[Phys-L] Re: Whither Introductory Physics Labs? (was Lab Reports - was Human Error)

["Folkerts, Timothy J" <FolkertsT@BARTONCCC.EDU>]

> > Does this strike anyone else as internally inconsistent?

> Hmmm.... I see a certain resistance to a scientific, experiment based
>  approach to physics education testing.

That's not what I saw.  I point I saw was the inconsistency of saying that interviews aren't a valid way to judge knowledge, but then turning around and saying interviews are a valid way to judge knowledge (i.e. the standard test is valid _because_ it correlates well to interviews).


> And where it would be impolitic to attack a scientific
> approach directly, one can always attack
> the validity of the objective test instruments advocated.

But you have to at least challenge the test instruments used.  After deciding what it is you want to measure (no small task in itself), you have to decide if the instrument is indeed 1) objective and 2) measuring the information you want.


> For example.
> How do you validate auto mechanic training/education?

> By having a subject fix or replace an auto transmission,
> an engine, or a a wish bone suspension, and having the
> vehicle perform satisfactorily, thereafter.

But perhaps that mechanic was trained on one brand of car, and subsequently tested on the same brand of car.  You can't spend three weeks testing him/her on multiple brands with multiple problems.  It this case, I would be happy to use a verbal test as a supplement to discover if the mechanic _understood_ the concepts involved in changing a transmission and the differences between brands.

Tim F
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l