Showing posts with label education research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education research. Show all posts

20191204

FCI pre-test to post-test comparison

Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (David Hestenes, et al.) during the last week of instruction.

The pre- to post-test gain for this semester is:

Physics 205A fall semester 2019 sections 70854, 70855 (matched-pairs only, N = 42)
<initial%>= 26% ± 16%
<final%>= 38% ± 15%
<g>= 0.15 ± 0.17 (matched-pairs); 0.16 (class-wise)

The paired Student's t-test of the null hypothesis for Cuesta College FCI pre-test scores versus post-test scores results in p = 0.0001 (t = 5.5774, degrees of freedom = 41), thus there is a strongly statistically significant difference between Cuesta College FCI pre-test and post-test scores.

This Hake gain is notably larger than the previous two semesters' paired results for algebra-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.09 and 0.11). (Previous semesters before 2017 were analyzed using unpaired results.)

Notable about this Physics 205A class at Cuesta College since fall semester 2017 is the absence of an embedded tutor (student teaching assistant circulating in class along with the instructor during open discussion and problem-solving sessions); otherwise as taught from fall semester 2014 onwards is the requirement that students read and answer questions on the textbook and lecture slides before coming to lecture (in a "flipped classroom," but this label was not given to the students this semester, as was done up through fall semester 2018!), instructor discussion in-class based on answering student questions and concerns submitted online previous to lecture, in-class problem-solving sessions ("lecture-tutorials," including ranking tasks, and/or a brief written explanation of a selected question submitted by each student every lecture).

D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

Previous FCI results:
Posted by at 4:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

20190812

FCI pre-test comparison: Cuesta College (fall semester 2019)

Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (David Hestenes, et al.) during the first week of instruction.

Physics 205A fall semester 2019, pre-instruction scores
Group A:
Section 70854
(12:30-3:20 PM lab)    		Group B:
Section 70855
(4:30-7:20 PM lab)
N31 students25 students
low  3  2
mean      8.29 ± 4.00  9.12 ± 4.96
high1820

*Excludes students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf)

Student's t-test of the null hypothesis between pre-test scores from these two lab sections results in p = 0.49 (t = −0.693, sdev = 4.45, degrees of freedom = 54), thus there is a significant difference between the early and late afternoon lab sections.

D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

Previous FCI results:
Posted by at 6:34 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

20181203

FCI pre-test to post-test comparison

Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (David Hestenes, et al.) during the last week of instruction.

The pre- to post-test gain for this semester is:

Physics 205A fall semester 2018 sections 70854, 70855 (matched-pairs only, N = 44)
<initial%>= 30% ± 17%
<final%>= 37% ± 18%
<g>= 0.09 ± 0.18 (matched-pairs); 0.10 (class-wise)

The paired Student's t-test of the null hypothesis for Cuesta College FCI pre-test scores versus post-test scores results in p = 0.001 (t = –3.75, degrees of freedom = 43), thus there is a strongly statistically significant difference between Cuesta College FCI pre-test and post-test scores.

This Hake gain is comparable to previous semesters' paired results for algebra-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.11). (Previous semesters before 2017 were analyzed using unpaired results.)

Notable about this Physics 205A class at Cuesta College since fall semester 2017 is the absence of an embedded tutor (student teaching assistant circulating in class along with the instructor during open discussion and problem-solving sessions); otherwise as taught from fall semester 2014 onwards is the requirement that students read and answer questions on the textbook and lecture slides before coming to lecture (in a "flipped classroom"), instructor discussion in-class based on answering student questions and concerns submitted online previous to lecture, in-class problem-solving sessions ("lecture-tutorials," including ranking tasks, and/or a brief written explanation of a selected question submitted by each student every lecture).

D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

Previous FCI results:
Posted by at 5:34 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

20171212

FCI pre-test to post-test comparison

Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (David Hestenes, et al.) during the last week of instruction.

The pre- to post-test gain for this semester is:

Physics 205A fall semester 2017 sections 70854, 70855 (matched-pairs only, N = 43)
<initial%>= 30% ± 15%
<final%>= 38% ± 19%
<g>= 0.10 ± 0.23 (matched-pairs); 0.11 (class-wise)

The paired Student's t-test of the null hypothesis for Cuesta College FCI pre-test scores versus post-test scores results in p = 0.000 (t = –4.80, degrees of freedom = 42), thus there is a strongly statistically significant difference between Cuesta College FCI pre-test and post-test scores.

