[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Richard Hake
- Subject: Re: Richard Hake
- From: Rick Parkany <rparkany@BORG.COM>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:30:07 -0500
- Organization: Prometheus Educational Services
- Reply-to: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
- Sender: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Dr. Hake: I respectfully forward this apologetic reply from a peer and esteemed cohort
from the ARN-L (assessment reform network list) for EVALTALK's consideration and, in a
quite profound manner, implore you to explain to us the apparent dissonance between your
pedagogic methods and your adherance to the QUITE suspect LNCB legistaltion that has been
the focus of so much discussion among us todday--precipitated as it was by my own rhetoric
and intense calls for explication, contextualization, and contextualization according to
the agenda ascribed to bt the members of this EVALTALK list and its purpose.
Again! I eagerly await your reply... ;-} rap.
Rick Parkany wrote:
As I said, on second thought, Peter, to many fellows (including *gals*) @ AEA2002--HERE:
Hake comes championing a technique (validated by a strict regime based in measurement
theory [pre-post gain score theory] that is valid in ONE canonical domain, concerning ONE
objective...and he wants to extrapolate the methodology all the way to ART appreciation!
Are we to accept his methods (domain, objective specific)? or his conclusions (ones I find
GimmeaBREAK! what IS his agenda, Peter? (remembering, as I do, you called me to account in
one of my posts one time this year, past, for citing Senge and his thinking concerning
organizational theories as a redoubt to management devices for odering curriculum in the
Just how far are you willing to follow this Fagan character, Peter, in pedagogy and
evaluation science? Are we to accept his methods of assessment (pre-post gain scores) OR
his conclusions (those of accepting and endorsing a constructivist agenda)?
> WELL, Alan...read his own words I shared dw/you, today, and let me know the source of the obvious dissonance between what you CITE and what he (politically) champions, if you will... ;-} rap.
> Allen Flanigan wrote:
> > I know of Dr. Richard Hake through the FCI (force concept inventory), an
> > assessment which seems to come pretty darn close to what we have tortuously
> > defined as a "true" criterion-referenced test in past discussions on ARN.
> > In a nutshell, using FCI and another "problem solving" diagnostic assessment
> > which are believed to do a reliable job of plumbing students grasp of
> > newtonian mechanics concepts (not factoids), Hake and others have found that
> > "traditional, passive student introductory physics courses (noninteractive
> > lectures, for example), even those delivered by the most talented and
> > popular instructors, imparted little conceptual understanding of Newtonian
> > mechanics." They found that teaching approaches "designed at least in part
> > to promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of
> > students in heads-on (always) and hand-on (usually) activities which yield
> > immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors"
> > produced substantially improved results on the FCI and the diagnostic
> > assessment.
> > (see links below or just type in "Hake" and "force concept inventory" in a
> > search engine)
> > I would be somewhat surprised if Hake was actually supportive of the current
> > NCLB legislation, because it is pegged to such inferior assessments, and is
> > expected to bias instruction towards more traditional learning approaches,
> > which his research has indicated do little to increase real learning (i.e.
> > being able to solve problems in newtonian mechanics).
> > Incidentally, some months ago I cited Hake's work in response to a post by
> > one Wayne Bishop of California, who insisted repeatedly to anyone who would
> > listen on the Ednews bulletin board that Stanford 9 test results proved that
> > traditional learning approaches were superior to progressive approaches to
> > learning in science. Never got a straight response from him (he may be
> > lurking here on ARN, for all I know. Wayne, care to respond this time?)
> > Victor probably knows of Wayne Bishop, don't you, Victor?
> > http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf
> > http://physics.indiana.edu/~hake/HakeOnEhrlich-2.pdf
> > Allen Flanigan
> > parent and amateur physicist
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick Parkany" <rparkany@BORG.COM>
> > To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:49 AM
> > Subject: [Fwd: Re: Does It Work?]
> > > FYI, ARNers wrt to me EMERGENCY POST of yesterday regarding this Dr.
> > Hake's call for
> > > *scientific* research...
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: Does It Work?
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:48:36 -0500
> > > From: Rick Parkany <rparkany@BORG.COM>
> > > Reply-To: American Evaluation Association Discussion List
> > > <EVALTALK@BAMA.UA.EDU>
> > > Organization: Prometheus Educational Services
> > > To: EVALTALK@BAMA.UA.EDU
> > > References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >
> > > ThanQ, Dr. Hake, or anyone else subscribing to his enthusiasm for the
> > Federal Legislation
> > > enabling testing of 100% of all PUBLICly schooled pupils (not the private,
> > parochial,
> > > charter, NOR home-schooled, BTW--a rich source of CONTROL GROUPS INDEED!
