DOCSLIB.ORG

Difficulty As a Concept Inventory Design Consideration: an Exploratory Study of the Concept Assessment Tool for Statics (CATS) Dana L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Difficulty As a Concept Inventory Design Consideration: an Exploratory Study of the Concept Assessment Tool for Statics (CATS) Dana L Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Dissertations Theses and Dissertations Spring 2015 Difficulty as a concept inventory design consideration: An exploratory study of the concept assessment tool for statics (CATS) Dana L. Denick Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Engineering Education Commons Recommended Citation Denick, Dana L., "Difficulty as a concept inventory design consideration: An exploratory study of the concept assessment tool for statics (CATS)" (2015). Open Access Dissertations. 448. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/448 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Graduate School Form 30 Updated 1/15/2015 PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared By Dana L. Denick Entitled Difficulty as a Concept Inventory Design Consideration: An Exploratory Study of the Concept Assessment Tool for Statics (CATS) For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Is approved by the final examining committee: Ruth Streveler Chair Monica Cardella Senay Purzer Paul Steif To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Thesis/Dissertation Agreement, Publication Delay, and Certification Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy of Integrity in Research” and the use of copyright material. Approved by Major Professor(s): Ruth Streveler Approved by: Ruth Streveler 4/9/2015 Head of the Departmental Graduate Program Date i DIFFICULTY AS A CONCEPT INVENTORY DESIGN CONSIDERATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CONCEPT ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR STATICS (CATS) A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Dana L. Denick In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2015 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father David J. Denick (1942-2012) Your commitment to creativity and education continues to inspire me iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Ruth Streveler for her guidance and support throughout my graduate studies at Purdue. I can't imagine experiencing such a valuable, respectful and caring advising relationship with anyone else. I would also like to thank my committee, Dr. Paul Steif, Dr. Senay Purzer, and Dr. Monica Cardella for their counsel and encouragement while working on my dissertation. I am grateful for my writing group and extended research family, especially Nicole Pitterson, Farrah Fayyaz, Natasha Perova, and Aidsa Santiago-Román. Each of you has helped me strengthen my work on this study and grow as a researcher. A special thanks to Emily Dringenberg, whose enthusiasm and friendship kept me going. I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the support of my family. Most of all, I want to thank my mother for always believing I could get it done. You're my source of inspiration and perseverance; thank you for everything. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DRL 0918531. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background Information ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Statement of Purpose ................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Research Question ..................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Overview of Methodology ........................................................................................ 4 1.6 Rationale and Significance ........................................................................................ 4 1.7 Organization of Dissertation ..................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Development of Engineering Concept Inventories .......................................... 8 2.1.2 The Assessment Triangle ............................................................................... 10 2.2 Expanding upon the Cognitive Element of the Assessment Triangle ..................... 13 2.2.1 Nature of Conceptual Understanding ............................................................ 13 2.2.2 Statics Concepts and Conceptual Framework ............................................... 16 2.3 Expanding upon the Observation Element of the Assessment Triangle ................. 19 2.3.1 Concept Inventory Item Design ..................................................................... 20 2.3.2 CATS Item Design ........................................................................................ 21 2.3.3 Concept Inventory Development Process ...................................................... 22 2.3.4 Development of CATS .................................................................................. 23 v Page 2.4 Expanding upon the Interpretation Element of the Assessment Triangle ............... 26 2.4.1 Psychometric Evaluation ............................................................................... 