Development of the concise data processing assessment

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Day, James ^a   Bonn, Doug ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961061409     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010114     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. M.-G. Séré, R. Journaux, and C. Larcher, Learning the statistical analysis of measurement errors, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 427 (1993). ISEDEB 0950-0693 10.1080/0950069930150406
2. J. Leach, R. Millar, J. Ryder, M.-G. Séré, D. Hammelev, H. Niedderer, and V. Tselfes, Survey 2: Students' images of science as they relate to labwork learning. Working paper 4, Labwork in Science Education. European Commission: Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, Project PL 95-2005 (1998).
3. S.M. Coelho and M.-G. Séré, Pupils' reasoning in practice during hands-on activities in the measurement phase, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 0263-5143 16, 79 (1998). 10.1080/0263514980160107
4. D.L. Deardorff, Introductory Physics Students' Treatment of Measurement Uncertainty, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, 2001.
5. R.F. Lippmann, Students' Understanding of Measurement and Uncertainty in the Physics Laboratory: Social Construction, Underlying Concepts, and Quantitative Analysis, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2003.
6. R. Lippmann Kung and C. Linder, University students' ideas about data processing and data comparison in a physics laboratory course, NorDiNa 4, 40 (2006). 1504-4556
7. L.C. McDermott, M.L. Rosenquist, and E.H. van Zee, Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics, Am. J. Phys. 55, 503 (1987). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.15104
8. R.J. Beichner, Testing student interpretations of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.17449 (Pubitemid 24804867)
9. N. Perez-Goytia, A. Dominguez, and G. Zavala, Understanding and interpreting calculus graphs: Refining an instrument, AIP Conf. Proc. APCPCS 0094-243X 1289, 249 (2010). 10.1063/1.3515213
10. E. Schulman and C.V. Cox, Misconceptions about astronomical magnitudes, Am. J. Phys. 65, 1003 (1997). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18714
11. J. Bynner, Literacy, numeracy and employability: Evidence from the British birth cohort studies, Lit. Num. Stud. 13, 31 (2004). 1441-0559
12. R.K. Thronton and D.R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning and Lecture Curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18863
13. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. PHTEAH 0031-921X 30, 141 (1992). 10.1119/1.2343497
14. P.V. Engelhardt and R.J. Beichner, Students' understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1614813 (Pubitemid 38143086)
15. D.P. Maloney, T.L. O'Kuma, C.J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1371296
16. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006). PRSTCR 1554-9178 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010105 (Pubitemid 43676926)
17. C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1571832 (Pubitemid 36743007)
18. S.B. McKagan and C. Wieman, Exploring student understanding of energy through the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 65 (2006). APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2177024 (Pubitemid 44790739)
19. S.B. McKagan, K.K. Perkins, and C.E. Wieman, Design and validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020121 (2010). PRSTCR 1554-9178 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020121
20. www.phy.uct.ac.za/people/buffler/edutools.html.
21. National Research Council, Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, edited by the Committee on the Foundations of assessment, J.W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser, and Board on Testing and Assessment Center for Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
22. L.C. McDermott and E.F. Redish, Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999). AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.19122
23. S.L. Sheridan and M. Pignone, Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data, Effect. Clin. Pract. 5, 35 (2002). 1099-8128
24. L.M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, W.C. Black, and H.G. Welch, The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography, Ann. Intern. Med. AIMEAS 0003-4819 127, 966 (1997).
25. A. Buffler, S. Allie, F. Lubben, and B. Campbell, The development of first year physics students' ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1137 (2001). ISEDEB 0950-0693 10.1080/09500690110039567 (Pubitemid 33595833)
26. W.K. Adams and C.E. Wieman, Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking, Int. J. Sci. Educ. ISEDEB 0950-0693 33, 1289 (2011). 10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
27. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement and Education, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1999).
28. R. Bell and J. Lumsden, Test length and validity, Appl. Psychol. Meas. 4, 165 (1980). 0146-6216 10.1177/014662168000400203
29. M. Burisch, Test length and validity revisited, Eur. J. Pers. 0890-2070 11, 303 (1997). 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199711)11:4<303::AID-PER292>3.0. CO;2-# (Pubitemid 127133663)
30. B. Simon and J. Taylor, What is the Value of Course-Specific Learning Goals?, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 39, 52 (2009). JSCTBN 0047-231X
31. R.B. D'Agostino and E.E. Cureton, The 27 Percent Rule Revisited, Educational and Psychological Measurement 35, 47 (1975). EPMEAJ 0013-1644 10.1177/001316447503500105
32. D. Doran, Basic Measurement and Evaluation of Science Instruction (NSTA, Washington, DC, 1980), p. 99.
33. E.E. Ghiselli, J.P. Campbell, and S. Zedeck, Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, 1981), p. 116.
34. M.J. Allen and W.M. Yen, Introduction to Measurement Theory (Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL, 1979), p. 123.
35. P. Kline, A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design (Methuen, London, 1986), p. 143.
36. L. Crocker and J. Algina, Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (Holt, New York, 1986), p. 34.
37. G.A. Ferguson, On the theory of test discrimination, Psychometrika 14, 61 (1949). 0033-3123 10.1007/BF02290141
38. P. Kline, Handbook of Psychological Testing (Routledge, London, 2000), p. 31, 2nd ed.
39. P. Kline, The New Psychometrics: Science, Psychology and Measurement (Routledge, London, 1998), p. 29.
40. It is important to recall that different research areas use different conventions for reporting uncertainty. In the CDPA, we use x ± Δ x to represent a mean (x) and an uncertainty in the mean (Δ x). Interested readers might find "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results" especially helpful, http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/.