Site Map

Assessment of Learning in the Sciences
For a general discussion of concept inventories and scientific misconceptions, see their respective wikipedia articles, mirrored here, as of September 10, 2007)

Anderson, D.L., K.M. Fisher, G.J. Norman. 2002. "Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection," Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(10): 952-978;  online at <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/issuetoc?ID=100519782> (free to subscribers,  $25 to non subscribers, abstract free to all).

Arons, A.B. 1983. "Achieving Wider Scientific Literacy," Daedalus, Spring: "Researchers in cognitive development describe two principle classes of knowledge: figurative (or declarative) and OPERATIVE (or procedural). 'Declarative knowledge' consists of knowing 'facts' for example, that the moon shines by reflected sunlight, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun . . . . 'operative knowledge', on the other hand, involves understanding the source of such declarative knowledge  (How do we know the moon shines by reflected sunlight? Why do we believe the earth and planets revolve around the sun when appearances suggest that everything revolves around the earth? . . . .) and the capacity to use, apply, transform, or recognize the relevance of the declarative knowledge to new or unfamiliar situations. To develop the genuine understanding of concepts and theories that underlies operative knowledge, the college student, no less than the elementary school child, must engage in deductive and inductive mental activity coupled with interpretation of personal observation and experience.  Unfortunately, such activity is rarely induced in passive listeners, but it can be nurtured, developed, and enhanced in the majority of students providing it is experientially rooted and not too rapidly paced, and providing the mind of the learner is actively engaged."

Bowen, C.W. and D.M. Bunce. 1997. "Testing for Conceptual Understanding in General Chemistry," Chemical Educator 2: 1430-1471; abstract online at http://chemeducator.org/bibs/0002002/00020118.htm.

Boyer, D. & C. Rogers. 2001. "Chemistry Concept Inventory,'" online at http://www.daisley.net/hellevator/cci/cciv5.pdf.  This is a "Phys 540 Project."

Gonzalez, B.L., R.D. Arasasingham, P.A. Wegner. 2003. "A Cross-Institutional Analysis of the Effect of Web-Assisted Tools on
Visualization and Proportional Reasoning in General Chemistry," in the Spring 2003 CONFCHEM: Non-traditional Teaching Methods - Other Than Lecture And Assessment Of These Methods, online at http://chemsrvr2.fullerton.edu/blg/ChemConf/ChemConf2003.pdf.

Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66(1): 64-74; online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf.

Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf- a crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a).

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods," Proceedings of the UNESCO ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec.;  online at http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf [UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; ASPEN = ASian  Physics Education Network.]

Hake, R.R. 2003. "Can Chemists Learn Anything from Physics/Astronomy Education Research?"  post of 1 Sep 2003 14:49:12-0700 to ASSESS, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, EvalTalk, Biolab, PhysLrnR, and POD; online at http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309&L=pod&F=&S=&P=171.

Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30: 141-158; online (except for the test itself) at  <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. The 1995 revision by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, & Hestenes is online (password protected) at the same URL, and is available in English, Spanish, German, Malaysian, Chinese, Finnish, French, Turkish, Swedish, and Russian.

Horton, C. & ASU Modeling Group. 2004. "Student Preconceptions and Misconceptions in Chemistry"; online at http://www.daisley.net/hellevator/misconceptions/misconceptions.pdf

Klymkowsky, M.W. 2007a. "Bioliteracy.net," online at <http://bioliteracy.net/> "Our goal is to generate, test and distribute the tools to determine whether students are learning what teachers think they are teaching. We assume that accurate and timely assessment of student knowledge will pressure the educational world toward more effective teaching. WHY? (a) Because basic understanding of the biological sciences impacts our lives in more and more dramatic ways every year. (b) A wide range of important personal, social, economic and political decisions depend upon an accurate understanding of basic biology and the means by which science generates, tests and extends our knowledge."

