
> >
> > thought it was important had not taken physics in college and those 
> >
> > who didn't think it was important had.
>
> Wow, that *is* interesting.
>
> I've been racking my brains, but I'm not sure what to make of it.
> It seems open to multiple interpretations:
>
> -- One flattering interpretation is that the "takers" had learned
>  useful skills "by osmosis";  they retained the skills but didn't
>  remember /where/ they learned them.
>
> -- One unflattering interpretation is that the course didn't live
>  up to its billing.  The non-takers responded on the basis of the
>  course /description/, while the takers responded on the basis of
>  the actual course.
>
> We need more information before we can correctly interpret that
> statement ... but it seems well worth looking into.