2015 Major Field Test Comparative Data Guide Major Field Test for Physics

Transcription

1 2015 Major Field Test Comparative Data Guide Major Field Test for Physics The annual Comparative Data Guide (CDG) contains tables of scaled scores and percentiles for individual student scores and institutional means drawn directly from senior test takers across the nation. The report provides descriptive statistics based on the number of students that have completed the Major Field Test (MFT) for Physics since it was released in September 2012 through June Information about an institution gathered through MFT administrations cannot be released in any form attributable to or identifiable with an individual institution. The anonymity of each institution s performance is maintained by reporting only the aggregate performance of the selected reference group. are descriptions of the various tables provided in this guide: Individual Students Total Score/Subscore Distributions The distributions in these tables may be used to interpret individual student results by determining what percent of those taking the test at the selected institutions attained scores below that of a particular student. Each table shows scaled score intervals for Total Score and Subscores separately. By looking up the Total Score or Subscore and reading across the row to the corresponding number in the column headed, the percent of individuals scoring below any interval can be determined. Institutional Means Total Score/Subscore Distributions The distributions in these tables present the number of institutions at each mean score level. These tables provide a way to compare the Total Score and Subscore means for your institution with those of other participating institutions you selected. These tables show the mean of means (or the average of the mean scores for those institutions/programs selected) as well as the standard deviations of those means. Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions The assessment indicator summary information in these tables includes the frequency distribution of departmental/program means for each assessment indicator. These tables show the distribution of institutional rounded means as well as the average and standard deviations of those means. Note that not all MFT titles in all subject areas generate subscores or assessment indicators. Please refer to the test content description for your subject area of interest at to determine which score types you should expect to generate for your MFT test subject. The following considerations should be kept in mind when interpreting comparative data: This data should be considered comparative rather than normative because the institutions included in the data do not represent proportionally the various types of higher education institutions and programs. The data are drawn entirely from institutions that choose to use MFT. Such a self-selected sample may not be representative of all institutions or programs. The number of students tested and sampling procedures vary from one institution to another. Therefore, it is impossible to verify that the students tested at each institution are representative of all the institution s students in that program. It is important that these comparisons involve students at approximately the same point in their educational careers. The tables report data for seniors only. Students who are not seniors are excluded from these calculations. The tables report data for institutions/programs that have tested five (5) or more seniors. Institutions/programs with fewer than five (5) test takers are excluded from these calculations. No single institution accounts for more than 3% percent of all the students included. For more information about this report or other ways the Major Field Tests can help your program, contact an ETS Advisor at highered@ets.org or call The following tables include tests taken as of June 30, 2015.

2 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Physics Institution List Alabama A&M University, AL Albion College, MI Amherst College, MA Andrews University, MI Angelo State University, TX Augustana College (SD), SD Austin Peay State University, TN Ball State University, IN Benedict College, SC Benedictine College, KS Berry College, GA Birmingham-Southern College, AL Boise State University, ID Brigham Young University (ID), ID Brigham Young University (UT), UT California State University - Northridge, CA Carthage College, WI Central Michigan University, MI Central Washington University - Ellensburg, WA Centre College, KY College of Charleston, SC College of Saint Benedict & Saint John's Univ., MN Colorado Mesa University, CO Colorado State University - Pueblo, CO Davidson College, NC Drew University, NJ Duquesne University, PA East Central University, OK East Stroudsburg University, PA Eastern Illinois University, IL Eastern Nazarene College, MA Eckerd College, FL Florida International University, FL Fort Hays State University, KS Furman University, SC Georgia Regents University, GA Grove City College, PA Hamline University, MN Humboldt State University, CA Indiana State University, IN Ithaca College, NY James Madison University, VA Juniata College, PA Kalamazoo College, MI Kent State University, OH Kenyon College, OH Lenoir-Rhyne University, NC Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Tech University, LA Loyola University New Orleans, LA Macalester College, MN Marshall University, WV Michigan Technological University, MI Middle Tennessee State University, TN Millersville University of Pennsylvania, PA Millikin University, IL Missouri State University, MO Missouri University of Science and Technology, MO Morehead State University, KY Morehouse College, GA New Mexico State University, NM Northwest Nazarene University, ID Oakland University, MI Old Dominion University, VA Pacific Union College, CA Point Loma Nazarene University, CA Pomona College, CA Prairie View A&M University, TX Providence College, RI Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, IN Saint Cloud State University, MN Saint Mary's University, TX San Francisco State University, CA South Carolina State University, SC South Dakota State University, SD Southern Oregon University, OR SUNY at Potsdam, NY Tarleton State University, TX Tennessee Tech University, TN Texas A&M-Commerce, TX Transylvania University, KY Truman State University, MO United States Air Force Academy, CO United States Military Academy, NY United States Naval Academy, MD University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, AL University of Arkansas - Little Rock, AR University of Central Florida, FL University of Dallas, TX University of Evansville, IN University of La Verne, CA University of Maine - Orono, ME University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA University of Minnesota Duluth, MN University of Mississippi, MS University of Missouri - St. Louis, MO University of Nebraska - Omaha, NE University of North Alabama, AL University of North Carolina at Greensboro, NC University of North Florida, FL University of North Georgia, GA University of Oklahoma, OK University of Richmond, VA University of Tennessee - Knoxville, TN University of the Pacific, CA University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire, WI University of Wisconsin - La Crosse, WI University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, WI University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, WI University of Wyoming, WY Wake Forest University, NC Washington College, MD West Chester University, PA Western Kentucky University, KY Western Michigan University, MI Wheaton College, IL Whittier College, CA MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 2

3 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Physics Individual Students Total Score Distribution Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation 1, Individual Students Total Score Distribution Total Score Range ( ) MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 3

4 Total Score Range ( ) Total Scores are reported as scaled scores. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 4

5 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Physics 1 Individual Students Subscore Distribution Subscore Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation 1: Introductory Physics 2: Advanced Physics 1, , Individual Students Subscore Distribution Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 5

6 Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S Subscores for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2012 due to changes in the Physics Test that were introduced in Subscore 1: Introductory Physics Subscore 2: Advanced Physics MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 6

7 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Physics Institutional Means Total Score Distribution Number of Institutions Mean Median Standard Deviation Institutional Means Total Score Distribution Mean Total Score Range ( ) Total Scores are reported as scaled scores. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 7

8 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Physics 1 Institutional Means Subscore Distribution Subscore 1: Introductory Physics 2: Advanced Physics Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation Institutional Means Subscore Distribution Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 8

9 Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S Subscores for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2012 due to changes in the Physics Test that were introduced in Subscore 1: Introductory Physics Subscore 2: Advanced Physics MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 9

10 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Physics 1 Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions Assessment Indicator 1: Classical Mechanics; Relativity 2: Electromagnetism 3: Optics/Waves; Thermodynamics 4: Quantum Mechanics; Atomic Number of Institutions Mean Median Standard Deviation : Special Topics Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions Mean Correct (0-100%) A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 A4 2 A MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 10

11 Mean Correct (0-100%) A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 A4 2 A ¹ Assessment Indicators for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2012 due to changes in the Physics test that were introduced in Assessment Indicator 1: Classical Mechanics; Relativity Assessment Indicator 2: Electromagnetism Assessment Indicator 3: Optics/Waves; Thermodynamics Assessment Indicator 4: Quantum Mechanics; Atomic Assessment Indicator 5: Special Topics Assessment Indicators are reported as percent correct. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 11