USING ITEM RESPONSE THEORY TO CONDUCT A DISTRACTER ANALYSIS ON CONCEPTUAL INVENTORY OF NATURAL SELECTION

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 845-868

  Battisti, Bryce Thomas ^a   Hanegan, Nikki ^b   Sudweeks, Richard ^b   Cates, Rex ^b  

^a ASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN   (Bangladesh)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

biology; concept inventories; item response theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956297638     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-009-9189-4     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aleixandre, M. P. J. (1994). Teaching evolution and natural selection: A look at textbooks and teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 519-535.
2. Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56, 1891-1901.
3. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952-978.
4. Author. (2002). Biology principles & applications: A syllabus. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom.
5. Author. (2008). Disconnections between teacher expectations and student confidence in bioethics. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 921-940.
6. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
7. Bock, R. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
8. Bock, R. D. (1997). The nominal categories model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 23-49). New York: Springer.
9. Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education, 68, 493-503.
10. Cummins, C. L., & Demastes, S. S. (1994). Evolution: Biological education's under-researched unifying theme. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 445-448.
11. de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford.
12. Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 407-431.
13. Dillon, J. (2008). Discussion, debate and dialog: Changing minds about conceptual change research in science education. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3(2), 397-416.
14. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125-129.
15. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constuctivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
16. du Toit, M. (Ed.) (2003). IRT from SSI: BILOG-MG, MULTILOG, PARSCALE, and TESTFACT. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software Program.
17. Ebel, R. L. (1951). Writing the test item. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 185-249). Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.
18. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Ferrari, M., & Chi, T. H. M. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1231-1256.
20. Greene, E. D., Jr. (1990). The logic of university students' misunderstanding of natural selection. Journal of Reasearch in Science Teaching, 27, 875-885.
21. Haladyna, T. M. (1992). Context-dependent item sets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 21-25.
22. Haladyna, T. M. (1994). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Hatton, J., & Plouffe, P. B. (Eds.) (1997). Science and its ways of knowing. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
24. Hewson, P. (2008). Conceptions over time: Are language and the her-and-now up to the task? Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3(2), 263-276.
25. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79, 147-166.
26. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
27. Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
28. Livingston, S. A. (2006). Item analysis. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 421-441). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
29. McKinley, R. L. (1989). An introduction to item response theory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 37-57.
30. Mercer, N. (2008). Changing our minds: A commentary on 'Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education'. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3(2), 351-362.
31. Miller, K. R. (1999). Finding Darwin's God: A scientist's search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Harper Collins.
32. Moore, R., Mitchell, G., Bally, R., Inglis, M., Day, J., & Jacobs, D. (2002). Undergraduates' understanding of evolution: Ascriptions of agency as a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 65-71.
33. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning (report). Washington, D. C.: National Academy.
34. Novak, J. D., Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (2000). Epilogue: On ways of assessing science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes (Ed.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 355-374). New York: Academic.
35. Oosterhof, A. (1994). Classroom applications of educational measurement (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
36. Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the link between students' scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Science Education, 83, 639-653.
37. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204.
38. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
39. Sadler, P. M. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distracter-driven assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 265-296.
40. Sadler, P. M. (2000). The relevance of multiple-choice tests in assessing science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes (Ed.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 249-278). New York: Academic.
41. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores [psychometric monograph, 17]. Iowa City: Psychometric Society.
42. Scharmann, L. C., & Harty, H. (1986). Shaping the non-major general biology course. The American Biology Teacher, 48, 166-169.
43. Settlage, J. J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 449-457.
44. Soderburg, P. (2003). An examination of problem-based teaching and learning in population genetics and evolution using EVOLVE, a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 35-55.
45. Tamir, P. (1971). An alternative approach to the construction of multiple choice test items. Journal of Biological Education, 5, 305-307.
46. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide: Multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory (Version 6. 0) [Computer program]. Chicago: Scientific Software.
47. Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1984). A response model for multiple choice items. Psychometrika, 49, 501-519.
48. Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1997). A response model for multiple-choice items. Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 51-65). New York: Springer.
49. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Fitzpatrick, A. R. (1989). Multiple-choice models: The distracters are also part of the item. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 161-176.
50. Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3(2), 297-328.
51. Wesman, A. G. (1971). Writing the test item. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 81-129). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
52. Yen, W. M., & Fitzpatrick, A. R. (2006). Item response theory. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 111-153). Westport: American Council on Education.