Re: [Phys-L] Evaluation tests

[Paul Lulai <plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us>]

We are looking for something to use as a way to meter out which students take our accelerated path in science. Our standard path is freshmen: Physical Science (1 semester physics, 1 semester chem); sophomores take general biology; juniors take chemistry; seniors take physics.  Our accelerated path has students skip physical science so their junior year is either ap physics or ap biology.  THen their senior year can be an additional ap course or other science electives.
Our challenge is that we have students come to us from different schools (out of district) some of which are private schools.  Since there is such a wide variation in what the kids do in their different schools, we are looking for a standard exam that we can use to determine students abilities.
I was hoping to use the Lawson test, but I don't know that the mc version (which is what we would use for time management) is useable for students ending their 8th grade year.
We are looking at other exams, but I want to stay away from counter-intuitive gotchas and stick with things that check the students reasoning abilities and so on.

Have a good one.
Paul.




Sent from Samsung tablet



-------- Original message --------
From: Philip Keller <pkeller@holmdelschools.org>
Date: 12/17/2013 5:11 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Phys-L@Phys-L.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Evaluation tests


Right, but still I'd be tempted to look at the data to see if, say, the
average of their grades in chemistry and algebra did a better or worse
job predicting their results in physics than the test you use.  After
all, while physics is different than either chemistry or algebra, it is
also different than the arithmetic class where we hope they would have
learned about fractions.

On 12/17/2013 5:19 PM, Anthony Lapinski wrote:
> I'm at a private school and physics is an elective. Many are encouraged to
> take physics to have all three foundation courses for college. To me, the
> "placement" test is a useful thing. I've had juniors do poorly on it, drop
> physics, and take physics again as seniors -- and do very well.
>
> And as I've said before, physics is unlike any course a student will
> ever take. It requires a different way of thinking, and some kids
> simply don't have the proper skills to do well. And "working hard"
> is sometimes not enough.
>
>
> Phys-L@Phys-L.org writes:
> > On 12/17/2013 4:39 PM, Ze'ev Wurman wrote:
> > > And remember what started this thread. It is NOT ABOUT SOLVING THE
> > > PROBLEM, IT IS ABOUT THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF THE PROBLEM.
> >
> > Taking that to heart, I wonder if these tests are worth giving.  If the
> > goal is to do a service to students who sign up but with little chance
> > of earning a c or better, I suspect that there is a lot of information
> > available with more predictive power: grades in previous science
> > classes, high school gpa, even math SAT score might do a better job than
> > what has been proposed so far.  But to find out, you would have to check
> > the data.
> >
> > But I am not sure that is our role to make these predictions.  If a
> > student has a destination in mind and physics is one of the requirements
> > along the way, then despite what my (admittedly fuzzy) prediction model
> > would say, my first instinct is to say come on in and be prepared to
> > work hard.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@phys-l.org
> > http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l