In his 1/7/2000 Phys-L post "Re: data on typical FCI scores," Brian
Whatcott asks:
"Can anyone explain why the IE (Interactive Engagement) method,
shown to be better (in ref. 1) [than the Traditional (T)
method] is in need of improvement? (as stated in Hake's 1/5/99
post 'Re: data on typical FCI scores')"
To appreciate this one has to take a look at the FCI test - it is NOT
the Cambridge Tripos Exam! According to Hestenes(2) "the FCI was
developed to assess the effectiveness of mechanics courses in meeting
a MINIMAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD: to teach students to reliably
discriminate between the applicability of scientific concepts and
naive alternatives in common physical situations."[Our CAPS.]
It has been my experience that many traditional university physics
instructors regard the FCI questions as so laughably simple and
obvious that their introductory-course students would easily score
close to 100%.
According to Eric Mazur(3):
"I have been teaching an introductory physics course for engineering
and science majors at Harvard University since 1984. Until 1990, I
taught a conventional course consisting of lectures enlivened by
classroom demonstrations. I was generally satisfied with my teaching
- my students did well on what I considered difficult problems, and
the evaluations I received from them were very positive. As far as I
knew, there were not many problems in MY class.
In 1990, however, I came across a series of articles by Halloun and
Hestenes (HH) that really opened my eyes The first warning
came when I gave the HH test to my class and a student asked,
'Professor Mazur, how should I answer these questions? According to
what you taught us, or by the way I THINK about these things.'
Despite this warning, the results of the test (<g> = 0.27 - see
ref. 4, Table Ic) came as a shock: The students fared hardly
better on the HH test than on their midterm examination. Yet the HH
test is SIMPLE, whereas the material covered by the examination
(rotational dynamics, moments of inertia) is of far greater
difficulty or so I thought."
Given the nature of the FCI test, the fact that none of the 48 IE
courses of ref. 1 achieves <g> greater than 0.69, shows, in my
opinion, that even the most effective IE courses of that study fall
far below their potential.
In ref. 4, I pose some physics-education research questions with
possible leads. One such is:
"Why Do No Survey Courses Achieve (<g>) > 0.7 ?
Jerome Epstein(5a) has suggested that many students entering
introductory physics courses may be at cognitive levels too low to
benefit from current IE methods, and that this might account for the
failure of survey courses to break through the '<g> = 0.7 barrier.'
It is also possible that deficient cognitive development of entering
students contributed to the low-g's of seven of the IE courses (Sec.
III). Consistent with the observations of Arons,(6) Epstein(5b)
states: "In large numbers our students... [at Bloomfield College (NJ)
and Lehman College(CUNY)]... cannot order a set of fractions and
decimals and cannot place them on a number line. Many do not
comprehend division by a fraction and have no concrete comprehension
of the process of division itself. Reading rulers where there are
other than 10 subdivisions, basic operational meaning of area and
volume, are pervasive difficulties. Most cannot deal with
proportional reasoning nor any sort of problem that has to be
translated from English. Our diagnostic test,(5c) which has been
given now at more than a dozen institutions ...(including
Wellesley!)... shows that there are such students everywhere."
Epstein and Kolidy have devised and conducted "Freshman Core
Programs"(5d) (FCP's) which have substantially increased students'
cognitive levels as measured by pre/post testing with standardized
reasoning exams. It would be useful to see if (a) individual student
scores on Epstein's Diagnostic (ED) correlated with
individual-student FCI normalized gains g in single IE courses, (b)
average scores on the ED correlated with average normalized FCI gains
<g> for many IE courses, and (c) whether or not pre-physics-course
FCP's (or similar courses) can raise <g>'s in IE courses."
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. D. Hestenes, "Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers," in "The
Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities:
Proceedings of the ICUPE," ed. by E.F. Redish and J.S. Rigden, (AIP,
Woodbury, NY, 1997), p. 935- 957.
3. E. Mazur, "Peer Instruction: A User's Manual" (Prentice Hall,
1997), contains the 1995 revision of the FCI.
5. J. Epstein, (a) private communication, 12/97; (b) "Cognitive
Development in an Integrated Mathematics and Science Program" J.
Coll. Sci. Teach., Dec. 1997/Jan. 1998, p. 194-201; (c) "What Is the
Real Level of Our Students, or What Do Diagnostic Tests Really
Measure?" preprint, 1998; (d) O.G. Kolodiy and J. Epstein,
"Integrated Mathematics & Science - A Discovery Approach" (Burgess
Press International, 1982).
6. A. B. Arons, "A Guide To Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley,
1990), reprinted with minor updates in "Teaching Introductory
Physics" (Wiley, 1997) [also contains "Homework and Test Questions
for Introductory Physics Teaching" (Wiley, 1994) along with a new
monograph "Introduction to Classical Conservation Laws."