{"title":"物理学入门题评分标准的信度与效度","authors":"Kristen Rodenhausen, J. C. Moore","doi":"10.1119/perc.2022.pr.rodenhausen","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We have developed and validated a rubric for the assessment and scaffolding of problem-solving process in introductory physics courses via an iterative approach. The current version of the rubric consists of eight criteria based on research in expert-like problem solving practice and aspects of Cooperative Group Problem Solving (CGPS) pedagogy. In contrast to recent work on problem-solving assessment for use in research and curriculum development, this rubric was specifically designed for instructor use in the assignment of grades and for student use as a scaffold. This means that the rubric can be used within group problem-solving activities as a student support, formative assessment of individual work, and summative assessment, such as exams. For this study, the rubric was used to score N = 166 student solutions to 6 individually-assigned homework problems covering content in introductory mechanics in a course enrolling 32 students. Inter-rater and re-rater reliability was high for undergraduate Learning Assistant raters receiving only moderate training (approximately 4 hours). Factor analysis identified two factors that have been categorized as: (1) framing & defining, and (2) planning & execution. These factors align with our initial theory of the construct, suggesting evidence for criterion-related validity. Tau-equivalent reliability was found to be 0.76, and an item-total correlations test demonstrated all criteria correlations consistent with averaged behavior.","PeriodicalId":253382,"journal":{"name":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and Validity of an Introductory Physics Problem-Solving Grading Rubric\",\"authors\":\"Kristen Rodenhausen, J. C. Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1119/perc.2022.pr.rodenhausen\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We have developed and validated a rubric for the assessment and scaffolding of problem-solving process in introductory physics courses via an iterative approach. The current version of the rubric consists of eight criteria based on research in expert-like problem solving practice and aspects of Cooperative Group Problem Solving (CGPS) pedagogy. In contrast to recent work on problem-solving assessment for use in research and curriculum development, this rubric was specifically designed for instructor use in the assignment of grades and for student use as a scaffold. This means that the rubric can be used within group problem-solving activities as a student support, formative assessment of individual work, and summative assessment, such as exams. For this study, the rubric was used to score N = 166 student solutions to 6 individually-assigned homework problems covering content in introductory mechanics in a course enrolling 32 students. Inter-rater and re-rater reliability was high for undergraduate Learning Assistant raters receiving only moderate training (approximately 4 hours). Factor analysis identified two factors that have been categorized as: (1) framing & defining, and (2) planning & execution. These factors align with our initial theory of the construct, suggesting evidence for criterion-related validity. Tau-equivalent reliability was found to be 0.76, and an item-total correlations test demonstrated all criteria correlations consistent with averaged behavior.\",\"PeriodicalId\":253382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.rodenhausen\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.rodenhausen","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliability and Validity of an Introductory Physics Problem-Solving Grading Rubric
We have developed and validated a rubric for the assessment and scaffolding of problem-solving process in introductory physics courses via an iterative approach. The current version of the rubric consists of eight criteria based on research in expert-like problem solving practice and aspects of Cooperative Group Problem Solving (CGPS) pedagogy. In contrast to recent work on problem-solving assessment for use in research and curriculum development, this rubric was specifically designed for instructor use in the assignment of grades and for student use as a scaffold. This means that the rubric can be used within group problem-solving activities as a student support, formative assessment of individual work, and summative assessment, such as exams. For this study, the rubric was used to score N = 166 student solutions to 6 individually-assigned homework problems covering content in introductory mechanics in a course enrolling 32 students. Inter-rater and re-rater reliability was high for undergraduate Learning Assistant raters receiving only moderate training (approximately 4 hours). Factor analysis identified two factors that have been categorized as: (1) framing & defining, and (2) planning & execution. These factors align with our initial theory of the construct, suggesting evidence for criterion-related validity. Tau-equivalent reliability was found to be 0.76, and an item-total correlations test demonstrated all criteria correlations consistent with averaged behavior.