Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

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

Nonsense.  There is creditable evidence in the research literature which
shows that conceptual gain happens when teaching using the learning cycle is
used.  This goes back to the 70s, and has been reported by a variety of
researchers.  Before making such a blanket statement one needs to read JRST
starting with the 70s up to date.

And why is the FCI pseudo-scientific?  I would point out that there is an
alternative test the FMCE which looks completely different, but measures the
same things.  The two tests track nearly perfectly.  Neither test was just
dreamed up, but was tested, and revised.  The answers were selected
according to which answers students tend to give as misconceptions.  The
FMCE goes even further and essentially has all possible answers.  Have you
tried giving the FCI, and then tried getting better gain on it?  And if you
have a method that gets better gain, other than just telling them the
answers just before the test, I would suggest publishing it.

I would suggest reading Mazur's book "Peer Instruction".  He details how his
scores were low when he first administered the FCI.  This was after working
very hard to have good lectures.

Then there is Joe Redish who tried to disprove the research results by
attempting to improve lectures so as to get better FCI results, and failed.
But after just a few of the research based labs, he saw significant gain.

The research literature even has gone so far as to use IQ tests as a
measure, and when the learning cycle is used one sees gain on them as well
on on the Lawson Piagetian test.  While this is not rocket science, it is
actually much harder!

I would suggest reading the literature in depth, and then coming up with
specific criticisms based on what has actually been written.  And yes there
are some researchers of less the sterling caliber, but they exist in all
fields even, gasp, physics.

As to art forms, artists actually developed many scientific techniques.
Calling teaching just an art form is also demeaning art.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


>  	I submit that there is no evidence that such an assumption is
> justified.  I submit, in fact, that there is no credible evidence that
> effective teaching is more or less than an art form.  One of the
> difficulties,
> of course, is that there seems to be no objective way, at present, to
> identify effective teaching when it occurs - if ever.
>  	Maybe the concept should be replaced by a concept of "effective
> learning".  That would, at least, put the shoe on the foot for which it
> was designed.  (I don't want to discuss such pseudo-scientific devices as
> FCI's, which are self-reported measures taken under uncontrolled
> conditions and may simply amount to self-promotion by frustrated would-be
> teachers).