Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching (Was:MOOC:EdxOffers Mechanics course by Prof.Walter Lewin)

[Bruce Sherwood <Bruce_Sherwood@ncsu.edu>]

Ruth Chabay and I created the E&M assessment BEMA, which is similar to CSEM
and was created about the same time. There is indeed a very big difference
from mechanics surveys. One can talk about classical mechanics using
non-technical language, but it's quite difficult to talk about E&M without
using technical language such as "electric/magnetic field" and "charge" and
"potential" and "flux" and "polarization". I suppose one could try to
create an ordinary-language instrument, though I don't know of any such
attempt, and I'm somewhat dubious about what one might learn.

The FCI (and I assume the FMCE) show very different pretest scores at
different universities (dunno about high schools) with different student
populations, in part because many university students study quite a bit of
mechanics in high school but little E&M, but also in part because the
questions mostly use non-technical language and so students may be able to
answer some questions based on out-of-school experience of the world.
Because BEMA (and CSEM) use technical language, and because many university
students taking intro physics have had little prior instruction in E&M no
matter what their precollege experience, BEMA pretest scores show little
variation from one university to another, with average scores close to
random guessing. The only exception I've seen is in courses for honors
students and/or physics majors, where there is some spread of pretest
scores. The BEMA pretest scores are so low and so universal that for many
purposes it's feasible to administer just the posttest.

The gains are most definitely meaningful; different curricula lead to
significant differences in posttest scores:

 http://prst-per.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v5/i2/e020105

Bruce

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, LaMontagne, Bob <RLAMONT@providence.edu>wrote:

> Anyone have thoughts on "The Conceptual Survey of Electricity and
> Magnetism (CSEM)"
>
> My department chose to use it, but I have major problems with it. Even
> without having taken a previous physics course, the FMCE is at least
> readable to anyone of average intelligence. The CSEM, on the other hand,
> contains so much jargon, that the baseline set by the pretest is
> essentially useless. The questions don't indicate anyone's intuitive
> understanding of electricity (perhaps gotten by playing with household
> electronics) - just their familiarity with terminology. IMHO, the "gains"
> are meaningless for this test.
>
> Bob at PC
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l