27 2.4.2 Psychometric Evaluation of CATS ................................................................ 29 2.4.3 The Interpretation Vertex as a Validity Argument ........................................ 29 2.4.4 A Comprehensive Approach to Validity for Concept Inventories ................ 30 2.5 Addressing Gaps in Knowledge .............................................................................. 33 2.5.1 Cognitive Load Theory .................................................................................. 33 2.5.2 Evidence-Centered Design ............................................................................ 34 2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 36 2.6.1 Interconnectedness of the Assessment Triangle ............................................ 36 CHAPTER 3. METHOD................................................................................................ 38 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 38 3.2 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 38 3.2.1 Mixing Research Paradigms .......................................................................... 40 3.3 Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 41 3.3.1 CATS ............................................................................................................. 42 3.3.2 Source Material for Content Analysis ........................................................... 42 3.3.3 Interview Participants .................................................................................... 45 3.4 Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 47 3.4.1 Content Analysis Data Collection ................................................................. 47 3.4.2 Think-aloud Interviews .................................................................................. 47 3.4.3 Interview Materials ........................................................................................ 47 3.4.4 Interview Protocol ......................................................................................... 48 3.4.5 Use of Existent Data ...................................................................................... 48 3.5 Method of Analysis ................................................................................................. 49 3.5.1 CATS Item Grouping .................................................................................... 49 3.5.2 Content Analysis ............................................................................................ 51 3.5.3 Thematic Analysis ......................................................................................... 56 3.6 Theme Definitions ................................................................................................... 60 vi Page 3.6.1 Direction of Problem Solving
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PERFORMED IDENTITIES: HEAVY METAL MUSICIANS BETWEEN 1984 and 1991 Bradley C. Klypchak a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate
    PERFORMED IDENTITIES: HEAVY METAL MUSICIANS BETWEEN 1984 AND 1991 Bradley C. Klypchak A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2007 Committee: Dr. Jeffrey A. Brown, Advisor Dr. John Makay Graduate Faculty Representative Dr. Ron E. Shields Dr. Don McQuarie © 2007 Bradley C. Klypchak All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Jeffrey A. Brown, Advisor Between 1984 and 1991, heavy metal became one of the most publicly popular and commercially successful rock music subgenres. The focus of this dissertation is to explore the following research questions: How did the subculture of heavy metal music between 1984 and 1991 evolve and what meanings can be derived from this ongoing process? How did the contextual circumstances surrounding heavy metal music during this period impact the performative choices exhibited by artists, and from a position of retrospection, what lasting significance does this particular era of heavy metal merit today? A textual analysis of metal- related materials fostered the development of themes relating to the selective choices made and performances enacted by metal artists. These themes were then considered in terms of gender, sexuality, race, and age constructions as well as the ongoing negotiations of the metal artist within multiple performative realms. Occurring at the juncture of art and commerce, heavy metal music is a purposeful construction. Metal musicians made performative choices for serving particular aims, be it fame, wealth, or art. These same individuals worked within a greater system of influence. Metal bands were the contracted employees of record labels whose own corporate aims needed to be recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oklahoma Graduate College A