This Hake gain is comparable to (but slightly lower than) previous semesters' results for algebra-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.17-0.33), but similarly comparable to (but slightly lower than) previous gains for calculus-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.14-0.16), as discussed in previous postings on this blog.

Notable about this Physics 205A class at Cuesta College since fall semester 2015 is the presence of an embedded tutor (student teaching assistant circulating in class along with the instructor during open discussion and problem-solving sessions); and from fall semester 2014 onwards is the requirement that students read and answer questions on the textbook and lecture slides before coming to lecture (in a "flipped classroom"), instructor discussion in-class based on answering student questions and concerns submitted online previous to lecture, in-class problem-solving sessions ("lecture-tutorials," including ranking tasks, and a brief written explanation of a selected question submitted by each student every lecture), open-ended labs, and the continuing use (since fall semester 2011) of flashcards rather than electronic response system "clickers" (Classroom Performance System, einstruction.com), to engage in "think-pair-share" (peer-instruction).

D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

Previous FCI results (note only unpaired Student t-tests were run prior to 2017):
Posted by at 3:32 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

20170515

Education research: MPEX pre- and post-instruction results (Cuesta College, spring semester 2017)

The Maryland Physics Expectations survey (MPEX, Redish, Saul, and Steinberg, 1998) was administered to Cuesta College Physics 205B (college physics, algebra-based, mandatory adjunct laboratory) students at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA. The MPEX was given during the first week of the semester, and then on the last week of the semester, to quantify student attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions about physics using six question categories, rating responses as either favorable or unfavorable towards:
  1. Independence--beliefs about learning physics--whether it means receiving information or involves an active process of reconstructing one's own understanding;
  2. Coherence--beliefs about the structure of physics knowledge--as a collection of isolated pieces or as a single coherent system;
  3. Concepts--beliefs about the content of physics knowledge--as formulas or as concepts that underlie the formulas;
  4. Reality Link--beliefs about the connection between physics and reality--whether physics is unrelated to experiences outside the classroom or whether it is useful to think about them together;
  5. Math Link--beliefs about the role of mathematics in learning physics--whether the mathematical formalism is used as a way of representing information about physical phenomena or mathematics is just used to calculate numbers;
  6. Effort--beliefs about the kind of activities and work necessary to make sense out of physics--whether they expect to think carefully and evaluate what they are doing based on available materials and feedback or not.
Cuesta College
Physics 205B spring semester 2017 sections 30884, 30885
San Luis Obispo, CA campus
(N = 25, matched pairs, excluding negative informed consent form responses)

Percentage of (favorable:unfavorable) responses
Overall   Independence   Coherence   Concepts   Reality link   Math link   Effort   
Initial   52:2537:2740:3149:3472:0956:1874:10
Final   52:2745:2144:3150:3074:1153:2656:23

Previous posts:
Posted by at 10:37 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,

20170514

Education research: SPCI statistics (spring semester 2017)

Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the Star Properties Concept Inventory (SPCI version 3.0, developed by Janelle Bailey, University of Nevada-Las Vegas) during the first and the last week of instruction. Astronomy 210 is a one-semester introductory general science course, with a separate optional adjunct laboratory (Astronomy 210L).

The pre- to post-test gain for this semester at Cuesta College (excluding students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf), and missing pre- or post-tests) is:

Astronomy 210 spring semester 2017 section 30674
N = 18 (matched-pairs)
<initial%>= 36% ± 14%
<final%>= 64% ± 16%
<g>= 0.43 ± 0.22 (matched-pairs); 0.43 (class-wise)

Astronomy 210 spring semester 2017 section 30676
N = 35 (matched-pairs)
<initial%>= 33% ± 17%
<final%>= 57% ± 16%
<g>= 0.32 ± 0.24 (matched-pairs); 0.36 (class-wise)

This semester's SPCI pre-instruction scores scores are comparable to results from previous semesters at Cuesta College, while the post-instruction scores and gains for section 30674 are slightly higher than those of section 30676, and some previous semesters.

Posted by at 7:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

20170513

Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2017)

Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered a shortened version (22 out of 45 questions) of the Electric Circuit Concept Evaluation (David Sokoloff, University of Oregon) during the first and the last week of instruction. Physics 205B is the second semester of an algebra-based introductory general physics course covering optics, electromagnetism, and modern physics, with a mandatory adjunct laboratory component.

The pre- to post-test gain for this semester at Cuesta College (excluding students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf), and missing pre- or post-tests) is:

Physics 205B spring semester 2017 sections 30882, 30883
N = 24
<initial%>= 24% ± 14%
<final%>= 35% ± 10%
<g>= 0.11 ± 0.23 (matched-pairs); 0.14 (class-wise)

This semester's ECCE post-instruction score is slightly lower than results from previous semesters at Cuesta College, and this semester's gain is slightly higher than most previous semesters.

