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] Physics First Revisited



I'm with Mike here. I think I've previously offered my criticism of at least some of the 'new pedagogy' as having moved what should be done outside the classroom to inside the classroom without sufficiently replacing and expecting the 'outside' component. I also don't know what IS a 'traditional' course. Is it merely the instructor talking more than the students doing their (home)work, or is it someone not EXCLUSIVELY using modeling or using guided inquiry or using discovery, or (fill in with the pedagogy du jour). With the change in classroom tools and admittedly the change in students, are there really any 'write the lecture on the board and have the students copy it into the notebook' courses still going? I, like Mike, do a lot of the talking in my classes although I am constantly trying to get some dialogs going (well I have one student that I would prefer NOT dialog so much) but overall find the same things Mike does.

I do use (the old published) FCI in my Calculus level course--giving it the first day of class in the guise of seeing if they remember (understand) enough from High School so that we can skip some of the intro stuff. Of course the answer is NO. We then don't mention those questions again although we work through the standard first semester curriculum. On the 1st semester final (there are two parts--a conceptual part and a problem solving part) they are given all the FCI questions again. My normalized gains are in the .4-.6 range over the years. Do I want to publish that? No. I'm not an educational researcher and my course varies from year to year and there are insufficient controls to make these data statistically meaningful. Does the test tell me anything--sure, that's why I use it. OTOH, if you are using the FCI or other such test to 'prove' how good your new technique is, there are a dozen new considerations (have you designed the course to focus on the knowledge in or types of questions in the FCI for example) that are likely not all that well controlled. Good educational research is really tough to do. A bunch of statistics can be easily misleading (can someone say "The Bell Curve"). The techniques of science may not always be appropriate to task of evaluating teaching techniques--see Jack U's posts. Constant focus on this one tool, a tool that covers a narrow (but deep--deeper than most give credit) understanding of a particular area, a tool that CAN be designed to, taught to, biased towards, or in fact may not address a very major goal of a particular course, gets tiresome and ultimately becomes less and less useful or instructive.

Back to Mike's questions: I personally vote for holding the line. For requiring the reading, for assigning (and grading) homework that counts (25% in my course), for continuing to discuss the topics with many everyday and practical examples (trying to pull some of those directly out of the student's experiences--and mouths if possible), to work examples--to explain over and over the process, to explain the thinking, then have the students practice and practice. I expect to be a major part of the process--and not be conducting a course that for all intents and purposes might just as well be from one of the 'online universities'--almost an oxymoron in my mind.

Rick (rapidly approaching retirement, thank goodness)

***************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
******************************
Free Physics Software
PC & Mac
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
*******************************

----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@bluffton.edu>

Here is my question... To what extent has inquiry (during regular class
period) become the way to achieve high gains due to the fact that the
traditional method relies on (1) attending class, i.e. lectures, (2)
reading the textbook, (3) doing problems, (4) performing labs, (5)
writing lab reports... BUT... today students almost en masse stop with
(1)?