This is a good discussion for us to have on tips--the whole idea of teaching for conceptual coherence.
I've been working on changing misconceptions and have read the education literature on conceptual development and more importantly on conceptual change extensively. What I have come to conclude is that there is a serious disconnect between the sciences like physics, chemistry and biology, and psychology. And here is where my problem arose and why I say this: Conceptual change when examined from a "science" perspective generally is discussed in terms of students getting a more global, or holistic gist of a conceptual premise. For example, when students have misconceptions about physics they are generally just not undestanding an underlying "concept" such as force, gravity, or mass; or in chemistry, concepts such as the mole. But I don't think we have these global overarching concepts in understanding the fundamental principles of psychology. For example, if students have misconceptions in psychology they tend to be things like believing that Sugar Causes Hyperactivity in Children; Or Listening to Mozart Will Make you Smarter; or Subliminal advertising can get you to buy things you would not have otherwise purchased. These are more disjointed factoids that come from places like folk knowledge, rather than from some conceptual misunderstanding of a critical psychological construct that udnerlie a paradigm. These are not large paradigmatic concepts that underlie student's misunderstanding of how things work in the mind, per se. Let me quote from the wiki page referred to below: >As a result the most important role for concept inventories >is to provide instructors with clues as to the ideas, >scientific misconceptions, didaskalogenic, i.e. instruction >induced confusions, and/or conceptual lacunae, with which >students are working, and which may be actively interfering >with learning. So I'm not sure a concept inventory would help us much. There are no demonstrable "conceptual lacunae" that are interfering with learning. Rather there are frequently encountered bits of misinformation based on faulty evidence or faulty interpretation of evidence that become part of the cultural knowledge about behavior. It's not like when you finally come to understand force or motion or gravity or moles, that things will fall into place with other misconceptions. That is why I believe psychology has been notably excluded from these conversations. See the wiki as an example of where there is nothing from psychology. I think we are in a different domain and have to come up with a different set criteria for the discipline. And there are good people struggling with this; but it is not coming across in the same way as it would in other disciplines; it cannot be assessed in the same way. So one thought I had was that a type of critical evaluation of evidence is a unifying construct of what leads people to have many of the misconceptions they have in psychology. But it's hard to make a case for "conceptual change" in that sense. Other than that, psychology is really about learning tons and tons of facts and factoids. The large overarching constructs are few and far between. Maybe that is part of what makes psychology so hard? Anyway, I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this idea of overarching conceptual themes in psychology and how misconceptions could be construed in terms of those conceptual themes. 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: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:08:13 -0800 >From: Richard Hake <[email protected]> >Subject: [tips] Assessment Question (ahhhhhhhhhhhh :-)! !)) >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" ><[email protected]> > > > > If you reply to this long (12 kB) post please don't > hit the reply button unless you prune the copy of > this post that may appear in your reply down to a > few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already > archived post may be needlessly resent to > subscribers. > ************************************************* > ABSTRACT: In a recent popular TIPS thread > "assessment question (AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH)" > psychologists commendably focus on testing so as to > assess the effectiveness of their department's > program for their *majors*. > But how about the effectiveness of the GENERAL > INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY COURSE given to tens of > thousands of *both majors and nonmajors* nationwide > every year ? > Most psychologists appear to be either dismissive or > oblivious of the fact that "Conceptual Inventories" > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory>, > developed through arduous quantitative and > qualitative research by disciplinary experts, are > currently being used to improve undergraduate - and > some high-school - courses in science, technology, > engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines (BUT NOT > PSYCHOLOGY!) > ************************************************* > > Marte Fallshore (2010) in his TIPS (Teaching In the > Psychological Sciences) post of 25 Feb 2010 titled > "RE: assessment question (AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH)" > initiated a 16 post (as of 2 March 2010 > 09:5:00-0800) TIPS thread by writing [bracketed by > lines "FFFFFF. . . ."; slightly edited]: > > FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF > . . . . My school, like all the others, is obsessed > with assessment. . . . . I was wondering if anyone > out there does a pre-posttest assessment of psych > graduates? My chair is wanting to start something > like that because we now have a 1-credit > introduction to the major class when they declare. > We want to give them the pretest in the majors class > then a posttest during their senior assessment > class. What do they know before the major and what > do they know after? Anybody got any tests already > written (and maybe normed) we could use? > FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF > > To which Julie Osland (2010) responded: "One option > would be require them to pay to take the ETS major > field test in psychology for both classes." > > And Claudia Stanny (2010) responded: > > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > If you are focused entirely on content and fact > retrieval, a pre-post test doesn't pose a very > interesting question. You could probably answer it > better by using something like the Major Fields test > for psychology (ETS) and then look at subtest scores > to look at knowledge areas to identify areas of > strengths and weaknesses. I'm assuming ETS provides > these subscores for areas in psychology for the > Psychology test. . . . . . > If you would really like to have some sort of > baseline for content knowledge, you could volunteer > to participate in the College Board development of > norms for the AP Psychology exam. Students take the > AP exam at the end of their introductory psychology > course. Not exactly entering the major, but I hope > they learn more about the content of psychology in > all those other courses they take later! It would > be sad if they