Re: [Phys-l] Physics job opening in Texas for 2008-09

["Richard Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>
> This began because the question originally was asked whether one could
> demonstrate that the research based instruction produced better physicists
> or engineers.  But the point that there is not yet enough statistics was
> completely ignored.  I do not know what percentage of courses are taught
> correctly using IE techniques, but from what I have seen it is very small,
> probably less than a few percent.  And the number of HS students who go 
> into
> either engineering or science is also probably less than a few percent. 
> So
> even if IE doubled either the quality of quantity of technical people, the
> effect could not be detected.

I note the third sentence here--and the word CORRECTLY.

I've seen this caveat before when it comes to evaluating Interactive 
Engagement techniques.  What I read into it is--if the author doesn't like 
the results they can always blame it on the fact that the techniques weren't 
used 'correctly' .  In fact one often noted compilation of FCI results (at 
least in draft form which I read), basically used the results from the test 
to determine if the pedagogy used was being done correctly and therefore 
should be properly included in the IE column which was then used to show 
that IE techniques were superior.  No wonder Jack is skeptical!   ;-)

Rick