Re: [Phys-l] WHY VALUE ADDED TESTING IS A BUST.

[chuck britton <cvbritton@mac.com>]

Excellent comments from Dan.
	PCK is knowing what you're up against.
	(Not 'just' what you must teach - but how you might go about it?)


At 4:40 PM +0300 9/3/10, Dan L. MacIsaac wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Rauber, Joel wrote:
>
> >  What's the difference between "subject knowledge" and "pedagogical 
> > content knowledge"; particularly for a course that is not a 
> > pedagogy course?
> >
> >  _________________________
> >
> >  Joel Rauber, Ph.D
> >  Professor and Head of Physics
> >  Department of Physics
> >  South Dakota State University
> >  Brookings, SD 57007
> >  Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
> >  605.688.5428 (w)
> >  605.688.5878 (fax)
> Ok, I'll bite (and I'm thinking about this now).  Consider the 
> prototypical first year calc based mech course and Newton's third 
> law:
>
> subject knowledge could be say knowing the basic correct physics 
> (concepts, representations, problem solving skills) underlying 
> Newton's Third Law (N3) at an appropriate level adequate for 
> teaching first year. 
>
> PCK for N3 would be knowing about teaching and learning N3, like 
> knowing about typical student prior knowledge, typical student 
> interpretations and struggles, helpful strategies for teaching N3 
> (use of bathroom scales and force probes; wall flexing demos); good 
> elicitation and discourse questions regarding N3, appropriate 
> notations and representations that maximize student learning of N3 
> (verbal language exemplars and control, correct FBDs possibly using 
> different arrows to represent forces and velocities; object-agent 
> notations; portray forces as relationships) etc.  Knowing how to lay 
> groundwork for later reuse and expansion in the mechanics course and 
> beyond (spring and ball model for later E&M, solids, thermodynamics; 
> notations).