Re: [Phys-l] WHY VALUE ADDED TESTING IS A BUST.

["Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

What's the difference between "subject knowledge" and "pedagogical content knowledge"; particularly for a course that is not a pedagogy course?

_________________________

Joel Rauber, Ph.D 
Professor and Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu 
605.688.5428 (w)
605.688.5878 (fax) 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
> bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 10:05 PM
> To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] WHY VALUE ADDED TESTING IS A BUST.
>
> But we have proposed better methods.  Train the teachers in research
> based
> pedagogy and use testing with research based test as action research to
> assess how well the methods are working.  We have proposed giving
> teachers
> time to get together and improve what they are doing, as is done in
> Japan.
>
> Yes, teacher made tests can be pretty good, but research based tests are
> much better.  There is research assessing the reliability of teacher
> made
> tests and they are ok. The teachers certainly know their subject, but
> they
> are woefully ignorant of the psychology and education research bearing
> on
> their teaching. So the questions only come out of the subject knowledge,
> without being informed by good PCK. (pedagogical content knowledge)
>
> The problem is that in our litigious society the public wants to blame
> someone.  So the solution is to place blame and then punish.  This will
> not
> solve the problems if the teachers don't have a clue as to how to do a
> better job, and the students do not see that the education can make a
> difference in their lives.
>
> If we went to a system on non punitive testing, then research based
> tests
> could be used, and the tests would not have to be made public.  But with
> the
> public availability of the tests, the states have to make new tests
> every
> year with real problems in quality control.  A really good test has to
> be
> field tested and correlated with free response questions and possibly
> interviews.  The states do not want to do this every year because it
> costs
> $$$.
>
> We have proposed, and are actually doing some of this with problems like
> Modeling.  Incidentally the Modelers use a list serve to communicate
> about
> classroom problems.  The cited article says that the value added testing
> is
> only about 14% predictive, which is wretched.  You can get better odds
> than
> that in some card games.  Testing which is not effective, is also not
> necessary.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
> > I am  not going to enter the debate about the necessity of standard
> > testing
> > to improve  the educational process, except to say that those who
> oppose
> > testing should  propose a better method.
> > I can  tell you something about the construction methods for a test. I
> > recently served  on a panel of active teachers convened to review a
> > standardized
> > test for use in  New Mexico. I was prepared to battle undereducated
> > teachers to make sure the  science was correct. I can away impressed
> with
> > the
> > insight, teaching expertise,  and knowledge which the group with which
> I
> > was
> > associated brought to the task of  making sure the test was relevant,
> > standards
> > based, free from bias, and able to  distinguish knowledgeable students
> > from
> > those deficient.
> >
> > Alex. F. Burr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l