Prof. Dance concerns about assessment
Ibrahim Halloun (Halloun@asu.edu <Halloun@asu.edu>)
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:49:12 -0700
Dear colleagues.
Dr. Jane Jackson has relayed to me Prof. Rosalie Dance concerns about
assessment, and asked me to send a reply to this list.
Before I address Prof. Dance's concerns, please allow me first to briefly
introduce our Modeling Instruction project in order to put things into
perspective. Our project deals with high school physics. It has two major
dimensions: Content and Pedagogy.
The first dimension deals with the content and structure of physics. In
this respect, we believe that the content of any physics course can be
restructured around a few BASIC MODELS which, once mastered by students,
they would be empowered to evolve from their naive realism to the
scientific realism of physics.
The second dimension deals with the pedagogical aspects of physics. In this
respect, we believe that students should learn physics in an interactive,
dialectical and motivating environment.
By interactive environment, we mean that students should be allowed to
interact with each other, as well as with the teacher and real world
situations. The teacher's role is central and not marginal in our
student-centered approach (unlike what some *radical* constructivists or
the like *preach*). S/he has to MEDIATE interaction at different levels:
from scaffolding novel scientific concepts to prompting individual students
with questions that keep them on the *right* track.
By dialectical environment, we mean that students should be mediated to
reflect on their own ideas, whether factual or procedural, debate them with
their peers, and resolve incompatibility with scientific knowledge.
By motivating environment, we mean that activities (exams included) should
deal with real world situations in which students see personal benefit and
enjoyment. Exams are presented to students as dialectical means of
self-assessment.
Our approach is being assessed both with teachers and students. High school
teachers who participate in our workshops are being closely monitored as to
what extent: (a) they are structuring their courses (and their personal
knowledge) around models, and (b) they are teaching in interactive,
dialectical and motivating environments. In this respect, we regularly ask
our participating teachers to: (a) take specific surveys, (b) provide us
with teaching materials, and (c) keep us informed of the strengths and
weaknesses they discover in their approach. Videotaping classrooms is now
being considered.
Students of participating teachers are regularly given pretests and
posttests that assess the evolution both of their content knowledge and
their views about physics and physics education. Our Force Concept
Inventory (FCI) is one instrument used in the first respect. Our Views
About Sciences Survey (VASS) is an instrument used in the second respect.
[I would be glad to send electronic copies of these instruments along with
short synopses to those interested].
We do realize that our Modeling approach (including recommended exam
structure) deviates significantly from the philosophy behind conventional
and standardized tests. We concentrate more on providing our students with
GENERIC TOOLS (Modeling Tools) and SKILLS (Critical Thinking) that enable
them to efficiently construct and employ knowledge on their own, within and
outside the field of physics. Conventional tests rely heavily on memorizing
isolated facts and skills which we strongly advise and work against. Our
students may even not fare well enough on tasks that require heavy
memorization in conventional tests.
The gap is horrible between what we aim for and what conventional tests
measure. Unless we bridge that gap, teachers will continue to face the
impossible mission of balancing between meaningful learning of science and
math and passing conventional tests required for college admission. A
campaign for teacher and administrator education is badly needed in this
respect. This campaign should include a comparison of student results on
conventional tests on the one hand and instruments like FCI and VASS on the
other hand. Such comparison would show that students can pass conventional
tests without understanding a thing about the conceptual foundations of the
tasks they succeed on. We do have our own data in this respect. Interested
researchers are referred to the following articles:
FCI References:
1. David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, & Gregg Swackhamer (1992). Force Concept
Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30 (3), 141-151.
2. David Hestenes & Ibrahim Halloun (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept
Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 33 (8), 502, 504-506.
3. Ibrahim Halloun & David Hestenes (1985). The initial knowledge state of
college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53 (11), 1043-1055.
4. Ibrahim Halloun & David Hestenes (1985). Common sense concepts about
motion. American Journal of Physics, 53 (11), 1056-1065.
5. David Hestenes & Malcolm Wells (1992). A Mechanics Baseline Test. The
Physics Teacher, 30 (3), 159-166.
6. Richard Hake (1994, August). Survey of Test Data for Introductory
Mechanics Courses. AAPT Announcer, 24 (2), 55.
VASS References:
1. Ibrahim Halloun (1995, April). Assessment of Student Beliefs about the
World, Physics and Education. Paper presented at the PNACP 32nd Conference,
Oregon.
2. Ibrahim Halloun and David Hestenes (1996, April). Views About Sciences
Survey. Paper submitted for presentation at the coming NARST meeting in St
Louis (will be available next March for dissemination).
Regards,
Ibrahim Halloun
Dr. Ibrahim Halloun EMail: Halloun@asu.edu <Halloun@asu.edu>
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy Phone: (602) 965-8528
Arizona State University Fax: (602) 965-7331
Box 871504 Tempe, AZ 85287-1504