Klymkowsky, M.W. 2007b. "Background on the BCI" online at <http://bioliteracy.net/>, Click on "Background on the BCI" in the left column. Klymkowsky writes: The BCI is a 30 question instrument that can be taken on-line (or through a paper version).  It is designed to be used primarily as a formative assessment, to reveal issues associated with student understanding of basic conceptual areas in biology.  For its development, we have conducted research into students' conceptual landscape, captured through the use of short essay questions and analyzed using "Ed's Tools" and student interviews.

Klymkowsky, M.W., K. Garvin-Doxas, & M. Zeilik. 2003. "Bioliteracy and Teaching Efficiency: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists," Cell Biology Education 2: 155-161; online at <http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/2/3/155>. The abstract reads: The introduction of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) by David Hestenes and colleagues in 1992 produced a remarkable impact within the community of physics teachers. An instrument to measure student comprehension of the Newtonian concept of force, the FCI demonstrates that active learning leads to far superior student conceptual learning than didactic lectures. Compared to a working knowledge of physics, biological literacy and illiteracy have an even more direct, dramatic, and personal impact. They shape public research and reproductive health policies, the acceptance or rejection of technological advances, such as  vaccinations, genetically modified foods and gene therapies, and, on  the personal front, the reasoned evaluation of product claims and  lifestyle choices. While many students take biology courses at both  the secondary and the college levels, there is little in the way of  reliable and valid assessment of the effectiveness of biological  education. This lack has important consequences in terms of general  bioliteracy and, in turn, for our society. Here we describe the  beginning of a community effort to define what a bioliterate person  needs to know and to develop, validate, and disseminate a tiered  series of instruments collectively known as the Biology Concept  Inventory (BCI), which accurately measures student comprehension of  concepts in introductory, genetic, molecular, cell, and developmental  biology. The BCI should serve as a lever for moving our current  educational system in a direction that delivers a deeper conceptual understanding of the fundamental ideas upon which biology and biomedical sciences are based.

Krause, S. , J. Birk, R. Bauer, B. Jenkins, & M.J. Pavelich. 2004. "Development, Testing, and Application of a Chemistry Concept Inventory," 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 20-23 October; online at http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/papers/1213.pdf.  The abstract reads: "A Chemistry Concept Inventory (CCI) has been created that provides   linkages to misconceptions observed in chemistry and subsequent introductory materials engineering courses as revealed by a Materials Concept Inventory (MCI). The CCI topics included were bonding, intermolecular forces, electrochemistry,equilibrium, thermochemistry and acids and bases. Numerous students were interviewed in development of questions in order to ascertain that the questions and responses were interpreted as intended. Questioning students on topics of molecular shape gave helpful insight into how students solve problems. For example, a question might be written to test one aspect of the topic, but students might solve it differently. They might use different reasoning that would lead to a correct answer. The item is  therefore testing something other than the intended topic. Interviews led to some unique findings in spatial understanding and misconceptions held by these students. Multiple rounds of testing were then used in ascertaining development of a valid Chemistry Concept Inventory."

Mulford, D.R. 2001. "Chemical Concepts Inventory"" online at "Chemical Concepts Inventory" published online 2001 by JCE  Online (Journal of Chemical Education)  http://tinyurl.com/2xmnbk.  Mulford writes: "The Chemical Concepts Inventory (CCI) is a multiple choice instrument that can be used to indicate the level of chemistry misconceptions held by students. The inventory is a multiple choice instrument composed of one- and two-tiered non-mathematical conceptual questions (22 questions total). The questions are based on common commonly-observed student misconceptions about topics generally covered in the first semester of a college chemistry course. The inventory was administered to over 1400 students in a general chemistry course for science and engineering majors (all of whom have had a high school chemistry course) during the first week of a fall semester and repeated during the first week of the following spring semester. The average grade on the inventory was 45% (10 of 22) in the fall and 50% (11 of 22) the following spring. . . . [thus the average normalized gain <g> was *about* (this is not perfectly "matched" data) [%post - %pre] / [100% - %pre] = 5%/95% =0.05, pathologically low by Force Concept Inventory standards where traditional passive-student lecture courses yield about <g> = 0.2 -see Hake (1998a,b)]. The inventory indicates that many of our general chemistry students are not fluent with a significant portion of the concepts in general chemistry. They have difficulty with fundamental concepts concerning the properties and behavior of atoms and molecules. For example, after at least two semesters of high school chemistry and one semester of general chemistry, 47% of our students believe that the rust from a completely rusted iron nail weighs less than the nail it came from; 75% cannot distinguish between the properties of a single atom of sulfur and a sample of solid sulfur; and 65% believe that breaking chemical bonds gives off energy. Please feel free to download this inventory and use it with your students.

