REFERENCES
Berliner, D. 2005. "The Near Impossibility of Testing For Teacher
Quality," Journal of Teacher Education 56(3): 205-213, online free to
subscribers ($25 for non-subscribers) at
<http://jte.sagepub.com/content/vol56/issue3/>.I thank David Berliner
and Dewey Dykstra for sending me a copies.
Campbell, D. T. 1975. "Assessing the impact of planned social
change," in G. Lyons, ed., Social research and public policies: The
Dartmouth/OECD Conference, Chapter 1, pp. 3-45. Dartmouth College
Public Affairs Center, p. 35; online at Western Michigan University
as Occasional Paper #8 at
<http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/ops/>, or download directly at
<http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/ops/ops08.pdf> (196 kB).
Cronbach L. & L. Furby. 1970. "How we should measure 'change' - or
should we?" Psychological Bulletin 74: 68-80.
FLAG. 2005. "Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide; online at
<http://www.flaguide.org/>: ". . . offers broadly applicable,
self-contained modular classroom assessment techniques (CAT's) and
discipline-specific tools for STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics] instructors interested in new approaches to
evaluating student learning, attitudes and performance. Each has been
developed, tested, and refined in real colleges and universities
classrooms." Assessment tools for physics and astronomy (and other
disciplines) are at <http://www.flaguide.org/tools/tools.php>.
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>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB). 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. Here: (a) the average normalized
gain <g> is the actual gain [<%post> - <%pre>] divided by the
maximum possible gain [100% - <%pre>] where the angle brackets
indicate the class averages; (b) IE courses are operationally defined
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; (c) T
courses are operationally defined courses as those reported by
instructors to make little or no use of IE methods, relying primarily
on passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem
exams. More recently, average normalized gain differences between T
and IE courses that are consistent with the work of Hake (1998a,b)
have been reported by many other physics education research groups as
referenced in Hake (2002c,d).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online as ref. 25 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>, or simply click on
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB). Submitted
on 6/19/98 to the Physics Education Research Supplement (PERS) to Am.
J. Phys. but rejected by its editor on the grounds that the very
*transparent* Physical Review-type data tables were too complex! PER
suffers because it has no Physical-Review-type archival journal.
This paper is a 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. 2002c. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/>. Ecology and Society
(formerly Conservation Ecology) is a free online "peer-reviewed
journal of integrative science and fundamental policy research" with
about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Re: The Archimedean Lever," online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=aera-d&T=0&F=&S=&P=4610>.
Post of 7 Jun 2005 14:32:31-0700 to AERA-D, AERA-H, AERA-K, AERA-L,
ASSESS, EdStat-L, EvalTalk, PhysLrnR, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS. The
fortunate subscribers to AP-Physics, Physhare, and Phys-L were all
spared this long pedantic essay.
Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Re: Measuring Teaching Performance," online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0505&L=aera-j&T=0&O=A&P=962>.
Post of 13/14 May 2005 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L,
ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, Phys-L, PhysLrnR
Physhare, POD, & STLHE-L, & TeachingEdPsych.
Hake, R.R. 2005d. "Carnegie Scholar Backs Pre/post Testing, online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0503&L=aera-d&P=R3965&I=-3>.
Post of 24 Mar 2005 01:23:45-0800 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J, AERA-K,
ASSESS, EDSTAT-L, EVALTALK, PhysLrnR, POD, and STLHE-L.
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,
Swedish, and Russian.
Hanushek, E.A. 1989. "The Impact of Differential Expenditures on
School Performance," Educational Researcher 18(4):45-65.
Hestenes. D. & M. Wells. 1992. "A Mechanics Baseline Test," Phys.
Teach. 30: 159-166; online (except for the test itself) at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. The test is password
protected and available in English, Spanish, German, Malaysan,
Finnish, and Turkish.
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>. The test is
password protected and available in English, Spanish, German,
Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, French, Turkish, Swedish, and Russian.
For the 1995 revision see Halloun et al. (1995).
Mosteller, F. & R. Boruch, eds. 2002. "Evidence Matters: Randomized
Trials in Education Research". Brookings Institution.
NCSU. 2005. "Assessment Instrument Information Page," Physics
Education R & D Group, North Carolina State University; online at
<http://www.ncsu.edu/per/TestInfo.html>.
Nichols, S.L & D.C. Berliner. 2005. "The Inevitable Corruption of
Indicators and Educators Through High-Stakes Testing," Arizona State
Univ. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, online at
<http:www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0503-101-EPRU.pdf> (1.7 MB).
Suskie, L. 2004b. "Assessing Student Learning," Anker Publishing.
Titus, A. 2005 "Assessment Analysis; online at
<http://www.highpoint.edu/~atitus/aa/index.html> : "a web-based
program (CGI script) that helps teachers analyze test results. . . .
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS [of] pre and post test data [T Test, normalized
gain (Individual and Class), Effect Size, Max, Min, Mean, Median,
Standard Deviation]; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; and FACTOR ANALYSIS.