[Phys-l] Pedagogy & development

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

There are a number of threads in PER which converge, but which also
complement each other.  The FCI test results was the first dramatic
demonstration of the failure of conventional teaching to achieve good
conceptual understanding.  There are other tests that confirm this result.
The FMCE which is structured very differently also tracks perfectly with the
FCI.  I have given them back to back and plotted one vs the other.  All
students fall on the same line.  The micro tests of McDermott also show the
same results.

The group at U.Mass Amherst (UMPERG) has been critical of the high emphasis
on the FCI, but it and the FMCE are the only tests we have to compare across
classes in different schools.  The validity of what they are measuring has
been correlated with free response questions or interview protocols.  The
FMCE is probably better if you wish to diagnose specific deficits.  This
close correlation is fairly convincing that the increase in understanding is
not just because one has coupled the course to one particular test.

So what other evidence is there that improving FCI/FMCE results helps
students.  Mazur showed that students did better on the problem solving
portion of his traditional test.  The Hellers have demonstrated that their
students can solve more complex problems, and they also achieve high gain.
To get good problem solving one must target that skill separately, but
conceptual understanding seems to go hand in hand.  Beth Thacker showed that
her elementary Ed students wiped out the engineers in solving many problems.
But the engineers did better when the math became more complex.

As far as lectures go, the experiment at AZ State which compared FCI results
of 4 competent lecturers found that their gain was the same, and lower than
the experimental course which used an early form of Modeling.  Some of the
lecturers were considered to be more "charismatic" than the others, but the
extra sizzle did not help.  The 4 used totally different approaches, and one
even followed the book extremely closely.  Incidentally Feynman's charisma
did not seem to help his students overcome their misconceptions.

Of course the naysayers ask whether this improves physics preparation at the
upper levels.  Well, there is no way to know, because most courses are
traditional, and the number of students who continue in physics is small.
The experience at NC State has some bearing here because Beichner seems to
have shown greater retention as well as preparation.  The superb thinkers
will always overcome the artificial obstacles put up by the educational
system.  The recent bio. of Einstein is apropos.

The biggest criticism of the FCI is that there is more to learning than just
high FCI scores.  And yes, that is true.  The material from the UMPERG
specifically targets cognitive deficits that are necessary to gain
understanding of physics concepts.  These deficits are manifold, and are not
really targeted in many other curriculum materials.  It is not clear that
the UMPERG materials are uniformly successful, but they are unique in trying
to target these deficits.  Their material apparently does help achieve
expert like problem solving ability.

The biggest deficit is in terms of the thinking levels as measured by the
Lawson Piagetian test.  I have been presenting this evidence for years, and
finally Colletta and Phillips have enough statistics to confirm this idea.
Shayer & Adey have targeted this with good success in "Thinking Science".
However underneath this problem lie other problems which may need other
attacks.  The executive functioning of many students is low, and
conventional curriculum material does not target this well.  The training
done by Reuven Feuerstein in his "Instrumental Enrichment" does work well
here, and there is a recent report of a computer program that increases
short term memory capacity and also "fluid intelligence".

So the traditional view has been that students are lazy, and are failing to
work hard enough.  But there is abundant evidence that just hard work alone
does not improve understanding enough.  This is especially true when the
thinking level is low.  The ADAPT program targeted this problem, and had
good success with lower level students.  But certain aspects of physics
showed absolutely no ability to improve student thinking.  They found that
hitting vectors hard for an extended period was a useless endeavor.  I
suspect that here there was an underlying problem of visualization.

PER is essentially on the ground floor, but it is growing and incorporating
other ideas and measurements into its arsenal.  The Lawson test has come
into widespread usage.  A number of studies have been done, both case study,
and control/experimental group studies.  So when some call the research into
question, that is nonsense.  All of these types of studies are used in other
types of research including medical research.  It is true that the early
work has included mainly non physics majors, but that is no longer true.
There is research exploring how concepts are formed in advanced courses.

There was one claim that brain development continues until age 26.  Yes,
that is true, but it actually continues till later ages.  But the most
crucial development for physics is at age 10+.  That is what sets the stage
for developing the "formal operational" level of thinking.  But if the
correct stimulation is not provided, this type of thinking never is
developed.  The correct stimulation is never provided for 70% of the
population, and many do not rise to this level until college.  This is
development is extremely important to the ability to understand and apply
physics concepts.  So gross physical growth is not a good enough indicator.
The stimulation to provide the internal wiring is also needed.  Similarly
the correct stimulation is needed to develop self regulation in younger
children.  Incidentally a large scale study in Korea (as I recall) showed
that Thinking Science does not develop formal operational thinking before
age 10, but it does bring the students almost to the threshold.  So there
are definite ages below which certain types of concepts may not be
teachable.

Incidentally, to my knowledge, there is no research that shows that being a
good showperson improves learning.  The 4 lecturer research at AZ State
would seem to negate that common assumption.  Malcolm Wells, the original
Modeler, was apparently very low key, at least on camera.  I would call the
showman myth a common misconception, or at best an idea which has a marginal
influence on learning.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> The problem is, John, how one determines "high gain".  As far as I know,
> the FCI has, in the past, been used to establish this high gain, but
> many do not accept this instrument as "proof" of same.  I have to admit
> that I wonder if the FCI and Modeling aren't so closely bound as to make
> better scores a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Now bear in mind here that
> I'm a believer in Modeling instruction and active engagement, but it was
> obvious to me when I was first exposed to Modeling that "traditional
> instruction" simply disregarded the basic concepts entirely as they
> were, to the instructors, so self-evident as to not require any special
> effort to expand upon.  It wasn't so much the lecturing as it was a case
> of "here's the equation, this should be sufficient to explain what is
> going on".  It should be no surprise, therefore, that an instrument
> designed to get at the fundamental concepts would find that
> traditionally-taught students would not have an understanding of those
> fundamental concepts.