←back to thread

238 points treetalker | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ValentinA23 ◴[] No.42317153[source]
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/dec/16/physicist-bo...

Your educational experiment involved 54 schoolchildren, aged 15-17, who were randomly selected from around 1,000 applicants, from 36 UK schools – mostly state schools. The teenagers spent two hours a week in online classes and after eight weeks were given a test using questions from an Oxford postgraduate quantum physics exam. More than 80% of the pupils passed and around half earned a distinction. Were you surprised by their success?

At one point, I was going to call off the whole thing because I thought it was going to be a complete disaster. We’d originally wanted the kids to interact with each other on social media or communicate online, but that wasn’t allowed due to the ethical guidelines for the experiment. I thought, what sort of educational experience is it, if you can’t talk to each other?

This is the Covid generation: none of them put their cameras on [for the online classes], so we were looking at a black screen. None of them asked questions using their voices, they just typed. It was a difficult teaching challenge by all standards. We also saw a self-esteem problem with the students. But the majority of kids liked that we had announced that you didn’t need a complex maths background. The maths had been a barrier to kids who had wanted to access this knowledge.

And then we got back the numbers. They did significantly better than we see from university-level students. Exams were marked blind, so we don’t know how many came in with the aim of pursuing Stem. We are processing that data now.

replies(6): >>42317332 #>>42317483 #>>42317547 #>>42317591 #>>42318803 #>>42323474 #
1. gus_massa ◴[] No.42317547[source]
> from 36 UK schools

> and after eight weeks were given a test

Was the test remote or in-person? I've seen children (and adults) cheating even for stupid tests that have no grades/prices/whatever.

replies(1): >>42317636 #
2. ◴[] No.42317636[source]