Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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



On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Rauber, Joel wrote:

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)

Ok, I'll bite (and I'm thinking about this now). Consider the prototypical first year calc based mech course and Newton's third law:

subject knowledge could be say knowing the basic correct physics (concepts, representations, problem solving skills) underlying Newton's Third Law (N3) at an appropriate level adequate for teaching first year.

PCK for N3 would be knowing about teaching and learning N3, like knowing about typical student prior knowledge, typical student interpretations and struggles, helpful strategies for teaching N3 (use of bathroom scales and force probes; wall flexing demos); good elicitation and discourse questions regarding N3, appropriate notations and representations that maximize student learning of N3 (verbal language exemplars and control, correct FBDs possibly using different arrows to represent forces and velocities; object-agent notations; portray forces as relationships) etc. Knowing how to lay groundwork for later reuse and expansion in the mechanics course and beyond (spring and ball model for later E&M, solids, thermodynamics; notations).

Dan M

Dan MacIsaac, Associate Professor of Physics, SUNY-Buffalo State College
222SciBldg BSC, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo NY 14222 USA 1-716-878-3802
<macisadl@buffalostate.edu> <http://PhysicsEd.BuffaloState.edu>
Physics Graduate Coordinator and Dept Chair pro tem

Fall 2010 Visiting Scholar
Helsingin Yliopisto 224 Physicum, Kumpula Campus
Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2a FI-00560 Helsinki


-----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
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l