Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent post of the above title. The abstract reads:

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

ABSTRACT: Mike Klymkowsky (2010) in a recent widely distributed email titled "Why collaboration/user flexibility is critical" wrote (paraphrasing): "I would argue that only when concept assessments/diagnostics are available for users to freely work with will they begin to impact course instruction, curricular design, and student learning. Perhaps this is the most important benefit that a Concept Inventory HUB could provide - the space to let teachers/researchers play and develop useful instruments (tailored to their needs)." On the other hand, once arduous qualitative and quantitative research by disciplinary experts has culminated in a valid and reliable concept test I THINK IT SHOULD BE PASSWORD PROTECTED.

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

To access the complete 9 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/26r8bhh .

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

REFERENCES [Tiny URL’s courtesy http://tinyurl.com/create.php .]

Hake, R.R. 2010. "Why Password Protection of Concept Tests is Critical: A Response to Klymkowsky," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/26r8bhh . Post of 4 Jun 2010 15:56:17-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.

Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model

Some blog followers may be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title [Hake (2009). The abstract reads:

ABSTRACT: In emails to biology educators:

(a) Kathleen Fisher (2009) advocated a physics-education-reform type model (evidently sans pre/post testing) for biology education, stimulated by Henderson & Dancy's (2009) web-survey-based estimate (evidently sans pre/post testing) that 50% of college physics courses utilize “student engagement”; and

(b) Mike Klymkowsky, responding to Fisher, wrote:

“. . . .physics has yet to demonstrate any wide-spread improvement in physics literacy (or skills), so (slavishly) following the physics model seems unlikely to address the real issues, which are the identification of topics, approaches, and assessments that can drive (and perhaps more importantly, encourage) improvements in biological literacy/competence. . . . . . . .”

I disagree with the above Klymkowsky claim that:

(1) physics has yet to demonstrate any wide-spread improvement in physics literacy; and with subsequent claims that:

(2) physicists are teaching mostly 18th and 19th century physics that is of little relevance to non-physics majors;

(3) it's well established that “being Socratic” is more effective than lecturing;

(4) the work of Henderson and Dancy is primarily concerned with how to get other faculty to adopt more effective pedagogical approaches; and

(5) those approaches often involve superficial reform (as evidenced in part by the fact that reforms suggested by Michels et al. (1957)] are still waiting to be implemented.

To access the complete 37 kB post please click on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/29720 .

REFERENCES

Hake, R.R. 2009. ”Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Net-Gold/message/29720 . Post of 13 August 22:04:00-0000 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PhysLrnR. The abstract was also distributed to various discussion lists.