Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a post "Re: Force
Concept Inventory" [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "What do they do in math? #2" [Hake
(2010)], Robert Hansen (2010b), in his Math-Teach post "Force Concept
Inventory," raised 14 points which reflect a standard traditionalist
perspective. They can be roughly paraphrased as follows (as indicated
in my complete post, Hansen's writing is often imprecise - therefore
I have sometimes had to guess at his meaning - please let me know if
I've misinterpreted him):
(1) The elements of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI ) have very
little usefulness or meaning without the context of the abstract
mathematical model in which they were born."
(2) Hake's work suggests that he only considers non-physics major courses.
(3) Hake's statements would imply that physics-lite is for all students.
(4) I took two years of traditional high school physics from a
teacher that taught *actual* physics. All the misconceptions probed
by the FCI were considered and in addition students attained the
systematic deconstructive analytical ability typical of physics.
(5) At first I thought the FCI was a *pre-class* inventory. But after
reading Hestenes et al. (1992) it became apparent that the FCI in a
*post-class* inventory.
(6) The FCI questions are not "physics" per se because they avoid the
"real complexities," as admitted by Hestenes et al. (1992).
(7) I am not concerned about a general science introductory physics
class for the masses that removes the abstract mathematical modeling
of actual physics.
(8) My concern is that high-school teachers have misinterpreted the
purpose of "research" like Hestenes et al. (1992) and have used it as
a guide for teaching physics, period.
(9) To know physics is to know not only the correct answers to
questions such as those on the FCI, but also to know the reasoning
behind the answers. Without the mathematical reasoning you don't have
physics, but something like high school science.
(10) The arguments in this post show that physics is math or at least
that its essence is in creating abstract mathematical models of the
universe. Can Hake explain why it isn't?
(11) I agree that the FCI is a test of failure but it lacks the
"complexities" of physics. If I am correct that many high school
physics teachers mistook Hestenes et al. (1992) and designed their
courses (even for aspiring physicists) without the "complexities"
would Hake be concerned?
(12) Hake's statement that "it's true that most practicing physicists
learned physics despite the ineffectiveness of traditional
passive-student introductory physics courses. But so what? The future
of life on planet Earth hinges on the science/math literacy of the
masses" somewhat proves Haim's conjecture.
(13) Is minimal literacy of the masses worth more than authentic
literacy of aspiring physicists and engineers who were previously
served by traditional physics instruction?
(14) Are the above even exclusive goals? Couldn't there be a divider
(like they use in grocery stores) between these two sets of students
and goals?"
I respond to each of the above points from my own research-physicist
perspective.
*******************************************
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/>].
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Re: Force Concept Inventory,"online at the OPEN
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/93oBRJ >. Post of 12 Jul 2010
11:44:25 -0700 to AERA-L and NetGold.