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] Physics First Revisited



In the end, I think the best approach is to use a conceptual survey
(e.g., FCI) on your own classes and try to get as high a gain as you can
using different methods. In my experience, there are several things
that can be used to increase the gain and they always have to do with
increasing inquiry. Sequencing ideas in (what I think is) an intuitive
way, interesting lectures, appropriate demos, and such, have had
insignificant impact (as far as I can tell).

I find this hard to believe, myself, and I didn't believe it until I
tried it. I assume there are others just like me. For them, the only
thing to do is try it.

I'm waiting for the paper that shows a very high gain using
"traditional" methods. You would think that it would be possible, given
the sloppy experimental setups that are tolerated, that someone,
somewhere, could show a very high gain using traditional methods.

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@po-box.esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:41 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited

Simply reciting the mantra that "there is creible evidence"
neither creates the evidence, nor, to the extent that there
is any, make it creible.

So-called FCI gains are reported by those who give and
correct the tests, the circumstances under which the tests
are given are unreported, the test review procedures (there
shouldn't be any) are unreported, the error rates in
correcting the tests are unknown, and, persistence, over
time, of the purported gains, if any, are unknown.

I understand that Professore Clement has strong beliefs in
these matters, as evidenced by the invective with which he
starts his comment, but the data, in this matter do not, in
my opinion, survive the scrutiny that we would give to
physics experiment.
Regards,
Jack