Previous posts:
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2015).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2014).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2012).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2011).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (fall semester 2010).
    • Posted by at 3:22 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , , ,

    20161206

    FCI pre-test to post-test comparison

    Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (David Hestenes, et al.) during the last week of instruction.

    The pre- to post-test gain for this semester is:

    Physics 205A fall semester 2016 sections 70854, 70855, 73320
    <initial%>= 33% ± 15% (N = 60)
    <final%>= 39% ± 17% (N = 48)
    <g>= 0.10 ± 0.21 (matched-pairs); 0.10 (class-wise)

    Student's t-test of the null hypothesis for Cuesta College FCI pre-test scores versus post-test scores results in p = 0.033 (t = –2.16, sdev = 4.69, degrees of freedom = 106), thus there is a statistically significant difference between Cuesta College FCI pre-test and post-test scores.

    This Hake gain is comparable to (but slightly lower than) previous semesters' results for algebra-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.17-0.33), but similarly comparable to (but slightly lower than) previous gains for calculus-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.14-0.16), as discussed in previous postings on this blog.

    Notable about this Physics 205A class at Cuesta College since fall semester 2015 is the presence of an embedded tutor (student teaching assistant circulating in class along with the instructor during open discussion and problem-solving sessions); and from fall semester 2014 onwards is the requirement that students read and answer questions on the textbook and lecture slides before coming to lecture (in a "flipped classroom"), instructor discussion in-class based on answering student questions and concerns submitted online previous to lecture, in-class problem-solving sessions ("lecture-tutorials," including ranking tasks, and a brief written explanation of a selected question submitted by each student every lecture), open-ended labs, and the continuing use (since fall semester 2011) of flashcards rather than electronic response system "clickers" (Classroom Performance System, einstruction.com), to engage in "think-pair-share" (peer-instruction).

    D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
    Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

    Previous FCI results:
    Posted by at 3:05 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , ,

    20160518

    Education research: SPCI statistics (spring semester 2016)

    Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered the Star Properties Concept Inventory (SPCI version 3.0, developed by Janelle Bailey, University of Nevada-Las Vegas) during the first and the last week of instruction. Astronomy 210 is a one-semester introductory general science course, with a separate optional adjunct laboratory (Astronomy 210L).

    The pre- to post-test gain for this semester at Cuesta College (excluding students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf), and missing pre- or post-tests) is:

    Astronomy 210 spring semester 2016 sections 30674, 30676
    N = 59 (matched-pairs)
    <initial%>= 32% ± 15%
    <final%>= 54% ± 14%
    <g>= 0.32 ± 0.14 (matched-pairs); 0.33 (class-wise)

    This semester's SPCI pre- and post-instruction scores are comparable to results from previous semesters at Cuesta College.

    Posted by at 3:00 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , , ,

    20151208

    FCI post-test comparison: Cuesta College versus UC-Davis (fall semester 2015)

    Students at both Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) and the University of California at Davis were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (David Hestenes, et al.) during the last week of instruction.

    Cuesta College
    Physics 205A
    fall semester 2015        		UC-Davis
    Physics 7B
    summer session II 2002
    N56 students*63 students*
    low  4  3
    mean    13.6 ± 6.512.9 ± 5.5
    high2826

    *Excludes students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf)

    Student's t-test of the null hypothesis between Cuesta College FCI post-test scores and UC-Davis FCI post-test scores results in p = 0.51 (t = 0.657, sdev = 5.95, degrees of freedom = 137), thus there is no significant difference between Cuesta College and UC-Davis FCI post-test scores.

    The pre- to post-test gain for this semester at Cuesta College is:

    Physics 205A fall semester 2015 sections 70854, 70855, 73320
    <initial%>= 33% ± 18% (N = 85)
    <final%>= 45% ± 22% (N = 63)
    <g>= 0.19 ± 0.23 (matched-pairs); 0.18 (class-wise)

    Student's t-test of the null hypothesis for Cuesta College FCI pre-test scores versus post-test scores results in p = 0.0004 (t = -3.60, sdev = 5.91, degrees of freedom = 146), thus there is a statistically significant difference between Cuesta College FCI pre-test and post-test scores.

    This Hake gain is comparable to previous semesters' results for algebra-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.17-0.33), but also slightly higher than previous gains for algebra-based introductory physics at UC-Davis (0.16), and for calculus-based introductory physics at Cuesta College (0.14-0.16), as discussed in previous postings on this blog.

