In his PhysLnR post of 18 Jul 2002 13:20:06-0500, Rick Tarara made
some observations relevant to the interrelated threads "PER-Based
Textbooks" on PhysLrnR and "Borrowing Bandwidth?" on both PhysLrnR
and Phys-L:
TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA
Authors need to carefully think about the goals and objectives . . .
of the courses for which their text is intended.. . . it seems to me
that one of the tenants of PER is that high gain on conceptual tests
is a primary goal. Just what the objective is, has been less clearly
stated. . . . Texts and courses that are focused around the
conceptual understanding of a selected set of topics may (or may not)
be the best approach to . . .(various possible objectives). . . This,
I believe, needs to be explored in more depth . . . "
TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA-TARARA
For my own view of the extent to which high gain on the FCI should be
a goal of an introductory mechanics course see pages 14-15 of the
suppressed Hake (1998b):
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
In the introduction it was stated that the present survey strongly
suggests that classroom use of IE. . . (Interactive Engagement). . .
methods can increase mechanics course "effectiveness" in both
conceptual understanding and problem-solving WELL BEYOND THAT
ACHIEVED WITH T. . .(Traditional). . . METHODS.
But are the IE methods of this study "effective" in some absolute
sense? First it should be emphasized that
(a) "the FCI was developed to assess the effectiveness of mechanics
courses in meeting a MINIMAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD : to teach students
to reliably discriminate between the applicability of scientific
concepts and naive alternatives in common physical situations"
(Hestenes 1997) (our CAPS);
(b) the Mechanics Baseline test is "the next step above the inventory
in mechanics understanding ...(and).... emphasizes concepts that
cannot be grasped without formal knowledge about mechanics."(Hestenes
& Wells 1992)
Thus these tests do not pretend to measure advanced mechanics
competence, but rather only a minimal facility which might be hoped
for at the end of an introductory course.
Among desirable outcomes of the introductory course that the tests DO
NOT MEASURE DIRECTLY are e.g., students':
(a) satisfaction with and interest in physics;
(b) understanding of the nature, methods, and limitations of science;
(c) understanding of the processes of scientific inquiry such as
experimental design, control of variables, dimensional analysis,
order-of-magnitude estimation, thought experiments, hypothetical
reasoning, graphing, and error analysis;
(d) ability to articulate their knowledge and learning processes;
(e) ability to collaborate and work in groups;
(f) communication skills;
(g) ability to solve real-world problems;
(h) understanding of the history of science and the relationship of
science to society and other disciplines;
(i) understanding of, or at least appreciation for, "modern" physics;
(j) ability to participate in authentic research.
It can be argued that some outcomes "a" - "g" (e.g., "b" Halloun
1997, Halloun & Hestenes 1998) are more likely to have been achieved
by students who do well on the FCI/MD and MB tests. . . . MD =
Mechanics Diagnostic; MB = Mechanics Baseline). . . Nevertheless,
because evidence for these outcomes cannot be directly offered by
such testing, and because most instructors would regard at least some
of "a" - "j" to be important objectives of the introductory course,
the FCI/MD AND MECHANICS BASELINE TEST SCORES SHOULD NOT, IN MY
OPINION, BE UNCRITICALLY TAKEN TO MEASURE THE GENERAL EFFECTIVENESS
OR SUCCESS OF A COURSE.
They can, however, be taken TO MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS IN THE NARROW
SENSE OF THE ATTAINMENT OF MINIMAL COMPETENCE IN MECHANICS. Most
instructors would probably agree that this should be a prime
objective of an introductory mechanics course. The 48
interactive-engagement courses of this study appear, on average, to
be much more effective in this minimal sense than 14 traditional
courses. But even in this minimal sense, none of the courses is in
the High-g region and some are even in the Low-g region . . .(g =
normalized gain). . . characteristic of traditional courses. Thus,
in absolute terms, THE IE METHODS OF THIS STUDY COULD ALL STAND
IMPROVEMENT AND MORE WORK SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED ON BOTH THEIR CONTENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION.
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
REFERENCES
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/>. See also Hake (2002a,b).
Hake, R. R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," submitted on 6/19/98 to the "Physics Education
Research Supplement to AJP"(PERS); also at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>. [A sadly unpublished crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a) - PER HAS NO ARCHIVAL JOURNAL!!]
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Comment on 'How do we know if we're doing a good
job in physics teaching?' by Robert Ehrlich [Am. J. Phys. 70(1),
24-29 (2002)]," Am. J. Phys., September issue, in press; also online
as ref. 17 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
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."
Hestenes, D. 1997. "Modeling Methodology for Physics Teachers," in
"The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities:
Proceedings of the ICUPE," ed. by E.F. Redish and J.S. Rigden, (AIP),
p. 935-957; online at <http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.
Halloun, I. 1997. "Views About Science and Physics Achievement: The
VASS Story," in "The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern
Universities: Proceedings of the ICUPE," ed. by E.F. Redish and J.S.
Rigden, (AIP), p. 605 - 613; online at
<http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.