Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-learn

Topic: [math-learn] Re: FCI and CCI in China #2
Replies: 50   Last Post: Jan 27, 2012 8:17 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jerry Epstein

Posts: 61
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Posted: Jan 27, 2012 2:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (22.7 K)

I am not sure what population we checked this with, or in fact whether
someone else did this, but we found that the normalized gain was
independent of the pre-test score, a worthwhile thing to keep in mind.
his is a major part of why this seems to be such a worthwhile measure.

Jerry E

On 1/27/2012 1:33 PM, John Clement wrote:
>
> The normalized gain does not confuse the issue, but rather it is just a
> different way to look at the results. It doesn't change the results. The
> normalized gain is used to remove the bias of student innate tendency to
> understand. It is more sensative to what is done in class because it
> is one
> way of factoring out what students already know. Of course it is not
> totally insenstive to prior knowledge because the ability to think
> increases
> both prior knowledge and gain. If you use effect size you also see
> dramatic
> gain. Some researchers have just shown the graphs. But each method of
> presentation has its own bias. The papers on Interactive Lecture
> Demonstrations show just the graphs for individual questions and the
> results
> are extremely striking with very large gains from either Real Time
> Labs, or
> ILDs as compared to lectures. Looking at the evidence shown at the
> beginning of the ILD book, pre instruction is between 5 and 17%, after
> traditional instruction the scores rise to getween 10 and 23%, but
> after the
> ILDs they rise to between 70 and 90%. This word was done by Sokoloff,
> Thornton, and Laws with one paper being in The Physics Teacher 36: 6, 340
> (1977), but there are others in American Journal of Physics.
>
> As to a full blown exam, Eric Mazur showed that students did better on a
> "full blown physics final" when he had gotten improved understanding as
> measured by the FCI. So of course the reaction was that Mazur could not
> create a standard physics exam, in other words he was a fool. But he is a
> respected Harvard professor who holds a number of chairs. So why not
> contact him and ask him to release to you his "standard" physics exam and
> also get one from a colleague and compare them. In research one
> usually has
> to take the claim made by the other researchers at face value, and then do
> an experiment to refute their results. Saying they are incompetent may
> work
> in politics, but it only works temporarily in science. Goethe's
> theories of
> color vision trumped other scientists because Goethe was extremely
> nasty and
> had a high reputation. But after his death, the competitors were finally
> able to score their points.
>
> As to whether the students who get a 5 on an AP test really understand
> calculus, one has to do that experiment to know the result. You can not
> assume the result without obtaining it. I am sure that there is a fraction
> (maybe even large) of high AP scorers who do not understand calculus,
> but I
> am willing to say I am wrong if the experiment shows something else. We
> have found that some graduate students in physics have difficulty with the
> FCI, and one would assume that graduate students would have perfect
> results.
> The CCI is not measuring the same things that the AP measures. I suspect
> that the AP exam would not be able to measure the ability to transfer as
> well as the CCI, but one would need more testing for that hypothesis. The
> essence of research is when someone claims that the theory is so good
> that a
> particular result is absolutely true, but the experiment disproves it.
> This
> sort of thing has happened time and again in medicine. Physicians denied
> that bacteria were the prime cause of ulcers for many years after some
> definitive experiments, and they continued to cut out parts of stomachs.
>
> As to the questions on the FCI or FMCE testing purely rote
> memorization, the
> answers to those questions have been told to students, and they still get
> them wrong. Part of the psychology behind what is going on can be found in
> the web reference.
> http://www.sciencenewsline.com/psychology/2012012017430043.html
> Students when given a question couched in everyday language then give an
> answer based on their gut feeling and do not analyze. They particularize
> the way they answer questions, so they only turn on an analysis
> appropriate
> to the type of question. So when they see the heading proportions, they
> create ratios, but when there is no explicit clue they often can't make a
> ratio because they don't understand proportional reasoning. So it our
> judgement based on what we have seen and the testing we have done that the
> concept inventories are not answerable usually by rote memorization. The
> reason why they convinced us is that researchers were in doubt until they
> gave the inventories. Then they saw that students who had been told the
> results, still got the questions wrong. Joe (Edward) Redis, and Eric Mazur
> are prime examples of this. They even tried better lectures, but still
> didn't get better results.
>
> Let us remember that all exams are just measuring something, and even when
> we think the measurement is good, it may not be. So extreme faith in
> the AP
> is not any more reasonable than faith in our tests. There are other
> issues,
> and with time they are being researched. At one time the IQ test was
> considered to be an immutable test of intelligence. In other words it
> wasn't subject to change for an individual and it was a true measure of
> intelligence. But researchers like Feuerstein blew this out of the
> water by
> producing a long term large change in IQ. The Flynn effect also blows this
> out of the water.
>
> As to how people think, even the most educated and "intelligent"
> people use
> gut reactions instead of analysis. Everyone does it and neither you nor I
> am immune to it. We often draw non rational conclusions because of this
> tendency. Lawson found that understanding of concepts in science was much
> more difficult for things that could not be seen, and showed that there
> seems to be a level of thinking above the top level proposed by Piaget. A
> lot of the argumentation here is actually gut feeling, and people tend to
> manufacture evidence based on the feeling without looking at evidence. As
> part of this process people tend to see correlations that do not
> exist, and
> they unconciously ignore evidence that is contrary to their notions.
> Global
> warming and evolution deniers do exactly that, and ignore the fact
> that the
> experts are convinced. Logical arguments do not change people's minds.
> They just harden positions and bring out more opposition. This of course
> can be seen in the development of things like the helicentric univers
> vs the
> geocentric universe, or medical advances like antiseptics.
>
> One of the things that IE seems to do is break down the student gut
> feelings
> which tie them to positions which are at odds with evidence. The ILDs do
> this by memory reconsolidation. One would assume that a student who has
> taken calculus would be able to understand that acceleration does not
> go to
> zero just because velocity goes to zero, yet we have found that this
> misconception exists even in students who have had 2 years of calculus (I
> have seen it in class). Our position is that to be able to analyze
> well the
> students have to line up their gut feelings with their ability to analyze.
> IE uses specialized techniques along with consistent coherent instruction.
>
> So there are basically 2 views here. One can assume that because IE works
> better for average or below average students that it also works for the
> superior student. But of course that has not been proven. The assumption
> that standard instruction works best for the superior student is the other
> point of view. It has been acknowledged that it doesn't work well for the
> lower 80%. But the superiorty for the top 1% hasn't been proven either.
> The only evidence that I can point to are some early papers in JRST
> cited by
> Lawson in his book "Science Teaching and the Development of Reasoning"
> where
> they found that the learning cycle works for all students. The
> evidence was
> the exploration had to come first for the students below the formal
> operational level, but concept development (lecture) could come first for
> the others. But they found that the formal operational students still
> needed an exploration phase.
>
> If someone could actually show that the top 1% benefits more by
> conventional
> instruction I would be happy to consider it. But I would like to make sure
> that the ability to transfer the learning was tested. I think the PER
> community would agree that the ability to transfer is one of the most
> important abilities a student can have. And of course the experiment MUST
> have two equivalent groups given very different treatments. I suspect that
> IE will do a better job, but I am extremely doubtful that conventional
> teaching does a better job. My "belief" here is based on the fact that
> education up until now has been done by gut feelings rather than by an
> understanding of how students learn and "accommodate" new ideas. In other
> words what is brain incompatible for lower students is likely to be
> incompatible for all students. Until this experiment has been done, it is
> quite obvious that arguments using informal observation will not change my
> mind. Can anyone come up with some experimental evidence here? I always
> ask for evidence and never get any citations to it!
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>

