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 Course



On 05/23/2012 09:22 AM, Jeffrey Schnick wrote in part:
Next comes the question of the gross structure of the course.

Below are some possibilities. ... I don't
think they are mutually exclusive.

[snip]

They're definitely not mutually exclusive.
-- A theme-based approach goes well with a puzzle-based (i.e.
reasoning-based) approach. The theme provides a source of
meaningful non-trivial non-busywork topics for analysis.
-- You can combine a studio-based approach with all of the
above.
-- "Modeling" in the narrow sense (i.e. making models) is
part and parcel of reasoning, so you can't do modeling
without reasoning or vice versa.
-- More broadly speaking, the "Modeling" (tm) buzzword
represents a combination already, including a combination
of emphasizing model-making (in the narrow sense) plus some
specific studio-instruction and peer-instruction methods
for getting the point across.
-- Lots of "hands on" activities can be combined with all
of the above.
-- et cetera

There doesn't seem to be training
available to college professors for that method but there is plenty of
information and there are plenty of modeling materials available on
line--one should be able to figure it out.

There is some support for modeling at the university level;
see e.g.
http://modeling.asu.edu/rup_workshop/design.html

==========

As a minor but possibly constructive suggestion: I recommend
the term "reasoning based" as a replacement for "puzzle based".
That's because some people associate "puzzles" with reasoning
about trivial artificial problems. We need to emphasize the
reasoning and eradicate the triviality and artificiality.

As specific examples of questions that require real-world
strategy and reasoning, take a look at:

http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/modules/driving/
including
http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/modules/driving/parts/investigation6.pdf

Also: According to the National Safety Council, the organization
that publishes materials for more-or-less all Defensive Driving
courses, the minimum safe following distance is three seconds.

Identify at least one scenario where that "distance" is not
enough, even given "normal" road conditions, traffic conditions,
and weather conditions. Explain why changing the rule from 3
seconds to some other number of seconds would not be a good
solution.

Obviously such questions are not easy to answer and not easy
to grade ... but what's the point of teaching students to
answer trivial questions only?

I am recommending /against/ multiple-guess questions. Getting
rid of multiple-guess questions will not solve all the world's
problems, but it would be an important step in the right direction.

Multiple-guess tests are cheap to administer and cheap to grade,
but this is the height of penny-wise and pound-foolish. If you're
not going to invest in a good test, why invest in education at
all? Lousy tests have corrupted and perverted the entire system.

Even the FCI, which is treated with such great reverence in the
PER literature, is multiple-guess. Ick.

I mention this because when designing the course, the structure
of the tests and homework counts as part of the "gross structure
of the course".