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]

Re: [Phys-l] Sir, Can We Do Something Easier?



.
I responded to Mike's posting on "making physics fun", and
gave a couple of examples fun in science. Since the numbeer of students
and teachers of physics at Downers Grove South High School are matters of
record, as are the subsequent performances of the graduates, this hardly
qualifies as "anecdotal evidence'.

The original posting did not give any statistics about the performance of
the students, just that the enrollment in physics was high. But beyond
subsequent performance, you need to factor out the effect of high SES. High
SES is the only reason for superior performance of private schools as two
recent studies have confirmed. The evidence is that on the average private
schools in general do a poorer job of education once the output scores are
corrected for SES.

I don't know whether John is a pontificator, but he raises two
other issues extraneous to the one at hand. One is FCI scores, and the
other seems to be anecdotal evidence about his experience with his own
children. Such evidence would be, it would seem, truly anecdotal, not
being part of any records. So, true to John's polemic, let's ignore it.

The only evidence for whether making physics fun is the evidence that I have
seen. I certainly found it to be fun, but that was not at all because of
the school system. Actually I find cognitive issues on learning and
teaching science to be much more fun than physics.

I question whether FCI scores serve as an efficient proxy for
effectiveness of physics teaching. There are no Nobel prizes for high FCI
scores. Traditional physics teaching has given us a number of Nobel
Laureates of whom three were fellow graduate students - one of the Nobel's
was in economics. But maybe looking at Nobel's is a little restrictive.
Another possible measure is membership in the National Academy of
Sciences. By my not very careful count, a PhD from Princeton's Physics
department practically guarantees election to the NAS. As best as I can
tell from my own experience (here I wax anecdotal) FCI gains track
closely with scores on weekly quizzes and Final Exams (which I usually use
old AP exams for).

Actually FCI scores do not track that well with conventional exams. Eric
Mazur showed that quite clearly. It is true that there are no Nobels for
FCI scores, but there are also no Nobels for AP exam performance.
Considering the time lag for Nobels, it is doubtful that any of the current
candidates could have even been given an FCI, so this is not a relevant
argument. There are also no Nobels for raising student thinking from low to
high levels. Reuven Feuerstein does this routinely and will never get a
Nobel. I consider his work to be far more significant for human progress
than most Nobels. However FCI scores do track well with the ability to
think. And thinking ability seems to be a limiting factor for the FCI.

Discounting anecdotal evidence, as we should, we need careful
studies of the relationship between FCI gains and long term performance in
science and engineering before we treat FCI gains as the sacred symbols of
successful physics teaching. But that, as I said in the beginning, is
another topic.

Here I would agree that such a study needs to be undertaken. Such studies
are extremely difficult, and there may not be enough students in reformed
courses to get good statistics. But I think the Beichner at NC State has
shown that reformed pedagogy improves a number of other measures of
learning. However there is plenty of evidence that targeting gain in FCI
also improves the ability to do problems. Mazur showed some gain. There is
even one study in which elementary education teachers in a reformed physics
course showed superior problem solving when compared to engineers in a
conventional course. And the FCI questions are certainly covered in
conventional as well as reformed courses so the canard about them being
targeted is not really true. Then there is the UTEACH program which I
mentioned that uses PER pedagogy as part of the teacher training, and
achieves a much higher retention rate of 80% after 5 years rather than the
usual 50%. There is plenty of evidence in favor of the FCI and as far as I
know no negative impact from using it.

I think that my main point is that you have to do the necessary things to
raise student thinking, most of which are similar to what is done by PER
inspired curricula. Then once that is done, students can have greater
interest in physics. But if the main attack is to get them interested,
without attending to the cognitive aspects, then you will end up with a
large number who will wash out later.

I don't consider FCI scores to be extraneous because they are one of the few
measurements that we have in wide use. One can also use FMCE which tracks
perfectly with the FCI despite it being highly graphical with much less
natural language. Then there is the MPEX which shows that attitudes drop
with every physics course except for reformed studio style courses. The
number of evaluations is much larger now, and there are many more that I
have not mentioned. These tests are the only way an individual instructor
has to measure performance because an individual can not track students and
do a larger scale study.

There is to my knowledge no evidence to show that targeting attitudes by
making physics more palatable raises either FCI scores, or long term ability
to understand science or physics. I do have evidence at our school where
the teacher who teaches integrated physics and chemistry is very popular.
Essentially after having had a semester of physics the FMCE or FCI scores
come in at statistical zero for most students. The only students who score
high already had interest and good thinking skills.

I do have a number of anecdotal accounts of students who took my course and
then found that their ability to later take physics or just attend college
was greatly enhanced by me. I have also seen large increases in math SAT
scores as a result of some of the things that I have done. And beyond this
I also have seen some increases in thinking ability on the Lawson test of
scientific thinking, which is not targeted at all.

I think one needs to ask if there are any valid statistical studies which
show that targeting physics as being fun improves subsequent performance. I
have tried to make the case that enhancing cognitive performance makes it
possible to see physics as fun.

I would like to end with a very personal anecdote. I had extreme difficulty
with reading until the end of grade 3. My mother always said that it was
because I discovered that reading was fun. But, I have discovered that I
have some dyslexia and other low level cognitive difficulties. Upon
reflection, I am now sure that the dyslexia retarded my ability to read so
that I could not discover it was fun until they were overcome. But once I
got over the threshold I became a voracious reader. My mother even when I
told her this, did not understand this point. I think the same point is
valid with the physics is fun idea. Overcoming cognitive disabilities is
much more important than consciously trying to make physics fun.

BTW if fun courses were the key, then why are business degrees so popular?
Business courses are hardly bastions of fun, and I would consider them to be
deadly dull.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX