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] Inquiry



So let's say that I begin with the belief that my AP physics students would be better prepared for college if they had some experience reading their texts and figuring things out for themselves outside of class. That is a conjecture. And now I want to do some research to confirm or refute this. But I have some questions and concerns about how to do this.

I could randomly divide my students into two groups. That's about as far as I get without trouble. Because now I want one group to read on their own, the other not. But I am still the teacher, responsible for presenting the curriculum. Do I not teach the non-reading other group this material? I have to teach it to them if I plan on testing both groups. I can't test one group and not the other -- kids talk to each other, and so do their parents. I think I'd get a few emails about this.

Well, let's say I figure a way past this. For a few sections in the text, I find a way to get half of these students to work through it on their own, while I teach it to the other half. Now how do I test my original conjecture? It seems that I will have to follow their college careers, measure their success in learning science in college and then tease out the contribution of my experiment. I don't know how to do this.

I don't thing it would help to give the FCI/FMCE before and after to both groups. My conjecture was not about those tests. I don't know if there is research that shows that performance on those tests correlates with success at learning physics and engineering in college and beyond. I suppose their must be. Otherwise, it's just conjecture too.
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement [clement@hal-pc.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:51 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Inquiry

All of this is conjecture and conviction based on particular assumptions
about how students learn. It would be really nice if someone could come up
with some research to refute or confirm the various attitudes towards
reading the text.

Mazur claims that his program works best if students read the text before
coming to class. There is some slight evidence for this, but I do not
recall that it was seriously tested. Also Mazur has probably 100% formal
operational students in his class. Minds on Physics is designed to be read
after the in class exploration, so it serves as part of the learning cycle,
but the authors did not quote any research to back it up.

There is evidence from AZ State that students in chemistry who did not
attend the lectures did better than those who did. So presumably they read
the book, but the effect is not huge, and certainly not as large as that
reported by most interactive engagement experiments.

I do know of one student who got through a calculus based physics course by
only using the book. But this person is a special case. He had already
shown 100% gain on the FMCE during my course. So once one understands the
concepts, the book is usable.

Priscialla Laws has reported that students do not crack open the book in her
course which gets high gain in the FMCE or FCI. So would they do better if
they actually used the book?

I would say that even most of the highly regarded books are not written in a
way which is consistent with what we know from brain and science education
research. At present Mazur is using some brain research to try to make his
upcoming book more compatible. Knight and Chambay & Sherwood are written
with PER in mind, but I suspect not with cognitive science research in mind.

The pre-college books are absolutely poorly written with regards to the
research, and the physical science books are further filled with
misconceptions, misleading drawings, and confusing layouts.

I have just been looking at some passages in a 9th grade IPC book which has
supposedly easy to read text. But if you look at it from the point of view
of the current students it has a number of words and terminology which
simply is not understood by the students. For example the term "noble gas".
When students were asked what noble means they replied things like good, or
powerful. Practically none though of nobles or royalty. So the term noble
gas does not bring up the image of something which is above bonding or is
self sufficient. Yet the book never brings up this connection to try to get
the students to connect the words. The book also talks about the use of
silver in photographic film, but these students have probably never taken
pictures with a traditional camera. They mainly use their cell phones.

From what I have seen, the teachers do not read the book, and merely assume
that it is readable by the students. Do you read the actual text of every
textbook you use? Then when you read it do you try to think of the reading
in terms of what the students might get out of it? Then of course there is
the editorial the recent American Journal of Physics which points out that
science history is copied from one book to another without regards to
accuracy. This is despite the volumes of research that have debunked a lot
of history in the texts.

I don't think that reading the texts has ever been popular with students,
and in today's world, books have become secondary to other sources of
information for most students. Of course books will not go away, just as
most older technology never really goes away. But they will have a smaller
share of the market. There is now some evidence that multimedia can work
better than conventional texts, but this requires the multimedia to be
designed according to the known cognitive science principles. Textbooks
never had a research based filter applied, so it is no wonder that they are
less than optimal.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



Textbook reading allows students to build details around the key ideas
they gather through the various strategies each Physics instructor
employs. Without it, it is the same as building a house with only some
selected big pillars. Where are the windows and doors and the like
that a complete house should have? Even the humble pieces of bricks
must be remembered in the building processes. This is why reading from
the text is a non-negotiable activity in knowledge construction.


I still think students are rational - they do what they need to
do. Depending on how we design our classes, they may not need to
read.

...
Anthony Lapinski
Physics is very difficult to understand, especially the first time
around....
With good teaching, appropriate demos, peer instruction, and active
engagement of students in class, the textbook becomes less
necessary.
...

Oh, for heaven's sake. There is a great deal that must be
learned
from books at one stage or another. Surely THAT'S not a point of
debate?



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