There is a plethora of concept inventories available for faculty to use, but it is not always clear exactly why you would use these tests, or how you should administer them and interpret the results. These research-based tests about physics and astronomy concepts are valuable because they allow for standardized comparisons among institutions, instructors, or over time. In order for these comparisons to be meaningful, you should use best practices for administering the tests. In interviews with 24 physics faculty, we have identified common questions that faculty members have about concept inventories. We have written this article to address common questions from these interviews and provide a summary of best practices for administering concept inventories.
References
1.
A.
Madsen
et al., “Research-based assessment affordances and constraints: Perceptions of physics faculty
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
12
(10115
), 1
–16
(2015
).2.
R. S.
Lindell
, E.
Peak
, and T. M.
Foster
, “Are they all created equal? A Comparison of different concept inventory development methodologies
,” AIP Conf. Proceed.
883
(1
), 14
–17
(2007
).3.
W. K.
Adams
and C. E.
Wieman
, “Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
33
(9
), 1289
–1312
(2011
).4.
D.
Hestenes
, M. M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhamer
, “Force Concept Inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–166
(March
1992
).6.
C.
Henderson
, “Common concerns about the Force Concept Inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
40
, 542
(Dec.
2002
).7.
E.
Mazur
, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
, 1997
).8.
R. R.
Hake
, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(Jan.
1998
).9.
J.
Von Korff
et al., “Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50k-student study
,” Am. J. Phys.
84
, 969
–974
(Dec.
2016
).10.
11.
A.
Madsen
, S.
McKagan
, and E. C.
Sayre
, “Resource Letter: RBAI-1: Research-based assessment instruments in physics and astronomy
,” Am. J. Phys.
85
, 245
(April
2017
).12.
L.
Ding
et al., “Effects of testing conditions on conceptual survey results
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
(1
), 10112
(2008
).13.
R.
Beichner
, P.
Laws
, C.
Megowan
, S.
Pollock
, M.
Wittmann
, Private communications
, 2013
.14.
S.
Bonham
, “Reliability, compliance, and security in web-based course assessments
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
(1
), 10106
(2008
).15.
E. C.
Sayre
et al., “Learning, retention, and forgetting of Newton’s third law throughout university physics
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
8
(1
), 10116
(2012
).16.
S. B.
McKagan
, “How can I get my students’ answers to concept inventories into electronic spreadsheets?
” https://www.physport.org/recommendations/Entry.cfm?ID=93330.18.
A.
Madsen
and S.
McKagan
, “Guidlines for administering concept inventories online
,” https://www.physport.org/recommendations/Entry.cfm?ID=93329.19.
Some concept inventories were developed to contain clusters of questions that correspond to different concepts
. For more details about a specific concept inventory see http://www.physport.org/assessments.20.
L.
Bao
, “Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
, 917
(Oct.
2006
).21.
S.
McKagan
, E.
Sayre
, and A.
Madsen
, “Normalized gain: What is it and when and how should I use it?
” https://www.physport.org/expert/gain.22.
A.
Madsen
, E.
Sayre
, and S.
McKagan
, “Effect size: What is it and when and how should I use it?
” https://www.physport.org/expert/effectsize.23.
C. H.
Crouch
and E.
Mazur
, “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, 970
(Sept.
2001
).24.
E. F.
Redish
, J. M.
Saul
, and R. N.
Steinberg
, “On the effectiveness of interactive engagement micro-computer based laboratories
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
, 45
(Jan.
1996
).25.
M. D.
Caballero
et al., “Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study
,” Am. J. Phys.
80
, 638
(July
2012
).26.
A.
Madsen
, S. B.
McKagan
, and E. C.
Sayre
, “Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?
” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
9
, 020121
(2013
).27.
E.
Brewe
et al., “Toward equity through participation in Modeling Instruction in introductory university physics
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
6
(1
), 10106
(2010
).28.
B. M.
Upton
, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Studio Physics at Georgia State University
,” PhD dissertation, Georgia State University
(2010
).29.
A.
Madsen
, S.
McKagan
, and E. C.
Sayre
, “Addressing common concerns about concept inventories
,” https://www.physport.org/recommendations/Entry.cfm?ID=93462.© 2017 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2017
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
