If you object to references, long posts, or cross-posting as a way to
tunnel through inter- and intra-disciplinary barriers, please take a
few milliseconds to hit "DELETE" now.
In her ASSESS post of 28 Jul 2005 titled "student learning assessment
in the social sciences," Jennifer Jenkins (2005) wrote:
". . . . . I'm writing to see if any of you can direct me to
scholarly work, particularly journal articles, that discuss
assessment in the social sciences. While I'm particularly interested
in criminal justice, I also
plan to discuss what other social science disciplines, including political
science, sociology, mass comm., etc, are doing to assess student learning
and eventually compare it to criminal justice. . . . Are students
learning what they are supposed to learn? What works and what
doesn't work? If any of you have run across this type of research,
I'd love to hear about it. . . ."
Research in education is sometimes regarded as a "social science"
[see, e.g., Lagemann (2000)]. Unbeknownst to most academicians (and
even many physicists), there's been considerable work on assessment
of student learning by physics-education researchers. See e.g.,
McDermott & Redish (1999), Stokstad (2001), Hake (2002a,b), Hestenes
et al, (1992), Klymkowsky et al. (2003), Wood & Gentile (2003),
Handelsman et al. (2004), Heron & Meltzer (2005), Meltzer (2005),
Weiman (2005).
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "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.
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.
Heron, P.R.L. & D. Meltzer. 2005. The future of physics education research:
Intellectual challenges and practical concerns," Amer. J. Phys.
73(5): 390-394; online at
<http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/articles/index.html>, scroll down
to "invited papers," or download directly by clicking on
<http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/docs/Heron-Meltzer.pdf> (56kB).
They write [see the article for the references]: "In the past few
decades, an increasing number of physicists have taken up this
challenge by applying methods of research based on those that have
been employed successfully in investigations of the physical world.
This endeavor is broadly known as "physics education research" (PER).
Systematic studies of student learning have revealed a wide gap
between the objectives of most physics instructors engaged in
traditional forms of instruction and the actual level of conceptual
understanding attained by most of their students. [McDermott (1991,
1993); Hake (1998)]. But PER has gone beyond documenting shortcomings
in student learning and traditional instruction. Researchers have
developed instructional materials and methods that have been
subjected to repeated testing, evaluation, and redesign. Numerous
reports have documented significant and reproducible learning gains
from the use of these materials and methods in courses ranging from
large-enrollment classes at major public universities to small
classes in two-year colleges and high schools.[McDermott (1991, 1993,
1998, 2001); Hake (1998); McDermott & Redish (1999)].
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>. For the 1995
revision see Halloun et al. (1995).
Klymkowsky, M.W., K. Garvin-Doxas, & M. Zeilik. 2003. "Bioliteracy
and Teaching Efficiency: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists,"
Cell Biology Education 2: 155-161; online at
<http://www.cellbioed.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=67>. The abstract
reads: "The introduction of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) by
Hestenes et al. (1992) produced a remarkable impact within the
community of physics teachers. An instrument to measure student
comprehension of the Newtonian concept of force, the FCI demonstrates
that active learning leads to far superior student conceptual
learning than didactic lectures. Compared to a working knowledge of
physics, biological literacy and illiteracy have an even more direct,
dramatic, and personal impact. They shape public research and
reproductive health policies, the acceptance or rejection of
technological advances, such as vaccinations, genetically modified
foods and gene therapies, and, on the personal front, the reasoned
evaluation of product claims and lifestyle choices. While many
students take biology courses at both the secondary and the college
levels, there is little in the way of reliable and valid assessment
of the effectiveness of biological education. This lack has important
consequences in terms of general bioliteracy and, in turn, for our
society. Here we describe the beginning of a community effort to
define what a bioliterate person needs to know and to develop,
validate, and disseminate a tiered series of instruments collectively
known as the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI), which accurately
measures student comprehension of concepts in introductory, genetic,
molecular, cell, and developmental biology. The BCI should serve as a
lever for moving our current educational system in a direction that
delivers a deeper conceptual understanding of the fundamental ideas
upon which biology and biomedical sciences are based."
Lagemann, E.C. 2000. "An Elusive Science: The troubling history of
education research." Univ. of Chicago Press.
Stokstad, E. 2001. "Reintroducing the Intro Course." Science 293:
1608-1610, 31 August 2001. This special issue on "Trends in
Undergraduate Education is online to subscribers at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol293/issue5535/index.shtml>.
Stokstad wrote: "Physicists are out in front in measuring how well
students learn the basics, as science educators incorporate hands-on
activities in hopes of making the introductory course a beginning
rather than a finale."
Wieman, C. 2005. "From the National Academies: Overview of the
National Research Council's Board on Science Education and
Personal Reflections as a Science Teacher," Cell Biology Education 4:
118-120; online at
<http://www.cellbioed.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=146>. Wieman chairs
the NRC Board on Science Education and was awarded the 2001 Nobel
Prize in Physics for his work in atomic physics.
Wood, W. & J. Handelsman. 2004. "Meeting report: the 2004 National
Academies Summer Institute on Undergraduate Education in Biology,"
Cell Biology Education 3: 215-217, online at
<http://www.cellbioed.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=121>.
Wood, W.B., and J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302, 1510; 28 November 2003; freely online only to
subscribers only at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5650/index.shtml#policyforum>.
They write [see the article for the references other than Hestenes et
al. (1992) and Klymkowsky et al. (2003), My CAPS]: "Unknown to many
university faculty in the natural sciences, particularly at large
research institutions, is a large body of recent research from
educators and cognitive scientists on how people learn [Bransford et
al. (2000)]. The results show that MANY STANDARD INSTRUCTIONAL
PRACTICES IN UNDERGRADUATE TEACHING, INCLUDING TRADITIONAL LECTURE,
LABORATORY, AND RECITATION COURSES, ARE RELATIVELY INEFFECTIVE AT
HELPING STUDENTS MASTER AND RETAIN THE IMPORTANT CONCEPTS OF THEIR
DISCIPLINES OVER THE LONG TERM. Moreover, these practices do not
adequately develop creative thinking, investigative, and
collaborative problem-solving skills that employers often seek.
PHYSICS EDUCATORS HAVE LED THE WAY in developing and using objective
tests [Hestenes et al. (1992), Hake (1998a), NCSU (2005)] to compare
student learning gains in different types of courses, and chemists,
biologists, and others. . .[BUT EVIDENTLY NOT PSYCHOLOGISTS OR
MATHEMATICIANS]. . . are now developing similar instruments [Mulford
& Robinson (2002), Klymkowsky et al. (2003), Klmkowsky (2004)].
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l