If you reply to this long (8 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
Jing Han (2011) in his PhysLrnR post "High school FCI data" asked:
"Does anyone have high school students' FCI data ?"
High-school FCI [Hestenes et al. (1992) or Mechanics Diagnostic(MD)
test [Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b)] data are included (along with
college and university data) in "Interactive-engagement vs
traditional methods: A six thousand- student survey of mechanics test
data for introductory physics courses" [Hake (1998a)] and
"Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics
courses"[Hake (1998b)].
Fig. 3a. of Hake (1998a) is a plot of %<Gain> vs %<Pretest> score on
the MD or (FCI) tests for 14 HIGH-SCHOOL courses enrolling a total of
N = 1113 students. In this and subsequent figures, course codes,
enrollments, and scores are tabulated and referenced in Hake (1998b).
Table 1a of Hake (1998b) contains "Pre/post test data for 14
HIGH-SCHOOL physics courses enrolling a total of N = 1113 students.
"EDITOR: A person employed on a newspaper. . . [or journal]. . . ,
whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see
to it that the chaff is printed.
Elbert Hubbard <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbert_Hubbard>
"Education research deals with an extremely complex system. At
present, neither the educational phenomenology growing out of
observations of student behavior nor the cognitive science growing
out of observations of individual responses in highly controlled (and
sometimes contrived) experiments has led to a single consistent
theoretical framework. Indeed, it is sometimes hard to know what to
infer from some particular detailed experimental results. Yet those
of us in physics know well that advancement in science is a continual
dance between the partners of theory and experiment, first one
leading, then the other. It is not sufficient to collect data into a
'wizard's book' of everything that happens. That's not science.
Neither is it science to spout high-blown theories untainted by
'reality checks.' SCIENCE MUST BUILD A CLEAR AND COHERENT PICTURE OF
WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME AS IT CONTINUALLY CONFIRMS AND
CALIBRATES THAT PICTURE AGAINST THE REAL WORLD." [My CAPS.]
Joe Redish (2003, p. 15)
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 22 March 2011; some shortened by
<http://bit.ly/>.]
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six thousand- student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 64-74 (1998); online at
<http://bit.ly/d16ne6>.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive- engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses" (1998), online at <http://bit.ly/aH2JQN>.
Submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research Supplement to
AJP" (PERS), but rejected by its ex-few-body-nuclear-theorist editor
on the grounds that the very transparent, well-organized, and
crystal-clear Physical-Review-type data tables were "impenetrable"!
This universally ignored crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a)
tabulates and references: average pre/post test scores, standard
deviations, instructional methods, materials used, institutions, and
instructors for each of the survey courses of Hake (1998a). In
addition the paper includes: (a) case histories for the seven IE
courses of Hake (1998a) whose effectiveness as gauged by pre-to-post
test gains was close to those of T courses, (b) advice for
implementing IE methods, and (c) suggestions for further research.
Han, J. 2011. "High school FCI data," PhysLrnR post of 21 Mar 2011
01:04:18-0400; online on the CLOSED! :-( PhysLrnR archives at
<http://bit.ly/dUrKkn>. To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs
to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://bit.ly/beuikb> and then clicking on "Join or leave the list
(or change settings)." If you're busy, then subscribe using the
"NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may
access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving
NO MAIL from the list!
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043-1055 (1985); online
at <http://bit.ly/b1488v>.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion."Am. J. Phys. 53: 1056-1065; online at <http://bit.ly/b1488v>.
Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P. Mosca, & D. Hestenes. 1995. "Force
Concept Inventory (1995 Revision)," online (password protected) at
<http://bit.ly/b1488v>, scroll down to "Evaluation Instruments."
Currently available in 20 languages: Arabic, Chinese, Croatian,
Czech, English, Finnish, French, French (Canadian), German, Greek,
Italian, Japanese, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish,
Slovak, Swedish, & Turkish.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory," The Physics Teacher 30(3): 141-158; online as a 100 kB
pdf at <http://bit.ly/foWmEb > [but without the test itself]. For the
1995 revision see Halloun et al. (1995).
Redish, E.F. 2003 "Teaching Physics With the Physics Suite" (TPWPS),
John Wiley, TPWPS is online at
<http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Book/>. Note the crucial
correction of Fig. 5.2 and its caption on page 100.