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] conceptual physics



In the context of

Specifically, in today’s testing climate, I need examples of non-essay
type questions which will assess the student’s grasp of physics concepts with
answers which are not just regurgitation.

On 05/13/2012 10:01 AM, Marc "Zeke" Kossover wrote:

AAAS has some excellent ones http://assessment.aaas.org/

They also have the results of the questions having been giving to thousands of students.

I'm not sure I would call them "excellent". Certainly not uniformly
excellent.

One of their "key ideas" is:

Thermal energy of an object is associated with the disordered motions
of its atoms or molecules and the number and types of atoms or molecules
of which the object is made.

Depending on what they mean by "associated with" a good lawyer could
argue that what they are saying is not /entirely/ wrong ... except
that the way they use it is entirely wrong. One of the test items
boldly asserts:

Water has more thermal energy than ice because the molecules
of water are moving faster than the molecules of ice.

For water at 0C and ice at 0C, that's wrong by a factor of infinity.

=========

Also, maybe we should discuss the fact that the /whole idea/ of
"thermal energy" is an unsound concept and will have to be unlearned.

=========

In another section we find:

The magnitude of two forces can be added together.

The test-question that goes with this "idea" is not too bad, but
the statement of the idea is just ridiculous.

=========

When did "conceptual physics" get to be a synonym for "wrong physics"?

When science texts and science tests are full of wrong stuff, it
has terrible consequences for the individual students *and* for the
society at large. It plays into the hands of the evolution-deniers
and the climate-science-deniers and the macroeconomics-deniers and
the special-relativity-deniers and everybody else who wants to claim
that scientists don't know what they're talking about.