Re: [Phys-l] detailed + narrow - sophisticated

[Roger Haar <haar@physics.arizona.edu>]

Hi,

	I agree.  But there seems to be almost a "trick problem" 
nature to many of the FCI questions.  I think this explains 
at least some of the poor showing by graduate students and 
faculty.  The first time I saw it, warning bells went off 
and I knew to look twice at each problem.

	Actually it might be interesting to study the incorrect 
thinking that grads and faculty do and their response to the 
correct answers.

Thanks
  Roger

John Denker wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 01:06 PM, Richard Tarara wrote in part:
>
> > The main thing about the FCI is that it covers a VERY NARROW bit of the
> > physics curriculum--actually requires fairly sophisticated understanding of
> > some concepts--and can be 'taught to'.  It is NOT the benchmark for much of
> > anything other than this narrow, sophisticated understanding of Newton's
> > Laws.  Using it to 'prove' one teaching style better than another is, IMO,
> > absolutely bogus!
>
> I agree with that in spirit, and agree with N-1 of the words.
>
> I might have used the word "detailed" rather than "sophisticated".
>
> We agree that when students are taught a detailed view of some 
> narrow concept, that's a recipe for trouble.
>
> I would like to think that a truly _sophisticated_ understanding
> of the subject would not be narrow.  Narrowness with a pretense 
> of sophistication is almost the definition of sophomoric.
>
> The idea of a short, multiple-guess test being a measure of
> "sophisticated understanding" strikes me as ludicrous.  Also,
> because of the tendency toward teaching to the test, the idea 
> of a short, invariant test being a reliable measure of /anything/ 
> beyond rote strikes me as ludicrous.
>
>   By way of contrast, if we had a test bank consisting of
>   thousands of questions, and we constructed each instance 
>   of the test by selecting a sample of the questions, then
>   rote wouldn't pay, and I might believe some understanding
>   was involved.  But even then, getting from multiple-guess
>   to "sophisticated" would require quite a leap.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l