Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Concept Inventories in Course Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Geoscience Research and Education

Part of the book series: Innovations in Science Education and Technology ((ISET,volume 20))

Abstract

Development of effective instructional materials, particularly those intended to address strongly held alternative conceptions about the natural world, is difficult. Research suggests that the most effective instruction stems from initial consideration of instructional goals and careful alignment of practice with those goals. Understanding whether or not instruction is effective itself requires development of assessment instruments that are written in direct correspondence to pre-articulated goals. Concept inventories (CIs), multiple-choice tests targeting specific content, are becoming increasingly popular mechanisms for assessing student learning, particularly in the USA. CIs have become popular because they target student alternative conceptions authentically and are relatively easy to implement even to very large lecture courses. The wide array of CIs available both in the USA and internationally reflects the importance that faculty place on addressing student conceptions. CIs can be used as both instructional tools and as research instruments; where used for research, scholars must be careful to evaluate the validity and reliability of the CI being used. In this chapter, we provide evidence of the value of CIs for use in both course and programmatic assessment. In addition, we illustrate the importance of community discourse in ensuring that CIs are appropriate for research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bardar, E. M., Prather, E. E., Brecher, K., & Slater, T. F. (2006). Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory. Astronomy Education Review, 5, 103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 402–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B. V., Acra, E. E., Wang, L., et al. (2008). Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178, 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMars, C. E. (2006). Application of the bi-factor multidimensional item response theory model to testlet-based tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, D. R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, S. L., Bartel, B. P. D., Walz, J. C., & Polacek, K. M. (2008, November 11–15). The genetics concept inventory (GenCI) Version 3.0: Identifying and addressing student misconceptions. Annual meeting of the American Society for Human Genetics, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvin-Doxas, K., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2008). Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: Lessons learned from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI). CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. Z., Libarkin, J. C., Petcovic, H. L., et al. (2012). A test of the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141(3), 397–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hott, A. M., Huether, C. A., McInerney, J. D., et al. (2002). Genetics content in introductory biology courses for non-science majors: Theory and practice. Bioscience, 52, 1024–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. (2008, October 13–14). Concept inventories in higher education science. National research council promising practices in undergraduate STEM education workshop 2, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2005). Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2006). Development of the Geoscience Concept Inventory.In Proceedings of the national STEM assessment conference (pp. 148–158). Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2007). The geoscience concept inventory: Application of Rasch analysis to concept inventory development in higher education. In X. Liu & W. J. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in science education. Maple Grove: JAM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., & Geraghty Ward, E. M. (2011). The qualitative underpinnings of quantitative concept inventory questions. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 474, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., Ward, E. M. G., Anderson, S. W., et al. (2011). Revisiting the geoscience concept inventory: A call to the community. GSA Today, 21, 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llerandi Roman, P. A. (2007). The effects of a professional development geoscience education institute upon secondary school science teachers in Puerto Rico. Ph.D., Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, D. A., & van Der Hoeven Kraft, K. J. (2011). Affective domain and student learning in the geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59, 106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., et al. (2006). Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElhinny, T. L., Dougherty, M. J., Bowling, B. V., & Libarkin, J. C. (2012). The status of genetics curriculum in higher education in the United States: Goals and assessment. Science & Education 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petcovic, H., & Ruhf, R. (2008). Geoscience conceptual knowledge of preservice elementary teachers: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56, 251–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed-Rhoads, T., & Imbrie, P. K. (2008, October 13–14). Concept inventories in engineering education. National research council promising practices in undergraduate STEM education workshop 2, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D., Davies, M., & Totten, I. (2008). GEOWORLDS: Utilizing second life to develop advanced geosciences knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 second IEEE international conference on digital game and intelligent toy enhanced learning (pp. 93–97). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 422–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Douglas, T. C., & Cox, M. F. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steer, D. N., Knight, C. C., Owens, K. D., & McConnell, D. A. (2005). Challenging students ideas about Earth’s interior structure using a model-based, conceptual change approach in a large class setting. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 415–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teed, R., & Slattery, W. (2011). Changes in geologic time understanding in a class for preservice teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59, 151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theissen, K. (2011). Peer-reviewed multiple-choice question. http://geoscienceconceptinventory.wikispaces.com/Negative+Feedback+in+the+Climate+System. Accessed 25 Oct 2011.

