The ongoing discussions about the FCI and the relative merits of various
pedagogical techniques suggests to me that what has been happening is the
following:
1) Physics Educational Research (PER) became painfully aware through a
couple of diagnostic tests that conceptual understanding of some basic areas
was lacking in intro-level classes.
2) A lot of work has been done to find ways to correct that, but most of
those ways use the SAME diagnostic tests to determine their success.
3) The success of these new techniques to produce higher scores on the
diagnostic tests impresses people who adopt the techniques--but at the same
time are forced to adopt a more limited curriculum in order to accommodate
the time intensive techniques.
I fear that what is going on here is that the ASSESSMENT TOOLS [whether good
or bad--that's another debate] have driven the pedagogy. That is, the
pedagogy is calibrated to TEACH TO THE TESTS. This in itself is not
necessarily bad--providing that the tests are really good and really
comprehensive [here is where we could get into over the FCI.]
The _real_ problem that I see, is that the above process is also driving the
curriculum--and that is backwards! To score well on the FCI one needs to
spend much more than the typical one week of older courses dealing with
Newton's Laws. Likewise the time is stretched for dealing with basic
electrical forces, with geometrical optics, etc. Meanwhile we see things
like thermo (especially calorimetry), fluids, etc. disappearing from the
curriculum. As seems to be the case in the AP world and now in the
proliferation of state testings, it is the TESTERS who are driving
curriculum. I see AP teachers asking 'Are fluids still on the AP test?'
meaning that if they aren't, then the teacher won't cover that
material--regardless of the importance to a comprehensive intro-curriculum.
I don't know about others, but I have a curriculum, I teach to that
curriculum, and THEN I assess the student's understand of what has been
covered. I rework the assessment tools constantly to match what we've
covered rather than covering what is on a fixed assessment tool. [But I
still resent having to somehow convince North Central that I do that! ;-( ]
A suggestion to the PER community would be to stop being obsessed with FCI
scores and start thinking about a coherent, comprehensive curriculum for
intro-level classes--perhaps one for the HS level and one for the College
level (I very seldom get students in an intro-college course who haven't
taken a HS physics course--so these could overlap and mesh without being
identical.) Such curricula should not be technique constrained--only work
with modeling, only work with a studio course, etc. The curricula should
also serve a well thought out, explicitly stated educational goal for the
students. If one is to spend much of a semester to attain deep
understanding of Newton's Laws, then justify that goal in terms of the
student's full education and in light of other possible goals.
Just my thoughts,
Rick Tarara
*********************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
********************************************************
Free Physics Educational Software (Win & Mac)
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
NEW: Friction and Work lab simulations.
********************************************************