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] |
it is apparent that some of the students may have had trouble
because they assumed that the ball encountered air reistance
on the way down through the air surrounding the table.
Perhaps a look at the latest McDermott paper in AJP would be
enlightening. She points out that even graduate students have
difficulty with vectors and kinematics.
Another point is that instead of going over each question
when asked using a classroom response system, it is suggested
that students discuss it, revote, and then a student should
give the final summary.
This question is actually analogous to one on the FCI, and
apparently evoked a common misconception.
There is also the
problem that you are asking for two variable reasoning. If
you gave the Lawson test of scientific reasoning you might be
able to see if the wrong answers correlate with wrong answers
on the two variable reasoning questions.
OK, Robert, I've been there. Your mistake is that you assume
that what you explain in class is relevant to the student
answers. What you are really measuring, IMO, is not the
student understanding of Physics, bu the fraction of students
who pay attention during your lectures.
Dick Hake partially addressed this question in his TPR
article on the SDI labs and the inneffectiveness of even his
most brillian lectures.