Addressing an Undergraduate Research Issue about Normalized Change for Critical Thinking Test
Abstract
Normalized change is a familiar expression used to measure student’s improvement in physics education research, including critical thinking skill improvement. A widely used standardized critical thinking test is the Cornell Critical Thinking Test. The CCTT scoring method, rights minus one-half the number wrong, results from possible interval scores ranging from the negative minimum score to positive maximum score. The problem then arises in the use of the normalized change in CCTT scores, particularly in the situation when the post-test score is worse than the pre-test score. We reveal the used equation deficiencies and demonstrate the mistakes made by undergraduate researchers, as well as suggesting a modified equation that can be used under the normalized change rationale, i.e. the ratio of the gain or the loss of the maximum possible gain or loss. Some frequently asked questions about normalized change are also discussed.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Afriana, J.,Permanasari, A., &Fitriani, A. (2016). Project based learning integrated to stem to enhance elementary school’s students scientific literacy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia,5 (2), 261-267.
Bao, L. (2006). Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations. American Journal of Physics, 74(10), 917-922.
Berek, F. X., Sutopo, S., & Munzil, M. (2016). Enhancement of junior high school students’concept comprehension in hydrostatic pressure and archimedes law concepts by predict-observe-explain strategy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 230-238.
Cheng, K. K., Thacker, B. A., Cardenas, R. L., & Crouch, C. (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American journal of physics, 72(11), 1447-1453.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate behavioral research, 34(3), 315-346.
Colt, H. G., Davoudi, M., Murgu, S., & Rohani, N. Z. (2011). Measuring learning gain during a one-day introductory bronchoscopy course. Surgical endoscopy, 25(1), 207-216.
Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American journal of physics, 67(S1), S38-S44.
Ennis, R. H. & Millman, J. (2005). Cornell critical thinking test level X fifth edition. USA: The Critical Thinking. Co.
Ennis, R. H., Millman, J. &Tomko, T. N. (2005). Administration manual: Cornell critical thinking tests. USA: The Critical Thinking. Co.
Gery, F. W. (1972). Does mathematics matter. Research papers in economic education. Joint Council on Economic Education, New York, New York, USA, 142-157.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J., & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 459-462.
Khaeroningtyas, N., Permanasari, A., & Hamidah, I. (2016). Stem learning in material of temperature and its change to improve scientific literacy of junior high school. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 94-100.
Kohl Kohl, P. B., & Vincent Kuo, H. (2012). Chronicling a successful secondary implementation of Studio Physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(9), 832-839.
Lasry, N., Guillemette, J., & Mazur, E. (2014). Two steps forward, one step back. Nature Physics, 10(6), 402-403.
Marx, J. D., & Cummings, K. (2007). Normalized change. American Journal of Physics, 75(1), 87-91.
Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70(6), 639-654.
Miller, K., Lasry, N., Reshef, O., Dowd, J., Araujo, I., & Mazur, E. (2010, October). Losing it: the influence of losses on individuals’ normalized gains. In C. Singh, M. Sabella, & S. Rebello (Eds.), AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1289, No. 1, pp. 229-232). AIP.
Potter, W., Webb, D., Paul, C., West, E., Bowen, M., Weiss, B., ... & De Leone, C. (2014). Sixteen years of collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics (CLASP) at UC Davis. American Journal of Physics, 82(2), 153-163.
Putra, M. I. S., Widodo, W., & Jatmiko, B. (2016). The Development of Guided Inquiry Science Learning Materials to Improve Science Literacy Skill of Prospective MI Teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 83-93.
Sorensen, C. M., Churukian, A. D., Maleki, S., & Zollman, D. A. (2006). The New Studio format for instruction of introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 74(12), 1077-1082.
Sorensen, C. M., McBride, D. L., & Rebello, N. S. (2011). Studio optics: Adapting interactive engagement pedagogy to upper-division physics. American Journal of Physics, 79(3), 320-325.
Sriyansyah, S. P. (2015). Penerapan pembelajaran konseptual interaktif dengan pendekatan multirepresentasi untuk meningkatkan konsistensi ilmiah dan menurunkan kuantitas mahasiswa yang miskonsepsi pada materi termodinamika (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia).
Taufiq, M. (2012). Remediasi miskonsepsi mahasiswa calon guru fisika pada konsep gaya melalui penerapan model siklus belajar (learning cycle) 5E. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 1(2), 198-203.
Triyuni, T. (2016). The influence of science learning set using scientific approach and problem solving model on learning outcomes of junior high school students in the subject of heat and temperature. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 177-185.
Von Korff, J., Archibeque, B., Gomez, K. A., Heckendorf, T., McKagan, S. B., Sayre, E. C., ... & Sorell, L. (2016). Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study. American Journal of Physics, 84(12), 969-974.
Widarti, H. R., Permanasari, A., & Mulyani, S. (2016). Student misconception on redox titration (a challenge on the course implementation through cognitive dissonance based on the multiple representations). Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 56-62.
Wijaya, c. P., & muhardjito, m. (2016). The diagnosis of senior high school class x mia b students misconceptions about hydrostatic pressure concept using three-tier. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 13-21.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
