Re-thinking the Rubric for Grading the CUE: The Superposition Principle

Zwolak, Justyna P.; Kustusch, Mary Bridget; Manogue, Corinne A.

doi:10.1119/perc.2013.pr.084

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During an initial grading of OSU students, we have found that, although the questions on the CUE reflect many of our learning goals in an appropriate manner, for some questions the current rubric for the CUE is particularly aligned to the topics and methods of teaching at the University of Colorado [29]. In particular, we noticed many solutions, including ones we would view as correct, that did not seem to fit the rubric provided with the CUE.…”

Section: What Osu and Cu Data Tells Us About The Cue: Problems With R...mentioning

confidence: 98%

Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University

Zwolak

Manogue

2015

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Upper Division Physics Courses.] Standardized assessment tests that allow researchers to compare the performance of students under various curricula are highly desirable. There are several research-based conceptual tests that serve as instruments to assess and identify students' difficulties in lower-division courses. At the upper-division level assessing students' difficulties is a more challenging task. Although several research groups are currently working on such tests, their reliability and validity are still under investigation. We analyze the results of the Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics diagnostic from Oregon State University and compare it with data from the University of Colorado. In particular, we show potential shortcomings in the Oregon State University curriculum regarding separation of variables and boundary conditions, as well as uncover weaknesses of the rubric to the free-response version of the diagnostic. We also demonstrate how the diagnostic can be used to obtain information about student learning during a gap in instruction. Our work complements and extends the previous findings from the University of Colorado by highlighting important differences in student learning that may be related to the curriculum, illuminating difficulties with the rubric for certain problems and verifying decay in post-test results over time.

show abstract

Section: What Osu and Cu Data Tells Us About The Cue: Problems With R...mentioning

confidence: 98%

Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University

Zwolak

Manogue

2015

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These interviews were prompted by concerns about certain questions from the Colorado Upper-division Electrostatics Assessment from colleagues using it at other institutions. 37 Prior to these interviews, faculty were given a copy of the CCMI and the accompanying learning goals (e.g., Fig. 1) to review.…”

Section: A Development Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing learning outcomes in middle-division classical mechanics: The Colorado Classical Mechanics and Math Methods Instrument

Caballero

Doughty

Turnbull

et al. 2017

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliable and validated assessments of introductory physics have been instrumental in driving curricular and pedagogical reforms that lead to improved student learning. As part of an effort to systematically improve our sophomore-level Classical Mechanics and Math Methods course (CM 1) at CU Boulder, we have developed a tool to assess student learning of CM 1 concepts in the upper-division. The Colorado Classical Mechanics/Math Methods Instrument (CCMI) builds on faculty consensus learning goals and systematic observations of student difficulties. The result is a 9-question open-ended post-test that probes student learning in the first half of a two-semester classical mechanics / math methods sequence. In this paper, we describe the design and development of this instrument, its validation, and measurements made in classes at CU Boulder and elsewhere.

show abstract

“…Researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) have looked at responses to a subset of CUE questions from students at both OSU and CU to identify ways in which the two student populations differ in terms of both scores and prevalent difficulties [48]. In particular, they examined one question on the CUE that is most easily solved using superposition of either the electric field or potential.…”

Section: To Investigate Student Difficultiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This makes it difficult to create a one-size-fits-all assessment that accurately reflects the content coverage and emphasis of the majority of courses. While we believe our assessments are representative of broader courses in that they were designed to match canonical textbooks and consensus learning goals, some external institutions have argued that the instruments favor the particular content and teaching styles at CU [48].…”

Section: A Barriers and Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments

Wilcox

Caballero

Baily

et al. 2015

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Upper Division Physics Courses.] The use of validated conceptual assessments alongside conventional course exams to measure student learning in introductory courses has become standard practice in many physics departments. These assessments provide a more standard measure of certain learning goals, allowing for comparisons of student learning across instructors, semesters, institutions, and pedagogies. Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder have developed several similar assessments designed to target the more advanced physics of upper-division classical mechanics, electrostatics, quantum mechanics, and electrodynamics courses. Here, we synthesize the existing research on our upper-division assessments and discuss some of the barriers and challenges associated with their development, validation, and implementation as well as some of the strategies we have used to overcome these barriers.

show abstract

Re-thinking the Rubric for Grading the CUE: The Superposition Principle

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University

Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University

Assessing learning outcomes in middle-division classical mechanics: The Colorado Classical Mechanics and Math Methods Instrument

Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About