Mulford, D.R. & W.R. Robinson. 2002. "An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General Chemistry Students" J. Chem. Educ. 79(6): 739; abstract online at < http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2002/Jun/abs739.html>.

Pavelich, M.J., R.L. Miller, and B.M. Olds. 2002. "Software for Measuring the Intellectual Development of Students: Advantages and Disadvantages," 2002 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June.

Robinson, W.R. and S.C. Nurrenbern. 1998. "Conceptual Questions & Challenge Problems," Journal of Chemical Education, 75: 1502, November; abstract online at http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/1998/Nov/abs1502.html. Robinson & Nurrenbern write: "The JCE Internet Conceptual Question and Challenge Problem Web site is a source of questions and problems that can be used in teaching and assessing conceptual understanding and problem solving in chemistry. Here you can find a library of free-response and multiple-choice conceptual questions and challenge problems, tips for writing these questions and problems, and a discussion of types of conceptual questions. This site is intended to be a means of sharing conceptual questions and challenge problems among chemical educators. This is a living site that will grow as you share conceptual questions and challenge problems and as we find new sources of information. We would like to make this site as inclusive as possible. Please share your questions and problems with us and alert us to references or Web sites that could be included on the site. . . .. Email: Susan Nurrenbern <nurrenbern@purdue.edu> or William Robinson <wrrobin@purdue.edu>. The Conceptual Questions and Challenge Problems Web site can be found at http://www.jce.divched.org/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/CQandChP/index.html.

Roy, H. 2001. "Use of Web-based Testing of Students as Method for Evaluating Courses." Bioscene 27(3): 3-7; online at <http://acube.org/volume_27/v27-3contents.pdf>.

Roy, H. 2003. "Studio vs Interactive Lecture Demonstrations - Effects on Student Learning," Bioscene 29(1): 3-6; online at <http://acube.org/volume_29/index.html>.

Sundberg, M.D. 2002. " Assessing Student Learning." Cell Biology Education 1(1): 11-15; online at <http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/1/1/11>.

Sundberg, M.D. and G.J. Moncada. 1994. "Creating effective investigative laboratories for undergraduates." BioScience 44: 698-704.

Wood, W.B. 2003. "Inquiry-Based Undergraduate Teaching in the Life Sciences at Large Research Universities: A Perspective on the Boyer Commission Report," Cell Biology Education 2:112-116; online at
<http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/2/2/112>: "The ineffectiveness of standard lecture-based curricula has been particularly well documented in physics. In the early 1990s, physicists at Arizona State University developed a test called the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), designed to examine students' understanding of basic concepts in mechanics (Hestenes et al. 1992). This and similar tests have been used to compare the prevalence of common misconceptions before and after taking an introductory physics course or completing a physics major. . . . . Using such instruments, physicists could show that taking traditional lecture-lab courses improved understanding somewhat but that other teaching approaches, discussed below, did much better [Hake (1998a,b)]; M. Zeilik, personal communication)."

(Thanks to Richard Hake for the content of this page)
The Research Academy for University Learning at Montclair State University - Montclair, New Jersey, 07043, USA | 973-65-LEARN (655-3276) | Ken Bain, Director