Concept inventory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A concept inventory is a multiple choice test designed to evaluate whether a person has an accurate and working knowledge of a specific set of concepts [1]. Concept inventories are built in a multiple choice format to insure that they can be scored in an objective manner. Unlike a typical multiple choice test, however, both the question and the response choice are the subject of extensive research designed to determine both what a range of people thinks a particular question is asking and what the most common answers are. In its final form, the concept question is presented both a correct answer as well as distractors, that is, incorrect answers based on commonly held misconceptions.

Because the distractors are based on common held student views, identified through various research methods, e.g. responses to open-ended essay questions and "think-aloud" interviews with students, which distractors are chosen by students is often informative when it comes to understanding student thinking. An important role for concept inventories is in fact to provide instructors with clues as to the ideas, Scientific misconceptions, and/or conceptual lacunae, with which students are working, and which may be actively interfering with learning.

The pioneering effects of David Hestenes, Ibrahim Halloun and Malcolm Wells led to the first of the concept inventories to be widely disseminated, the Force Concept Inventory. The FCI was designed to assess student understanding of the Newtonian concepts of force. The dramatic result of using the FCI with students completing an introductory college level physics courses was the realization that while “nearly 80% of the student’s could state Newton’s Third Law of at the beginning of the course … FCI data showed that less than 15% of them fully understood it at the end” (Hestenes, 1998. Am. J. Phys. 66:465). These results have been replicated in a wide number of studies of students at a range of institutions (see Hake, 1998). Am. J. Phys. 66:66).

In recent years, the FCI has been joined by other instruments in physics. These include the (1998) Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) developed by Thorton & Sokoloff and the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA) developed by Chabay & Sherwood. A discussion of how these tests are developed is in R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs," Am. J. Phys., 62, 750-762, (1994).

Information about physics concept tests is available at the NC State Physics Education Research Group website. Concept inventories have been developed in Chemistry, Astronomy, Basic Biology, Natural Selection, and a number of engineering disciplines [2]. There have also been instruments that transcend disciplinary boundaries. For example, Odom and Barrow (1995) have developed a test to specifically evaluate understanding of diffusion and osmosis

[edit] Sources

Anderson DL, Fisher KM, Norman GJ (2002) Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory natural selection. Journal of Research In Science Teaching 39: 952-978.

Ding L, Chabay R, Sherwood B, Beichner R (2006) Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: . Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 2: 010105 (010107 pages)

Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Physics 66: 64-74. [3]

Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G (1992) Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30: 141-166.

Odom AL, Barrow, L. H. (1995) Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students' understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research In Science Teaching 32: 45-61.

Thornton RK, Sokoloff DR (1998) Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. . Amer J Physics 66: 338-352.

Scientific misconceptions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many, if not most, scientific misconceptions are deeply rooted in the common sense experiences of the learner, and most have been identified anecdotally in the course of instruction. Misconceptions about scientific ideas that go unrecognized by either the student or the instructor pose a formidable barrier to learning. More recent studies of misconceptions and their role in effective learning depend upon a rigorous, research-based approach that involves placing students outside of the conventional testing context. A classic example is illustrated by the video A private universe, which deals with students notions of planetary motion. Similar examples on students understanding of electrical circuits and plant growth are also available Private Universe Project.

What is generally unappreciated by both instructors and students alike is that i) misconceptions often remain unrecognized, ii) that multiple "interventions" are often required before misconceptions are recognize as counterproductive, and iii) that teaching without appreciating students' conceptual landscape often leads to increased confusion rather than authentic learning. Based on Hake's 1989 study of student understanding of Newtonian mechanics, it is clear that simple lecturing rarely engages students to revised these obstacles to learning.

[edit] Types of scientific misconceptions

In general, scientific misconceptions have their foundations in a few "intuitive knowledge domains, including folkmechanics (object boundaries and movements), folkbiology (biological species configurations and relationships), and folkpyschology (interactive agents and goal-directed behavior)" (Altran & Norezayan, 2005), that enable humans to interact effectively with the world in which they evolved. That these folksciences do not map accurately onto modern scientific theory is not unexpected.

Misconceptions can be broken down into five basic categories 1) preconceived notions; 2) nonscientific beliefs; 3) conceptual misunderstandings; 4) vernacular misconceptions; and 5) factual misconceptions (e.g., Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, 1997).

While most student misconceptions go unrecognized, there has been an informal effort to identify errors and misconceptions present in textbooks. The Bad Science web page, maintained by Alistair Fraser. Another important resource is the Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education (STCSE) website maintained by Reinders Duit.

A more systematic search for student misconceptions has been driven by recent efforts to construct concept inventories relevant to various disciplines.

[edit] Addressing student misconceptions

A number of lines of evidence suggest that the recognition and revision of student misconceptions involves active, rather than passive, involvement with the material. A common approach is through metacognition, that is to encourage students to think about their thinking on particular problem. In part this requires students to verbalize, defend and reformulate their understanding - essentially a Socratic method. Recognizing the realities of the modern classroom, a number of variations have been introduced. These include Eric Mazur's Peer Instruction, as well as various tutorials in physics developed groups at University of Washington and the University of Maryland.

[edit] Sources

Altran, S. & A. Norenzayan. 2005. Religion's evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion, and communion. Behavior and Brain Science. 27:713-770.

Charles, E.S. & S.T. d'Apollonia. 2003. A systems approach to education. PEREA report.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Physics 66: 64-74.

Krebs, R.E. 1999. Scientific Development and Misconceptions Through the Ages. Greenwood Press.

How Students Learn. 2005. A National Academy of Sciences Report.