Re: [Phys-L] Indicators ofquality teaching(Was:MOOC:EdxOffers Mechanics course byProf.Walter Lewin)

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

According to the BAO paper they collected data from 4 mid range universities
and ALL students had completed an identical physics curriculum from grade 8
to 12.  US students had FCI scores about 49% +-19, while the Chinese
students had 86% +-14.  There were similar resulst for the electricity and
magnetism evaluation.  While the scores on the Lawson test were 74% for both
and the plotted distributions looked almost identical.  So exposure over a
long period of time did work, but it did not build scientific reasoning
ability.  And of course many of the US students have no physics background.
Science Vol 323, 30 Jan 2009.

The Chinese use a very problem oriented approach, but as Bao pointed out, it
is not clear if this transfers well.  We know from US studies that the
standard traditional approach does not build good transfer.  See papers by
Schwartz.

According to Bao, "all schools adhere to a national standard within all
courses.  In physics, for example, every student goes through the same
physic courses, which star in grade 8 and continue every semester through
grade 12, providing 5 years of continuous training on introductory physics
topics."  By contrast "Only one of three high school students enrolls in a
two-semester physics course."  So all college bound students in China have 5
years of physics, but I don't know about the non-college track, or do they
just drop out?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of 
> Ze'ev Wurman
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:12 AM
> To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
> Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Indicators ofquality 
> teaching(Was:MOOC:EdxOffers Mechanics course byProf.Walter Lewin)
>
> On 6/24/2013 3:56 PM, John Clement wrote:
> > The data was published by Rao, and it was just looking at 
> raw FCI and 
> > Lawson scores.  The Chinese scored significantly higher than US 
> > students on the FCI, but were the same on the Lawson test.  
> This was 
> > explained as the Chinese have 4 years of physics while many US 
> > students have none.
>
> Just a clarification. While the Chinese may have "four years 
> of physics" 
> it does not mean four years of close to 180 instruction hours 
> per year as we do here. Sciences tends to be taught in China 
> (and mostly
> elsewhere) in parallel, so every student may get 2-3 years of 
> chem, 3-4 of physics, and 2-3 years of bio. But each year is 
> two, perhaps three, weekly hours. So in total those students 
> may get, perhaps, double the typical US hours but no more. I 
> also find it hard to believe that *all* students in China 
> take 4 years of physics -- I'd suspect 3 to 4 depending on 
> the student's interests, and some perhaps even less than that.
>
> Ze'ev
>
> > The scores were accumulated
> > over a number of schools as I recall, but I would have to 
> go back to 
> > the paper to figure out how many students were involved in 
> the study.  
> > It was a reasonable sample size as I recall.
> >
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l