It is maybe an easy shortcut to satisfy the pedagogical or assesment principle of variation in difficulty in an exam in physics by using more sophisticated calculative prediction tasks, to a leve of situation modeling or mathematical accuracy/mathematization edge that students find unfair and vainlynaimef for assesment purpose.
Although conceptual-based questions or tasks and other synthesis or evaluation requirements grade Qs can do the job, they are ommitted, maybe because it takes more preparation or because it is more easy to be preduciced as irrlevant to the amateur student eye. Of course, colleawues may raise similar concerns but since educational research has not shed light here, the old traditional is still dominant.
I gener there is a luck of literature on valid methods to high difficulty assesment Qs in physics and their variety.
But the bottom line is derbing phydics, not the teacher..
It is pedagogically correct to use puzzle-grade/ elaborate modelling to answer high difficulty gradient questions in an exam as far as some science subjects like physics is correct
Manipulating difficulty for the purpose of having a range of difficulty is likely a really bad idea.
Think about what you are trying to teach or assess. The difficulty of the tasks should be determined by the difficulty of the content/targeted cognition.
Yes, you can—and perhaps ought to—have questions that hit a range of PROFICIENCY, but that is not the same thing as a range of difficulty.
Difficulty can be manipulated by making directs less clear or adding more OTHER content and skills—other than the actual content that you are supposed to be assessing right now. Both of those create obstacle to getting clear insight into the level of proficiency with the TARGETED cognition.
So, if you taught something REALLY well and the students all get it, and the scores are all high on the test, that’s AWESOME. If you taught it poorly and/or the students all didn’t get it, that is really bad. But you need to know that.
Just test the targeted content. Don’t worry about difficulty.
In the case of my discipline, which is music, where we have specific and exact audioperceptive subjects, the evaluation is done through multimedia or through dictations played on the piano. The answers are exact like mathematics. There are many ideas and strategies to evaluate, but if I say that evaluation is constant, practically each session is evaluated as a cumulative constant; Because knowledge grows, a link is added to the chain of knowledge and that is why consistency in evaluation is essential to move on to a new learning topic. The student is the main protagonist of his learning, he is the one who must have a predisposition to learn, that is why it is important that auditory training also becomes part of his life, everything he hears in the real world, his surroundings, his ecosystem becomes part of that world.
Firstly, the answer of your question is yes.
Secondly, the description is somewhere troublesome.
Thirdly, all intellectual efforts are not cent percent optimized. Education is continuum. Let us try & enjoy. Time, space, maturation, experience provide good understanding but not perfect.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation