Analysis of the Astronomy Diagnostic Test

Brogt, Erik; Sabers, Darrell L.; Prather, E. E.; Deming, G. L.; Hufnagel, B.; Slater, Timothy F.

doi:10.3847/aer2007003

Cited by 20 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the biases introduced by various learning gains, caution must be taken when using these measures to draw conclusions about differences in science classroom performance across gender. Brogt et al [35] have shown that different expressions for calculating gains have different inherent biases, with Hake's normalized gain [36] being particularly sensitive to high pretest scores.…”

Section: Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourth, we use the absolute gain divided by twice the average of the two hg 2av i, which has been used before [35,39] to demonstrate the potential pitfalls of the estimator of choice. The equation used to calculate g 2av is given below; once absolute gains divided by twice the average of the two have been computed for each student, an average absolute gain divided by twice the average of the two hg 2av i can be calculated:…”

Section: Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory

Day

Stang

Holmes

et al. 2016

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Gender in Physics.] It is established that male students outperform female students on almost all commonly used physics concept inventories. However, there is significant variation in the factors that contribute to the gap, as well as the direction in which they influence it. It is presently unknown if such a gender gap exists on the relatively new Concise Data Processing Assessment (CDPA) and, therefore, whether gendered actions in the teaching lab might influence-or be influenced by-the gender gap. To begin to get an estimates of the gap, its predictors, and its correlates, we have measured performance on the CDPA at the pretest and post-test level. We have also made observations of how students in mixed-gender partnerships divide their time in the lab. We find a gender gap on the CDPA that persists from pre-to post-test and that is as big as, if not bigger than, similar reported gaps. We also observe compelling differences in how students divide their time in the lab. In mixed-gender pairs, male students tend to monopolize the computer, female and male students tend to share the equipment equally, and female students tend to spend more time on other activities that are not the equipment or computer, such as writing or speaking to peers. We also find no correlation between computer use, when students are presumably working with their data, and performance on the CDPA post-test. In parallel to our analysis, we scrutinize some of the more commonly used approaches to similar data. We argue in favor of more explicitly checking the assumptions associated with the statistical methods that are used and improved reporting and contextualization of effect sizes. Ultimately, we claim no evidence that female students are less capable of learning than their male peers, and we suggest caution when using gain measures to draw conclusions about differences in science classroom performance across gender.

show abstract

Section: Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory

Day

Stang

Holmes

et al. 2016

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While this study has drawn criticism since its publication, 18,19 it has no doubt shed light on the measurement of learning gains and the impact of various teaching methods. The normalized learning gain has been used as a measure of change in a variety of fields beyond physics, such as astronomy 20 and biology. 5 Others have recommended an analysis-of-variance-based approach to quantifying learning gains.…”

Section: ■ Methods Of Measuring Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Learning Gains in Chemical Education: A Comparison of Two Methods

Pentecost

Barbera

2013

J. Chem. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating the effect of a pedagogical innovation is often done by looking for a significant difference in a content measure using a pre–post design. While this approach provides valuable information regarding the presence or absence of an effect, it is limited in providing details about the nature of the effect. A measure of the magnitude of the pre–post change, commonly called learning gain, could provide this additional information to chemical education researchers. In this paper, we compare two methods of measuring learning gains using data from large-scale administrations of the Chemical Concepts Inventory at four universities. The intent of this study is to compare various measures of learning gain, not to contrast the teaching effectiveness at the four universities. In this gain analysis, we introduce a method based on Rasch modeling and discuss the advantages offered by this type of analysis over more commonly used measures of learning gain.

show abstract

“…If the students in the two classes are not similar, then our ability to measure learning improvement is somewhat compromised, since we are then comparing the effect of new a new teaching technique in classes that are different in the ability or preparation of the students. One can attempt to correct for differences between classes, but it cannot be done as cleanly; for example Brogt et al (2007) show that for some measures of learning gain, there can be a bias in the measured learning for different pretest scores. Table 2 lists the number of correct answers to each pretest question in 2006 and 2007.…”

Section: Assessment Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the recommendation of Brogt et al (2007), we will use multiple statistical techniques to better test the validity of our results. Because this analysis assumes that the students in the 2006 and 2007 classes are drawn from the same populations, and is therefore subject to uncertainty from our somewhat ambiguous determination of this assumption, we decided to subject the data to a further test that used only the students in each year who answered incorrectly on the pretest.…”

Section: Correspondence Of Assessment Questions To Lab Activities Covmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Night Laboratories on Learning Objectives for a Nonmajor Astronomy Class

Jacobi¹,

Newberg²,

Broder³

et al. 2008

Astronomy Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the effectiveness on learning of hands-on, night-time laboratories that challenged student misconceptions in a non-major introductory astronomy class at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. We present a new assessment examination used to assess learning in this study. We were able to increase learning, at the 8.0 sigma level, on one of the moon phase objectives that was addressed in a cloudy night activity. There is weak evidence of some improvement on a broader range of learning objectives. We show evidence that the overall achievement levels of the four sections of the class is correlated with the amount of clear whether the sections had for observing, even though the learning objectives were addressed primarily in activities that did not require clear skies. This last result should be confirmed with future studies. We describe our first attempt to cycle the students through different activity stations in an attempt to handle 18 students at a time in the laboratories, and lessons learned from this.

show abstract

Analysis of the Astronomy Diagnostic Test

Cited by 20 publications

References 14 publications

Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory

Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory

Measuring Learning Gains in Chemical Education: A Comparison of Two Methods

Effect of Night Laboratories on Learning Objectives for a Nonmajor Astronomy Class

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About