Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Can Pre/post Testing Inform Curriculum Design? (was "Can Biologists Learn. . .") - PART 2



PART 2
"Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and
memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like
passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving. Not that it always
effects this result; but that conflict is a sine qua non of
reflection and ingenuity.
John Dewey "Morals Are Human," Dewey: Middle Works, Vol.14, p.207:

REFERENCES
Bao, L., and E. F. Redish. 2001. "Concentration analysis: a
quantitative assessment of student states." Am. J. of Phys. 69(7):
S45-S53; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/bao/index.html>. [My download
displayed defective references. A better pdf is available at
<http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lbao/papers.htm>.]

Beichner, R. 2003. ": Can Biologists Learn Anything from PAER?"
PhysLrnR post of 6 Sep 2003 08:17:53-0400; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=physlrnr&O=D&X=082F315B0BD3377334&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=4598>,
One must subscribe to PhysLrnR to access it archives, but it takes
only a few minutes to subscribe and then unsubscribe by following the
simple directions at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> / "Join or
leave the list (or change settings)" (where "/" means "click on").
Rather than unsubscribe after using the archives, it's easier to
subscribe in the first place using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!.

Camp, P. 2003. "Re: Can Biologists Learn Anything from PAER?,"
PhysLrnR post of 1 Sep 2003 11:42:39-0400; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=physlrnr&O=A&X=2DB15F35B1733B2623&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=450>.

Hake, R.R. 1997. "Mechanics Test Data Survey Form"; online as ref. 5 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.

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 as ref. 24 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. A comparison of the pre- to
post-test average normalized gain <g> for 62 introductory
high-school, college, and university physics courses enrolling a
total 6542 students showed that fourteen "traditional" (T) courses (N
= 2084) which made little or no use of interactive-engagement (IE)
methods achieved an average gain <g>T-ave = 0.23 plus or minus 0.04
(std dev), regardless of the experience, enthusiasm, talents, and
motivation of the lecturers. In sharp contrast, forty-eight courses
(N = 4458) which made substantial use of IE methods achieved an
average gain <g>IE-ave = 0.48 plus or minus 0.14 (std dev), almost
two standard deviations of <g>IE-ave above that of the traditional
courses. For definitions of <g>, "traditional courses," and
"interactive-engagement" courses see the article. More recently,
normalized gain differences between T and IE courses that are
consistent with the work of Hake have been reported by many other
physics education research groups as referenced in Hake (2002b,c).

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. Submitted on 6/19/98 to the
Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP (PERS)." In this sadly
unpublished (Physics Education Research has no archival journal!)
crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a): average pre/post test
scores, standard deviations, instructional methods, materials used,
institutions, and instructors for each of the survey courses of Hake
(1998a) are tabulated and referenced. In addition the paper includes:
(a) case histories for the seven IE courses of Hake (1998a) whose
effectiveness as gauged by pre-to-post test gains was close to those
of T courses, (b) advice for implementing IE methods, and (c)
suggestions for further research.

Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.

Hake, R.R. 2002b. "References for Psychometrically Naive Physicists,"
PhysLrnR/AERA-D post of 6 Nov2002 14:15:05-0800; online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0211&L=aera-d&P=R7899>.

Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Can Biologists Learn Anything from
Physics/Astronomy Education Research?" post of 30 Aug 2003 to the
discussion lists AERA-D, ASSESS, Biolab, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk,
FYA, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308&L=pod&O=D&P=21082>.

Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Can Chemists Learn Anything from Physics/Astronomy
Education Research?" post of 1 Sep 2003 to AERA-D. ASSESS, Biolab,
Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, FYA, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L; online
at <http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=pod&F=&S=&P=171>.
"Contrary to Andy Johnson's (2003) IMPLICATION that such pre/post
testing can [yes, I know Andy used the meaningless weasel-word "may"]
not tell one how to proceed with course improvements, FCI pre/post
testing by numerous physics-education research groups [referenced in
Hake (2002c,d)] has shown rather conclusively that the way to make
improvements over traditional passive-student lectures is to use
"interactive engagement" (IE) methods, defined in Hake (1998a) as
"those designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding
through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and
hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through
discussion with peers and/or instructors."

Hake, R.R. 2003c. "Beyond Dead Reckoning to Improve Educational
Quality," ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, POD post of
20 Mar 2003 15:11:26-0800; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303&L=pod&P=R11002>.

