Re: [Phys-l] PSSC +- (c)

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

John Clement wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ERIC abstract. 
> ED041780
>
> This report presents the procedures, results, and conclusions of a study
> designed to compare the achievement in beginning college physics of students
> completing PSSC high school physics with students completing a traditional
> high school physics course. Factors of ability and achievement were held
> constant while scores on the criterion of marks in beginning college physics
> were compared. Mean achievement in college physics for students with a
> background in PSSC physics was not significantly different from that of
> students who had traditional physics. However, there were significant
> differences in the mean achievement between (1) students who took PSSC
> physics and who did not take high school physics, and (2) students who took
> traditional physics and those who did not take high school physics. The
> investigator suggests that his findings indicate that chances of success in
> college physics would be improved by taking physics in high school. (LC)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Notice the conclusion was that PSSC did not improve achievement in college
> physics.  Actually the PSSC textbook is fairly conventional compared to
> books like Minds on Physics.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>   
Aw shucks! This seems to confirm that blue riband instigators, and lofty
ambitions are not enough to allow an didactic work to succeed where it 
counts.
   Only experimental examinations confirm that promise. And how many PSSC
style initiatives can the World undertake to provide a useful 
statistical population?
Reminds me of those other college level blue riband physics books often 
mentioned here
which seemed to suffer a similar fate.

Brian W