Re: [Phys-L] Evaluation tests

["Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

This brings up a question which is interesting to me and I don't know how to articulate it well.  Most physicists sat that physics is different than chemistry or algebra.  I believe it to be true.  But why is it different?  High school chemistry (in the guise I saw) can be just as algebraically intensive as high school physics.  So I don't quite buy the idea that it is different by virtue of the applied math skills required; though I do believe that that is a piece of the "elephant" or a piece of the explanation.

Also, can it be articulated in a way that you are willing to repeat to your chemistry of biology or math colleagues in polite company; i.e. in a way that doesn't reinforce the stereotype of "arrogant" physicist.  Which is to say that I don't quite believe it is sufficient, nor quite accurate, to simply say physics is harder and you have to be smarter to be successful at the course.

Any thoughts?  As I am procrastinating from grading finals.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Philip Keller
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:06 PM
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Evaluation tests

Right, but still I'd be tempted to look at the data to see if, say, the average of their grades in chemistry and algebra did a better or worse job predicting their results in physics than the test you use.  After all, while physics is different than either chemistry or algebra, it is also different than the arithmetic class where we hope they would have learned about fractions.

On 12/17/2013 5:19 PM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:
> I'm at a private school and physics is an elective. Many are 
> encouraged to take physics to have all three foundation courses for 
> college. To me, the "placement" test is a useful thing. I've had 
> juniors do poorly on it, drop physics, and take physics again as seniors -- and do very well.
>
> And as I've said before, physics is unlike any course a student will 
> ever take. It requires a different way of thinking, and some kids 
> simply don't have the proper skills to do well. And "working hard"
> is sometimes not enough.
>
>
> Phys-L@Phys-L.org writes:
> > On 12/17/2013 4:39 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:
> > > And remember what started this thread. It is NOT ABOUT SOLVING THE 
> > > PROBLEM, IT IS ABOUT THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF THE PROBLEM.
> >
> > Taking that to heart, I wonder if these tests are worth giving.  If 
> > the goal is to do a service to students who sign up but with little 
> > chance of earning a c or better, I suspect that there is a lot of 
> > information available with more predictive power: grades in previous 
> > science classes, high school gpa, even math SAT score might do a 
> > better job than what has been proposed so far.  But to find out, you 
> > would have to check the data.
> >
> > But I am not sure that is our role to make these predictions.  If a 
> > student has a destination in mind and physics is one of the 
> > requirements along the way, then despite what my (admittedly fuzzy) 
> > prediction model would say, my first instinct is to say come on in 
> > and be prepared to work hard.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@phys-l.org
> > http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

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