    Notable about this Physics 205A class at Cuesta College since fall semester 2014 is the requirement that students read and answer questions on the textbook and lecture slides before coming to lecture (in a "flipped classroom"), instructor discussion in-class based on answering student questions and concerns submitted online previous to lecture, in-class problem-solving sessions ("lecture-tutorials," including ranking tasks, and a brief written explanation of a selected question submitted by each student every lecture), open-ended labs, and the continuing use (since fall semester 2011) of flashcards rather than electronic response system "clickers" (Classroom Performance System, einstruction.com), to engage in "think-pair-share" (peer-instruction).

    D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
    Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

    Previous FCI results:
    Posted by at 3:54 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , ,

    FCI pre-test comparison: Cuesta College versus UC-Davis (fall semester 2015)

    Students at both Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) and the University of California at Davis were administered the 30-question Force Concept Inventory (Doug Hestenes, et al.) during the first week of instruction.

    Cuesta College
    Physics 205A
    fall semester 2015        		UC-Davis
    Physics 7B
    summer session II 2002
    N85 students*76 students*
    low 2 2
    mean    10.0 +/- 5.5 9.1 +/- 4.3
    high2427

    *Excludes students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf)

    Student's t-test of the null hypothesis results in p = 0.19 (t = 1.31, sdev = 4.93, degrees of freedom = 159), thus there is no significant difference between Cuesta College and UC-Davis FCI pre-test scores.

    Later this semester (fall 2015), a comparison will be made between Cuesta College and UC-Davis FCI post-tests, along with their pre- to post-test gains.

    D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Arizona State University, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
    Development of the FCI, a 30-question survey of basic Newtonian mechanics concepts.

    Previous FCI results:
    Posted by at 3:29 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , ,

    20150529

    Education research: MPEX pre- and post-instruction results (Cuesta College, spring semester 2015)

    The Maryland Physics Expectations survey (MPEX, Redish, Saul, and Steinberg, 1998) was administered to Cuesta College Physics 205B (college physics, algebra-based, mandatory adjunct laboratory) students at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA. The MPEX was given during the first week of the semester, and then on the last week of the semester, to quantify student attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions about physics using six question categories, rating responses as either favorable or unfavorable towards:
    1. Independence--beliefs about learning physics--whether it means receiving information or involves an active process of reconstructing one's own understanding;
    2. Coherence--beliefs about the structure of physics knowledge--as a collection of isolated pieces or as a single coherent system;
    3. Concepts--beliefs about the content of physics knowledge--as formulas or as concepts that underlie the formulas;
    4. Reality Link--beliefs about the connection between physics and reality--whether physics is unrelated to experiences outside the classroom or whether it is useful to think about them together;
    5. Math Link--beliefs about the role of mathematics in learning physics--whether the mathematical formalism is used as a way of representing information about physical phenomena or mathematics is just used to calculate numbers;
    6. Effort--beliefs about the kind of activities and work necessary to make sense out of physics--whether they expect to think carefully and evaluate what they are doing based on available materials and feedback or not.
    Cuesta College
    Physics 205B spring semester 2015 sections 30884, 30885
    San Luis Obispo, CA campus
    (N = 39, matched pairs, excluding negative informed consent form responses)

    Percentage of (favorable:unfavorable) responses
    Overall   Independence   Coherence   Concepts   Reality link   Math link   Effort   
    Initial   57:2346:1748:3058:3071:1554:1965:19
    Final   52:2738:2641:3454:2860:2051:2256:23

    Previous posts:
    Posted by at 1:55 PM 0 comments
    Labels: ,

    Education research: SASS, ECCE and student learning outcomes assessment (Cuesta College, spring semester 2015)

    Student achievement of course learning outcomes are assessed by administering an Student Assessment of Skills Survey (SASS), a five-point Likert scale questionnaire (Patrick M. Len, in development), and a shortened version (22 out of 45 questions) of the Electric Circuit Concept Evaluation (David Sokoloff, University of Oregon) to Physics 205B students at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA. This is the second semester of a two-semester introductory physics course (college physics, algebra-based, mandatory adjunct laboratory).

    The SASS is administered online during the last week of instruction, to be completed before the final exam. The ECCE is administered in class during the last week of instruction.

    The SASS results from this semester are compiled below. Values for the mean and standard deviations are given next to the modal response category for each question. Also listed is the percentage of students who have self-assessed themselves as having successfully achieving a learning outcome (responding "average," "above average," or "excellent") as opposed to not achieving success with a learning outcome (responding "very poor" or "below average").