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE STATISTICS CONCEPT INVENTORY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By ANDREA STONE Norman, Oklahoma 2006 UMI Number: 3208004 UMI Microform 3208004 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 Copyright by ANDREA STONE 2006 All Rights Reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The researcher wishes to acknowledge the support provided by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DUE-0206977). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Literature...........................................................................................................1 1.1 Force Concept Inventory........................................................................................... 5 1.2 Other Concept Inventories-Related Efforts ............................................................ 13 1.2.1 Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuit Concepts Test (DIRECT) ................................................................................................................. 14 1.2.2
    [Show full text]
  • De Classic Album Collection
    DE CLASSIC ALBUM COLLECTION EDITIE 2013 Album 1 U2 ‐ The Joshua Tree 2 Michael Jackson ‐ Thriller 3 Dire Straits ‐ Brothers in arms 4 Bruce Springsteen ‐ Born in the USA 5 Fleetwood Mac ‐ Rumours 6 Bryan Adams ‐ Reckless 7 Pink Floyd ‐ Dark side of the moon 8 Eagles ‐ Hotel California 9 Adele ‐ 21 10 Beatles ‐ Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 11 Prince ‐ Purple Rain 12 Paul Simon ‐ Graceland 13 Meat Loaf ‐ Bat out of hell 14 Coldplay ‐ A rush of blood to the head 15 U2 ‐ The unforgetable Fire 16 Queen ‐ A night at the opera 17 Madonna ‐ Like a prayer 18 Simple Minds ‐ New gold dream (81‐82‐83‐84) 19 Pink Floyd ‐ The wall 20 R.E.M. ‐ Automatic for the people 21 Rolling Stones ‐ Beggar's Banquet 22 Michael Jackson ‐ Bad 23 Police ‐ Outlandos d'Amour 24 Tina Turner ‐ Private dancer 25 Beatles ‐ Beatles (White album) 26 David Bowie ‐ Let's dance 27 Simply Red ‐ Picture Book 28 Nirvana ‐ Nevermind 29 Simon & Garfunkel ‐ Bridge over troubled water 30 Beach Boys ‐ Pet Sounds 31 George Michael ‐ Faith 32 Phil Collins ‐ Face Value 33 Bruce Springsteen ‐ Born to run 34 Fleetwood Mac ‐ Tango in the night 35 Prince ‐ Sign O'the times 36 Lou Reed ‐ Transformer 37 Simple Minds ‐ Once upon a time 38 U2 ‐ Achtung baby 39 Doors ‐ Doors 40 Clouseau ‐ Oker 41 Bruce Springsteen ‐ The River 42 Queen ‐ News of the world 43 Sting ‐ Nothing like the sun 44 Guns N Roses ‐ Appetite for destruction 45 David Bowie ‐ Heroes 46 Eurythmics ‐ Sweet dreams 47 Oasis ‐ What's the story morning glory 48 Dire Straits ‐ Love over gold 49 Stevie Wonder ‐ Songs in the key of life 50 Roxy Music ‐ Avalon 51 Lionel Richie ‐ Can't Slow Down 52 Supertramp ‐ Breakfast in America 53 Talking Heads ‐ Stop making sense (live) 54 Amy Winehouse ‐ Back to black 55 John Lennon ‐ Imagine 56 Whitney Houston ‐ Whitney 57 Elton John ‐ Goodbye Yellow Brick Road 58 Bon Jovi ‐ Slippery when wet 59 Neil Young ‐ Harvest 60 R.E.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Article the Genetics Concept Assessment: a New Concept Inventory for Gauging Student Understanding of Genetics Michelle K
    CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 7, 422–430, Winter 2008 Article The Genetics Concept Assessment: A New Concept Inventory for Gauging Student Understanding of Genetics Michelle K. Smith, William B. Wood, and Jennifer K. Knight Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0347; and Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 Submitted August 5, 2008; Revised September 19, 2008; Accepted September 22, 2008 Monitoring Editor: Diane Ebert-May We have designed, developed, and validated a 25-question Genetics Concept Assessment (GCA) to test achievement of nine broad learning goals in majors and nonmajors undergraduate genetics courses. Written in everyday language with minimal jargon, the GCA is intended for use as a pre- and posttest to measure student learning gains. The assessment was reviewed by genetics experts, validated by student interviews, and taken by Ͼ600 students at three institu- tions. Normalized learning gains on the GCA were positively correlated with averaged exam scores, suggesting that the GCA measures understanding of topics relevant to instructors. Statistical analysis of our results shows that differences in the item difficulty and item discrim- ination index values between different questions on pre- and posttests can be used to distinguish between concepts that are well or poorly learned during a course. INTRODUCTION For this purpose, we developed and validated the Genet- ics Concept Assessment (GCA). The GCA consists of 25 Physics instruction has been improved by the use of care- multiple-choice questions, designed to be clear, concise, and fully developed multiple-choice tests (concept inventories) as free of jargon as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying a Preinstruction to Postinstruction Factor Model for the Force Concept Inventory Within a Multitrait Item Response Theory Framework