> > No?) for setting
> > > off the adjective, *scientific*, while noting the call for *research* from
> > the NCLB Title
> > > I *call for research*.
> > >
> > > As you must know, NOTHING is added to the word *research* by describing it
> > as *scientific*
> > > other than a cynical cant that alludes to the notion that SOME research is
> > politically
> > > acceptable, and some is not. Otherwise, what in the world is gained in
> > this community by
> > > calling for one type of research rather than another unless there is a
> > bias aforerthought
> > > in the call and solicitation?
> > >
> > > While we're on the subject, because I consider you to be an expert on
> > *quasi-designs,
> > > experimental* (pre-post, gain score research), tell me, please:
> > >
> > > (a) what are your opinions concerning the fact that IF we are concerned
> > w/evaluating
> > > programs in education, why are we *sampling* 100% of the population, when
> > the hallmark of
> > > the framework you advocate only calls for a small sampling of the total
> > population for
> > > reliablity in the analysis; and
> > >
> > > (b) what do you think concerning the ASA (amStatisticalAssoc), APA
> > (AmPsychAssoc), AERA,
> > > NCTE, ATE & AEA ethical statements concerning high-stakes (or any other)
> > testing
> > > concerning the confounding of tests and analyses used for purposes other
> > than those
> > > intended by design (in this case, we are using tests to measure individual
> > achievement as
> > > well as staff, building, distrinct, state, and national benchmarks and
> > measures of
> > > performance, see note below from the AERA, a site presently NOT listed on
> > the USDoEdn
> > > site)?
> > >
> > > I patiently and eagerly await your reply and DO appreciate your input,
> > though it is
> > > provocative to my better understanding of the issues! ;-} rap.
> > >
> > > REFs:
> > > >From the AERA position paper:
> > > http://www.aera.net/about/policy/stakes.htm
> > > Validation for Each Separate Intended Use
> > >
> > > Tests valid for one use may be invalid for another. Each separate use of a
> > high-stakes
> > > test, for individual certification, for school evaluation, for curricular
> > improvement, for
> > > increasing student motivation, or for other uses requires a separate
> > evaluation of the
> > > strengths and limitations of both the testing program and the test itself.
> > >
> > > Full Disclosure of Likely Negative Consequences of High-Stakes Testing
> > Programs
> > > Where credible scientific evidence suggests that a given type of testing
> > program is likely
> > > to have negative side effects, test developers and users should make a
> > serious effort to
> > > explain these possible effects to policy makers.
> > >
> > > American Evaluation Association Position Statement on HIGH STAKES TESTING
> > In PreK-12
> > > Education:
> > > http://www.eval.org/hst3.htm
> > >
> > > Links to Testing Standards, Ethics, & Professional Position Papers:
> > >
> > http://www.borg.com/~rparkany/Standards/HOPE/EthicalStandardsInEvaluationAnd
> > Testing.html
> > >
> > > Richard Hake wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...SNIP...
> > > > It has occurred to me that some subscribers might know of
> > > > "scientific" research studies that should be considered for inclusion
> > > > in the "What Works Clearing House." If so, the first step might be to
> > > > contact the American Institutes for Research (AIR) at
> > > > <http://www.air-dc.org/contact_us/contact_us-set.htm>.
> > > >
> > > > Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
> > > > 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
> > > > <email@example.com>
> > > > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
> > > > <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
> > > Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit
> > > Hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
> > > Auf dem du bluehen musst." JS Bach: Bauern Kantata
> > > Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
> > > Prometheus Educational Services
> > > http://www.borg.com/~rparkany/
> > > Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > EVALTALK - American Evaluation Association (AEA) Discussion List. See also
> > > the website: http://www.eval.org
> > > To unsubscribe from EVALTALK, send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > with only the following in the body: UNSUBSCRIBE EVALTALK
> > > To get a summary of commands, send e-mail to email@example.com
> > > with only the following in the body: INFO REFCARD
> > > To use the archives, go to this web site:
> > http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html
> > > For other problems, contact the list owner at firstname.lastname@example.org
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
> "Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
> Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit
> Hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
> Auf dem du bluehen musst." JS Bach: Bauern Kantata
> Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
> Prometheus Educational Services
> Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
"Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit
Hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
Auf dem du bluehen musst." JS Bach: Bauern Kantata
Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
Prometheus Educational Services
Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L