Some subscribers Phys-L might be interested in "Dukenfield's Law &
Campbell's Law #2" [Hake (2010)].
**********************************************
ABSTRACT: An earlier post "Dukenfield's Law & Campbell's Law" [Hake
(2010)] initiated a 31-post thread on EvalTalk which may be accessed
at <http://bit.ly/cqINPz> and <http://bit.ly/anwfoY>. The first
response was by Art Burke who wrote: "Campbell said that corruption
of quantitative indicators was a problem to be solved - he did not
argue for abandoning quantitative indicators in the evaluation of
social policies." And three years earlier Burke had written (slightly
edited): "Nichols & Berliner (N&B) (2007) propose a hodge-podge of
alternatives that they claim are more 'reasonable and fair' than the
present testing and accountability rules [such as] 'formative
assessments,' . . . . . I will certainly support alternatives that
both reduce unwarranted stress on school staffs and preserve the
protections for parents and children built into NCLB, but I don't see
how this could happen with N&B's proposals."" I wonder if Burke would
support "formative assessments" as they have been utilized in science
education?
**********************************************
"What we assess is what we value. We get what we assess,
and if we don't assess it, we won't get it."
Lauren Resnick [quoted by Grant Wiggins (1990)]
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/>]
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Dukenfield's Law & Campbell's Law #2," online on
the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/d3FrI8>. Post of 22 Aug
2010 15:31:31-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to
the complete post are also being transmitted to various discussion
lists.
Wiggins, G. 1990. "The Truth May Make You Free, But the Test May Keep
You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts," AAHE
Assessment Forum: 17-31; online at <http://bit.ly/a7g09T>.