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: data on typical FCI scores



Ed:

Here's some food for thought on what our students learn based on using the
FCI (Force Concept Inventory) test that I gave pre and post last year and
so far pre this year. I am considering giving it again the first day of
class this quarter.


At 20:55 1/5/00 -0800, you wrote:
In his 12/28/99 Phys-L post "data on typical FCI scores," Ben Crowell writes:

"I have started administering the FCI to my students........ but I'm
also not sure how to interpret the numbers, since I don't have much
to compare with ..... Would anyone be interested in contributing
data? I've created a form, below, but let's wait until Jan. 1 for
comments before anyone starts sending me data. It might turn out
that similar data are already available."

Ben and other Phys-L'ers may be unaware of my survey(1-3) of FCI(4)
and Mechanics Diagnostic(5) pre/post data for 62 introductory physics
courses enrolling a total number of students N = 6542. This survey
indicates that:

(a) A consistent analysis over diverse student populations in high
schools, colleges, and universities is obtained if a rough measure of
the average effectiveness of a course in promoting conceptual
understanding is taken to be the average normalized gain <g>. The
latter is defined as the ratio of the actual average gain (%<post> -
%<pre>) to the maximum possible average gain (100 - %<pre>). The
correlation of <g> with <%pre > for the 62 survey courses is a very
low +0.02, suggesting that <g> for a given class is not substantially
biased by the average initial knowledge state of the students in that
class.

(b) Traditional (T) courses (passive-student lectures, recipe labs,
and algorithmic-problem exams) fail to convey much conceptual
understanding to the average student, yielding an average <g> for 14
courses (N = 2048) of 0.23 ± 0.04sd, where sd stands for standard
deviation.

(c) Interactive-engagement (IE) courses [use of methods designed to
involve students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually)
activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with
peers and/or instructors] can be much more effective than T courses
in enhancing conceptual understanding. For the 48 IE courses of the
survey courses (N = 4458), the average <g> = 0.48 ± 0.14sd. This is
almost two sd's above that of the T courses, reminiscent of
differences seen in comparing instruction delivered to students in
large groups with one-on-one instruction.(6)

(d) Current IE methods need to be improved, since none of the IE
courses achieves <g> greater than 0.69.

(e) Results on the problem-solving Mechanics Baseline test (7), which
are available for 30 (N = 3259) of the 62 courses of the survey,
strongly suggest that IE methods enhance problem-solving ability.

Results consistent with "a" through "d" have recently been obtained
by physics-education research groups at the Univ. of Maryland(8);
Univ. of Montana(9); Rennselaer and Tufts(10); North Carolina State
Univ.(11); and Hogskolan Dalarna - Sweden(12).

A data collection form(13) used in gathering the data of refs. 1-2,
and somewhat more elaborate than Crowell's, is on the web.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~redcube>


REFERENCES
1. R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998) and on the Web at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>.

2. R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," on the Web at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>;
submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education Research Supplement to
AJP" <http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/pers/>.

3. R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in
Mechanics Instruction," APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer
1998, p. 5-7, also at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>. Some
criticisms of ref. 1 and of physics-education reform generally are
countered.

4. I.Halloun, R.R Hake, E.P. Mosca, D. Hestenes, "Force Concept
Inventory (revised,
1995), password protected at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html>.

5. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043-1055 (1985); "Common
sense concepts about motion, ibid. 1056- 1065.

6. B.S. Bloom, "The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group
Instruction as Effective as One-to-On Tutoring," Educational
Researcher 13(6), 4 -16 (1984).

7. D. Hestenes and M. Wells. "A Mechanics Baseline Test. Phys.
Teach. 30, 159-166 (1992).

8. E.F. Redish and R.N. Steinberg, "Teaching Physics: Figuring Out
What Works," Phys. Today 52(1), 24-30 (1999); on the web at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

9. G.E. Francis, J.P. Adams, E.J. Noonan, "Do They Stay Fixed?"
Phys. Teach. 36(8), 488- 491 (1998).

10. K. Cummings, J Marx, R. Thornton, D. Kuhl, "Evaluating
innovations in studio physics, "Physics Ed. Res., supplement 1 to the
Am. J. Phys. 67(7), S38-S44 (1999).

11. R. Beichner, L. Bernold, E. Burniston, P. Dail, R. Felder, J.
Gastineau, M. Gjertsen, J. Risley, "Case study of the physics
component of an integrated curriculum," Physics Ed. Res., supplement
1 to the Am. J. Phys. 67(7), S16-S24 (1999).

12. J. Bernhard, "How Long-lived is Post-Course Understanding of
Mechanics Concepts?" submitted to Phys. Teach. (1999); on the web at
<http://www.du.se/~jbe/fou/didaktik/papers/fixed.html>.

13. R.R. Hake, "Mechanics Test Data Survey Form," 15 pages; on the
web at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. The form's list of
physics-education strategies and resources may be useful.


Ivan Rouse, Professor and Chair
Physics Department, La Sierra University
4700 Pierce St., Riverside, CA 92515
email: irouse@lasierra.edu
web: http://physics.lasierra.edu/irouse/
phone: 909-785-2137, FAX 909-785-2215