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: Thinking Level of students



Obviously I do believe many of the research results, but then I have read
many of the results from a variety of sources, and have repeated some of the
experiments myself. All research results need to be subject to
verification, and the results of tests of thinking level have been confirmed
many times. One only need to go the Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, and start looking at articles to see the depth of research
available on how students learn science.

I have data on a variety of students at different ages, and the test that
evaluates them is very simple. It rivals the FCI in its simplicity, but it
looks at general science thinking ideas. The scores on this test are
extremely stable. Students seldom regress. In addition most students only
show modest gains during most HS classes. I have seen students show
remarkable gain in my classes, despite the fact that I do not directly talk
about the questions on this test, and indeed I do not even talk about the
principles behind these questions except in a general fashion. There is one
type of questions that students do regress on, but just as many advance as
regress. This is the understanding of proportion and ratio. The fact that
75% of my regular students do not understand ratio and proportion was
dramatically reinforced when I had them do a simple experiement where they
measured the height of bounce of a ball vs the drop height. They all
produced a graph, and then when asked to make an equation some came up with
bounce = drop - 1.5 (or whatever number fits). I then asked what was the
meaning of dropping the ball from a small height such as 0.5, and they said
it bounced up -1???? Eventually they saw the absurdity of this, and some of
them then switched to multiplying by a constant.

I have about 10% of my regular students who do not understand that when you
drop 2 different weight marbles into a graduated cylinder, that when they
sink the water rise is identical. Most can not look at a simple 2 variable
experiment, and figure out which variables have an effect,and which do not.
A fair number can not properly control variables. And only 6 in 100
understand that you need to look at proportions to see if 2 events are
related ( The size of fish and the width of stripes on the fish). This
latter idea means that only 6 out of 100 can comprehend how medical
statistical studies can come to conclusions.

The results of using a Piagetin evaluation can be quite eye opening. The
test divides the scores into 3 categories. The upper 1/3 is called formal
thinking, while the lower 1/3 is called concrete, and the middle
transitional. An alternate categorization is to use the labels
hypotetico-deductive, transitional, and empirical-inductive (following
Lawson). Basically I see evidence for about 15% of the seniors in our
school (a private school) being in the formal category, and 30% being
concrete. By the end of my course I see the number of concrete thinkers
halved, and the number of formal thinkers doubled. There is some evidence
that shows that students who do not take physics, but do take the same math
sequence show no rise. The control of variables, and the 2 variable
questions are the ones which show a big rise. In addition students show
better understanding of conservation.

The methods that I use in class are very similar to methods used by various
researchers to raise student levels of thinking. These do not include
lectures of any substantial length. Occasional 5 to 10 minute lectures may
be employed infrequently. When I hear teachers say, they do not understand
despite the fact that I told them, I am tempted to say no it is because you
told them. The methods that raise thinking level, and improve understanding
of physics all involve getting students to come up with their own
conclusions, and in many cases do not involve telling them the "right"
answer. If they can not come up with the "correct" answer as a group, the
question may be left hanging.

The most amazing part of this process is that both low and high students
benefit, and some students show gain despite their attitudes.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Hi all-
Do you believe everything you read? Think about these purported
research results. Is the proposition that the research purportedly "show"
one that is logically provable?
Regards,
Jack
Who grew up with the Buck Rogers map of the solar system on his
bedroom wall.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, John Clement wrote:

The fact that the information is in the syllabus does not mean
that they are
capable of understanding that material. The recent article in
Sept Physics
Today gives the references to the research that shows that
below 5th grade
students are not capable of understanding the elementary
astronomy ideas.
Meaning 2 and 3 are exactly right. The usual lecture method does not
promote conceptual understanding as the research shows.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators
[mailto:PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu]On Behalf Of John S. Denker
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 7:07 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Thinking Level of students


At 12:09 PM 9/8/01 -0700, Wes Davis wrote:
Many - if not most - of my college astronomy students are
unable to form
a mental picture of the relationship between the earth, sun and moon.

That statement is hard to interpret without some more
details, some more
context.

I assume we talking about
A) the basic new moon / 1st quarter / full moon geometry,
as opposed to
B) lunar nodes, pairing of eclipses, and the Saros

Even under this assumption, is the message that:
1) They weren't born knowing it, and can't picture it
until it has been
covered in class?
2) The picture doesn't "stick" even after it has been
covered in class
in the usual way?
3) They are intrinsically unable to grasp it, no matter how it
is taught?
4) They can't do it quickly using mental images alone,
even though they
could manage if given more time and/or pencil&paper and/or props
to work with?

Those are very, very different meanings.

======================

I would find meanings (2) and (3) quite shocking. Even
meaning (1) would
be alarming. Geometric relationships in general, and the
earth/moon/sun
geometry in particular, is commonly introduced in 2nd grade,
and students
are expected to (mostly) "get it" by 3rd grade or 4th grade. (You can
confirm this by using google to find a bunch of 3rd-grade
syllabuses. I
also checked with someone who teaches 3rd grade and has
advanced training
in developmental psychology.)

Meaning (4) would be no surprise -- and no problem.

Bottom line: I don't understand what the point is.....



--
Franz Kafka's novels and novella's are so Kafkaesque that one has to
wonder at the enormity of coincidence required to have produced a writer
named Kafka to write them.
Greg Nagan from "The Metamorphosis" in
<The 5-MINUTE ILIAD and Other Classics>