    Cuesta College
    Student Assessment of Skills Survey (SASS)
    Physics 205B spring semester 2015 sections 30882, 30883
    N = 37

    The questions below are designed to characterize your achievement of each of the learning outcomes by filling in a bubble on the rating scale provided to the right of each statement.

    Mark the level of achievement that best describes your learning at the completion of the course.

    1. Quantify the frequency, speed and wavelength of light.
    (Achieved: 96%, unachieved: 4%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  **************** [16]
    Above average.  ******* [7]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    2. Analyze the polarization of light.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  ********** [10]
    Above average.  ********** [10]
    Excellent.  ** [2]

    3. Analyze reflection, refraction, and total internal reflection.
    (Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ************* [13]
    Above average.  ********* [9]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    4. Analyze images produced by lenses.
    (Achieved: 96%, unachieved: 4%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  ************** [14]
    Above average.  ********* [9]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    5. Understand optical systems such as cameras, eyes, simple magnifiers, microscopes and telescopes operate.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ************* [13]
    Above average.  ******** [8]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    6. Analyze the constructive/destructive interference of waves.
    (Achieved: 96%, unachieved: 4%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  ********* [9]
    Above average.  ************ [12]
    Excellent.  ** [2]

    7. Understand how double-slits produce constructive/destructive interference.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ****** [6]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    8. Analyze the diffraction produced by a single-slit.
    (Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ******************* [19]
    Above average.  *** [3]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    9. Understand how charges behave differently in conductors and insulators.
    (Achieved: 64%, unachieved: 36%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ********* [9]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ***** [5]
    Excellent.  [0]

    10. Understand how a source charge exerts a force on a test charge (the direct model).
    (Achieved: 83%, unachieved: 17%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  ************ [12]
    Above average.  ******* [7]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    11. Analyze the electric force exerted on a test charge by several source charges.
    (Achieved: 84%, unachieved: 16%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ****** [6]
    Excellent.  [0]

    12. Understand how a source charge creates an electric field, which exerts a force on a test charge (the two-step field model).
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  ************ [12]
    Above average.  ********** [10]
    Excellent.  [0]

    13. Analyze the electric field created by several source charges.
    (Achieved: 84%, unachieved: 16%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ********** [10]
    Excellent.  [0]

    14. Understand the relationship between electric potential and electric potential energy.
    (Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ************ [2]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  *********** [11]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    15. Analyze the characteristics of parallel plate capacitors.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  **** [4]
    Above average.  *************** [15]
    Excellent.  *** [3]

    16. Quantify (using Ohm's law) the resistance, electric potential difference, and current of a circuit element.
    (Achieved: 100%, unachieved: 0%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  [0]
    Average.  ********* [9]
    Above average.  ************* [13]
    Excellent.  ** [2]

    17. Understand how to reduce configurations of resistors to an equivalent resistance.
    (Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ************** [14]
    Above average.  ****** [6]
    Excellent.  *** [3]

    18. Understand how to apply Kirchhoff's circuit rules (the junction rule and the loop rule).
    (Achieved: 84%, unachieved: 16%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ******* [7]
    Excellent.  *** [3]

    19. Analyze the power used or supplied by circuit elements.
    (Achieved: 84%, unachieved: 16%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  ************** [14]
    Above average.  **** [4]
    Excellent.  *** [3]

    20. Understand how a source magnet or current-carrying wire creates a magnetic field, which exerts a force on a moving charge or current-carrying wire (the two-step field model).
    (Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ************* [13]
    Above average.  ****** [6]
    Excellent.  **** [4]

    21. Analyze the direction of a magnetic fields and forces using the appropriate right-hand rules.
    (Achieved: 100%, unachieved: 0%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  [0]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ********* [9]
    Excellent.  **** [4]

    22. Understand how generators work.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 13%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  ******** [13]
    Above average.  ******* [7]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    23. Understand how changing the magnetic flux through a wire loop produces an induced emf and an induced current (Faraday's law and Lenz's law).
    (Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ************* [13]
    Above average.  ********* [9]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    24. Analyze the step-up and step-down behavior of transformers.
    (Achieved: 80%, unachieved: 20%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  ************** [14]
    Above average.  *** [3]
    Excellent.  *** [3]

    25. Understand the conditions for stability and instability in atomic nuclei.
    (Achieved: 75%, unachieved: 25%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ****** [6]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    26. Analyze various radioactive decay processes (alpha, beta-plus, beta-minus, electron capture, and gamma).
    (Achieved: 83%, unachieved: 17%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ******* [7]
    Excellent.  ** [2]