> >Jerry said that most students that pass calculus don't even know what
> calculus is. I agree with him. I wasn't talking
> >about that group and the Jerry wasn't talking about students scoring
> 5's on
> AP exams. I put the bar high enough so that

> >any more quibbling would be silly.
> >
> >
> > I have read and studied a great deal of the data John (and
> > Hake) have pointed me to. And I have looked, as much as
> > possible, at the scant "live" examples of IE that they have
> > pointed me to.
> >
> > My simple request for something real, like showing me top
> > students practicing I.E. is born of all that review. The
> > "research" John keeps pointing me to is ruined by a
> > fundamental (and absurd) flaw in the design of the
> > experiment. Essentially, an I.E. class is set up next to a
> > traditional class and an inventory test is taken at the
> > beginning and end (by each class). And then the results are
> > compared. Actually, rather than comparing the results
> > directly and absolutely, they are obfuscated by converting
> > them to "normalized gain" prior to the comparison. But that
> > isn't the flaw I was talking about. The flaw is that an
> > inventory test is no substitute for a full blown calculus or
> > physics exam. Who would form an hypothesis that IE classes
> > are better than traditional classes and then not set out to
> > prove it with full blown traditional exams? You can't make a
> > claim and then redefine how you test the claim as well. To
> > make the claim that IE is better than traditional you have to
> > face the music and test it using full blown exams, not
> > fragments of an exam.
> >

>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Date Subject Author
1/22/12
Read [math-learn] Re: FCI and CCI in China #2
Richard Hake
1/22/12
Read Re: [math-learn] Re: FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/22/12
Read Re: [math-learn] Re: FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/22/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/22/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/23/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/22/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/23/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/23/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/23/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/23/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/23/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/23/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/23/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/24/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/24/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/24/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/24/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/24/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
timotha@comcast.net
1/24/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
timotha@comcast.net
1/25/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/25/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/25/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/26/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Ed Wall
1/26/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Ed Wall
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI --where from here?
Jerry Epstein
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI --where from here?
Ed Wall
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI --where from here?
Jerry Epstein
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI --where from here?
Robert Hansen
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
timotha@comcast.net
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Ed Wall
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/27/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Ed Wall
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Ed Wall
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/27/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/27/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Robert Hansen
1/27/12
Read RE: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
John Clement
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein
1/25/12
Read Re: [math-learn] FCI and CCI in China #2
Jerry Epstein

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.