Traditional tests are not effective tools for diagnosing the content and structure of students’ knowledge of physics. As a possible alternative, a set of term-association tasks (the ConMap tasks) was developed to probe the interconnections within students’ store of conceptual knowledge. The tasks have students respond spontaneously to a term or problem or topic area with a sequence of associated terms; the response terms and time-of-entry data are captured. The tasks were tried on introductory physics students, and preliminary investigations show that the tasks are capable of eliciting information about the stucture of their knowledge. Specifically, data gathered through the tasks is similar to that produced by a hand-drawn concept map task, has measures that correlate with in-class exam performance, and is sensitive to learning produced by topic coverage in class. Although the results are preliminary and only suggestive, the tasks warrant further study as student-knowledge assessment instruments and sources of experimental data for cognitive modeling efforts.
REFERENCES
1.
John R. Anderson, Rules of the Mind (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1993).
2.
Jill H. Larkin, “Information processing models and science instruction,” in Cognitive Process Instruction, edited by Jack Lochhead and John Clement (The Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1979), pp. 109–118.
3.
Michelene T. H.
Chi
, Paul J.
Feltovich
, and Robert
Glaser
, “Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices
,” Cogn. Sci.
5
, 121
–152
(1981
).4.
William J. Gerace, “Contributions from cognitive research to mathematics and science education,” presented at the Workshop on Research in Science and Mathematics Education, Cathedral Peak, South Africa, 1992.
5.
Jose P.
Mestre
, Robert J.
Dufresne
, William J.
Gerace
et al., “Promoting skilled problem-solving behavior among beginning physics students
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
30
, 303
–317
(1993
).6.
William J. Gerace, William J. Leonard, Robert J. Dufresne et al., Report No. PERG-1997#05-AUG#2-26, pp. 1997.
7.
Richard
Zajchowski
and Jack
Martin
, “Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure?
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
30
, 459
–470
(1993
).8.
Edward F.
Redish
, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
62
, 796
–803
(1994
).9.
Jose
Mestre
and Jerold
Touger
, “Cognitive research what’s in it for physics teachers?
,” Phys. Teach.
27
, 447
–456
(1989
).10.
Pamela H.
Hardiman
, Robert J.
Dufresne
, and Jose P.
Mestre
, “The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices
,” Mem. Cognit.
17
, 627
–638
(1989
).11.
J. D. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984).
12.
Maria
Araceli Ruiz-Primo
and Richard J.
Shavelson
, “Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
33
, 569
–600
(1996
).13.
Michael J. Young, “Quantitative measures for the assessment of declarative knowledge structure characteristics,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1993.
14.
Diana C.
Rice
, Joseph M.
Ryan
, and Sara M.
Samson
, “Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete?
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
35
, 1103
–1127
(1998
).15.
Alberto
Regis
, Pier
Giorgio Albertazzi
, and Ezio
Roletto
, “Concept maps in chemistry education
,” J. Chem. Educ.
73
, 1084
–1088
(1996
).16.
Tsai-Ping Ju, “The development of a microcomputer-assisted measurement tool to display a person’s knowledge structure,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1989.
17.
Timothy E.
Goldsmith
, Peder J.
Johnson
, and William H.
Acton
, “Assessing structural knowledge
,” J. Educ. Psychol.
83
, 88
–96
(1991
).18.
Pilar
Gonzalvo
, José J.
Cañas
, and Marı́a-Teresa
Bajo
, “Structural representations in knowledge acquisition
,” J. Educ. Psychol.
86
, 601
–616
(1994
).19.
N. M.
Cooke
, F. T.
Durso
, and R. W.
Schvaneveldt
, “Recall and measures of memory organization
,” J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem. Cogn
12
, 538
–549
(1986
).20.
C. J. F. ter Braak, “Ordination,” in Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology, edited by R. H. G. Jongman, C. J. F. Ter Braak, and O. F. R. Van Tongeren (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
21.
Peder J. Johnson, Timothy E. Goldsmith, and Kathleen W. Teague, “Similarity, structure, and knowledge: A representational approach to assessment,” in Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment, edited by Paul D. Nichols, Susan F. Chipman, and Robert L. Brennan (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1995), pp. 221–250.
22.
Ian Beatty, “ConMap: Investigating new computer-based approaches to assessing conceptual knowledge structure in physics,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, 2000.
23.
N. C. Barford, Experimental Measurements: Precision, Error and Truth 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1967).
24.
Ian D. Beatty, William J. Gerace, and Robert J. Dufresne, “Measuring and modeling physics students’ conceptual knowledge structures through term association times,” Cognitive Science Quarterly (submitted).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2002 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2002
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