    27. Analyze the time-dependent nature of radioactive decay activity.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  **************** [16]
    Above average.  ***** [5]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    28. Understand how Feynman diagrams are used to depict fundamental subatomic processes and interactions.
    (Achieved: 68%, unachieved: 32%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  ****** [6]
    Average.  ************ [12]
    Above average.  **** [4]
    Excellent.  * [1]

    Of the 28 student learning outcomes in the SASS, 18 were self-reported as being achieved by at least 85% of students, listed below in order of decreasing success:
    16. Quantify (using Ohm's law) the resistance, electric potential difference, and current of a circuit element. (100%)
    21. Analyze the direction of a magnetic fields and forces using the appropriate right-hand rules. (100%)
    1. Quantify the frequency, speed and wavelength of light. (96%)
    4. Analyze images produced by lenses. (96%)
    6. Analyze the constructive/destructive interference of waves. (96%)
    3. Analyze reflection, refraction, and total internal reflection. (92%)
    8. Analyze the diffraction produced by a single-slit. (92%)
    23. Understand how changing the magnetic flux through a wire loop produces an induced emf and an induced current (Faraday's law and Lenz's law). (92%)
    14. Understand the relationship between electric potential and electric potential energy. (92%)
    17. Understand how to reduce configurations of resistors to an equivalent resistance. (92%)
    20. Understand how a source magnet or current-carrying wire creates a magnetic field, which exerts a force on a moving charge or current-carrying wire (the two-step field model). (92%)
    2. Analyze the polarization of light. (88%)
    5. Understand optical systems such as cameras, eyes, simple magnifiers, microscopes and telescopes operate. (88%)
    7. Understand how double-slits produce constructive/destructive interference. (88%)
    12. Understand how a source charge creates an electric field, which exerts a force on a test charge (the two-step field model). (88%)
    15. Analyze the characteristics of parallel plate capacitors. (88%)
    22. Understand how generators work. (88%)
    27. Analyze the time-dependent nature of radioactive decay activity. (88%)

    However, 10 student learning outcomes were self-reported as being achieved by less than 85% of students, listed below in order of decreasing success:
    11. Analyze the electric force exerted on a test charge by several source charges. (84%)
    13. Analyze the electric field created by several source charges. (84%)
    18. Understand how to apply Kirchhoff's circuit rules (the junction rule and the loop rule). (84%)
    19. Analyze the power used or supplied by circuit elements. (84%)
    10. Understand how a source charge exerts a force on a test charge (the direct model). (83%)
    26. Analyze various radioactive decay processes (alpha, beta-plus, beta-minus, electron capture, and gamma). (83%)
    24. Analyze the step-up and step-down behavior of transformers. (80%)
    25. Understand the conditions for stability and instability in atomic nuclei. (75%)
    28. Understand how Feynman diagrams are used to depict fundamental subatomic processes and interactions. (68%)
    9. Understand how charges behave differently in conductors and insulators. (64%)

    Compare these student learning outcomes self-reported as not being achieved (9, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28) those from the previous semester (spring semester 2014: (5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28).

    Student learning outcomes 16, 17, 18, and 19 for this semester were also directly assessed using a shortened version of Electric Circuit Concept Evaluation.

    As per the ACCJC (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges), results from this indirect assessment SASS tool, along with the direct assessment ECCE tool will be used for course/program improvement by increasing emphasis on these lowest three learning outcomes in instruction in future semesters.
    Posted by at 1:44 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , , , ,

    Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2015)

    Students at Cuesta College (San Luis Obispo, CA) were administered a shortened version (22 out of 45 questions) of the Electric Circuit Concept Evaluation (David Sokoloff, University of Oregon) during the first and the last week of instruction. Physics 205B is the second semester of an algebra-based introductory general physics course covering optics, electromagnetism, and modern physics, with a mandatory adjunct laboratory component.

    The pre- to post-test gain for this semester at Cuesta College (excluding students with negative informed consent forms (*.pdf), and missing pre- or post-tests) is:

    Physics 205B spring semester 2015 sections 30882, 30883
    N = 30
    <initial%>= 31% ± 11%
    <final%>= 40% ± 11%
    <g>= 0.12 ± 0.19 (matched-pairs); 0.14 (class-wise)

    This semester's ECCE post-instruction score is slightly lower than results from previous semesters at Cuesta College, and this semester's gain is lower than those in previous semesters.

