Re: Order of E&M topics (was B and electric charge)

[Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Horton" <ChrisAHorton2@HOTMAIL.COM>
> Camp and Clement, in "Preconceptions in Mechanics", present a
research-based
> and well-worked-out introduction to various manifestations of force:
> tension, compression including the "normal force", static and kinetic
> friction, and finally the gravitational force. Out of this they develop an
> effective treatment of Newton's third law, the failure to fully grasp
which
> produces the "70% barrier" in most modeling physics classes - the
inability
> of most modeling instructors to achieve higher than a 70% class average on
> the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). (Still way beyond what traditional
> instruction can achieve.)
I have to take exception to this last statement, the likes of which seem to
permeate PER.  I can fairly state that my General Ed physics class regularly
ends up the first semester above 70% on the FCI and my new Calculus-Physics
class (with whom I spent much less time working on Newton's Laws) ended up
this year at 66% and a normalized gain of .47.  I have really no clear cut
idea what a 'traditional instruction' based course actually is, but I can
state that I don't use any particular pedagogical 'program'.  In fact, due
to 'outside' constraints on the content, the Calc based class was as close
to a 'lecture & demonstration' class as I've run for many years--we covered
11 chapters of Hecht's Physics:Calculus with a strong emphasis on problem
solving.  In other words, one CAN get high-score performance on the FCI
without committing to a modeling course, or a directed discovery course, or
a cooperative learning course.  You do have to keep the students interested,
and you can have them to learn a 3rd Law 'mantra' which can do wonders on
the FCI.  Do I think that either of these classes _really_ has a deep
understanding of Newton's Laws?  NO.  That certainly was not a fundamental
goal of the Calc course, and was only a secondary goal of the GenEd course.
Rather, I would point to these kind of results as anecdotal evidence that
the FCI is not the end-all of tools to assess pedagogical techniques.  One
CAN teach to this test (3rd Law mantras are an example), but more
importantly, this (or any other fairly specific test) also drives the focus
of the instructor--and not always to the benefit of the students.  It is
just possible that an in-depth understanding of Newton's Laws may not be
particularly important or useful for the majority of students taking
introductory physics (yes it is important for some), and instructors who do
focus their attention on getting good gains on the FCI may do so at the
expense of other legitimate educational goals for their students.

Done with my periodic rant about the FCI and absolutes about what works and
what doesn't!

Rick

*************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
NEW:  Photo Realistic Laboratory Simulations
**********************************************************