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



I'm really sick and tired of the 'successful students learned in spite of
our crappy courses' argument. It mocks the efforts of thousands of hard
working professionals.

Rick


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>