Concept Inventories Alone Don't Gauge “Good Teaching”

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Concept Inventories Alone Don't Gauge ‘Good Teaching’ ” [Hake (2012a)]. The abstract reads:

******************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “The Value of Student Evaluations of Teaching” [Hake (2012b)] at http://bit.ly/XX7OUX, Math-Learn’s Ed Wall stated that: (a) he used approximations to both “Student Evaluations of Teaching” (SET’s) and “Concept Inventories” (CI’s), but wondered what a “good” evaluation of “teaching? was; and (b) he’s reasonably okay with a statement such as “I know good teaching when I see it” versus a statement such as “I know good teaching when I see a CI score).”

Let alone a single CI score, in my opinion even the normalized pre-to-posttest GAIN on a Concept Inventory (CI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory, should not, by itself, be interpreted as a gauge of “good teaching.”

In the editor suppressed “Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses” [Hake (1998b)] at http://bit.ly/aH2JQN I pointed out on p. 14 that among desirable outcomes of the introductory physics course that does not measure directly are students’: (a) satisfaction with and interest in physics; (b) understanding of the nature, methods, and limitations of science; (c) understanding of the processes of scientific inquiry such as experimental design, control of variables, dimensional analysis, order-of-magnitude estimation, thought experiments, hypothetical reasoning, graphing, and error analysis; (d) ability to articulate their knowledge and learning processes; (e) ability to collaborate and work in groups; (f) communication skills; (g) ability to solve real-world problems; (h) understanding of the history of science and the relationship of science to society and other disciplines; (i) understanding of, or at least appreciation for, "modern" physics; (j) ability to participate in authentic research.
******************************************

To access the complete 13 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/VeDTWI.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52

“What we assess is what we value. We get what we assess, and
if we don't assess it,we won't get it.”
- Lauren Resnick [quoted by Grant Wiggins (1990)]


REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 28 Nov 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “Concept Inventories Alone Don't Gauge ‘Good Teaching’, ”online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/VeDTWI. Post of 28 Nov 2012 13:24:52-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. "The Value of Student Evaluations of Teaching" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/XX7OUX. Post of 26 Nov 2012 13:35:35-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at http://bit.ly/TqLDls with a provision for comments.

Wiggins, G. 1990. “The Truth May Make You Free, But the Test May Keep You Imprisoned: Toward Assessment Worthy of the Liberal Arts," AAHE Assessment Forum: 17-31; online at http://bit.ly/a7g09T.

Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME) #2

Some blog followers be interested in a recent discussion-list post
“Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME) #2” [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

***********************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR’s Bernard Cleyet initiated a thread “Discrimination in physics ed,” which had grown to 11 posts at http://bit.ly/Lbb4kZ (scroll down) on 31 May 2012 16:25-0700. Regarding gender discrimination in math and science education, some subscribers might be interested in “Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME)” [Hake & Mallow (2008)] at http://bit.ly/gXdrvR (8.6 MB) and http://bit.ly/fBTzqV (4.9 MB), even though it’s now somewhat dated.
***********************************************

To access the complete 7 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/JQfd1V.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
rrhake@earthlink.net
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE


REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 31 May 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. “Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME) #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/JQfd1V. Post of 31 May 2012 17:03:37-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are also being transmitted to several discussion lists.

The Wolfram and Benezet Silver Bullets For Making Math Education Work

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The Wolfram and Benezet Silver Bullets For Making Math Education Work” [Hake (2010)]. The abstract reads:

***********************************************

ABSTRACT: Conrad Wolfram, in his talk “Teaching kids real math with computers” http://bit.ly/dUWJuB , said “I believe that correctly using computers is the silver bullet for making math education work.”

Over 70 years ago Louis Paul Benezet http://bit.ly/926tiM discovered another silver bullet for making math education work: viz., abandoning the mindless drill that goes with most formal instruction of mathematics in the lower grades.

Although admired by heavy-weight mathematicians such as Hassler Whitney http://bit.ly/eCiTGy and Andrew Gleason http://bit.ly/hKxteu, Benezet's work has been generally ignored by the education community and vilified by traditionalist math warriors.

It remains to be seen whether or not Wolfram's “silver bullet” of 2010, up against similar negative influences, will have any more effect on math education than did Benezet's of 1935/36.

***********************************************

To access the complete 6 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/e9lNvn .

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

“Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. . . .Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world. And what is worse, men who are thus ignorant are unable to perceive their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy.”

Roger Bacon (Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4) http://bit.ly/dzjbWv

REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/; all URL's accessed on 11 December 2010.]

Hake, R.R. 2010. “The Wolfram and Benezet Silver Bullets For Making Math Education Work,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/e9lNvn. Post of 11 Dec 2010 13:48:36-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.