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: AP Students



Please excuse the posts to both lists

There are a few misunderstandings in these posts. The high gain that
Richard Hake mentions would be gain in HS physics courses. The result of
high gain is generally a high score on the FCI. The raw FCI scores of
premed students entering a college course are generally low, and when
compared with students who do not take HS physics show small gain. The net
result is that the AP courses are not much better in producing conceptual
understanding than any other conventional physics course in that both
produce scant understanding of Newtonian physics.

One can even go so far as to question whether any physics course has any
merit or value after graduation. Indeed any individual course can be
questioned in the same light.

Some of the evidence for the FCI or FMCE come from examining the test. The
questions seem to be so obvious to the physicist, that missing them would
seem to be an indication of ignorance on the part of the student. These
tests were developed by having the students answer the questions, and then
validated by interviewing the students or asking the students to give long
written responses to selected questions. The results showed that the FCI
gives a low false positive score. Essentially when they give the right
answer, they understand the Newtonian priciple behind the question. Beyond
this, increased FCI scores seem to increase problem solving ability as shown
in Mazur's "Peer Instruction" book. An article G. Francis, J. Adams, E.
Noonan, "Do They Stay Fixed?," Phys. Teach. 36, 488-490 (1998) shows that
the high scores persist up to 3 years, so the learning is permanent. This
is in contrast to most conventional exams where the score is vastly
decreased when the student takes it a few weeks later. At the moment high
FCI scores would seem to be one of the few indicators of permanent learning
in physics courses.

After making a case for the importance of the FCI, it is obvious that it
does not test problem solving ability. That is a separate but not unrelated
issue. Once students understand the concepts, they are capable of solving
problems by looking at the physics rather than by just applying memorized
equations. The Amherst group has posted papers
http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/ that show that it is possible to teach HS
students "concept based problem solving" which resembles the expert problem
solving practiced by professional physicists. I have actually observed this
in practice. After the energy unit, practically all of my advanced
students, and many of my regular students could solve energy problems
without the usual predigested equations.

An example of another thing that the FCI can not address, is the ability to
use simple lab equipment, and to hunt for needed information. When I have
the students do batteries and bulb labs, I give them meters with multiple
scales. I then ask them to find the clues as to which scale they must read.
The ability to find information which is not immediately in front of them is
very necessary to improve their skills. This particular ability is tested
by the "Minds on Physics" books which require students to get information
from the problem statement, the diagram, and the relevant graphs. Most
conventional books do not do this.

Traditionally It is also possible to increase FCI scores gradualy by having
students take more than one physics course. This traditional route has been
very successful for a small number of students in the past. Actually, I
think that a large amount of FCI gain may happen when graduate students have
to be a TA for an undergrad course.

I have found that high FCI scores can only be achieved by students who score
high on a Piagetian test of scientific thinking skills. The same techniques
that produce high FCI scores also seem to produce gain in the Piagetian
test. The work of Shayer and Adey
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/Publications/INNODATAMonograph/inno0
2.pdf in England find that increasing Piagetian thinking skill seems to
increase scores on conventional evaluations. They find increases of about
15% in English, and up to 18% in science and math.

While there are certainly many goals in physics education, the FCI seems to
be a good indicator of understanding, and gain would also seem to be an
indicator that the courses are helping students achieve higher thinking
ability. There is certainly more research that needs to be done, and more
tests need to be developed. I would challenge anyone who does not think it
is a valid test to give it to students both at the beginning and the end of
mechanics, and then openly publish the results. I would also suggest gifing
the Lawson "Classroom test of Scientific Thining" along with it, and also
possibly the FMCE. Finally interview a handful of students and correlate
the interview with the test scores. And rather than just criticize the FCI,
design and validate a better more comprehensive test.

The one reservation that I have about an AP-A comes from the fact that most
HS teachers are currently not equiped to teach such a course. It must be
taught using inquiry methods. In addition the correct curriculum material
must be used. The course must be coherent, not the usual bits and pieces,
and the teacher must understand how the material must be used. Modeling is
a good example of this. The modeling material can be used as designed, or
ineffectively in a conventional manner. I understand that Workshop Physics
has been used as the basis for an AP course. This should produce students
who can pass an AP-A, and are apparently passing the current AP test.

