At 02:50 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Reg Jordan wrote:
>Instructional technologists and designers will tell you that you cannot
>measure *understanding*. Understanding, at least your sense of it, should be
>laid out in the course syllabus in the section on goals and objectives, and
>should be stated in terms of some form of expected student performance.
i don't think educational psychologists would be so pessimistic ... what
does it mean to understand something? i don't think this is so difficult to
define ... and, given that, i don't think it would be that hard to assess
it either ...
for example, using the current election mess ... what would it mean to
"understand" what error means in the context of votes cast and whether or
not the figures given by election officials are "accurate" or not?
i think we could enumerate various conditions of this and then create test
items (of a variety of item formats) that would tap this "understanding"
==============================================================
dennis roberts, penn state university
educational psychology, 8148632401
http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
