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: Conceptual Tests



Please excuse this cross-posting to discussion lists with archives at:
Phys-L <http://mailgate.nau.edu/archives/phys-l.html>, and
PhysLrnR <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>.

Because of the LENGTH of this post PLEASE DON'T HIT THE REPLY BUTTON
and thereby inflict it yet again on all subscribers to the above
lists!

In his Phys-L post of 18 Feb 2002 19:16:24-0600, titled "Re:
Conceptual Tests," John Clement wrote:

"Another of his . . . (Hake's). . . . papers implies that average HS
gain figures may be much lower than the scores reported to him."

I gave two possible interpretations of this somewhat ambiguous
statement in an earlier Phys-L/PhysLrnR post (Hake 2002a). As it now
turns out NEITHER WERE CORRECT. John has informed me privately that
"another of his papers" refers to Hake (2000a). [Wouldn't be nice if
Phys-L/PhysLrnR's would take the time to reference papers in the
standard scholarly manner?]

The particular Hake (2000a) material relevant to John's statement is
summarized on pages 9-12 of Hake (2000b) as follows:

HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b
For the Indiana University "pre-med" courses of. . . (Hake 1998a). . .

1994 Spring:
A. %<pre>(43 no HSP) = 32% (HSP = High School Physics)
B. %<pre>(123 HSP) = 42%
<g>(hypothesized*) = <gh(94)> = (42%-32%)/(100%-32%) = 0.15

1995 Spring:
A. %<pre>(45 no HSP) = 37%
B. % <pre>(164 HSP) = 43%
<g>(hypothesized*) = <gh(95)> = (43%-37%)/(100%-37%) = 0.10

* We assume that the "B" group graduates of HSP, BEFORE they took
HSP, would have averaged about the same as the "A" group.

. . . . (A plot of <Gain> vs <Pretest) for the data of Hake (1998a)
plus the above data from which <gh> is extracted shows). . . .:

a. Indiana University premeds who were graduates of HSP . . .
(high-school physics). . . achieved HYPOTHESIZED <g>'s for their HSP
courses that were even lower (<gh> = 0.15, 0.10) than the average
<<g>> (14 T) = 0.23 ± 0.04sd (standard deviation) for 14 the
traditional courses of the survey of. . .(Hake 1998a). . . (It might
be worthwhile to examine "hypothesized <g>'s" (<gh>'s) at other
universities.)

b. Low <gh>'s may reflect:

(1) A rapid decrease in physics understanding in the years following
HSP, as might be expected if only incoherent and loosely related bits
of physics understanding had been acquired.

(2) A failure of HSP to impart much understanding of physics in the
first place.

(3) Some combination of "1" and "2".

c. In any case, THE RESULTS SUGGEST THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF HSP TO
PROMOTE LONG-TERM CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND THE NEED FOR IMPROVED
PHYSICS EDUCATION OF TEACHERS IN INTERACTIVE-ENGAGEMENT (IE) RATHER
THAN TRADITIONAL (T) CLASSES. Teachers need IE rather than T courses
because they:
(1) "tend to teach the way they were taught,"
(2) should understand physics concepts.
HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b-HAKE2000b

I have summarized the above results more succinctly in Hake (2002b):
"I have observed (Hake 2000c. . .(2000b in the references below). . .
that FCI pretest averages for students entering the introductory
physics course at Indiana University are quite low (30-45%) and about
the same whether or not the students are graduates of high school
physics classes.

The above is a small part of the evidence factored into Lesson #10 of
Hake (2002b):


HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b
Lesson 10: A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED
STATES IS THE INADEQUATE PREPARATION OF INCOMING STUDENTS, IN PART
DUE TO THE INADEQUATE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION OF K-12 TEACHERS".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

According to the NSF Advisory Committee (1996),

"Many faculty in SME&T. . . . (Science, Math, Engineering, and
Technology) . . . . at the post-secondary level continue to blame the
schools for sending underprepared students to them. But,
increasingly, the higher education community has come to recognize
the fact that teachers and principals in the K-12 system are all
people who have been educated at the undergraduate level, mostly in
situations in which SME&T PROGRAMS HAVE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH
THEIR VITAL PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE QUALITY OF AMERICA'S
TEACHERS. (My EMPHASIS.)"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recently, some corrective steps have been taken in undergraduate
physics education. According to Stein and Hehn (2000), the "Physics
Teacher Education Coalition" (PhysTEC) is an American Association of
Physics Teachers/NSF project ". . . . to increase the role of physics
departments, IN COLLABORATION WITH EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS to create
more and better-prepared future teachers. Over the next five years. .
. (PhysTEC). . .will be established with an initial membership of
more than 20 universities and colleges that share an increasing
interest in revising their teacher preparation program." (My
EMPHASIS.)

