Subject: Re: [MATHEDCC] Assessment
From: Edward Laughbaum (elaughba@math.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2000 - 11:15:36 EST
Dorrit,
I should have mentioned that the Ohio State placement test is a very
traditional skill-based test with only a limited number of questions on
concepts and NO calculator-active questions.
Ed
================================
At 08:38 AM 1/28/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Dorrit,
>
>You may be interested in this article about calculator use on the Ohio
>State University placement test. The article was published in 1997 in the
>Ohio Early College Mathematics Placement Testing Program newsletter.
>
>Ed
>======================================
>This past summer, the Ohio State Mathematics Department did a statistical
>study of the results from the standard Ohio State math placement exam.
>They compared results for students who used regular scientific calculators
>to results for students who used graphing calculators, which were
>permitted on the placement exam for the first time in 1996. By studying a
>group of over 800 students, and making comparisons based on their ACT math
>scores (which for large numbers of students are consistent in predicting
>placement results), they were able to determine with reasonable confidence
>the effects of the graphing calculator on the placement scores.
> The study led to the following conclusions:
>· On the Math B Test, there is good statistical evidence that the
>graphing calculator gives students with ACTs of 21 or below an advantage
>of 2-4 questions.
>· On the Math B Test, the data suggests that students with ACTs of
>22-24 who use the graphing calculator may have a smaller advantage, of
>about 1 question.
>· On the Math D Test, there is statistical evidence that the
>graphing calculator gives students with ACTs of 23-26 an advantage of 2-4
>questions.
>· On the Math D Test, the data suggests that students with ACTs of
>27 or more who use the graphing calculator may have a smaller advantage,
>of 1 question or more.
> These conclusions, based on the data, indicate that there are
> many students who place at a higher Course Code on the placement exam
> when using the graphing calculator than they would have if they had not
> been permitted to use it.
> The question arose as to whether these students would, as a
> result of using the graphing calculator, be harmed academically by being
> placed in the higher math course. In order to answer this question, all
> students from the study were tracked to find the grades in their Autumn
> 96 courses and make the same comparisons. If there were a significant
> disadvantage to the students who had achieved their placement result
> using a graphing calculator, then those students would have received
> lower grades when compared to students in the same class who had not used
> the graphing calculator on the placement exam. The data shows that, in
> general, the average grades of the two groups were close to each other in
> most classes. Of those groups of students in which the scientific
> calculator students had higher grade averages than the graphing
> calculator students, none of the differences were statistically
> significant. The one anomalous result was for the students who placed
> into Math 075 (Intermediate Algebra); in this group, the graphing
> calculator students performed significantly better for no discernible
> reason. (maybe it was the GC? Ed.)
> The report concludes that “So far, the results indicate that the
> use of the graphing calculator does produce slightly better placement
> scores, but so far has not been shown to put the students at any
> disadvantage in the classes they place into.” Mark Garner &
> Michelle Fawcett
>===============================================
>
>
>
>At 03:07 PM 1/27/2000 -0600, Dorrit O'Hallaron wrote:
>>I am happy to see the list come alive after a quiet beginning of the
>>semester. I missed the conversation.
>>
>>I am interested in how your department handles the use of graphing
>>calculators on placement tests.
>>
>>I am also interested in any departmental policies on the use of
>>graphing calculators on departmental tests.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Dorrit O'Hallaron
>>Assoc. Prof.
>>St. Charles County Community College
>>St. Peters, Mo.
>>****************************************************************************
>>* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
>>* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
>>* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
>>* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
>>* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
>>****************************************************************************
>
>****************************************************************************
>* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
>* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
>* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
>* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
>* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
>****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 11:06:37 EST