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] Pedagogy (was: Physics job opening in Texas for 2008-09)



I know that this has been studied to some degree, but using similar formats for both my regular and AP B courses, I found FCI gain scores for my regular physicists (algebra based, Hewitt text) to be around 0.35 (consistently for the past four years) and for the AP physicists to be around 0.50 (both sets of students are more or less encountering 'Physics' for the first time). I would describe my approach as 'cut and paste.' I don't really adhere to one way of doing things over the course of the entire year. I bring this up somewhat in defense of the PER folks (I think).
If anything, the conceptual understanding part is not as explicitly front and center in the AP course (its there, but if you want to consider it as a conservation of instructional time principle, there is more emphasis on quantitative analysis in my AP course, thereby implying that less time is devoted in class to conceptual (read qualitative) understanding).
Perhaps a majority of research in PER is devoted to introductory physics courses for non-physics/engineering students? Just an armchair observation.

Matt


Iowa City West High School
Iowa City, IA 52246 USA
ph 319-688-1050


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of R. McDermott
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:24 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Physics job opening in Texas for 2008-09

The problem is, John, how one determines "high gain". As far as I know,
the FCI has, in the past, been used to establish this high gain, but
many do not accept this instrument as "proof" of same. I have to admit
that I wonder if the FCI and Modeling aren't so closely bound as to make
better scores a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now bear in mind here that
I'm a believer in Modeling instruction and active engagement, but it was
obvious to me when I was first exposed to Modeling that "traditional
instruction" simply disregarded the basic concepts entirely as they
were, to the instructors, so self-evident as to not require any special
effort to expand upon. It wasn't so much the lecturing as it was a case
of "here's the equation, this should be sufficient to explain what is
going on". It should be no surprise, therefore, that an instrument
designed to get at the fundamental concepts would find that
traditionally-taught students would not have an understanding of those
fundamental concepts.

I came through a traditional physics program in 1969 (though admittedly
not at a first-line school), had PhD instructors who did research, etc,
and when I came out, I am certain that the FCI would have tripped me up.
Does that mean I didn't learn anything? I don't think so; what it WOULD
mean is that the things I learned aren't on the test and the points that
are stressed on the test deal with things that were simply not stressed
in my coursework. One should be careful in how one evaluates that
outcome, imo.

Should the basic concepts have been stressed more? Absolutely; it was a
great failing in my instruction. In my case, however, it wasn't a
failing in the lecture methodology so much as an omission in content.
That said, students like me will "engage" regardless of presentation
style. You and I (and hopefully most here) understand that this isn't
the general case, especially in high school, hence the need for active
engagement methodologies.

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 00:42 -0500, John Clement wrote:
Feynman saw the problem, but never the solution. He admitted that students
were not learning well. His paradigm was to improve the lectures, which did
not work. Redish also tried it, and failed, but then found that some PER
remedies did the trick. His research has been published.

The lifeblood of PER is RESEARCH, the same thing that fuels physics. The
religion metaphor is totally inappropriate, it is the last refuge of people
who can not bring up evidence to bolster their views. Everyone has things
that they believe, but PER is based on evidence and research. So one can be
convinced or can believe that PER works better based on the evidence.

I have taught students who have gone through traditional courses, and they
still come in with very low understanding. There are many ways to teach
more effectively, but the traditional method is NOT one of them. I have
never seen any evidence that the traditional method can achieve the same
gain as PER based methods. Perhaps someone can provide evidence from a
traditional course that achieves high gain?????

Citing authority is very faith based, or perhaps one can treat them as
celebrity endorsements, sort of like cigarette ads. So please bring up
evidence and not received enlightenment from past "authorities".

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

The big problem is that they have paradigms that may prevent them from
becoming better.
Every Ph D has such a paradigm? Maybe there are a couple
who sneak off on the side and get washed in the blood of the PER
lamb?

But traditional HS teachers also have paradigms that
prevent them from becoming better. Traditionally trained teachers tend
to
use traditional methods no matter the level of education.

And traditional methods are per se wrong? Sommerfeld,
Pauli, and Feynman never saw the light of PER? There is only 1
effective way to teach? How could anyone possibly know this? It sounds
to me like faith-based educational theory.


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l