Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology

Our objective is to devise a mechanism to characterize and assess upper division and graduate student thinking in hydrology. We accomplish this through development and testing of an assessment tool for a physical hydrology class. The instrument was piloted in two sections of a physical hydrology cou...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. A. Marshall, A. J. Castillo, M. B. Cardenas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2013-02-01
Series:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Online Access:http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/829/2013/hess-17-829-2013.pdf
id doaj-cb560d4c66e04b42b5db79061938939c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cb560d4c66e04b42b5db79061938939c2020-11-24T22:20:24ZengCopernicus PublicationsHydrology and Earth System Sciences1027-56061607-79382013-02-0117282983610.5194/hess-17-829-2013Assessing student understanding of physical hydrologyJ. A. MarshallA. J. CastilloM. B. CardenasOur objective is to devise a mechanism to characterize and assess upper division and graduate student thinking in hydrology. We accomplish this through development and testing of an assessment tool for a physical hydrology class. The instrument was piloted in two sections of a physical hydrology course. Students were asked to respond to two questions that probed understanding and one question that assessed their ability to apply their knowledge, both prior to and after the course. Student and expert responses to the questions were classified into broad categories to develop a rubric to score responses. Using the rubric, three researchers independently blind-coded the full set of pre- and post-artifacts, resulting in 89% inter-rater agreement on the pre-tests and 83% agreement on the post-tests. The majority of responses made by students at the beginning of the class were characterized as showing only recognition of hydrology concepts from a non-physical perspective; post surveys indicated that the majority had moved to a basic understanding of physical processes, with some students achieving expert understanding. Our study has limitations, including the small number of participants who were all from one institution and the fact that the rubric was still under development. Nevertheless, the high inter-rater agreement from a group of experts indicates that the process we undertook is potentially useful for assessment of learning and understanding physical hydrology.http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/829/2013/hess-17-829-2013.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. A. Marshall
A. J. Castillo
M. B. Cardenas
spellingShingle J. A. Marshall
A. J. Castillo
M. B. Cardenas
Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
author_facet J. A. Marshall
A. J. Castillo
M. B. Cardenas
author_sort J. A. Marshall
title Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
title_short Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
title_full Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
title_fullStr Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
title_full_unstemmed Assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
title_sort assessing student understanding of physical hydrology
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
issn 1027-5606
1607-7938
publishDate 2013-02-01
description Our objective is to devise a mechanism to characterize and assess upper division and graduate student thinking in hydrology. We accomplish this through development and testing of an assessment tool for a physical hydrology class. The instrument was piloted in two sections of a physical hydrology course. Students were asked to respond to two questions that probed understanding and one question that assessed their ability to apply their knowledge, both prior to and after the course. Student and expert responses to the questions were classified into broad categories to develop a rubric to score responses. Using the rubric, three researchers independently blind-coded the full set of pre- and post-artifacts, resulting in 89% inter-rater agreement on the pre-tests and 83% agreement on the post-tests. The majority of responses made by students at the beginning of the class were characterized as showing only recognition of hydrology concepts from a non-physical perspective; post surveys indicated that the majority had moved to a basic understanding of physical processes, with some students achieving expert understanding. Our study has limitations, including the small number of participants who were all from one institution and the fact that the rubric was still under development. Nevertheless, the high inter-rater agreement from a group of experts indicates that the process we undertook is potentially useful for assessment of learning and understanding physical hydrology.
url http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/17/829/2013/hess-17-829-2013.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT jamarshall assessingstudentunderstandingofphysicalhydrology
AT ajcastillo assessingstudentunderstandingofphysicalhydrology
AT mbcardenas assessingstudentunderstandingofphysicalhydrology
_version_ 1725775389236658176