Speaking of pre/post testing: Is anyone on this list doing pre/post testing in their intro courses? We did so this year for the first time across all sections (n = 12) and all instructors (n = 7) using a single test, and the results were rather disappointing and I'd like to know if this is comparable to other institutions.
We used a modified version of the AP exam that is freely availabe online with the underlying logic that this is a test that generally assesses a wide range of psychology concepts at a level that most universities accept in lieu of taking intro psych, when the scores are sufficiently high (usually 3 and higher). Also, we did not worry about violating the copyright because we were using it for private use only. Eventually, if we continue with this line of assessment, we will write our own test. We did replace some of the items with our own items this time, using about 30 items from the online test and 10 of our own. We're mulling over possible reasons for the small change from pretest to posttest, with posttest scores being discouragingly low, including (a) this was the first time we tried this across all sections of intro and although we tried to pick items that would be general, apparently many were specific to content--at least from the perspective of the students, so the bottom line for the first point is the test may have been bad; (b) students are not learning--motivation may be low in a general education course; and (c) teachers aren't teaching well. So I'd like to know others' experiences. If we were to look at performance on in-class exams a more encouraging picture emerges, of course! sigh. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:19:09 -0800 >From: Richard Hake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [tips] Demonstrated Value of Formative Pre/post Testing >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Psychologists may or may not be interested in a recent post >"Demonstrated Value of Formative Pre/post Testing" [Hake (2008)]. The >abstract reads: > >**************************************** >ABSTRACT: Carnegie Conversations subscriber Fabian Nabangi, >responding to Carnegie senior scholar Lloyd Bond's anecdotal >illustration of the value of pre/post testing (PPT), suggested that >three conditions must all be present before PPT can be of any value >and be used by accrediting organizations. Nabangi's conditions and >their approximate prevalence in formative PPT currently being >undertaken in undergraduate astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, >engineering, geoscience, math, and physics (BUT NOT PSYCHOLOGY :-() >are as follows: (a) "students score higher on the posttests than on >pretests": almost always (but just barely for passive-student >lecture courses in conceptually difficult subjects); (b) "posttest >scores are a component of the final grade": often the case in >physics; and (c) "administrators reward teachers whose innovative >pedagogy yields relatively high pre-to-posttest gains": *almost >never*. Considering the latter circumstance, Nabangi would >presumably regard almost all the above indicated PPT to be of no >value, contradicting the fact that PPT has at least partially >stimulated the reform of introductory physics courses at e.g., >Harvard, North Carolina State University, MIT, University of >Colorado at Boulder, and California Polytechnic State University at >San Luis Obispo. As regards Nabangi's admonition against the use of >PPT by accrediting organizations unless conditions "a," "b," and "c" >are present, I think that, even if those conditions were present, >accrediting organizations should avoid use PPT in summative >accreditation, lest "Campbell's Law" raise its ugly head. >**************************************** > >To access the complete 18 kB post please click on <http://tinyurl.com/ysm6se>. > >Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University >24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> ><http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi> > >REFERENCES >Hake, R.R. 2008. "Demonstrated Value of Formative Pre/post Testing," >online at the OPEN AERA-J archives <http://tinyurl.com/ysm6se>. Post >of 7 Jan 2008 to AERA-J, AERA-L, PhysLrnR, and POD. Abstract only to >AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-I, AERA-K, AP-Physics, ARN-L, ASSESS, Biopi-L, >Biolab (rejected), Chemed-L, DrEd, EdResMeth, EvalTalk, IFETS, >ITForum (rejected), Math-Learn, Math-Teach, NetGold, PBL, Physhare, >Phys-L, PsychTeacher (rejected), RUME, SCILISTSERV, STLHE-L, >TeachingEdPsych, TIPS, and WBTOLL. > > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
