Introduction

This blog discusses problems of assessment that are related to physics examination questions, textbook definitions, and assessment criteria (sometimes known as criteria sheets, grading criteria, grading schemes, mark schemes, marking instructions, scoring rubrics, or scoring guidelines). Essentially, you may find critical analyses of physics examination questions as well as textbooks’ presentations of a concept that are incorrect or inconsistent with respect to the assessment criteria. Importantly, physics teachers should not simply teach students how to answer examination questions by following assessment criteria. It is possible that assessment criteria may continue to evolve or at least appear to be inconsistent over the years. Therefore, examiners should continually improve assessment questions in order that they are free of errors and have minimal ambiguities. Better still, there could be deeper discourses among physics teachers and students on problems of physics assessment.

Nevertheless, a major role of assessment is for teachers to get to know their students and determine the students’ approaches to learning (Hazel, Logan, & Gallagher, 1997). It is possible that the types of assessment affect students’ understanding of the course objectives, motivation, interest, quality of their learning, as well as their ability on future pursuits. The categories in assessment questions may include the following: (1) Type: The question may be quantitative or qualitative. (2) Structure: The question can be assigned as multiple choice, short definite, and short flexible. (3) Context: For instance, the context of the question can be masculine, feminine or neutral (Hazel et al., 1977). This blog focuses on short definite questions that are qualitative. Although multiple choice questions are commonly found in examinations, the grading criteria and examiners’ reports tend to have fewer details. Thus, they are usually excluded in this blog.

Importantly, we should be cognizant of physics questions, that require complex marking strategies, may be marked less accurately (Sütő & Nádas, 2008). However, as many examination boards have provided similar assessment questions over the years, we could compare the consistency of assessment criteria within the same examination board as well as among different examination boards. In addition, textbook authors may have different opinions in the presentations of a concept or definition. Similarly, examiners have their own views on how physical concepts should be defined or presented.

In a review article (Wong, Chu, & Yap, 2016), students’ alternative conceptions of heat were analyzed based on five categories: “residing in an object,” “ontological category,” “movement,” “cause and effect,” and “condition.” The findings suggest that there could be some misunderstanding of students’ alternative conceptions due to different opinions on the definition of heat as well as textbooks’ descriptions of heat. For example, Baierlein (1994) proposes that heat is an adjective, Zemansky (1970) disagrees that heat is a verb, and Romer (2001) prefers to define heat as a process rather than a noun. Moreover, the so-called alternative conceptions could be traceable to textbook definitions or linguistic usage in textbooks. Similarly, academic performances of students are dependent on the assessment criteria which could be subjective or inadequate.

On the other hand, Feynman (1975) admits that there is a mistake in The Feynman Lectures on Physics and cautions Miss Cox to examine logic and argument carefully rather than to simply believe in authorities (See the letter below). Furthermore, there are possibly much more mistakes or inadequacies in many physics textbooks and assessment criteria. However, Feynman’s lectures and his other works are often insightful. It is worthwhile to analyze Feynman’s discussions of physical concepts that are related to examination questions and assessment criteria. More importantly, classroom discourses based on Feynman’s lectures can be both enlightening and entertaining!

RICHARD P. FEYNMAN* TO BEULAH E. COX, SEPTEMBER 12, 1975 Miss Beulah E. Cox Williamsburg, Virginia Dear Miss Cox: Your instructor was right not to give you any points for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss’ law.  You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.  You also read the book correctly and understood it. I made a mistake, so the book is wrong.  I probably was thinking of a grounded conducting sphere, or else of the fact that moving the charges around in different places inside does not affect things outside. I am not sure how I did it, but I goofed. And you goofed too, for believing me. We both had bad luck. For the future, I wish you good luck in your physics studies. Sincerely, Richard P. Feynman

Currently, assessment criteria provided by examination boards in the websites could be the finalized versions instead of the proposed initial versions. These assessment criteria serve essentially as a guide to the markers or teachers on how marks should be awarded, based on the considerations of the question requirements and the range of students’ responses. In other words, the sample answers in the assessment criteria could be modified during the moderations such that the marks could be increased or decreased depending on the students’ answer scripts. That is, examiners’ initial proposed assessment criteria might be different from the finalized versions for other various reasons that teachers may not be aware of. However, we will discuss assessment criteria of examination boards such as Advanced Placement (AP), Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards (BOSTES), and International Baccalaureate (IB).

In essence, this blog provides my reflections on selected examination questions and assessment criteria based on Feynman’s insights. Please feel free to give any comments or suggestions. Perhaps an appropriate ending to this introductory post is the following quote from Feynman: “[p]erhaps my lectures can make some contribution. Perhaps in some small place where there are individual teachers and students, they may get some inspiration or some ideas from the lectures. Perhaps they will have fun thinking them through – or going on to develop some of the ideas further (Feynman et al., 1963, preface).”

References:
1. Baierlein, R. (1994). Entropy and the second law: A pedagogical alternative. American Journal of Physics, 62(1), 15-26.
2. Feynman R. P. (1975). Letter to Beulah E. Cox. In Feynman, R. P. (2005). Perfectly reasonable deviations from the Beaten track: The letters of Richard P. Feynman (M. Feynman, ed.). New York: Basic Books.
3. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I: Mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Hazel, E., Logan, P., & Gallagher, P. (1997). Equitable assessment of students in physics: importance of gender and language background. International Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 381-392.
5. Sütő, W. M. I., & Nádas, R. (2008). What determines GCSE marking accuracy? An exploration of expertise among maths and physics markers, Research Papers in Education, 23(4), 477-497.
6. Romer, R. H. (2001). Heat is not a noun. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 107-9.
7. Wong, C. L., Chu, H. E., & Yap. K. C. (2016). Are Alternative Conceptions dependent on Researcher’s Methodology and Definition?: A Review of Empirical Studies related to Concepts of Heat. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 14(3), 499-526.
8. Zemansky, M. W. (1970). The use and misuse of the word “heat” in physics teaching. The Physics Teacher, 8(6), 295-300.