Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching : some necessities



??? A low score can result from good teaching? (False negative) So you're saying a low FCI score is meaningless? Isn't that what many have been claiming right along?

Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: Phys-l [phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] on behalf of John Clement [clement@hal-pc.org]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:04 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Indicators of quality teaching : some necessities

Actually I forgot something. This opinion is flat wrong according to
research. There was a study which showed that the FCI had a low false
positive rate, but a higher false negative rate. So the one sidedness is
actually in the opposite direction. I do not recall where that study was
published, so perhaps someone else can remind me.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


4) It is a one-sided test: A low score is a reliable
indicator of lousy teaching, but a high score is not a
reliable indicator of quality teaching, because the test
is too simple. The gains that people brag about are so
low as to prove that the students do not understand
"conceptual physics". If they understood the fundamental
concepts, they would score much higher.



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l