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: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)



A couple of quick comments and then I'll get off this--it is getting finals
time.

1) It is no surprise at all that techniques and courses that are DESIGNED
to get good scores on specific tests do so better than courses that are not
so designed. A BIG problem here is that the assessment tools being used
are written by the same people who are working on the pedagogical
techniques. Too much in-breeding, IMO.

2) The real active engagement is to actively engage the student's brains.
There are many ways to do this--self motivation having been cited recently
as one. It seems to me that much of the 'new pedagogy' focuses on forcing
students into situations where they _must think_ whereas more traditional
pedagogies simple expect that thinking to come from those students who are
serious about the course. It may be that too few students have the
background to bring the necessary kinds of thinking to a Physics course, or
perhaps too many are just too lazy to do so, but some may find their own
students quite capable of such work without having all their intellectual
work totally structured for them.

3) Again, there are over 50 major theories of learning out there, most (I
suspect) with a cadre of supporters. Pronouncements based on the authority
of one or another theory must be weighed against this.

4) Not everyone out here wants to be doing educational research, although
in one sense we do that every day, in a microcosm. We write assessment
tools to assess our goals, our courses--for which the FCI or FCME are not
necessarily good tools. What has happened, I think, is that the PER folks
have put some kind of guilt trip on the rest of the community that if your
class can't answer the FCI questions, then your class hasn't learned s*&t.
Well, my class _can_ answer the FCI questions but I don't see that as a
proof that they've done anything other than come to understand a VERY small
subset of material that comprises my introductory physics courses.

5) My original question remains--do courses with high FCI/FCME gains
produce better Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Engineers, Doctors,
Accountants, Lawyers, Indian Chiefs, etc.?

Rick

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

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
PC and MAC software
NEW! SIMLAB2001--AIR TABLE now available.
XP compatible upgrades and CD-ROM available
******************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clement" <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)




I have no quibbles with alternate methods of teaching as long as careful
objective measurements are being used. Unfortunately most teaching does
not
involve such methods to gauge its effectiveness. There is a very
extensive
research literature about science education and physics education in
particular. All science teachers should be aware of what science
education
research has found. If you knew that your MD is not reading the current
journals in medicine would you continue to go to him/her? I do not
include
most articles published in either AJP or TPT as being good education
research articles. While informative and even useful they generally do
not
show objective measurements of how better learning resulted from the
particular reported activity. Does your course have high effectiveness?
I
don't know, but do you know, and how do you know? If you doubt the
results
of PER then please do some experiments and report the research, or find
some
good studies that are contrary to the PER studies.

One of the most important results to come out of science education
research
is that large overall improvement is very difficult but not impossible to
get. One factor alone is not adequate, but may be necessary. For example
the steps in the learning cycle are common to improved learning (gain) and
seem to be necessary. Combining this with carefully researched curricula
buys more learning. No single factor such as homework can be the key to
all
education problems. I did not question anyone's course, just the idea
that
graded homework could be the key to "true ""active physics.""". Has anyone
on this list experimented to see if there is a large difference in
learning
between courses with graded or ungraded homework?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX