[net-gold] Re: Force Concept Inventory
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Net-Gold @ Nabble" <ml-node+3172864-337556105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:01:52 -0400 (EDT)
.
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:44:25 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] Re: Force Concept Inventory
If you reply to this very long (34 kB) post please don't hit the
reply button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear
in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire
already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "What do they do in math? #2" [Hake
(2010)], Robert Hansen (2010b), in his Math-Teach post "Force Concept
Inventory," raised 14 points which reflect a standard traditionalist
perspective. They can be roughly paraphrased as follows (as indicated
in my complete post, Hansen's writing is often imprecise - therefore
I have sometimes had to guess at his meaning - please let me know if
I've misinterpreted him):
(1) The elements of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI ) have very
little usefulness or meaning without the context of the abstract
mathematical model in which they were born."
(2) Hake's work suggests that he only considers non-physics major courses.
(3) Hake's statements would imply that physics-lite is for all students.
(4) I took two years of traditional high school physics from a
teacher that taught *actual* physics. All the misconceptions probed
by the FCI were considered and in addition students attained the
systematic deconstructive analytical ability typical of physics.
(5) At first I thought the FCI was a *pre-class* inventory. But after
reading Hestenes et al. (1992) it became apparent that the FCI in a
*post-class* inventory.
(6) The FCI questions are not "physics" per se because they avoid the
"real complexities," as admitted by Hestenes et al. (1992).
(7) I am not concerned about a general science introductory physics
class for the masses that removes the abstract mathematical modeling
of actual physics.
(8) My concern is that high-school teachers have misinterpreted the
purpose of "research" like Hestenes et al. (1992) and have used it as
a guide for teaching physics, period.
(9) To know physics is to know not only the correct answers to
questions such as those on the FCI, but also to know the reasoning
behind the answers. Without the mathematical reasoning you don't have
physics, but something like high school science.
(10) The arguments in this post show that physics is math or at least
that its essence is in creating abstract mathematical models of the
universe. Can Hake explain why it isn't?
(11) I agree that the FCI is a test of failure but it lacks the
"complexities" of physics. If I am correct that many high school
physics teachers mistook Hestenes et al. (1992) and designed their
courses (even for aspiring physicists) without the "complexities"
would Hake be concerned?
(12) Hake's statement that "it's true that most practicing physicists
learned physics despite the ineffectiveness of traditional
passive-student introductory physics courses. But so what? The future
of life on planet Earth hinges on the science/math literacy of the
masses" somewhat proves Haim's conjecture.
(13) Is minimal literacy of the masses worth more than authentic
literacy of aspiring physicists and engineers who were previously
served by traditional physics instruction?
(14) Are the above even exclusive goals? Couldn't there be a divider
(like they use in grocery stores) between these two sets of students
and goals?"
I respond to each of the above points from my own research-physicist
perspective.
*******************************************
Robert Hansen (2010b), in his Math-Teach post "Force Concept
Inventory" wrote [my insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . ."]:
"Richard Hake's . . . . .[[(2010]]. . . .reply to my last post. . . .
[[Hansen (2010a]]. . . .brought up a couple of points that I want to
address and seek some clarification from him on. . . . .Primarily, he
disagrees with my contention that 'physics is math' and he offer the
Force Concept Inventory in that defense. You can find the FCI at
this link <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/FCI.PDF>. . . . [[more
precisely "You can find the article 'Force Concept Inventory'
[Hestenes et al. (1992)] (sans the password-protected test itself) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/FCI.PDF>.]]. . . . . .
Hansen raises 14 points to which I shall respond in order. Hansen wrote:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. "[Hake] might not be offering the FCI as a defense but maybe to
the point that physics is about more than math, in which case I would
still be fully justified to ask 'Ok, still, where's the math?'
However, even in that case, the elements of the FCI have very little
usefulness or meaning without the context of the abstract
mathematical model in which they were born."
Hansen is correct in stating "elements of the FCI have very little
usefulness or meaning without the context of the abstract
mathematical model in which they were born." The context is the
mathematical model known as "NEWTONIAN MECHANICS" - see e.g.,
"Modeling Games in the Newtonian World" [Hestenes (1992)]. The
course-average *normalized* gain <g> was utilized by Hake (1998a,b)
and by at least 25 other physics education research groups [as listed
in Hake (2008)] to show that the concepts of NEWTONIAN MECHANICS are
much more effectively taught using 'Interactive Engagement" (IE)
methods than "Traditional" (T) passive-student lecture methods, with
a standard-deviation superiority of <g>'s for IE over T courses of
about 2.
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. "Also, [Hake's] writings and replies suggest that he is talking to
(sic) . . . [[does Hansen mean "about" rather than "to"]]. . . . .
introductory physics classes like those that a non physics or
engineering major might take."
As far as I know, few U.S. universities provide introductory physics
courses specifically for physics majors. Instead they offer either:
(a) calculus-based courses for engineering and science (including
physics) majors), and (b) non-calculus-based courses for other
students including health professionals and pre-meds. In my own
survey and in other pre/post testing by physics education research
groups as referenced in Hake (2008), the average normalized gains <g>
on the FCI were about the same for calculus-based and
non-calculus-based university courses, be they IE or T courses - see
e.g., Table 1c of Hake (1998b).
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
3. "But at the same time, some statements . . . .[[I wonder if Hansen
could be more precise- does he mean "Hake's statements"?]]. . . .
would imply that this form of physics-lite is for all students."
ASU's Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b) awakened by the abysmal
performance of their students on the Mechanics Diagnostic Test (MDT,
precursor to the FCI), converted from a traditional "T" course to an
Interactive Engagement "IE" course [Halloun & Hestenes (1987)].
Similarly, Harvard's Eric Mazur, after his elite students bombed the
MDT, converted from a T course to IE course [Mazur (1997) as
discussed by Mazur (2010) in a recent U-Tube video - I urge Hansen
and other Math-Teach traditionalists to view it. I wonder if Hansen
would regard as "physics-lite" the IE courses of (a) Halloun &
Hestenes (1987), (b) Mazur (1997), (c) ALL the IE courses surveyed by
Hake (1998a,b) and others as listed in Hake (2008)? If so, where are
the courses that Hanson would describe as "physics-hevy"? (aside
from the one discussed by Hansen in "4" below).
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
4. "I took two years of traditional high school physics in the 70's
from a teacher that taught actual physics. . . .[[Hansen evidently
thinks that all IE introductory courses fail to teach "actual"
physics.]]. . . . .. Each and every one (and more) of these
situations identified in this. . . .[[FCI]]. . . . inventory came up
and the intended result was to not have these misconceptions. And
when I say 'intended' I don't mean implicitly intended I mean most if
not all of these situations and the incorrect misconceptions came up
in class discussion. Yet at the same time, the class was a
traditional and mathematical high school course in physics. It was
obviously tracked and would certainly be an 'honors' class today,
actually double honors compared to some school's use of the term.
There was nothing rote about it and the concepts and the mathematics
that gives them meaning were introduced and discussed in a
progressive order and at some point we attained that systematic
deconstructive analytical ability typical of physics."
Hats off to Hansen's teacher of "traditional high school physics" of
the 70's. According to Hansen s(he) accomplished what had eluded
Halloun & Hestenes, Mazur, the 4 ASU professors discussed by Halloun
& Hestenes (1998a), and the teachers of the T courses surveyed by
Hake (1998a,b) and others as listed in Hake (2008). But aside from
Hansen's panegyric, was there any hard evidence that Hansen's teacher
was successful in promoting: (a) conceptual understanding of
Newtonian mechanics, or (b) the "systematic deconstructive analytical
ability typical of physics."
555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
5. "When I first started reading it . . . .[[Reading what - the
actual password protected FCI test or the online article by Hestenes
et al. (1992)?]]. . . . . . ., I thought this was something you
tallied before a physics class. In that context I didn't understand
its usefulness because unless you had some prior exposure to physics,
you would fare poorly on this inventory. However, it became apparent
that this was a post-class inventory. . . . . . . "
Hestenes et al. (1992) state:
"For evaluating instruction, we now have abundant evidence that the
Inventory is a very accurate and reliable instrument. We have
collected both pretest and post test data for research purposes, but
the pretest scores are so uniformly low for beginning physics
students that further pretests are really unnecessary, except to
convince diehard doubters or to check out the conceptual level of
anew population. The evidence that large Inventory gains are possible
is now sufficient for us to conclude that, for effective instruction,
ONLY THE POSTTEST SCORE COUNTS."
But "Sometimes even the noble Homer nods" [Horace (~ 25 B.C.)]. The
general consensus among most current physics researchers is that the
average *normalized* pre-to-posttest gain <g> is the crucial
parameter, as demonstrated in Hake (1998a,b).
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666
6. ". . . . . the following paragraph. . . .[[from Hestenes et al.
(1992)]]. . . . explains its purpose well:
'The first impression of most physics professors is that the
Inventory questions are too trivial to be informative. This turns to
shock when they discover how poorly their own students perform on it.
It is true that the Inventory questions avoid the real complexities
of mechanics. But such 'trivial questions' are more revealing when
they are missed.'
That is a very good statement. The questions are not 'physics' per se
because they do avoid the 'real complexities' but should a (post)
physics student do poorly with them they are most telling indeed. I
would agree that they not only missed the physics boat they missed
the dock as well. In that context this is some nice work. And the
following is not a criticism of the FCI as an indicator or failure. .
. . . .[[does Hansen mean "indicator *of* failure as would be
consistent with "11" below]]. . . . . "
In the above Hansen writes: "The questions are not 'physics' per se
because they do avoid the 'real complexities'. " I think Hansen has a
peculiar view of what constitutes "physics."
77777777777777777777777777777777777777777
7. "As I said in my reply. . . . [[Hansen (2010a)]]. . . . to
Richard, I am not concerned about a general science introductory
physics class for the masses that removes the abstract mathematical
modeling of actual physics."
In my opinion, an introductory physics that treats Newtonian
mechanics and removes its abstract mathematical modeling (i.e.,
Newton's Three Laws) is an oxymoron. Does Hansen know of any such
courses, or are they all only in his imagination?
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888.
8. "My concern is that high school teachers have misinterpreted the
purpose of 'research' like the FCI . . . . [[Hansen evidently means
Hestenes et al. (1992)]]. . . . and have used it as a guide to
teaching physics period. And while I still must do some research and
digging to come up with the hard facts, I have been watching various
boards and I have a good eye for these things."
Hanson's self-proclaimed "good eye for these things" may be only in
the eye of the beholder (Hansen). I think most high-school physics
teachers who use Hestenes et al. (1992) as a guide to teaching
physics will endeavor to teach physics in a way that will promote
their students' conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. I
don't understand why Hansen thinks such practice would constitute a
misinterpretation of Hestenes et al. (1992). Possibly Hansen thinks
high-school physics teachers will "teach to the test" by discussing
questions which are the same or very similar to those on the FCI. If
the teacher plans to use the average pre-to-posttest normalized gain
<g> on the FCI as a formative assessment of her/his teaching
effectiveness, such practice would, of course, be counter productive.
999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9. "Physics, like math, dissects a problem systematically and to know
physics is not to know the answers but to know the reasoning to the
answers. And that reasoning relies on a multitude of theories and
mathematical revelations. Without that reasoning (which requires the
math) you don't have physics, though you may have something like high
school science."
Is Hansen suggesting that one can know physics and at the same time
do poorly on the FCI? He may have meant to write something like: ". .
. . to know physics is to know BOTH the answers to questions such a
those posed by the FCI, and also the reasoning that justifies the
answers."
10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10
"My questions for Richard are the following... I think I have made
enough of an argument to the point that physics is math or at least
that its essence is in creating abstract mathematical models of the
universe that we can inspect, probe and understand because the real
thing is for the most part abstract to our senses anyways. I would
like to hear Richard's reasons why it isn't that?"
Leaving aside the distinction between physics as a discipline and
physics education, among the reasons that physics as a discipline is
NOT as specified by Hansen are:
A. That "physics is math" is, in my opinion, an obvious absurdity.
B. That "its essence is in creating abstract mathematical models of
the universe that we can inspect, probe and understand," is
consistent with *only* the *theoretical" component of Hestenes'
(1999) cogent "The Scientific Method." It omits the *empirical
component. Hestenes wrote: ". . . .the "Scientific Method" has two
components:
(1) *Empirical* - Systematic investigation of nature to find
*reproducible patterns* in the structure of things and the ways they
change (processes).
(2) *Theoretical* - Construction and analysis of models representing
patterns in nature."
C. In addition to omitting Hestenes' *empirical* component, Hansen's
"essence of physics" also omits a third vital feature of physics (or
the scientific method) as indicated in Hake (2000a) [see that article
for the references]:
(3) " 'Continual interaction, exchange, evaluation, and criticism so
as to build a ......... community map' (Redish, 1999). The latter
crucial feature of the scientific method has also been emphasized by
Ziman (1978), Cromer (1997), Gere (1997), Gottfried & Wilson (1997),
and Newton (1997)."