The big advantage of an AP-A is that it provides a model which will filter
down to non AP courses. Often the regular physics course is just a cut down
version of the AP course. This is totally inappropriate as only a small
fraction of the students will ever take another physics course, and many
will never take another physical science course.

John M. Clement
St. Pius X HS, Houston

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators
[mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu]On Behalf Of brian whatcott
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 8:59 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: AP Students


In the spirit of offering a two cents contribution to
furthering constructive debate, I offer this.

In his 4/21/01 Phys-L post "Re: AP Students," Jack Uretsky writes:

"I am still awaiting data supporting the view that a high mark on the
fci is a predictor of some worthwhile trait after graduation."

In turn Richard Hake writes at 16:42 4/21/01 -0700:

... I am still awaiting data supporting the view that there is
any data whatsoever that can serve as a predictor of some worthwhile
trait after graduation.

Whether or not the FCI score is a predictor of some worthwhile trait
after graduation is, IMHO, totally irrelevant. The point is that if
graduates of high-school AP physics classes achieve relatively low
average normalized gains <g> on the FCI (1), then one may fairly
conclude that such classes do little to enhance students'
understanding of the basic concepts of Newtonian mechanics.


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


This topic is of such relevance and importance to the purpose of
this list that I am tempted to reparse the commentary given above,
for my further edification.

"if graduates of high-school AP physics classes achieve
relatively low average normalized gains <g> on the FCI (1),
then one may fairly conclude that such classes do little to
enhance students' understanding of the basic concepts of
Newtonian mechanics."

ASSUME
1) FCI indicates an understanding of the basic concepts of
Newtonian mechanics.
2) People who have taken high-school Advanced Placement Physics
do not necessarily demonstrate much increased understanding of
the basic concepts of Newtonian mechanics.

THEREFORE

It is possible that AP students are so well prepared in mechanics,
that there is not much room for improvement (diminished returns...)

OR

It is possible that AP students are not instructed much in mechanics,
on the basis it is incidental to the objectives of AP Physics.
-----------------------------------

I am still awaiting data supporting the view that there is
any data whatsoever that can serve as a predictor of some worthwhile
trait after graduation.

[trait: distinguishing feature in character, physiognomy,
habit or portrayal.
graduation: completion of a high-school diploma (US)
or college degree]

Traits possibly demonstrated by completion of any four year degree
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If average job residency is now 3 years or so, the completion
of a four year degree demonstrates above average persistance in
an occupation.
2) If a four year degree costs at least $6000 and possibly $60,000
or more then completion indicates a personal ability to marshal the
necessary resource of money or surrogates such as scholarships
and grants.
3) A capability to demonstrate a required level of attendance, and
desired answers on tests and exams.

(Surveys consistently show improved lifetime income for people
with 4 year degrees vs those without)
------------------------------------------------------

"I am still awaiting data supporting the view that a high mark on the
fci is a predictor of some worthwhile trait after graduation."

ASSUME
this sentence means this:

Does a demonstrated understanding of basic Newtonian concepts
predict some worthwhile trait after graduation?

THEREFORE

If the improved understanding of basic Newtonian concepts
persists after graduation, is this useful?

(I have no difficulty in answering yes to this....)

BECAUSE

The ignorance of Newtonian concepts in a graduate is a marker
for an arts type degree, which is found to correlate with lower
lifetime income than an engineering or science degree.


I have used money as an accessible indicator of comparitive worth.
There are more subtle measures, I am sure....


SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

Jack is cynical on the benefits of Newtonian mechanics
at degree level. (??)

Richard is cynical on the benefits of a four year degree. (??)

It is possible to adduce some level of evidence that may
convince a reasonable person to some extent of the benefits of
a degree, and the further benefits of a science or engineering
degree which includes understanding basic Newtonian mechanics.





brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net> Altus OK
Eureka!