    PHYSICAL REVIEW PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 16, 010106 (2020) Identifying a preinstruction to postinstruction factor model for the Force Concept Inventory within a multitrait item response theory framework Philip Eaton* and Shannon Willoughby Department of Physics, Montana State University, 1325-1399 S 6th Avenue, Bozeman, Montana 59715, USA (Received 14 October 2019; published 28 January 2020) As targeted, single-conception curriculum research becomes more prevalent in physics education research (PER), the need for a more sophisticated statistical understanding of the conceptual surveys used becomes apparent. Previously, the factor structure of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and exploratory multitrait item response theory (EMIRT). The resulting exploratory driven factor model and two expert-proposed models were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and were found to be adequate representations of the FCI’s factor structure for postinstruction student responses. This study compliments the literature by using confirmatory multitrait item response theory (CMIRT) on matched preinstruction to postinstruction student responses (N ¼ 19745). It was found that the proposed models did not fit the data within a CMIRT framework. To determine why these models did not fit the data, an EMIRT was performed to find suggested modifications to the proposed models. This resulted in a bi-factor structure for the FCI. After calculating the student ability scores for each trait in the modified factor models, only two traits in each of the models were found to exhibit student gains independent of the general, “Newtonian-ness” trait. These traits measure students’ understanding of Newton’s third law and their ability to identify forces acting on objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Administering a Digital Logic Concept Inventory at Multiple Institutions
    AC 2011-1800: ADMINISTERING A DIGITAL LOGIC CONCEPT INVEN- TORY AT MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS Geoffrey L. Herman, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Geoffrey L. Herman is a PhD Candidate in Electrical and Computer Engineering and a Mavis Future Faculty Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests include cogni- tive science, identifying and assessing common student misconceptions and difficulties in electrical and computer engineering topics, blended learning (integrating online teaching tools into the classroom), in- telligent tutoring systems, and music signal processing. He is a winner of the 2011 Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty Grant. He has been recognized with the Olesen Award for Ex- cellence in Undergraduate Teaching for the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Ernest A. Reid Fellowship for engineering education. He has served as a graduate affiliate for the Cen- ter for Teaching Excellence, as the seminar chair for the Dean’s Graduate Student Advisory Committee, and as the information chair for the American Society for Engineering Education’s Student Constituent Committee. Michael C. Loui, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Michael C. Loui is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and University Distinguished Teacher-Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His interests include computational complexity theory, professional ethics, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. He serves as Exec- utive Editor of College Teaching, and as a member of the editorial board of Accountability in Research. He is a Carnegie Scholar and an IEEE Fellow. Professor Loui was Associate Dean of the Graduate Col- lege at Illinois from 1996 to 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • A Concept Inventory for Molecular Life Sciences: How Will It Help Your Teaching Practice?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Special Technical Feature brought to you by CORE provided by Universidade do Minho: RepositoriUM A CONCEPT INVENTORY FOR MOLECULAR LIFE SCIENCES: HOW WILL IT HELP YOUR TEACHING PRACTICE? Susan Howitt1*, Trevor Anderson2, Manuel Costa3, Susan Hamilton4 and Tony Wright4 1Australian National University, ACT 0200 2University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa 3University of Minho, Braga, Portugal 4University of Queensland, QLD 4072 *Corresponding author: [email protected] Textbooks for biology are getting bigger and bigger with greater understanding of the nature of student difficulties, each edition, but does this mean that our students are which in turn can lead to the development of more learning more? Most of us would answer no to this effective teaching and learning strategies. Our project aims question. In fact, the learning by our students is to begin developing concept inventories for the molecular sometimes seen as disappointing, as the core concepts or life sciences and is funded by the Australian Teaching and the 'big ideas' of biology appear to be obscured by rote Learning Council and the International Union of learning of detailed content. Educators have recognised Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IUBMB). that the information explosion in biology, particularly in It is clear from the education literature that students the molecular life sciences, has created a significant often construct their own understandings that are at odds problem in selecting what core concepts and principles with scientific concepts (3). These unscientific we should be teaching our students (1). Another conceptions, sometimes called 'misconceptions' or consequence of the focus on specific content in the 'alternative conceptions', can interfere with the learning of structure and assessment of many secondary and tertiary correct scientific ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Item Response Theory to Facilitate Concept Inventory Development
