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



John,

you are certainly being tiresome, in appealing to contrary objective evidence, in the face of proof by confident assertion! <grin>

This is physics, remember...

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

On 6/28/2013 1:04 PM, John Clement wrote:
Actually I forgot something. This opinion is flat wrong according toresearch. 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