Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a recent post
"Academically Adrift?" [Hake (2011)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************************
ABSTRACT: In "Research on Physics First" [Hake (2011a)]
<http://bit.ly/gJIu4i>, I stated that reliance on course grades to
measure college student learning has been shown to be invalid by
research on physics education and on collegiate education generally
as described in "Academically Adrift" <http://amzn.to/f1f45O>.
A subscriber responded privately (paraphrasing): "Do you know of any
cogent responses to or analysis of "Academically Adrift"? The answer
is NO, except for - see below - the (a) review by Jaschik (2011)
<http://bit.ly/hOOK09>, (b) review by Vedder (2011)
<http://bit.ly/fp0eyp>, (c) synopses by the publisher
<http://bit.ly/gPYBHj>, and (d) press release <http://bit.ly/gGh9jb>
by the "Council for Aid to Education."
But thanks for the excuse to jump back on my soapbox. In "The Physics
Education Reform Effort: A Possible Model for Higher Education" [Hake
(2005a)] <http://bit.ly/9aicfh>, I wrote:
"How then can we measure students' higher-level learning in college
courses? Several *indirect* (and therefore in my view problematic)
gauges have been developed. . . . . .[and] Richard Hersh (2005) has
discussed two types of *direct* measures developed by the Learning
Assessment Project <http://bit.ly/e2HGzH> that evaluate students'
general thinking ability. But Shavelson & Huang (2003)
<http://bit.ly/g0tCbU> warn that 'learning and knowledge are highly
domain-specific - as, indeed, is most reasoning. Consequently, THE
DIRECT IMPACT OF COLLEGE IS MOST LIKELY TO BE SEEN [IN]
DOMAIN-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING.' In sharp contrast to
indirect and general-thinking measures listed above is the *direct*
measure of students' higher-level *domain-specific* learning through
[formative] pre/post testing using (a) valid and consistently
reliable tests *devised by disciplinary experts*, and (b) traditional
courses as controls. Such pre/post testing, pioneered by economists
Paden & Moyer (1969) and physicists Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b), is
rarely employed in higher education, in part because of the tired old
canonical objections prevalent ever since Cronbach & Furby's (1970)
"How we should measure 'change'- or should we?" - but see "Should We
Measure Change? Yes! (Hake (2011b)."
Despite the naysayers and its apparent dismissal by a large segment
of the evaluation community, formative pre/post testing is gradually
gaining a foothold in introductory astronomy, biology, chemistry,
earth sciences, economics, engineering, math, and physics courses -
see Hake (2004a), National Academies (2009), and NCSU (2011) for
references.
**************************************************
"A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its
briefest form, the paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A
college is an institution that exists *to provide instruction.*
Subtly but profoundly we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is
an institution that exists *to produce learning.* This shift changes
everything. It is both needed and wanted."
Barr & Tagg (1995).
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 29 Jan 2011.]
Arum, R. & J. Roksa. 2011. "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on
College Campuses." University of Chicago Press, publisher's
information, including a synopsis and bio, are online at
<http://bit.ly/gPYBHj>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/f1f45O>.
Barr, R.B. & J. Tagg. 1995. "From Teaching to Learning: A New
Paradigm for Undergraduate Education," Change 27(6); 13-25,
November/December; online as a 111 kB pdf at <http://bit.ly/8XGJPc>.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Academically Adrift?" online on the OPEN! AERA-L
archives at <http://bit.ly/gwJD0W>. Post of 29 Jan 2011 10:00:09-0800
to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post
are being transmitted to various discussion lists are also online on
my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/hVYzHI> with a provision
for comments.