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 Physics Students



In my post "Re: AP Physics Students" to

AERA-J <http://lists.asu.edu/archives/aera-j.html>,
Biopi-L <http://listserv.ksu.edu/archives/biopi-l.html>,
Biolab <http://biology.clemson.edu:591/biolab/search.htm>,
Phys-L <http://mailgate.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>,
PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>,
Physhare <http://lists.psu.edu/archives/physhare.html>.
AP Physics discussion list
<http://www.collegeboard.org/ap/listserv/tech.html>
(no easily searchable archives)

I wrote: "I am personally disenchanted with AP physics because, from
what little
I know, it seems to be totally devoted to QPS . . .(QUANTITATIVE -
please note the typo correction- Problem Solving), simply taking
nearly totally ineffective university introductory courses(1-3) down
into the high schools.

In his 4/21/01 PhysLrnR post "Re: AP Students" Rick Tarara (no, I
don't pay Tarara to serve as a straight man) responded:

"'Totally ineffective' at what? Achieving high normalized gains on the FCI?
I would just point out that much of our current science and technology has
been developed by students who went through such courses, probably would
have done poorly on the FCI, and yet became quite good scientists and
engineers. The FCI is, IMO, grossly overrated as a diagnostic, assessment
tool. It simply tests too little and too narrow a portion of a very broad
subject."

What is the evidence (other than vague reference to our "current
science and technology") that students who went through such courses
"became quite good scientists and engineers." And even if such
evidence were to exist, it could be argued that, for example:

(a) students who went through such courses "became quite good
scientists and engineers" despite, rather than because of, such
courses; or

(b) the students who went through such courses and are mainly
responsible for our current science and technology were those few who
would have done very well on the FCI.

As regards the FCI testing being "too little and too narrow a portion
of a very broad subject," the APPENDIX contains Sec. IIC of ref. 2,
which addresses this issue.

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

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); 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/> and submitted on 6/19/98 to
the "Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP"(PERS).

3. R.R. Hake, "Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort,"
submitted on 3/28/01 to "Conservation Ecology"
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/>, a "peer-reviewed journal of
integrative science and fundamental policy research." On the web as
ref. 10 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
[ConEc-Hake-O32601a.pdf, 3/26/01, 172K) (179 references, 98
hot-linked URL's). 164K.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
APPENDIX
C. "EFFECTIVENESS" DEFINED (from ref. 2 above)
In the introduction it was stated that the present survey strongly
suggests that classroom use of Interactive Engagement "IE" methods
can increase mechanics course "effectiveness" in both conceptual
understanding and problem-solving well beyond that achieved with
Traditional "T" methods.

But are the IE methods of this study "effective" in some absolute
sense? First, it should be emphasized that (a) "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" (37c) (our CAPS); (b) the
Mechanics Baseline test is "the next step above the inventory in
mechanics understanding ...(and).... emphasizes concepts that cannot
be grasped without formal knowledge about mechanics."(3) Thus these
tests do not pretend to measure advanced mechanics competence, but
rather only a minimal facility which might be hoped for at the end of
an introductory course.

Among desirable outcomes of the introductory course that the tests do
not measure directly are e.g., students'

(a) satisfaction with and interest in physics;

(b) understanding of the nature, methods, and limitations of science;

(c) understanding of the processes of scientific inquiry such as experimental
design, control of variables, dimensional analysis, order-of-magnitude
estimation, thought experiments, hypothetical reasoning, graphing, and
error analysis;

(d) ability to articulate their knowledge and learning processes;

(e) ability to collaborate and work in groups;

(f) communication skills;

(g) ability to solve real-world problems;

(h) understanding of the history of science and the relationship of science to
society and other disciplines;

(i) understanding of, or at least appreciation for, "modern" physics;

(j) ability to participate in authentic research.

It can be argued that some outcomes "a" - "g" [e.g., "b"(73a)] are
more likely to have been achieved by students who do well on the
FCI/MD . . . (Mechanics Diagnostic). . . ) and MB tests.

Nevertheless, because evidence for these outcomes cannot be directly
offered by such testing, and because most instructors would regard at
least some of
"a" - "j" to be important objectives of the introductory course, the
FCI/MD and Mechanics Baseline test scores should not, in my opinion,
be uncritically taken to measure the general effectiveness or success
of a course. They can, however, be taken to measure effectiveness in
the narrow sense of the attainment of minimal competence in
mechanics. Most instructors would probably agree that this
should be a prime objective of an introductory mechanics course. The
48 interactive-engagement courses of this study appear, on average,
to be much more effective in this minimal sense than traditional
courses. But even in this minimal sense, none of the courses is in
the High-g region and some are even in the Low-g region
characteristic of traditional courses. Thus, in absolute terms, the
IE methods of this study could all stand improvement and more work
seems to be required on both their content and implementation.

REFERENCES for the APPENDIX
3. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, "A Mechanics Baseline Test," Phys.
Teach. 30, 159-166 (1992). The test is also in ref. 19b and and
password protected at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling.html>.

19b. E. Mazur, "Peer Instruction: A User's Manual" (Prentice Hall,
1997), also contains the 1995 revision of the FCI.

37c. 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.

73a. I. Halloun, "Views About Science and Physics Achievement: The
VASS Story," 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. 605 - 613; I. Halloun and D.
Hestenes, "Interpreting VASS Dimensions and Profiles," Science &
Education, 7(6): 553-577;
<http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.