    Previous posts:
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2014).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2012).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (spring semester 2011).
  • Education research: ECCE statistics (fall semester 2010).
    • Posted by at 1:40 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , , ,

    20150525

    Education research: SASS, SPCI and student learning outcomes assessment (Cuesta College, spring semester 2015)

    Student achievement of course learning outcomes are assessed by administering an Student Assessment of Skills Survey (SASS), a five-point Likert scale questionnaire (Patrick M. Len, in development), and the Star Properties Concept Inventory (SPCI, Janelle M. Bailey, "Development of a Concept Inventory to Assess Students' Understanding and Reasoning Difficulties about the Properties and Formation of Stars," Astronomy Education Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 133–139, August 2007) to Astronomy 210 students at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, CA. This is a one-semester, introductory astronomy course (with an optional adjunct laboratory), and is taken primarily by students to satisfy their general education science transfer requirement.

    The SASS is administered online during the last week of instruction, to be completed before the final exam. The SPCI is administered as a post-test in class during the last week of instruction.

    The SASS results from this semester are compiled below. Values for the mean and standard deviations are given next to the modal response category for each question. Also listed is the percentage of students who have self-assessed themselves as having successfully achieving a learning outcome (responding "average," "above average," or "excellent") as opposed to not achieving success with a learning outcome (responding "very poor" or "below average").

    Cuesta College
    Student Assessment of Skills Survey (SASS)
    Astronomy 210 spring semester 2015 sections 30674, 30676
    N = 46

    The questions below are designed to characterize your achievement of each of the learning outcomes by filling in a bubble on the rating scale provided to the right of each statement.

    Mark the level of achievement that best describes your learning at the completion of the course.

    1. Predict positions and cycles of stars, using a starwheel.
    (Achieved: 93%, unachieved: 7%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ************* [13]
    Excellent.  ************ [12]

    2. Explain sun cycles and seasons.
    (Achieved: 98%, unachieved: 2%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  [0]
    Average.  ************** [14]
    Above average.  *************** [15]
    Excellent.  ************* [13]

    3. Explain and predict lunar phases and times.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  ******** [8]
    Above average.  *********** [11]
    Excellent.  ******************* [19]

    4. Relate planets in the sky to a solar system map.
    (Achieved: 86%, unachieved: 14%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  **************** [16]
    Above average.  *********** [11]
    Excellent.  ********** [10]

    5. Explain differences between models of planetary motion.
    (Achieved: 81%, unachieved: 19%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ******** [8]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ************ [12]
    Excellent.  ******** [8]

    6. Explain evidence for the heliocentric model of planetary motion.
    (Achieved: 74%, unachieved: 26%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *********** [11]
    Average.  ************* [13]
    Above average.  ************* [13]
    Excellent.  ****** [6]

    7. Describe how optical telescopes work.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  **** [4]
    Average.  **************** [16]
    Above average.  ****************** [13]
    Excellent.  ********* [9]

    8. Describe different powers of optical telescopes.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  ******** [8]
    Above average.  ******************** [20]
    Excellent.  *********** [11]

    9. Explain which telescopes should be funded based on relevant criteria.
    (Achieved: 91%, unachieved: 9%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  ******** [8]
    Above average.  ******************** [20]
    Excellent.  *********** [11]

    10. Explain how stars produce energy.
    (Achieved: 91%, unachieved: 9%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ***************** [17]
    Above average.  **************** [11]
    Excellent.  **************** [11]

    11. Explain the relationship between star brightness and distances.
    (Achieved: 98%, unachieved: 2%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  ********** [10]
    Above average.  ************ [12]
    Excellent.  ******************** [20]

    12. Predict the size of a star based on brightness and temperature.
    (Achieved: 95%, unachieved: 5%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ** [2]
    Average.  ******** [8]
    Above average.  **************** [16]
    Excellent.  ***************** [17]

    13. Explain different stages a star will go through, based on its mass.
    (Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 12%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  **************** [16]
    Above average.  ************** [14]
    Excellent.  ******** [8]

    14. Explain evidence for the shape/size/composition of our Milky Way galaxy.
    (Achieved: 86%, unachieved: 14%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ***************** [17]
    Excellent.  ***** [5]

    15. Explain evidence for how our Milky Way galaxy came to be.
    (Achieved: 79%, unachieved: 21%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ******** [8]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ************** [14]
    Excellent.  ***** [5]

    16. Explain how the speed of light affects observations of distant objects.
    (Achieved: 81%, unachieved: 19%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  ****** [6]
    Average.  *********** [11]
    Above average.  ********* [9]
    Excellent.  *************** [15]