    Stone, et al., Use of Item Response Theory to Facilitate Concept Inventory Development Use of Item Response Theory to Facilitate Concept Inventory Development Andrea Stone Consultant, York, PA, USA [email protected] Teri Reed-Rhoads Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA [email protected] Teri Jo Murphy Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY, USA [email protected] P.K. Imbrie Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA [email protected] Abstract: This paper explores ways that item response theory techniques can be used to gain additional insight into question behavior and student misconceptions, in addition to being valuable tools for development and evaluation practices. Context and Research Questions Numerous studies in engineering and the sciences have concluded that many students lack correct conceptual understanding of fundamental concepts in technical courses, even after they have ostensibly demonstrated mastery of said material through traditional examinations. Therefore, to help instructors identify student misconceptions, a growing number of concept inventories (CI’s) have emerged for engineering related subjects as one method for assessing students’ understanding of basic concepts. To guide the CI development process and/or to evaluate the measurement quality of an existing inventory, individual test items from an inventory are traditionally analyzed using tools from classical test theory (CTT). That is, each question on an inventory (or on an inventory subscale) is evaluated in terms of a set of indices such as an item’s (a) difficulty level, (b) discriminability, (c) correlation with the total scale score, and (d) scale alpha if deleted. While techniques based on CTT generally yield valuable information, use of item response theory (IRT) methods can reveal unanticipated subtleties in a dataset.
    [Show full text]
  • Concept Inventories As a Resource for Teaching Evolution Robert E
    Furrow and Hsu Evo Edu Outreach (2019) 12:2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0092-8 Evolution: Education and Outreach CURRICULUM AND EDUCATION Open Access Concept inventories as a resource for teaching evolution Robert E. Furrow1*† and Jeremy L. Hsu2† Abstract Understanding evolution is critical to learning biology, but few college instructors take advantage of the body of peer-reviewed literature that can inform evolution teaching and assessment. Here we summarize the peer-reviewed papers on tools to assess student learning of evolutionary concepts. These published concept inventories provide a resource for instructors to design courses, gauge student preparation, identify key misconceptions in their student population, and measure the impact of a lesson, course, or broader curriculum on student learning. Because these inventories vary in their format, target audience, and degree of validation, we outline and explain these features. In addition to summarizing the published concept inventories on topics within evolution, we lay out a fexible frame- work to help instructors decide when and how to use them. Keywords: Assessment, Concept inventories, Evolution, Learning goals Introduction (American Society of Plant Biologists and the Botanical Facility with evolutionary concepts is foundational to a Society of America 2016; Merkel et al. 2012; Tansey et al. rich understanding of biology, and several large, collabo- 2013), and translated into a framework to help instruc- rative eforts to improve undergraduate education have tors align their departmental educational goals with outlined this importance (American Association for the Vision and Change (Brownell et al. 2014). However, even Advancement of Science 2011; Association of Ameri- with clear educational goals in mind, carefully measur- can Medical Colleges and the Howard Hughes Medical ing student learning and adjusting teaching practices to Institute 2009; National Research Council 2003, 2009, achieve these goals is a daunting task (Handelsman et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress on Concept Inventory Assessment Tools