Fortunately, despite the general failure of PRE-SERVICE teacher
education, several programs have been established over the past few
years to enhance the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of
IN-SERVICE physics teachers. For a hot-linked list of 25 such
programs see Hake [2000c. . .(2000b in the references below).
HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b-HAKE2002b

I should add that:

1. According to AAPT (2002) there are a few current programs other
than PhysTEC that endeavor to improve the science education of
prospective K-12 teachers: CPU Project, Physics by Inquiry, Powerful
Ideas in Physical Science, Science Helper K-8 CD-ROM, and Workshop
Physical Science.

2. IMHO, radical restructuring of K-12 education following in the
pioneering footsteps of Louis Paul Benezet seems to be required for
meaningful reform of K-12 education. Unfortunately, considering the
present politically-driven U.S. mania for rote-memorization testing
in K-12, Benezetian methods would appear to have little chance of
being implemented, other than by private schools and home-schooling
parents (see, e.g., Walsh-Sarnecki 2002).


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
AAPT. 2002. "Pre-service teacher education" online at
<http://www.psrc-online.org/> /Curriculum/College-University Physical
Science"/Pre-service Teacher Education where "/" means "click on the
following text."

Benezet, L.P. 1935/36. "The teaching of arithmetic I, II, III: The
story of an experiment," Journal of the National Education
Association 24(8), 241-244 (1935); 24(9), 301-303 (1935); 25(1), 7-8
(1936). The articles were (a) reprinted in the Humanistic Mathematics
Newsletter #6: 2-14 (May 1991); (b) placed on the web along with
other Benezetia at the Benezet Centre
<http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/>.
See also Mahajan & Hake (2000).

Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses." Am. J. Phys. 66(1):64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," submitted to Physics Ed. Res. Supplement to Am.
J. Phys.; online at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>. In this
sadly unpublished paper (PER LACKS AN ARCHIVAL JOURNAL SUCH AS "THE
PHYSICAL REVIEW") average pretest and posttest scores, standard
deviations, instructional methods, materials used, institutions, and
instructors for each of the survey courses in Hake (1998a) are
tabulated and referenced. In addition the paper also gives case
histories for the seven Interactive Engagement (IE) courses whose
effectiveness, as gauged by pre- to posttest gains, was close to
those of traditional courses, advice for implementing IE methods, and
suggestions for further research.

Hake. R.R. 2000a. "The Need For Improved Physics Education of
Teachers: FCI Pretest Scores for Graduates of High-School Physics
Courses - Is it Finally Time To Implement Curriculum S?" Physics
Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education, Univ. of
Guelph, August 2-3, 2000;"
online as reference #12 <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>. That
reference is now essentially replaced Hake (2000b).

Hake. R.R. 2000b. "Is it Finally Time to Implement Curriculum S?"
AAPT Announcer 30(4), 103 (2000); on the web as ref. 13 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> [CurriculumS.pdf., 3/15/01,
1200K] (400 references & footnotes, 390 hot-linked URL's). This
paper concerns improving the education of undergraduate physics
majors by instituting a "Curriculum S" for "Synthesis." But because
that's a small part of a much larger educational problem in the U.S.
there's a lot of material on the reform of P-16 education generally
(P = preschool). Material on "FCI Pretest Scores for Graduates of
High-School Physics Courses" that appeared in Hake 2000a is on pages
9-12.

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Re: Conceptual Tests," Phys-L/PhysLrnR post of 21
Feb 2002 14:14:37-0800; online at
<http://mailgate.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202&L=phys-l&P=R55744>.

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108
countries. Volume 5, issue 2
<http://www.consecol.org/Journal/vol5/iss2/index.html> contains a
special feature on "Interactive Science Education."

Mahajan, S. & R.R. Hake. 2000. "Is it finally time for a physics
counterpart of the Benezet/Berman math experiment of the 1930's?
Physics Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education; online
as ref. 6 at
<http://wol.ra.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/> in pdf form
<http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/benezet/mahajan-hake-perc2000.pdf>.

National Science Foundation Advisory Committee. 1996. "Shaping the
future: new expectations for undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology." Available online at:
<http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf96139>.

Stein, F. M., and J. G. Hehn. 2000. Re-preparing physics teachers.
AAPT Announcer 30(4):95. See also
<http://positron.aps.org/educ/undergrad/main-phystec.html> and
<http://www.phystec.org/>.

Walsh-Sarnecki, P. 2002. "Kids thrive and learn in others' houses."
Detroit Free Press. 18 February; online at
<http://www.freep.com/news/education/hskul18_20020218.htm>:
"Homeschooling has been growing steadily. Today, there are 700,000 to
1.25 million homeschooled children. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated
up to 400,000 homeschooled students as recently as 1994 and
calculated that the movement is growing as much as 15 to 20 percent
annually. Nationally, there are more children involved in homeschool
programs than the 579,880 students in charter schools or the 15,125
in school voucher programs."