Re: Conceptual Tests

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

You could try giving the FCI.  It is a comparable test, but it has more
questions based on pictures rather than just text.

Alternately if she wants problems then the Mechanics Baseline test has more
problem solving.

If she says conceptual is unfair, then I would ask for relevant papers that
prove the point.  If she can't produce some references or even if she can I
would give her some of the relevant papers on the FCI/FMCE results.  There
is also Beichner's TUG-K evaluation of graphical skills.  Unfortunately any
test you make up is not likely to be as good an indicator as one of the
research based tests.  Since you have been using some of the McDermott
Tutorials you might be able to use the pre/post tests that go with the
tutorials.

The gain that you get is likely to be low the first year that you teach.  If
you look at results from some of the various programs, gain goes up as the
teacher learns to use the method.  Mazur reported this, and Modeling also
reports that gain continued to rise after modeling training.  One of the
standard ways of reporting gain is by calculating the Hake normalized gain.
(Post - Pre)/(Max Pre score - Pre).  The reformed courses generally get
between 0.3 and 0.7, but conventional courses generally get between 0.0 and
0.25.  This can also be expressed as a percentage.  The percentage gives the
illusion that it is more understandable, and when high is more impressive to
an administrator.  Hake's paper is the one to look at.  His papers are
available at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/ and the one I think you
want is at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf the results of the
6000 student survey.  This survey has been criticized that it relied on
voluntary submission of test scores.  Another of his papers infers that
average HS gain figures may be much lower than the scores reported to him.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Hello
> My boss wants me to give a presentation on the assesment of
> students I have done.  I have used the Force and Motion
> Conceptual Evaluation.  She has seen this and has told me it is
> invalid for my student population.  THe reason:  the questions
> are too long and wordy since my population is half non-native students.
>
> SO the question is Has there been any research into how
> non-native speakers of english do on these conceptual evaluation.
>
> Also, she doenst want conceptual evaluations.  She wants them to
> work problems.  I tell her that is not where the research is
> pointing but she says that conceptual is unfair.
>
> I dunno, I ask you
>
> Tina
>
> Tina Fanetti
> Physics Instructor
> Western Iowa Technical Community College
> 4647 Stone Ave
> Sioux City IA 51102
> 712-274-8733 ext 1429