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] |
??? A low score can result from good teaching? (False
negative) So you're saying a low FCI score is meaningless?
Isn't that what many have been claiming right along?
Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of John
Clement [clement@hal-pc.org]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:04 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching : some
necessities
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.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l