The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection
Open accessAbstract
Natural selection as a mechanism of evolution is a central concept in biology; yet, most nonbiology‐majors do not thoroughly understand the theory even after instruction. Many alternative conceptions on this topic have been identified, indicating that the job of the instructor is a difficult one. This article presents a new diagnostic test to assess students' understanding of natural selection. The test items are based on actual scientific studies of natural selection, whereas previous tests have employed hypothetical situations that were often misleading or oversimplified. The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is a 20‐item multiple choice test that employs common alternative conceptions as distractors. An original 12‐item version of the test was field‐tested with 170 nonmajors in 6 classes and 43 biology majors in 1 class at 3 community colleges. The test scores of one subset of nonmajors (n = 7) were compared with the students' performances in semistructured interviews. There was a positive correlation between the test scores and the interview scores. The current 20‐item version of the CINS was field‐tested with 206 students in a nonmajors' general biology course. The face validity, internal validity, reliability, and readability of the CINS are discussed. Results indicate that the CINS will be a valuable tool for instructors. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 952–978, 2002
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation
Schluter, D. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198505235.001.0001 · Cited by 4,974
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution
Dobzhansky, T. (1973) · The American Biology Teacher · doi:10.2307/4444260 · Cited by 3,219
Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science
Treagust, D. F. (1988) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069880100204 · Cited by 844
Cited by
Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips
Caldwell, J. E. (2007) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205 · Cited by 1,291
Teaching More by Lecturing Less
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005) · Cell Biology Education · doi:10.1187/05-06-0082 · Cited by 873
The Human Function Compunction: Teleological explanation in adults
Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001 · Cited by 480
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026 · Cited by 437
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0030399 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-11-15
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 952-978
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2168110387
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 34.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.