Hake, R.R. 2003d. "Meta-analyses of <g> Values" post of 5 Sep 2003 to
AERA-D, ASSESS, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, and POD; online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=pod&O=D&P=2725>.

Hake, R.R. 2003e. "Re: Is classical and modern test theory relevant
to educational testing?" PhysLrnR post of 17 Apr 2003 10:17:13-0700;
online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0304&L=physlrnr&P=R3691&I=-3&X=0137BF1B375739029B&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net>.

Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P Mosca, D. Hestenes. 1995. Force Concept
Inventory (Revised, 1995); online (password protected) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. (Available in English,
Spanish, German, Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, French, Turkish, and
Swedish.)

Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53:1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Contains the "Mechanics
Diagnostic" test, precursor to the "Force Concept Inventory."
Inexplicably, this landmark work is NOT referenced in reports by the
NRC's expert committees [e.g., McCray et al. (2003)].

Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion." Am. J. Phys. 53:1056-1065; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.

Hestenes, D. 1979. "Wherefore a Science of Teaching," Phys. Teach.
17, 235-242; online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.

Hestenes, D. 1998. "Guest Comment: Who needs physics education
research!?" Am. J. Phys. 66, 465-467' online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.

Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer, 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory." Phys. Teach. 30: 141-158; online (except for the test
itself) at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. For the 1995
revision see Halloun et al. (1995).

Hestenes D. & M. Wells. 1992. A mechanics baseline test. Phys. Teach.
30: 159-166; online (password protected) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.

Johnson, A. "Re: Can Biologists Learn Anything from PAER?" PhysLrnR post of
31 Aug 2003 09:17:29-0600; online at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308&L=physlrnr&O=A&X=288800279E8A37F195&Y=rrhake@earthlink.net&P=4814>:
"[Pre/post} testing may not tell one how to proceed with course
improvements, but it can make a convincing case that improvements are
needed. It can also give hints about whether changes are causing
improvements." For a response see Hake (2003b).

McCray, R.A., R.L. DeHaan, J.A. Schuck, eds. 2003. "Improving
Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics: Report of a Workshop" Committee on Undergraduate STEM
Instruction," National Research Council, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10711.html>. Physicists
attending the workshop were Paula Herron, Priscilla Laws, John
Layman, Ramon Lopez, Richard McCray, Lillian McDermott, Carl Wieman,
and Jack Wilson.

NRC. 1997. "Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook," National
Research Council, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education,
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5287.html>.

NRC. 1999. "Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology," National Research Council,
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Academy Press;
online at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6453.html>.

NRC. 2003a. "Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in
Science and Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics," ed. by M.A.
Fox & N. Hackerman, National Research Council, Committee on
Undergraduate Science Education, National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10024.html>.

NRC. 2003b. "BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future
Research Biologists," Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to
Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, Board on Life
Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press; online
at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10497.html>.

Pelligrino, J.W., N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser, eds. 2001. "Knowing What
Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment,"
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html>.

Pride, T. O., S. Vokos, L.C. McDermott. 1998 "The challenge of
matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example from the
work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems," Am. J. Phys. 66, 147-157.

Redish, E.F. 1999. "Millikan lecture 1998: building a science of
teaching physics. Am. J. Phys. 67(7): 562-573; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

Shavelson, R.J. & L. Towne. 2002. "Scientific Research in Education,"
National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>.

Thornton, R.K. 1995. "Conceptual Dynamics: Changing Student Views of
Force and Motion," in "Thinking Physics for Teaching," Bernardini, C,
C. Tarsitani, & M. Vicentini, eds. Plenum.

Zeilik, M. 2002. "Birth of the Astronomy Diagnostic Test: Prototest
Evolution," Astronomy Education Review 1(2); online at
<http://aer.noao.edu/AERArticle.php?issue=2&section=2&article=5>: "We
were able to match pre- and post-test scores for 586 UNM participants
in the project from fall 1994 to fall 1995. The mean pre-test score
was 38% ± 8.2% (SD); for the post-test, 69% ± 11% (SD). These result
in a normalized gain index, <g>, of <g> = (post% - pre%)/(100% -
pre%) = 0.48. A <g> of 0 means no gain, while a <g> of 1 indicates
that all possible gain occurred; so 0.48 means that classes gain
about half of the possible gain over one semester in our reformed
astronomy course. See Hake (1998a) for the usefulness of the
normalized gain index based on a large sample surveyed by the Force
Concept Inventory (FCI); the ADT is essentially the astronomical
equivalent."

THE END !!