Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » mathedcc

Topic: No Standard Outcome Measures For Science Education? #2
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Richard Hake

Posts: 1,205
From: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Registered: 12/4/04
No Standard Outcome Measures For Science Education? #2
Posted: Oct 16, 2011 6:03 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (6.4 K)

Some subscribers to MathEdCC might be interested in "No Standard
Outcome Measures For Science Education? #2" [Hake (2011)].

The abstract reads:

*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Robin Millar and Jonathan Osborne in Chapter 3, "Research
and Practice: A Complex Relationship" of Shelley et al. (2009),
claimed that: (a) NO STANDARD OR COMMONLY AGREED OUTCOME MEASURES
EXIST FOR ANY MAJOR TOPIC IN SCIENCE EDUCATION. . . . [[my CAPS]]. .
. , (b) the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) reflects a choice of
*values* that is arguable, and (c) the FCI has not been subjected to
the same rigorous scrutiny of factorial structure and content
validity as have standard measures in psychology.

That no standard outcome measures exist for any major topic in
science education is negated by the existence of Concept Inventories
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory> for astronomy,
biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, geoscience, and MATH.

That the FCI reflects *values* that are arguable is correct only if
the arguers think that there's little value in students' learning the
basic concepts of Newtonian mechanics.

That the FCI has not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny of factorial
structure ignores the 1995 factor analyses of Huffman & Heller and
Heller & Huffman, and responses to those analyses by Hestenes &
Halloun and Halloun & Hestenes.

That the FCI has not been as not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny
of content validity ignores section IIB. "Validity and reliability of
the mechanics test" (Mechanics Diagnostic) in Halloun & Hestenes
(1985a) - that verification of validity applies also to the FCI since
it's almost the same as the Mechanics Diagnostic.
*************************************************

To access the complete 24 kB article please click on <http://bit.ly/rfyamc>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com>
<http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>

"50 years of research, curriculum development, and implementation
have not presented consistent and compelling patterns of outcomes."
Shelley et al. (2009, p. 4) summarizing a claim by Osborne (2007)

"Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
students assimilate new knowledge more effectively in courses
including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
by information technology, than in traditional courses."
Wood & Gentile (2003) "Teaching in a research context"


REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on
16 Oct 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011. "No Standard Outcome Measures For Science Education?
#2" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/rfyamc>.
Post of 16 Oct 2011 11:04:41-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The
abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to various
discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/pFXc32>.

Osborne, J. 2007. "In praise of armchair science education,"
contained within E-NARST News 50(2), online as a 3.2 MB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/qsRwaK>. The talk itself is online as a 112 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/r4Khl7>.

Shelley, M.C., L.D. Yore, & B. Hand, eds. 2009. "Quality Research in
Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold
Standards." Springer, publisher's information at
<http://bit.ly/b58vbP>. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/97OVJx>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Barnes & Noble information at <http://bit.ly/p40bKu>. An expurgated
(teaser) version is online as a Google "book preview" at
<http://bit.ly/qK8T9P>.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online as a 209 kB pdf at
<http://bit.ly/oK46p7>.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.