Re: [Phys-l] Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

There is no implication that the long time is the reason why it is better.
The long time is the reason why it is difficult to make more tests. One has
to do interview protocols and free response questions, then sift through the
various answer to come up with appropriate distractors.  The long developmen
time is necessary to come up with a research based test.

I don't think that the AP exam has had similar exhaustive testing.  What
sort of testing is used for the AP exam?

The first article I hit was:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smg/ficss/research/articles/Science_educator_adva
nced.pdf

While a small amount of review may precede the FCI, the reputable teachers
do not have the students study similar sample questions.  But the AP does
generally have intense review where similar tests are studied.  So the FCI
may actually have less bias.

In either case please read and respond to the conclusions of the reference
article.  It is much better than anything I can say.  Indeed the depth of
research is there so why not read it and come up with refuting research.
That is how science is done.  If you consider it is done wrong, publish a
paper showing evidence why it is wrong.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

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