(1)
(2) Hello,
I am Dr. Valentin Voroshilov.
IÕve been in the field of education for many years playing many different
roles.
I was born and grew up in Russia. I had a pretty good career in Russia, but
when I got a chance to move my family to the US, I took that chance. After
starting again from the bottom I have regained most of my previous career
achievements. I am pretty proud of this, considering I had no formal education
in English and no professional network to support my efforts.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(3) I would like to start my presentation
from two statements:
Physics is a science.
Teaching physics is not.
Of course, these statements are based on a certain definition of
ÒscienceÓ.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(4) Personally, I do not like descriptive
definitions like the one on the left (this is the top Google search result for
Òdefinition of scienceÓ). In fact, such a definition does not really allow to
distinguish a science from a religion. I prefer operational definitions, like
the one on the right. In particular, this definition allows us to see when a
school of thoughts becomes a science.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(5) For example, Astronomy dropped Astrology
and became a science when Kepler finished his analysis of huge amount of data
collected before him, and wrote his famous laws. Of course, in reality there is
always back and forth between theorizing and data collecting, or as we call it
today Ð data mining, but in the end,
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(6) every science is based on a solid foundation
of the results of intensive data mining.
If teaching physics is not a science, can it become such?
Of course. All we need is to mine a lot of reliable and comparable data.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(7) I want to stress the latter word Ð
comparable. Educational data mining is a young field. It starts producing a
large amount of data.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(8) However, having a lot of data without
being able to make a comparison is like using different currencies without
establishing exchange rates.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(9) The history of physics shows us a
means for establishing the comparability we need Ð such means are called
standards.
We would have never had a hadron collider built in Geneva if after an
almost hundred year long journey physicists would not
agree on a set of common standards.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(10) There are standards in education, too.
But when an educator says Òa standardÓ, he or she means something very
different from what it meant in physics. In education, a standard is a
description of Òthe learning goals for what students should know and be able to
do at each grade levelÓ. However, people using the same educational standards
still can use different measuring procedures leading to incomparable results.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(11) Based on those results all we can conclude
so far is that: if we take two large groups of similar students, and one group
of students will have a more extensive or divers learning experience (for
example, more contact hours, or more time spent on certain exercises, or
training through more different exercises, etc.) students from that group, on
average, will demonstrate better learning outcomes than the students in a
controlled group.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(12) This conclusion becomes almost
obvious if we employ the notion that a brain is basically a muscle, or a
collection of muscles, the development of which strongly correlates with the
variety and intensity of exercises it goes through.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(13) In order to move beyond the obvious
we need to adapt to teaching physics the same approach which had been adopted to
doing physics. We need a standard which, like in physics, is an actual object,
or a feature of an object, accompanied by a specific procedure which allows
comparing similar features carried by other objects with the one of the
standard (that is why Òa standardÓ is also called Òa prototypeÓ, or Òan
etalonÓ). For example, a standard of mass is an actual cylinder. A verbal
description such as: ÒA standard of mass looks like a cylinder Òwith diameter
and height of about 39 mm, and is made of an alloy of 90 % platinum and 10 %
iridiumÓ would not work as a standard, because it is impossible to compare the
mass of an object with a sentence.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(14) I believe that Òa standardÓ for
measuring learning outcomes must satisfy the following five conditions:
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(15) I want to stress that at this point
this is mostly my belief. There is no solid logical proof that such standard
can be developed in education. And right now, everybody in this room either has
a strong feeling Òno way, that is impossibleÓ, or Òmmm, there might be
something in it worth to pursueÓ.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(16) In a way, it is like choosing between
Òbig dreams are achievableÓ and Òwe have to aim at reasonable goalsÓ. 
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(17) Obviously, that was a joke. However, I
do believe that the time has come to create a coalition of individuals and
institutions who would see as an achievable goal developing the universal
standard for measuring learning outcomes in physics (for starters). So far I am the only member, but I welcome
everyone!
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(18) Well,
when I said that all I have is just
a belief Ð I lied. I have developed a methodology which should lead to
designing such a standard. The approach is following Òa driving examÓ approach
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(19) and
is based on the four fundamental principles.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(20)
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(21) The last principle is
the most important one.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(22) Using the fourth
principle and the new terminology, we can classify all problems based on the structure
of the internal connections between the quantities involved in constructing
their solution.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(23) For
example, here are samples of problems which are congruent or similar to each
other.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(24) It is very important,
that
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(25) For
the three shown problems, the root problem sounds like the one at the bottom of
the screen.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(26) To
help us to classify all root problems we can use the so-called MOCC.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(27) A complete set of root problems can be used to
describe desired and different levels of learning outcomes of physics students.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(28) The first step
toward the association would be agreeing on the set of root problems and
classification them based on the difficulty.
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(29) The link on the screen leads to a
detailed description of what MOCC is and ways to use it (http://teachology.xyz/mocc.htm).
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf
(30)
LINKS: html: http://www.teachology.xyz/prnes.pdf