Re: Student Evaluations

["Richard W. Tarara" <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

I have some problems with basing teacher evaluations on 'standardized
tests'.  For one thing it truly encourages 'teaching to the test'.  I know
some people will argue that this is fine if the test does represent the
knowledge we want taught, but of course it is someone else's choice of what
should be taught, not the teacher's.  I too use the FCI, but not in the way
the researchers do.  I give the test as a midterm (towards the end of
Newton's Law instruction) and then again incorporated into the final.  The
midterm is not returned to them.  This year, with a very diverse (in
ability) class (non science majors, 'low math' conceptual course) they
scored 60% on the midterm and 75% on the final.  I can assure everyone, that
these students did NOT have 75% mastery of Force Concepts at the end of the
course--but they had learned how to answer Third Law questions.  ;-)

I guess my point here is that given standardized methods of assessment,
there is too much temptation to teach HOW TO TAKE THE TEST rather than the
content/process that the test will really assess.  I've  run several summer
workshops for AP Physics but have given that up as the participants became
more and more fixated on 'How to teach to the Test' and didn't want to
listen to my approach (which was that an AP course should be equivalent to a
College course and therefore we should spend the workshop time making sure
that everyone was up to speed on what a College course really was all
about--with emphasis on HOW to teach problem solving but at the same time
recognizing that good problem solvers may not have the conceptual
understanding we might expect.)  The only way the standardized test as
ultimate assessment works is to have a national test, written by experts in
both content and testing, formally administered, with the test itself
changed in format often.
To this latter point, I would encourage those who use the FCI to try the
following:  Pre and Post test with the FCI, but then later give the Tools
for Scientific Thinking, Force and Motion Evaluation.  The style of those
questions are much different than the FCI and you might be surprised how
much that matters even if your students do well on the post FCI.

Once you turn the assessment over to such national testing, you have
severely impinged on the Academic Freedom of the instructors--having pretty
much set their curriculum.  ;-(

Just my ramblings,

Rick


----- Original Message -----
From: "kyle forinash" <kforinas@IUS.EDU>
> Given the above comments and conclusions it seems clear to me that
> pre- and post- testing, when available, is the more effective
> evaluation process when compared to SET scores, particularly in
> introductory physics where the goal is to convey particular concepts
> which the student either does or does not understand. A well
> established diagnostic test in mechanics is available (the Force
> Concept Inventory; see Refs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and I have used that
> as my primary evaluation tool this year. Further discussion can be
> found below.