  • Treagust, D. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Mason, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1073–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, E. M. G., Libarkin, J. C., Kortemeyer, G., & Raeburn, S. P. (2010). The geoscience concept inventory WebCenter provides new means for student assessment. eLearningPapers

    Google Scholar 

  • West, P., Rutstein, D. W., Mislevy, R. J., et al. (2010). A Bayesian Network approach to modeling learning progressions and task performance (CRESST Report 776). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmann, M. (1998). Making sense of how students come to an understanding of physics: An example from mechanical waves. Ph.D. University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

 Development of the GCI and initial efforts in building online resources were made possible by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through grants DUE-0127765, DUE-0350395, DGE-9906479, DUE-0717790, and DUE-0717589. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. This work was partially funded by the Center for Integrative Studies in General Science (CISGS) in the College of Natural Science at Michigan State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geocognition Research Laboratory, Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Julie Libarkin

  2. Center for Integrative Studies in General Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Julie Libarkin & Sarah E. Jardeleza

  3. Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Sarah E. Jardeleza & Teresa L. McElhinny

  4. Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Teresa L. McElhinny

Authors
  1. Julie Libarkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah E. Jardeleza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Teresa L. McElhinny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Libarkin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Vincent C. H. Tong

Appendix

Appendix

Climate Change questions used in programmatic assessment. Questions extracted from the Geoscience Concept Inventory:http://geoscienceconceptinventory.wikispaces.com/ATMOSPHERE#CLIMATE%20CHANGE

  1. 1.

    Which of the following statements about global warming over the past 50 years most closely reflects your viewpoint?

    1. (a)

      Global warming over the past 50 years is mostly caused by natural processes.

    2. (b)

      Global warming over the past 50 years is mostly caused by human activities.

    3. (c)

      Global warming has not really occurred over the past 50 years.

    4. (d)

      I do not know.

  2. 2.

    If human civilization had never developed on Earth, would there be a greenhouse effect?

    1. (a)

      No, the greenhouse effect is caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

    2. (b)

      No, the greenhouse effect is caused by humans depleting ozone.

    3. (c)

      No, there is no conclusive evidence that a greenhouse effect exists.

    4. (d)

      Yes, the greenhouse effect is caused by naturally occurring gases.

    5. (e)

      Yes, the greenhouse effect is caused by plants giving off gases.

    6. (f)

      I do not know.

  3. 3.

    What is a negative feedback loop in the climate system?

    1. (a)

      An initial change in the climate system leads to a response that has a beneficial effect on climate.

    2. (b)

      An initial change in the climate system leads to a response that slows climate change.

    3. (c)

      An initial change in the climate system leads to a response that speeds up climate change.

    4. (d)

      An initial change in the climate system leads to a response that has a harmful effect on climate.

    5. (e)

      I do not know.

  4. 4.

    Which of the following best describes the relationship between the greenhouse effect and global warming?

    1. (a)

      The greenhouse effect and global warming are likely the same thing.

    2. (b)

      The greenhouse effect and global warming are likely unrelated.

    3. (c)

      Without the greenhouse effect, there would be almost no global warming.

    4. (d)

      Without global warming, there would be almost no greenhouse effect.

    5. (e)

      There is no definite proof that either the greenhouse effect or global warming exists.

    6. (f)

      I do not know.

  5. 5.

    What are greenhouse gases?

    1. (a)

      Gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared energy.

    2. (b)

      Gases in the atmosphere that absorb ultraviolet energy.

    3. (c)

      Gases in the atmosphere that cause rain to become acidic.

    4. (d)

      Gases in the atmosphere that are produced as plants grow.

    5. (e)

      I do not know.

  6. 6.

    What would happen if a significant amount of new sea ice were to form in the Arctic Ocean?

    1. (a)

      An increase in the amount of ice in the ocean would lead to more coastal flooding.

    2. (b)

      A decrease in the occurrence of extreme weather events would lead to fewer hurricanes.

    3. (c)

      A decrease in the temperature of the ocean would lead to a cooling of the planet.

    4. (d)

      An increase in the reflection of solar energy would lead to a warming of the planet.

    5. (e)

      A decrease in the absorption of solar energy would lead to a cooling of the planet.

    6. (f)

      I do not know.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Libarkin, J., Jardeleza, S.E., McElhinny, T.L. (2014). The Role of Concept Inventories in Course Assessment. In: Tong, V. (eds) Geoscience Research and Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6946-5_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation