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]

[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: California standards test in physics



I don't understand this response except in an artificial context. The
calculator could be useful to confront the question: Are the two
triangles proportional if the respective sides are 3,4,6 and 51,68, 102?
But the student with no math facts will undoubtedly have a harder time
with the question: Two triangles have respective sides 3,4,6 and
51,68,102. John says that the interior angles of the second triangle are
all much bigger than the interior angles of the first triangle. Mary says
that one of the interiorangles of the first triangle is the same as one of
the interior angles of the second triangle.
Explain why each statement is either correct or incorrect. Clement
students may not refer to math facts when answwering the question.
Regards,
Jack

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, John Clement wrote:

Understanding and setting up a proportion does nor require instant recall of
math (arithmetic) facts. Then a calculator can be used. However if you do
not understand proportions no amount of proficiency in math facts will allow
you to do proportional reasoning. Dyslexics typically have difficulty with
math facts, but can be superb proportional reasoners.

Incidentally when you look at the Irascible Professor column, notice that
Mark actually points out some of the deficiencies in the column which was
written by another.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Hi all-
How do you do "proportional thinking" if you're not solid on your
math facts?
Regards,
Jack




On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, John Clement wrote:

Mark Shapiro's column is essentially an endorsement of the conservative
approach to math education. However that approach has serious deficits.
While it may make students better at rote calculation, it still does not
solve the problems of poor thinking skills. The connection between
memorized
math facts ie. Arithmetic and higher level math competence is fairly
tenuous. The agreement at the cited conference may actually be a
perception
bred by some columnists, because the math partisans do not agree to it.

Actually the thinking ability of students has not changed appreciably
over
the last 30 years. Anton Lawson did a study in a conservative suburb of
Phoenix over 30 years ago and redid it recently. He found that the
ability
of students to do proportional reasoning has not changed. It remains
abysmally low. And all evidence points to the fact that conventional
educational techniques do not appreciably raise this ability in the
majority
of students.

The evidence for or against all of the existing math programs has been
cited
as being inadequate. Unlike the evidence in physics where the
conventional
approach has been shown to have extreme shortcomings in comparison with
the
active engagement programs.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:49 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: California standards test in physics

Hear! Hear!
Feynman warned us against the physicist's greatest hazard - self
deception. I suggest that it is also the teacher's greatest hazard,
aided
by the typical student's expertise in conning teachers. Testing,
properly
done, confronts the teacher with the reality of what the student is
actually getting from the teacher. The spirit of testing must,
however,
be to determine the likelihood of the null hypothesis, that the
student
got nothing from the course.
Regards,
Jack


On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Rick Tarara wrote:

I would disagree that we rarely are tested after school. People are
tested
everyday to recall knowledge, to solve problems, to write essays,
etc.
These are practical tests, those that drive our jobs and our lives.
It
would be wonderful if school could somehow provide the same kind of
practical applications for all testing, but it is the very nature of
school
that severely limits those opportunities. Schooling is much too
compact
in
time and content to design into it constant 'real world' tests.

Now unless we can change human nature, I seriously doubt that
education
(of
the masses) without considerable testing can be successful. How
many
here
have tried a 'graduate-style' course on an introductory class? That
is,
only one knowledge/skill test a the end of the course. Yes there
are
some
pedagogical techniques being used that de-emphasize testing, but
ultimately
how is the success of such judged? The hallowed (or infamous) FCI
(Force
Concept Inventory) is a benchmark for many PER (Physics Educational
Research) practitioners, but of course it IS a test, and a multiple-
choice
test at that!

In my experience (26 years), the weekly quiz is an important tool to
keep
students ON TASK. Graded homeworks are key to getting students to
practice
problem solving. I don't know how to assess the success (or
failure) of
a
course without some kind of 'exam'. The best (for conceptual
assessment)
would involve essay questions where students must actually explain
things,
but reading 60 of these (which I do in the Spring Semester) in the
two
days
or so allowed, is a daunting task.

While there seems to be a history of dissatisfaction with the
methods of
education (dating over centuries if not millennia), somehow after
all
the
attempts to 'fix' things, we keep returning to the 'tried and true'.

I recommend Mark Shapiro's most recent column:

http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-01-07-05.htm

Rick

*********************************************************
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
********************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert H Gottlieb" <herbgottlieb@JUNO.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: California standards test in physics


Despite the smiley face below, I'm sure that all agree with your
statement. The question now is... Who should write all these
tests?
Outside of Civil Service tests, those given in the doctors'
office,
and a very few others, once we get out of the school environmnet
it is very rare that we ever have to take a test. Are tests really
necessary??? Can schools run efficiently without all those
quizzes,
weekly tests, midterm tests, final tests, other tests, and exams?

Herb Gottlieb


On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:02:38 -0500 Rick Tarara
<rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>
writes:
This discussion now has degenerated to the point where we can
clearly
see why a committee should NEVER write a test! ;-)



--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn
Valley



--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley



--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l