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] Premed Requirements Commentary

JC constantly harps on 'gain'--normalized gain on the FCI is what I assume he's referring to--AS IF this is a proven, meaningful measure of something. Of what? Does it predict which students will end up being good scientists, good engineers, good doctors, good Indian Chiefs? Without such a correlation, then the results of one (now ancient) test, a test that CAN be taught to, a test that is limited to a narrow conceptual and topical area, a test that (admittedly) requires a lot of student/instructor work to do well on, is only a tiny piece of data. As many of us have commented--look to your graduates and their successes or failures to evaluate the educational program. If you can show that there is a general failure to understand Newton's Laws that is causing bridges to fall, causing people to be misdiagnosed, that is holding back the frontiers of science research, etc., then we can all be much more worried about 'gain' and lack thereof.


----- Original Message ----- From: "John Clement" <>

Your course may actually be doing well, but can you prove this? What sort
of gain is achieved?

The instruction was uniform, but carefully constructed. I
suspect that they achieved the maximum 25% gain for a conventional course.