Physics – Physics Education
Scientific paper
Dec 2006
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2006aas...20920910l&link_type=abstract
2007 AAS/AAPT Joint Meeting, American Astronomical Society Meeting 209, #209.10; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
Physics
Physics Education
Scientific paper
Since the development of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), there as been a heightened interest in developing using concept inventories to assess students understanding of a phenomena. As more and more of these instruments are created, it must be made self-evident to test users that not all tests are created equal. We claim that there are four non-overlapping types of concept inventories and that the Science education research communities have an obligation, through peer review, to label any concept inventory as one of these four types of tests: (1) Local Tests, (2) Concept Surveys (3) Efficacy Concept Inventories, and (3) Diagnostic Concept Instruments. We propose these distinctions based on differences in their development methodology. In this poster, we will present evidence for this new classification scheme, as well as provide an analysis of three common tests from Physics Education Research: FCI, FMCE and CSEM.
Foster Tyler
Lindell Rebecca
No associations
LandOfFree
A Classification Scheme for Categorizing Different Concept Inventories does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with A Classification Scheme for Categorizing Different Concept Inventories, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and A Classification Scheme for Categorizing Different Concept Inventories will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1163777