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



Hi all-
JC sez:
_________________________________________________
> The reason why data using the FCI/FMCE is valuable is because the test is
research based and always the same. AP tests and other such tests
change
and are not research based because the research requires several years.
___________________________________________
I ask JC to explain why the words following "because" don't constitute a <non sequitur>l, There is certainly no explanation of the rationale in the posting. John seems to propose the propositionL Research (however defined) that takes a long time has less value than research that does not take a long time!!! ?????
Regards,
Jack

"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, John Clement wrote:

This is easily refuted by the article that I just referenced. All of the
testing was done with a variety of teachers at the same institution, and the
only variable was whether a conventional course or a studio style research
based course was used. If concious review was used by a given professor and
it affected the results, one would expect some of the conventional teaching
to have high gain, and some of the PER courses to have low gain. But this
didn't happen. In one case the same professor taught both ways and the
difference in gain was dramatic 50% vs 12%.

So even if concious review was used, it would not seem to have been
effective.

The reason why data using the FCI/FMCE is valuable is because the test is
research based and always the same. AP tests and other such tests change
and are not research based because the research requires several years.
They can not do this for every version of the test.

Some people have from what I understand tried to tell the students the
answers before the test, without revealing that these were the specific
answers they needed to know. The exact review did not work. Hestenes
claims you can do this all you want, and if the students don't understand
the concepts they will get them wrong every time. I do some review, but in
a general fashion and still get good gain. Usually I will do an ILD and
have the students do some problem solving. But for college classes I do not
do a lot of review.

This point has been raised before that we are telling the students the
answers. So try it and see if it works. DO THE EXPERIMENT!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


The probable bias is in the administration of the test, I
would think. I
have heard from teachers who "never" give a test without
first "reviewing"
it with the students. It's all related to the grade
inflation disease.

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