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] Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2



Jack,

Are you saying that (A) allowing students to review the answers after
the "pre-test" will result in (B) improved scores?

If so, I agree with you. A will cause B.

Are you also saying that (B) improved scores are ONLY because (A)
students are allowed to review the test?

If so, maybe you can describe the experiments you've carried out to
reach this conclusion because otherwise it seems you are affirming the
consequent (if A then B; B, therefore A).

Besides, my experience does not support your conclusion. I don't allow
students to see the test after they've taken it the first time. And as
long as I don't explicitly go over the test, I've found that even
purposeful discussion of similar questions has little to no effect on
their scores as a whole (for the class). For example, there are certain
strategies where student performance is poor, even when the questions on
the survey are very similar to the ones I go over in class. In other
words, I don't even have to completely eliminate the possibility of
conscious or unconscious bias - the scores are surprisingly stable for a
given instructional approach.

Yet, I *have* been able to get different scores (both better and worse)
by changing the instructional approach.

I admit that my experiments have not been rigorous but they have been
consistent enough to make me question your conclusion (B, therefore A).

Of course, perhaps you aren't saying B, therefore A, and instead you
have another reason that "PER results constitute the great Hornswoggle
of the American Phyics Education community." If so, I apologize for
misinterpreting your message.

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:31 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2

Hi all-
As physicists, looking at the results of measurement
(fci scores) we should start by looking at the measurement
tools. The tools are self-reported "gains" on repeditive
admininistrations of the fci. For starters, lets ask, what
fraction of the tests given reviewed the answers, giving the
"forrect" answers, after an fci test? The first test? which
subsequent test?
I note that in real life pysics experimatents, data are
often encoded to eliminate the possibility of conscious or
"unconsciaus" bias.
To what extent are such precautions taken in "PWE" testing?
My take is that "PWR results" constitute the great
Hornswoggle of the American Phyics Education community.

Regards,
Jack