11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11
11."I have reviewed the FCI. . . . [[I think Hansen means that he has
reviewed Hestenes et al. (1992), not the password protected FCI test
itself]]. . . . and agree with its principle as being a test of
failure. . . . [[Nonsense! - the FCI is more than just a "test of
failure." As used to measure the average normalized pre-to-posttest
gain <g>, the FCI can serve as a formative test of the *relative*
success of a course in promoting students' conceptual understanding
of Newtonian mechanics.]]. . . . . but also point out that it lacks
the "complexities" of physics and was designed as such. If I am
correct that many high schools and high school physics teachers
mistook the purpose of the FCI (and similar "research") and designed
their curriculums around it without the "complexities", including the
classes that an aspiring physicist would take, would you (Richard) be
concerned?"
Regardless of whether or not high-school teachers "mistook the
purpose of the FCI", IF they design their curricula without the
"complexities," including the classes an aspiring physicist would
take then, yes, I would be worried. But it's up to Hansen to show
that this has, in fact, occurred.
12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12-12
"In response to my statement that current physicists learned physics
the traditional way (including the mathematical modeling) and thus it
is successful with some types of students (I claim physics students),
Richard stated . . . . . [[Hake (2010)]]. . . . (somewhat proving
the Haim conjecture. . . . . [[I assume Hansen means conjectures by
Haim (2010a,b).]]. . .
. . 'But in any case, it's true that most practicing physicists
learned physics despite the ineffectiveness of traditional
passive-student introductory physics courses. But so what? The future
of life on planet Earth hinges on the science/math literacy of the
masses.' "
Hanson misleadingly omits the crucial end of my sentence: ". . . .
see e.g., 'The General Population's Ignorance of Science Related
Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University' (Hake, 2000b)".
WHAT HAIM CONJECTURE DID I "SOMEWHAT PROVE"??
As indicated in Hake (2010): "Perhaps after addressing the math and
physics "things going on in high school," Hansen could address the
"English thing going on in high school" which *should* induce
students to write: (a) with some precision; and (b) "for whom," not
"for who."
13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13-13
"Is a minimal literacy by the masses worth more than an authentic
literacy by those previously served by traditional physics
instruction who become actual physicists and engineers?"
As indicated in Hake (2010) the work of e.g., McDermott (1991, 1993)
and Hake (1998a,b)], strongly suggests that, in fact, the traditional
math-oriented passive-student introductory physics courses did NOT
effectively serve aspiring physicists and engineers. If they
succeeded it was usually in spite of, not because of, their
introductory courses.
14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14-14
"Are these even exclusive goals? Couldn't there be a divider (like
they use in grocery stores) between these two sets of students and
goals?"
No, in my opinion, science math literacy of the masses and physics
understanding by aspiring physicists and engineers are complementary
and mutually reinforcing goals.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com>
<http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
"For most men, save the scientific workers, science is a mystery in
the hands of initiates, who have become adepts in virtue of following
ritualistic ceremonies from which the profane herd is excluded".
John Dewey (1927).
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/>. All URL's accessed
on 12 July 2010.]
Dewey, J. 1927. "The Public and It's Problems." For information on a
1954 edition by Swallow Press see <http://amzn.to/bhuM9f >. Note the
searchable "Look Inside" Feature. Doubtless this reference will, in
the mind of Hansen, "somewhat prove" some Haim conjecture.
Haim, 2010a. "Re: What do they do in math? (Ungarbled)," Math-Teach
post of 2 July 2010 9:49 AM (the Math Forum gives no time zone);
online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2091961&tstart=0>.
Haim. 2010b. "Re: "What do they do in math? #3," Math-Teach post of 8
July 2010 11:13 am (the Math Forum fails to indicate the time zone),
online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7121306&tstart=0>.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB). See also
Hake (1998b).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB). A crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Hake, R.R. 2000a. "Towards Paradigm Peace In Physics Education
Research," presented at the annual meeting of the "American
Educational Research Association," New Orleans, 24-28 April; online
at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AERA-Hake_11.pdf> (172 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2000b. "The General Population's Ignorance of Science
Related Societal Issues: A Challenge for the University," AAPT
Announcer 30(2), 105; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GuelphSocietyG.pdf> (2.3 MB).
