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]

Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited



Thank you, Paul, for your helpful comment.
I certainly agree that an exam that is taken in the manner you describe, would not be susceptible to some of my objections.
The problem with review is that sutdents often memorize test anaswers in the form of: Answer to 1 is a, answer to 2 is c, ... This happened to me when a bunch of pre-meds got hold of an advanced copy of one of my exams. Once the answers are out, the exam is no longer a valid test of knowlege or understanding..
This problem does not arise with the AP; the exams are sealed until given. There are other techniques for maintaining the validity of an exam, such as individualizing the numerical values in the problems by using random entries for each exam (given on the net). This technique would not apply to exams that ask questions like: Which vehicle moves faster?
Regards,
Jack
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Paul Lulai wrote:

Hello.

In response to Jack's note below this post:

I know the FCI is a M.C. format exam. I do not know about all of the others. I use the Harvard PI website that grew from the Project Galileo site. The students log in, take the exam and log out. They do not see their results. The teacher does not grade the exam. I would think this eliminates the grader bias.

In terms of review etc... I typically give the 2nd fci exam after the year end cumulative exams. We review for the year end exams (either final exams or A.P. tests). I don't have a great statistical mind and I am not aware of how one truly validates exam scores. How does this review invalidate the results of either the semester exam, the AP Exam, or the FCI that is taken a day or two later?


Paul Lulai
Physics Teacher
US First Robotics Teacher
..:: Medtronic - St Anthony RoboHuskie 2574 ::..
Science Olympiad Coach
3303 33rd Ave NE
St. Anthony Village Senior High
Saint Anthony Village, MN 55418
(w) 612-706-1144
(fax) 612-706-1020
plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us
http://www.robohuskie.com <http://www.robohuskie.com/>
http://prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com <http://prettygoodphysics.wikispaces.com/>
http://sites.google.com/site/go4st8physics/ <http://sites.google.com/site/go4st8physics/> <http://go4st8physics.wordpress.com/>
http://www.stanthony.k12.mn.us/hsscience/ <http://www.stanthony.k12.mn.us/hsscience/>
Sent: Mon 2/2/2009 6:40 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Physics First Revisited
Simply reciting the mantra that "there is creible evidence" neither
creates the evidence, nor, to the extent that there is any, make it
creible.

So-called FCI gains are reported by those who give and correct the tests,
the circumstances under which the tests are given are unreported, the test
review procedures (there shouldn't be any) are unreported, the error
rates in correcting the tests are unknown, and, persistence, over time, of
the purported gains, if any, are unknown.



--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley