One bias, probably unintentional, is that the instructor/researcher KNOWS
the questions on the FCI. Even without actually reviewing the test itself,
even without going over the answers if given as a pre-test, it is easy
enough to (over)emphasize certain concepts, ideas, reasoning, and/or tricks
that will help when the students take (again) the FCI. It is certainly very
possible--in fact fairly obvious--that 'new' courses/techniques can be
targeted precisely at the questions on the FCI. Another aspect that bothers
me with all this is that the material that is the basis for the FCI usually
occupies less than a chapter in most intro text books, meaning a week or two
maximum in instructional/demo/lab time on the topics in a traditional
course. I doubt that too many of the PER based courses that show great
improvements in FCI scores are so limited in coverage time.
The two 'unanswered' (to my mind) big questions about PER based courses (and
I mean by that really focused techniques like guided enquiry versus a
collection of techniques that are aimed at improving interaction--which is
what I think most of us tend to use) are 1) do we get better physicists,
engineers, etc. out the back end of the curricula (for other students the
question--already raised--are the course goals). 2) How well would a heavy
dose of such instruction prepare students for 'life-long' learning--leaning
on one's own, from reading, from attending meetings, from collaboration with
colleagues, etc.
To say it again, the 'straw-man' lecture is less of an issue here than the
suggested need for (overly) structured instructional techniques. Student
responsibility for their own learning comes into play with an emphasis on
time applied to their studies. IMO, we should not surrender to the
pressures of changing 'social' behavior, much of which is robbing everyone
of free-time and privacy, to restructure courses without much 'outside
class' work. [Such is actually a big draw for students when the word gets
out that they will have almost no work to do outside the classroom.] Doing
so will be a detriment (again IMO) to students in the long term.
The last point which I think is implied in some of Jack's remarks, is that
we now see Physicists trying to do psychological research. I suspect that
many of the 'skeptics' have a problems with the attempts to make such
research into the 'equivalent' if physical science research. Way too many
uncontrolled variables, little chance when the education of students is at
risk for double blind tests, too difficult to separate the research from the
developer, to have the kinds of certainties that some claim here. To answer
another question that was posed--there is nothing wrong, and I suspect
little opposition, to trying new ideas, to trying to mix new teaching
techniques with our 'old tried and true', to constantly work at improving
our instruction. What is objectionable is to be constantly berated by some
with their 'religious' zeal that their way is the 'one true path' and that
anything resembling what was done in the past is the 'road to hell'--and
useless to boot!
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
FREE PHYSICS SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lulai
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 11:11 AM
To: jlu@hep.anl.gov ; phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2
"The difference is the fact that the AP exam is corrected and scored by
independent 3d parties, unrelated to the teachers."
I feel there is an implied bias. However, I don't know how grading a
m.c.test allows for much bias in grading. What am I missing?
Paul Lulai
Physics Teacher
St Anthony Village Senior High
3303 33rd Ave
St Anthony Village MN 55418