Two Different Meanings of “Formative Evaluation” #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Two Different Meanings of ‘Formative Evaluation’ #2” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:

*******************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “FairTest Appears To Be Uninformed on ‘Formative Evaluation’ In The JCSEE Sense” at http://bit.ly/1dL3c5K, Michael Paul Goldenberg and FairTest’s Monty Neil posted what appeared to be non sequitures on EDDRA2, symptomatic of the general failure of educators to recognize the existence of two very different meanings of “Formative Evaluation”:

(1) “Evaluation designed and used to improve
an intervention, especially when it is still being
developed” – JCSEE (1994) as copied on p. 132
of Frechtling et al. (2010) at http://bit.ly/1aYcgYn. . .(FE-JCSEE)

(2) “All those activities undertaken to provide
information to be used as feedback so as to adapt
the teaching to meet student needs” – paraphrased
from Black & Wiliam (1998, p. 2)
at http://bit.ly/1jTqiwK.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (FE-B&W)

An example of FE-JCSEE is zero-stakes pre/post testing utilizing Concept Inventories http://bit.ly/dARkDY which are constructed by disciplinary experts through arduous qualitative and quantitative research– see e.g.: (a) “The Impact of Concept Inventories on Physics Education and Its Relevance for Engineering Education” [Hake (2011)]at http://bit.ly/nmPY8F (8.7 MB), and (b) “Can the Cognitive Impact of Calculus Courses be Enhanced?” [Hake (2013)] at http://bit.ly/1loHgC4 (2.7 MB).

An example of FE-B&W is its use in the “interactive engagement” (IE) methods that have been shown –Hake (1998a) at http://bit.ly/9484DG and many others to achieve average normalized gains g(ave) on Concept Inventories that are about two standard deviations above those of traditional passive-student lecture courses. Here IE methods are defined [Hake 1998a)] as: “methods designed to promote conceptual understanding through the active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities that yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors.”
******************************************************


To access the complete 90 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1e8Zhpr.

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); LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.

“There is substantial evidence that scientific teaching in the sciences, i.e., teaching that employs instructional strategies that encourage undergraduates to become actively engaged in their own learning, can produce levels of understanding, retention and transfer of knowledge that are greater than those resulting from traditional lecture/lab classes. But widespread acceptance by university faculty of new pedagogies and curricular materials still lies in the future.” - Robert DeHaan (2005)


REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 29 Jan 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Two Different Meanings of 'Formative Evaluation' #2” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1e8Zhpr. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

DeHaan, R.L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(2): 253-269; online as a 152 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/ncAuQa.

Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education #2

Some blog followers might be interested in discussion-list post “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education #2” [Hake (2011b)].

The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: In response to my post “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” [Hake (2011a) http://bit.ly/iT4YsN], a discussion-list subscriber wrote to me privately, asking for references on instructional methods that had been used in physics to produce relatively high pre-to-posttest class-averaged normalized gains g(ave) in students’ conceptual understanding of mechanics.

In this post I give the titles and references to seven of the more popular “Interactive Engagement” (IE) methods discussed in “Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses” [Hake (1998a,b)] and (following Heller, 1999 http://bit.ly/in4bGv – scroll to page 7) their relationship to learning theories from cognitive science.

The common features of those methods are reflected in the operational definition of IE courses given in Hake (1998a):

“ ‘IE courses’ are those designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through active engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities WHICH YIELD IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK through discussion with peers and/or instructors, all as judged by their literature descriptions.”

Thus a hallmark of IE course is their use of “formative assessment” as defined by Black & Wiliam http://bit.ly/kuDmNX :

“All those activities undertaken by teachers -- and by their students in assessing themselves -- THAT PROVIDE INFORMATION TO BE USED AS FEEDBACK TO MODIFY TEACHING AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES.”

BTW:

(1) I think this post is relevant to instructors in ANY subject that requires higher-order thinking skills, not just Newtonian mechanics.

(2) After transmitting “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education” [Hake (2011a)], I was reminded that Peggy Maki http://www.peggymaki.com/ is one of the few assessment gurus in higher education who is both knowledgeable and appreciative of Physics Education Research - see e.g. Assessing for Learning [Maki (2011) http://bit.ly/j1hTeW], especially Chapter 4.

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

To access the complete 25 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/lNZe6Z.

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

“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)

REFERENCES [All URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 30 April 2011.]

Hake, R.R. 2011a. “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/iT4YsN. Post of 27 Apr 2011 17:07:07-0700 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/msoLwx with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2011b. “Physics Education Research - Not Widely Known in Higher Education #2,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/lNZe6Z. Post of 30 Apr 2011 13:49:34-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.

Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. “Teaching in a research context,” Science 302: 1510; 28 November; an abstract is online at http://bit.ly/9qGR6m.