In his Phys-L post of 26 Aug 2005 titled "course goals," Anthony
Lapinski (2005) wrote [bracketed by lines "LLLLLLLL. . . . .":
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
I teach physics (regular and honors) in high school. I learned at the AAPT
summer meting that stating goals for students is critical to building an
effective course. While I know in my head what "skills" I want my students
to have, I have never written them down for myself or my students. So at
the dawn of a new school year, I've come up with a preliminary list of
objectives/goals in no particular order:
1. To believe that learning physics can be fun.
2. To appreciate/understand the physical world.
3. To learn how to problem solve (apply equations to word problems).
4. To develop critical thinking skills by applying knowledge to new
situations.
5. To distinguish science from pseudoscience (scientific method, etc.).
6. To realize that physics is the fundamental science and useful in
everyday life.
This needs some revisions. Does anyone have any thoughts/additions to my
list? . . . . .
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
With apologies to subscribers who have seen this material before, in
"Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods" [Hake (2002a)], I wrote [see
that online article for references other than Hake (2002b,c)]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
IV. DOES THE NORMALIZED GAIN TELL ALL?
Does the class average normalized gain <g>. . .[see, e.g. Hake
(1998a,b; 2002a,b)]. . . for the FCI (Force Concept Inventory), MD
(Mechanics Diagnostic), or FMCE (Force Motion Concept Evaluation)
provide a definitive assessment of the *overall* effectiveness of an
introductory physics class? . . [For references to these tests see
e.g., Hake (2002b)]. . . .
NO! It assesses "only the attainment of a minimal conceptual
understanding of mechanics." In some first-semester or first quarter
introductory physics courses, subjects other than mechanics are often
covered. The effectiveness of the course in promoting student
understanding of those topics would not, of course, be assessed by
the normalized gain on the FCI, MD, or FMCE.
Furthermore, as indicated in . . .[the unjustifiably suppressed]. . .
Hake (1998b), among desirable outcomes of the introductory course
that <g> does NOT measure directly are 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.
Affective aspects such as "a" (satisfaction with and interest in
physics) can be assessed by *well designed* [e.g., Hake & Swihart
(1979)] student evaluations. However, despite the arguments of some
student-evaluation specialists [reviewed in Hake (2002c)], in my
opinion student evaluations do NOT provide useful information on the
cognitive impact of a course. In fact, the gross misuse of student
evaluations as gauges of student learning is, in my view, one of the
institutional factors that thwarts substantive educational reform
(Hake 2002b, Lesson #12.)
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Hake, R.R. 2002b. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/>. Ecology and Society
(formerly Conservation Ecology) is a free online "peer-reviewed
journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research" with
about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.