    17. Explain evidence for the expansion of the universe.
    (Achieved: 84%, unachieved: 16%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ************** [14]
    Excellent.  ******* [7]

    18. Describe characteristics of the universe a long time ago.
    (Achieved: 84%, unachieved: 16%)
    Very poor.  ** [2]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  ************** [14]
    Above average.  *************** [15]
    Excellent.  ******* [7]

    19. Explain evidence for how our solar system came to be.
    (Achieved: 79%, unachieved: 21%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  ********* [9]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  *************** [15]
    Excellent.  **** [4]

    20. Describe key features of terrestrial planets.
    (Achieved: 86%, unachieved: 14%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  ************ [12]
    Above average.  ***************** [17]
    Excellent.  ******** [8]

    21. Describe key features of jovian planets.
    (Achieved: 86%, unachieved: 14%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  ***** [5]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  *************** [15]
    Excellent.  ******* [7]

    22. Explain why Pluto is not currently categorized as a planet.
    (Achieved: 95%, unachieved: 5%)
    Very poor.  * [1]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  ******* [7]
    Above average.  ***** [5]
    Excellent.  ***************************** [29]

    23. Describe plausible requirements for life.
    (Achieved: 98%, unachieved: 2%)
    Very poor.  * [0]
    Below average.  * [1]
    Average.  ***************** [17]
    Above average.  ************ [12]
    Excellent.  ************* [13]

    24. Explain difficulties in investigating the possibility for extraterrestrial life.
    (Achieved: 93%, unachieved: 7%)
    Very poor.  [0]
    Below average.  *** [3]
    Average.  *************** [15]
    Above average.  ************* [13]
    Excellent.  ************ [12]

    Of the 24 student learning outcomes in the SASS, 18 were self-reported as being achieved by at least 85% of students, listed below in order of decreasing success:
    2. Explain sun cycles and seasons. (98%)
    11. Explain the relationship between star brightness and distances. (98%)
    23. Describe plausible requirements for life. (98%)
    12. Predict the size of a star based on brightness and temperature. (95%)
    22. Explain why Pluto is not currently categorized as a planet. (95%)
    1. Predict positions and cycles of stars, using a starwheel. (93%)
    24. Explain difficulties in investigating the possibility for extraterrestrial life. (93%)
    9. Explain which telescopes should be funded based on relevant criteria. (91%)
    10. Explain how stars produce energy. (91%)
    3. Explain and predict lunar phases and times. (88%)
    7. Describe how optical telescopes work. (88%)
    8. Describe different powers of optical telescopes. (88%)
    13. Explain different stages a star will go through, based on its mass. (88%)
    4. Relate planets in the sky to a solar system map. (86%)
    14. Explain evidence for the shape/size/composition of our Milky Way galaxy. (86%)
    20. Describe key features of terrestrial planets. (86%)
    21. Describe key features of jovian planets. (86%)

    However, six student learning outcomes were self-reported as being achieved by less than 85% of students, listed below in order of decreasing success:
    18. Describe characteristics of the universe a long time ago. (84%)
    5. Explain differences between models of planetary motion. (81%)
    16. Explain how the speed of light affects observations of distant objects. (81%)
    15. Explain evidence for how our Milky Way galaxy came to be. (79%)
    19. Explain evidence for how our solar system came to be. (79%)
    6. Explain evidence for the heliocentric model of planetary motion. (74%)

    Compare these student learning outcomes self-reported as not being achieved (5, 6, 15, 16, 18, 19) with those from previous semesters (fall semester 2014: (7, 21); spring semester 2014: (4, 6, 14, 15, 18, 24); fall semester 2013: (6, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18); spring semester 2012: (6, 18); fall semester 2011: (4, 7, 8)).

    Student learning outcomes 10, 11, 12, and 13 for Cuesta College students were directly assessed using the Star Properties Concept Inventory (excluding negative informed consent form responses):
    Star Properties Concept Inventory v3.0
    Astronomy 210 spring semester 2015 sections 30674, 30676
    N = 68
    ave ± stdev = 56% ± 19%
    This semester's SPCI scores are slightly higher than results from 1,100 large research university students that have completed introductory astronomy and earth sciences courses (Bailey, 2007), where the average was 51% (no further statistics provided); and comparable to SPCI results from earlier semesters at Cuesta College.

    As per the ACCJC (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges), results from this indirect assessment SASS tool, along with the direct assessment SPCI tool will be used for course/program improvement by increasing emphasis on the lowest learning outcomes in instruction in future semesters.

    Previous posts:
    Posted by at 4:54 PM 0 comments
    Labels: , , , , ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)