Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching : some necessities

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

Actually I forgot something.  This opinion is flat wrong according to
research.  There was a study which showed that the FCI had a low false
positive rate, but a higher false negative rate.  So the one sidedness is
actually in the opposite direction.  I do not recall where that study was
published, so perhaps someone else can remind me.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


>  4) It is a one-sided test:  A low score is a reliable 
>    indicator of lousy teaching, but a high score is not a 
>    reliable indicator of quality teaching, because the test 
>    is too simple.  The gains that people brag about are so 
>    low as to prove that the students do not understand 
>    "conceptual physics".  If they understood the fundamental 
>    concepts, they would score much higher.