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 this cross-posting to:
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)

In his 4/21/01 Phys-L post "Re: AP Students," Brian Whatcott parsed
my 4/21/01 statement (Phys-L/PhysLrnR post of 4/21/01):

". . . if graduates of high-school AP physics classes achieve
relatively low average normalized gains <g>. . . (say less that
0.3). . . 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."

as follows:

"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

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

OR

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

Both conclusions "A" and "B" are unlikely:

a. Conclusion "A" is unlikely because the measure of increased
understanding of concepts is in terms of the average NORMALIZED
gain.(1) This is the ratio of the actual average gain <G> to the
maximum possible average gain, i.e.,

<g> = %<G> / %<G>max = ( %<post > - %<pre >) / (100% - %<pre >).

The correlation of the average normalized gain <g> with (%<pretest>)
for the 62 courses of Fig. 1 (ref. 1 ) is a very low +0.02. This
constitutes an experimental justification for the use of <g> as a
comparative measure of course effectiveness over diverse student
populations with widely varying average pretest scores and rules out
Whatcott's "not much room for improvement argument" for low gains.
As an example, according to Table Ic of ref. 2 Harvard students (EM -
Eric Mazur- courses) come into introductory physics with average FCI
pretest scores of about 70%. Under traditional instruction their
normalized gains are 0.27. Interactive engagement raises the
normalized gains to about 0.6.

b. Conclusion "b" is unlikely because the AP curriculum usually
mimics postsecondary introductory physics courses, as is required to
test out of the latter by achieving a "high" score (say in the 3-5
range) on the AP physics test.(3) Since Newtonian mechanics is an
important part of most postsecondary introductory physics courses, I
would guess that it is emphasized in most AP physics courses.

c. The most likely reason that people who have taken AP physics
obtain low normalized gains on the FCI (see, e.g., ref. 2, Table 1a,
AZ-AP, <g> = 0.27) is that the AP courses are taught in the same
traditional manner (passive student lectures, recipe labs, and
algorithmic problem exams) as university physics classes.

Regarding my statement:

"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."

Brian suggested (if I understand him correctly) that completion of a
high-school diploma (US) or college degree can serve as a predictor
of worthwhile traits, e.g.

1) above average persistence in an occupation;

2) personal ability to marshal the necessary resource of money or
surrogates such as scholarships and grants;

3) a required level of attendance, and desired answers on tests and exams;

4) improved lifetime income.

Brian concludes:

a. "Richard is cynical on the benefits of a four year degree.(??) . . .
b. It is possible to adduce some level of evidence that may
convince a reasonable person to some extent of the benefits of
a degree. . . ."

Whether or not traits 1-4 are worthwhile depends, of course, on one's
frame of reference. Considering the present world condition,(4) I'm
doubtful (you are cynical, he is misanthopic) that these commonly
admired traits are especially worthwhile. But then, I'm an
unreasonable person.

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

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw in "Reason"



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. W. Lichten, "Whither Advanced Placement," Education Policy
Archives 8(29), 2000; <http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n29.html>.

4. R.R. Hake, "The General Population's Ignorance of Science Related
Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT Announcer
30(2), 105 (2000); on the web as ref. 11 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>; [GuelphSocietyG.pdf,
8/22/00, 2100K] (62 References). It is argued (with tongue only
partially in cheek) that the failure of universities THROUGHOUT THE
UNIVERSE to properly educate pre-college teachers is responsible for
our failure to observe any signs of extraterrestrial intelligence.