CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching MethodsEducational Technology and Assessment

Using concept inventories to measure understanding

Open access
Sands, David, Parker, Mark, Hedgeland, Holly, Jordan, Sally, Galloway, Ross·2018·Higher Education Pedagogies
DOI 10.1080/23752696.2018.1433546
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Measuring understanding is notoriously difficult. Indeed, in formulating learning outcomes the word ‘understanding’ is usually avoided, but in the sciences, developing understanding is one of the main aims of instruction. Scientific knowledge is factual, having been tested against empirical observation and experimentation, but knowledge of facts alone is not enough. There are also models and theories containing complex ideas and interrelationships that must be understood, and considerable attention has been devoted across a range of scientific disciplines to measuring understanding. This case study will focus on one of the main tools employed: the concept inventory and in particular the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). The success of concept inventories in physics has spawned concept inventories in chemistry, biology, astronomy, materials science and maths, to name a few. We focus here on the FCI and ask how useful concept inventories are for evaluating learning gains. Finally, we report on recent work by the authors to extend conceptual testing beyond the multiple-choice format.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23752696.2018.1433546

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Concept inventories are validated tools that can provide key insight into student learning on a concept or a related set of concepts.

    “concept inventories are validated tools that can provide key insight into student learning on a concept or a related set of concepts (Evans et al., 2003; Smith and Tanner, 2010; Sands et al., 2018)”

    From Reading Primary Scientific Literature: Approaches for Teaching Students in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom (2023) · cites this paper as Sands et al., 2018

    The section “Concept inventories: what are they and what do they measure?” (p. 4) says these instruments test students’ conceptual understanding and help identify misconceptions, supporting the claim that they can provide insight into learning. But the same section (p. 7) cautions that inventories vary in validity and reports that some had not been validated sufficiently rigorously. Calling concept inventories categorically “validated tools” overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Lindell, R.S., Peak, E., & Foster, T.M. (2007). Are they all created equal? A comparison of different concept inventory development methodologies .AIP conference proceedings 883, (pp.14-17). Syracuse, New York. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2508680 · DOI
  2. Porter, L., Taylor ,C., & Webb, K. (June 23 - 25, 2014). Leveraging open source principles for flexible concept inventory development . Proceedings of the 2014 conference on innovation & technology in computer science education, (pp. 243-248). Uppsala, Sweden.
  3. Reed-Rhoads, T., & Imbrie, P .K. (2008). Concept inventories in engineering education. Paper presented at the National Research Council's Workshop on Linking Evidence to Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education. (pp. 13-14). Washington, DC. October. Accessed from: https:// sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse\_072625.pdf
  4. Sands, D. (2013, August). Evidence for the applicability of dual processing theory in physics problem solving . Proceedings ICPE-EPEC, Prague. Retrieved from http://www.icpe2013.org/uploads/ICPE-EPEC\_2013\_ConferenceProceedings.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sands, D., Parker, M., Hedgeland, H., Jordan, S., & Galloway, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Hull (GB)
  • The Open University (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Sands, David
ORCID
Venue
Higher Education Pedagogies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
173-182
ISSN
2375-2696 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/23752696.2018.1433546
OpenAlex
W2787671366
Cited by
89
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
26.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Higher Education Pedagogies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
concept inventory, Force Concept Inventory, learning outcomes, conceptual understanding, physics education, multiple-choice tests

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