A physicist concerned with pre‐college physics curriculums may inquire how students in the United States today compare not only with those in the past, but also with those in other countries. He or she may also wonder how changes in high school and college physics curriculums affect testing methods and students' performance on standardized tests. Data from national physics testing programs sponsored by the College Board and the National Assessment of Educational Progress and from two international assessments of science achievement provide some insight into the answers to these questions.
REFERENCES
1.
Descriptions, content specifications and sample questions for all the Achievement Tests are contained in “Taking the Achievement Tests,” College Board, New York (1990).
2.
A complete Physics Achievement Test is included in “Achievement Tests in Science,” College Board, New York (1986).
3.
A full description of the AP physics courses and examinations, along with sample questions, is contained in “Advanced Placement Course Description: Physics,” College Board, New York (1991).
4.
A detailed list of course objectives for AP Physics can be found in T. Hersey, T. Vyborny, “Teacher's Guide to Advanced Placement Courses in Physics: Physics B and Physics C,” College Board, New York (1990).
5.
For example,
W.
Pfeiffenberger
, C. F.
Wheeler
, Phys. Teach.
22
, 569
(1984
).6.
M. Neuschatz, M. Covalt, “1986–87 Nationwide Survey of Secondary School Teachers of Physics,” Education and Employment Statistics Division, AIP, New York, November 1988.
7.
“Course Content in High School Physics,” AAPT, College Park, Md. (1988).
8.
For further details on the Achievement Tests, see “The College Board Technical Handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests,” College Board, New York (1984);
and for the AP Physics Exams see “Technical Manual for the Advanced Placement Program,” College Entrance Examination Board, New York (1988).
9.
For further details, including the complete 1988 exams and grading standards, see “The Advanced Placement Examinations in Physics,” College Board, New York (1989).
10.
11.
12.
R. E.
Thompson
, E. J.
Finn
, R. J.
Pasquesi
, Phys. Teach.
10
, 391
(1972
).13.
14.
G. Wilder, K. Powell, “Sex Differences in Test Performance: A Survey of the Literature,” College Board report 89‐3, College Board, New York (1989).
15.
P. Wheeler, A. Harris, “Comparison of Male and Female Performance on the ATP Physics Test,” College Board report 81‐4, College Board, New York (1981).
16.
Advanced Placement Program National Summary Reports, College Board, New York, 1985–1990 editions.
17.
R. D.
Bock
, E.
Muraki
, G. W.
Pfeiffenberger
, J. Ed. Measurement
25
, 275
(1985
).18.
I. V. S. Mullis, “The NAEP Guide: A Description of the Contents and Methods of the 1990 and 1992 Assessments,” Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. (1990).
19.
I. V. S. Mullis, L. E. Jenkins, “The Science Report Card: Trends and Achievement Based on the 1986 National Assessment,” Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. (1988).
20.
A. E. LaPointe, N. A. Mead, G. W. Phillips, “A World of Differences: An International Assessment of Mathematics and Science,” Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. (1989).
21.
International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement, “Science Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A Preliminary Report,” Pergamon, Oxford, UK (1988).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1991 American Institute of Physics.
1991
American Institute of Physics
You do not currently have access to this content.
