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: Physics First - PART 1



If the test is good, I see nothing wrong with "teaching to the test".

In my opinion the FCI is a good--not great--test as far as it goes.
It is the closest thing we have to a standard of comparison. But I
think we should have at least the following concerns about
overemphasizing success as measured by the FCI:

1 Because the FCI is not administered in a uniform fashion, we need
to be concerned with variations that result from that lack of
uniformity. (For example, I prefer to administer it on a "full
credit for good faith effort" basis, but that has required me to
develop a method for detecting "bad faith efforts" which turns out to
be relatively straightforward due to the fact that about half of the
offered choices are very rarely chosen. When I determine class
gains, I exclude the scores of students who have not taken the
test--either pre or post--in good faith.)

2 Because the FCI is a multiple choice test that is not "context
rich", not "multiple step", and, therefore, does not require the use
of "problem solving strategies", it does not assess those critically
important problem-solving skills. (This is not to say that the
fundamental concepts that it does assess are not also critically
important.)

3 Perhaps most importantly, because it *is* about the only thing
resembling a standard, it gets far more emphasis than it otherwise
would and tends to drive curricula toward an overemphasis material
that falls within its limited scope and toward conceptual mastery
versus problem solving ability. (I'm not saying that it's scope
doesn't include some of the most important material in the curriculum
of a first course; but it certainly doesn't cover all or even most of
that material. I'm also not saying that conceptual mastery doesn't
significantly improve problem solving ability.)

I know that some of these concerns have been addressed; Dick Hake may
well respond with references. But I don't think the concerns can or
should be dismissed.

--
A. John Mallinckrodt http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm
Professor of Physics mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Physics Department voice:909-869-4054
Cal Poly Pomona fax:909-869-5090
Pomona, CA 91768-4031 office:Building 8, Room 223