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] |
-----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