learned all the relevant content in > intro! :-) > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > > In my opinion, the above focus on testing so as to > assess the effectiveness of a psychology > department's program for their *majors* is > commendable (even despite Fallshore's emotive > "AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH") but how about the effectiveness > of the GENERAL INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY COURSE given > to tens of thousands of *both majors and nonmajors* > nationwide every year ? > > In a recent post [Hake (2010a)] regarding the book > "Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: > International Perspectives and Gold Standards" > [Shelley et al. (2009)] I criticized one aspect of > the contribution of Robin Millar (Salters' Professor > of Science Education at the University of York, UK) > and Jonathan Osborne (holder of the Endowed Chair of > Science Education at Stanford University) to that > book, but the same comment would apply to > psychologists generally. I wrote: > HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH > Millar and Osborne appear to be either dismissive or > oblivious of the fact that "Conceptual Inventories" > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory>, > developed through arduous quantitative and > qualitative research by disciplinary experts, are > currently being used to improve undergraduate - and > some high-school - courses in science, technology, > engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines (BUT NOT > PSYCHOLOGY!) - see, e.g., (a) "Design-Based Research > in Physics Education Research: A Review" (Hake > (2008); (b) "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" (Hake, > 2010b); and (c) "Workshop on Linking Evidence and > Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education" > [National Academies (2008)]. . . . [[and - added on > 2 March 2010 - "Do Psychologists Research the > Effectiveness of Their Courses? Hake Responds to > Sternberg" (Hake, 2005)]]. . . . . > HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH > > Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana > University > 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 > Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The > Netherlands > <[email protected]> > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/> > <http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/> > <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake> > > "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 [Tiny URL's courtesy > <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.] > Fallshore, M. 2010. "assessment question > (AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH)"; TIPS post of 25 Feb 2010 > 12:21:41-0800; online on the OPEN! TIPS archives at > <http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40fsulist.frostburg.edu/msg00392.html>. > Hake, R.R. 2005. "Do Psychologists Research the > Effectiveness of Their Courses? Hake Responds to > Sternberg," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at > <http://tinyurl.com/yll6r2n>. Post of 21 Jul 2005 > 22:55:31-0700 to AERA-C, AERA-D, AERA-J, AERA-L, > ASSESS, EvalTalk, POD, PhysLrnR, and STLHE-L. > Hake, R.R. 2006. "Possible Palliatives for the > Paralyzing Pre/Post Paranoia that Plagues Some > PEP's" [PEP's = Psychologists, Education > Specialists, and Psychometricians], Journal of > MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Number 6, November, > online at > <http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/41/50>. > This even despite the admirable anti-alliteration > advice at psychologist Donald Zimmerman's site > <http://mypage.direct.ca/z/zimmerma/> to "Always > assiduously and attentively avoid awful, awkward, > atrocious, appalling, artificial, affected > alliteration." > > Hake, R.R. 2008. "Design-Based Research in Physics > Education Research: A Review," in Kelly, Lesh, & > Baek (2008)]. A pre-publication version of that > chapter is online at > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/DBR-Physics3.pdf> > (1.1 MB). > Hake, R.R. 2010a. "Re: Quality Research in Literacy > and Science Education: International Perspectives > and Gold Standards," online on the OPEN! AERA-L > archives at <http://tinyurl.com/yhhbu72>. Post of > 22 Feb 2010 14:04:43-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. > The abstract was sent to various discussion list and > also appears at > > <http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-quality-research-in-literacy-and.html> > with a provision for comments. > > Hake, R.R. 2010b. "Should We Measure Change? Yes!" > online at > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/MeasChangeS.pdf> > (2.5 MB) and as ref. 43 at > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>. To appear as > a chapter in "Evaluation of Teaching and Student > Learning in Higher Education" [Hake (in > preparation)]. For a severely truncated version see > Hake (2006). > Kelly, A.E., R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek. 2008. "Handbook > of Design Research Methods in Education: Innovations > in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics > Learning and Teaching." Routledge. Publisher's > information at <http://tinyurl.com/4eazqs>; > Amazon.com information at > <http://tinyurl.com/5n4vvo>. > National Academies. 2008. "Workshop on Linking > Evidence and Promising Practices in STEM > Undergraduate Education": Commissioned Papers at > <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/PP_Commissioned_Papers.html>. > Osland, J. 2010. RE: assessment question > (AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH)"; TIPS post of 25 Feb 2010 > 12:00:06-0800; online on the OPEN! TIPS archives at > <http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40fsulist.frostburg.edu/msg00389.html>. > Shelley, M.C., L.D. Yore, & B. Hand, eds. 2009. > "Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: > International Perspectives and Gold Standards." > Springer, publisher's information at > <http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2447682464446x2/>. > Amazon.com information at > <http://tinyurl.com/yf7efra>, note the searchable > "Look Inside" feature. Barnes & Noble information > at <http://tinyurl.com/y8n9pe9>. An expurgated > (teaser) version is online as a Google "book > preview" at <http://tinyurl.com/yddphh3>. > > Stanny, C. 2010. RE: assessment question > (AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH)"; TIPS post of 25 Feb 2010 > 12:08:58-0800; online on the OPEN! TIPS archives at > <http://www.mail-archive.com/tips%40fsulist.frostburg.edu/msg00391.html>. > 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 > <http://www.maa.org/saum/articles/wiggins_appendix.html>. > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: > [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=1006 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL > if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-1006-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1014 or send a blank email to leave-1014-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