Hake, R.R. 2008. "Design-Based Research in Physics Education
Research: A Review," in Kelly, Lesh, & Baek (2008)]. A
pre-publication version of that chapter is online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> (1.1 MB).
Hake, R.R. 2010. "What do they do in math? #2" online on the OPEN!
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/bunNfi>. Post of 8 Jul 2010
15:36:12-0700 to AERA-L, Math-Teach, NetGold, and PhysLrnR. This is a
response to Hansen (2010a).
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics," Am. J. Phys. 53(11): 1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. ABSTRACT: "An instrument
to assess the basic knowledge state of students taking a first course
in physics has been designed and validated. Measurements with the
instrument show that the student's initial qualitative, common sense
beliefs about motion and causes has a large effect on performance in
physics, but conventional instruction induces only a small change in
those beliefs." Contains the "Mechanics Diagnostic" test (omitted
from the online version), precursor to the widely used "Force Concept
Inventory" [Hestenes et al. (1992)].
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion," Am. J. Phys. 53(11): 1056-1065; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. ABSTRACT: "Common sense
beliefs of college students about motion and its causes are surveyed
and analyzed. A taxonomy of common sense concepts which conflict with
Newtonian theory is developed as a guide to instruction."
Halloun, I.A. & D. Hestenes. 1987. "Modeling instruction in
mechanics," Am. J. Phys. 55(5): 455-462; online to subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=AJPIAS&Volume=55&Issue=5>.
Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P. Mosca, & D. Hestenes. 1995. "Force
Concept Inventory (Revised)," online (password protected) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>, scroll down to
"Evaluation Instruments." Currently available in 19 languages:
Arabic, Chinese, Czech, English, Finnish, French, French (Canadian),
German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese,
Russian, Spanish, Slovak, Swedish, & Turkish.
Hansen, R. 2010a. "Re: What do they do in math #2?," Math-Teach post
of 8 July 2010 6:23 am (the Math Forum fails to specify the time
zone!); online on the OPEN Math-Teach archives at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7121058&tstart=0>.
Hansen, R. 2010b. "Force Concept Inventory," Math-Teach post of 11
July 2010 5:01 AM (the Math Forum fails to specify the time zone !);
online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2094049&tstart=0>. See
also Hansen (2010a).
Hestenes, D. 1992. "Modeling Games in the Newtonian World." Am. J.
Phys. 60(8): 732-748; online at
<http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ModelingGames.pdf> (86 kB).
Hestenes, D., M. Wells and G. Swackhamer. 1992. Force Concept
Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141; online (but without the test itself)
at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>, Tables I and II,
revised for the 1995 version [Halloun et al. (2005)] are online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>, directly below the first
reference under "Articles about the FCI."
Hestenes, D. 1999, "The scientific method," Am. J. Phys. 67 (x): 274;
online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/ScientificMethod.pdf> (8 kB).
Horace. ~ 25 B.C. "Ars Poetica I.359."
Kelly, A.E., R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek. 2008. "Handbook of Design
Research Methods in Education: Innovations in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics Learning and Teaching", Routledge.
Publisher's information at <http://tinyurl.com/4eazqs>; Amazon.com
information at <http://tinyurl.com/5n4vvo>.
Mazur, E. 1997. "Peer instruction: a user's manual." Prentice Hall;
information online at
<http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/education/pi_manual.php> (Unavailable
on 12 July 2010, but it will probably recover shortly.)
Mazur, E. 2010. "Confessions of a Converted Lecturer" UTube video of
a talk at the University of Maryland; online at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI>. The abstract, slides,
and references - sometimes obscured in the UTube video - are at
<http://tinyurl.com/ybc53jw>. As of 12 July 2010, Eric's talk had
been viewed by almost 22,000 UTube fans! In contrast, serious
articles in the education literature, often read only by the author
and a few cloistered academic specialists, usually create tsunamis in
educational practice equivalent to those produced by a pebble dropped
into the Pacific Ocean.
McDermott, L.C. 1991. "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what
is learned - Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59(4): 301-315; online to
subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=AJPIAS&Volume=59&Issue=4>.
McDermott, L.C. 1993. "Guest Comment: How we teach and how students
learn - A mismatch?" Am. J. Phys. 61(4): 295-298; online to
subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=AJPIAS&Volume=61&Issue=4>.
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] Re: Force Concept Inventory - David P. Dillard