    Panel Session T4G PROGRESS ON CONCEPT INVENTORY ASSESSMENT TOOLS D. L. Evans,1 panel moderator; Gary L. Gray,2Stephen Krause,3 Jay Martin,4 Clark Midkiff,5 Branisla M. Notaros,6 Michael Pavelich,7 David Rancour,8 Teri Reed-Rhoads,9 Paul Steif,10 Ruth Streveler,11 Kathleen Wage12 Abstract ¾ The Foundation Coalition and others have been the most part, teaching of engineering subjects continues to working on the development of Concept Inventory (CI) be patterned after how instructors were taught when they assessment instruments patterned after the well-known were students of the subject, rather than being informed by Force Concept Inventory (FCI) instrument of Halloun and research on learning. We believe that we are on the verge of Hestenes. Such assessment inventories can play an seeing vast improvements in how much and how well important part in relating teaching techniques to student students learn - we hope that this panel session can hasten learning. Work first got started two years ago on CIs for the this advancement. subjects of thermodynamics; solid mechanics; signals and One of the hindrances to reform in science, technology, processing; and electromagnetics. Last year work got engineering and mathematics (STEM) education has been underway on CIs for circuits; fluid mechanics; engineering the absence of good assessment instruments that can materials; transport processes; and statistics. This year measure the value added to student learning by new ways of work began on chemistry; computer engineering; dynamics; teaching important material. As pointed out by several electronics; and heat transfer. This panel session will studies, including the three video case studies, Lessons from discuss the progress on these concept inventories.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aiche" Concept Warehouse": a Web-Based Tool to Promote
    Advances in Engineering Education VOLUME 4 NUMBER 1 – wiNter 2014 the AiChE Concept warehouse: A web-Based tool to Promote Concept-Based instruction MILO D. KORETSKY Oregon State University Corvallis, OR JOHN L. FALCONER University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder, CO BILL J. BROOKS DEBRA M. GILBUENA Oregon State University Corvallis, OR DAVID L. SILVERSTEIN University of Kentucky Paducah, KY CHRISTINA SMITH Oregon State University Corvallis, OR AND MARINA MILETIC Independent Consultant Albuquerque, NM ABStrACt This paper describes the AIChE Concept Warehouse, a recently developed web-based instructional tool that enables faculty within the discipline of chemical engineering to better provide their students concept-based instruction. It currently houses over 2,000 concept questions and 10 concept invento- ries pertinent to courses throughout the core chemical engineering curriculum. These questions are available for faculty use both as in-class concept-based clicker questions (or ConcepTests) and stand- alone concept inventories, and can be accessed in various formats (online or offline) for use in class and on assignments and exams. The design philosophy is to make the tool versatile so that it can be used in the way that best fits with the instructor’s teaching philosophy and the program’s educational environment. Instructors and students perceive it to catalyze engagement and promote learning. While winter 2014 1 advances in engineering education the AIChE Concept Warehouse domain specificity is critical to the targeted development of tools like the one we describe, we argue that the computer-based approach is generic and could be applied to any engineering discipline. One objective in describing this tool and characterizing our experiences using it is to contribute to such wider adaptation.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Nationwide Dynamics Concept Inventory Assessment Test
    Session 1168 Toward a Nationwide Dynamics Concept Inventory Assessment Test Gary L. Gray, Don Evans, Phillip Cornwell, Francesco Costanzo, Brian Self The Pennsylvania State University / Arizona State University / Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology / The Pennsylvania State University / USAF Academy Abstract This paper will describe our efforts to develop a national concept inventory test in undergraduate dynamics, that is, a Dynamics Concept Inventory (DCI). This paper will present the current state of development and will discuss future efforts and directions of this project. Introduction The body of research knowledge on student learning of Newtonian mechanics, including both kinematics and kinetics, has become quite rich in the last 15 years, but, because of its newness, this knowledge generally remains unfamiliar to most instructors whether their academic home is in a physics department or an engineering department. While it is not unusual for authors of papers on the teaching of mechanics in engineering education to refer to the history of how the teaching of the subject developed over the centuries since Newton published his general laws of motion (for a recent example, see Kraige15), this rich research literature on student learning of the subject has yet to have significantly in- fluenced either the presentation of the subject in textbooks or the emphasis and pedagogy used in the classroom. For the most part, teaching of dynamics continues to be patterned after how instructors were taught when they were students of the subject, rather than be- ing informed by research on learning. We believe that we are on the verge of seeing vast improvements in how much and how well students learn in this subject—we present this paper hoping that we can assist and even hasten this improvement.
    [Show full text]