Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

Here's the question in my mind.  First, I have no doubt that some of the
newer methodologies in teaching physics are superior for certain clientele
and for certain course/educational goals.  Certainly for prospective
teachers and certainly for some intellectual/philosophical course goals such
as one might find in a General Education course.  I can also argue that
pedagogy that yields high FCI gains (or the like) are not so important for
other courses with different goals, a 'Science and Society' type of course
for example.  But what about for Physics and other science/engineering
majors?

With that group the question revolves around the fact that 'standard
instruction' (whatever that is) has been producing some pretty good
scientists and engineers.  While some people offer that this is 'in spite
of' the instruction, I will dismiss that as too demeaning to generations of
physics instructors.  _Something_ in this style of instruction prepares
students to be professional scientists and engineers--let's not try to
analyze it any farther.

Now, we know that in the group above (actually for everyone taking physics),
that conceptual understanding, understanding that we as professional
teachers think we have, is not often attained.  That, of course, has
bothered us (as a group) greatly, and has stirred a great deal of research
and development of alternate approaches to instruction to remedy this lack
of conceptual understanding.  Many of the techniques work--let's not analyze
that any farther.

Now apply the new techniques in a systematic way to the full undergraduate
(maybe even the graduate) curriculum of science and engineering majors.  Do
we get better scientists and engineers in the end?  Will the quality be the
same?  Might it be worse?  My only real concern here is that we rush
headlong into reform (as has often been done in the educational community
before) only to find out that the latter is true.  There do seem to be some
tradeoffs in going to the new pedagogies, depending on exactly what is
adopted.  In some cases it may be depth for breadth.  In other cases it
might be a loss of self-dependence (the work is always in groups).  In other
cases it might be a loss of personal responsibility for one's learning--the
curriculum is just TOO structured.  If the 'gain' in understanding is lost
after a year or two, where is the ultimate gain?  There are other questions.

To be sure, a full reform curriculum might do wonders, but I'd like to see
that happen in a few test programs before diving in with both feet and
completely abandoning a system that HAS worked.

So back to Jack's specific and my implied question:  Is there any predictive
power in the FCI/FCME or other such diagnostic tool with regards to success
as professional scientists or engineers that would encourage us to move
forward toward a fully reformed curriculum for students in these fields?

Rick



----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Cohen" <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)


> At 21:42 -0500 4/30/02, Jack Uretsky wrote:
> > But Hugh's answer avoids the question asked by both Rich and
> > myself.  What
> > is the predictive value of the conceptual tests?
>
> I'm a bit confused: is there a way to identify the predictive value of any
> instructional methodology?
>
> Let's assume that personal motivation (and willingness to work hard) plays
a
> big part.  How do we separate that from the instructional methodology?
>
> Is it reasonable to say that the benefit of "traditional" methodology has
> been reflected in the "success" of its graduates, as indicated by those
who
> get Ph.D.'s?  Would it be valid to say that those with better grades get
> into better graduate schools and so grades are correlated with "success"?
> If so, suppose "reform" methods result in better grades for more students.
> Would this satisfy those who ask for predictive measures of success
related
> to "reform" methodology?  If not, what will?
>
> IMO, it seems there are three types of students*:
> I. Those that grapple with weaknesses in their understanding until they
> figure it out, not being satisfied until they do.
> II. Those that are willing to grapple with weaknesses in their
understanding
> but they need help.
> III. Those that don't grapple with weaknesses in their understanding
because
> they don't know what it means to be weak in understanding - these students
> have "survived" by memorization and regurgitation.
>
> The faculty in my department are all type I's.  Type I's seem correlated
> with "success".
>
> My students are mainly type II's and III's.  I am an idealist.  I think it
> is possible to move people from II to I and from III to II and I think
> "reform" methods have been successful at this.
>
> *I'm ignoring the factor that some students just don't care.  I have seen
> some type I's and II's that just don't care.  They are just not ready for
> college.  They'll drop out and in a few years come back and be stellar
> students.  Some people may think that all type III's just aren't willing
to
> do the work.  Their courses aren't designed to improve success, but rather
> just identify those students who are type I's, i.e., those that are
"willing
> to do the work" (which is predictive of success).
>
> ____________________________________________
> Robert Cohen; rcohen@po-box.esu.edu; http://www.esu.edu/~bbq
> Physics, East Stroudsburg Univ., E. Stroudsburg, PA 18301