The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
The Problem of Revealing How Students Think: Concept Inventories and Beyond
Open accessOverview
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.
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 Smith and Tanner, 2010
In “The Promise of Concept Inventories” (page unavailable), the paper says inventories probe understanding of core concepts and can give instructors some insight into students’ content knowledge. But it does not establish that concept inventories generally are validated tools; in “Thinking Critically About Concept Inventories” (page unavailable), it cautions that their usual format yields little specific insight into student thinking or deep conceptual understanding. (LLM, conf=0.87)
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.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 106
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- 10.1187/cbe.07-03-0017 · DOI
- Anderson D. L., 2002, J. Res. Sci. Teach, 39, 952, 10.1002/tea.10053 · DOI
- Angelo T. A., 1993, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers
- Atkin J. M., 2001, Assessment and the National Science Education Standards
- Bao L., 2001, Phys. Educ. Res. Am. J. Phys, 69, S45
- Bao L., 2006, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res, 2
- Black P., 2003, Everyday Assessment in the Science Classroom, 1
- Black P., 1998, Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139
- Bloom B. S., 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain
- Bowling B. V., 2008, Genetics, 178, 15, 10.1534/genetics.107.079533 · DOI
- Bowling B. V., 2008, Bioscience, 58, 654, 10.1641/B580712 · DOI
- Chi M.T.H., 2006, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, 167, 10.1017/CBO9780511816796.010 · DOI
- Chi M.T.H., 1981, Cogn. Sci, 5, 121, 10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 · DOI · Paper page
- D'Avanzo C., 2008, Bioscience, 58, 1079, 10.1641/B581111 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.07-05-0031 · DOI
- Hake R. R., 1998, Am. J. Phys, 66, 64, 10.1119/1.18809 · DOI · Paper page
- Heller P., 1995, Phys. Teach, 33, 503, 10.1119/1.2344279 · DOI
- Hestenes D., 1995, Phys. Teach, 33, 502, 10.1119/1.2344278 · DOI
- Huba M. E., 2000, Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses
- Huffman D., 1995, Teach, 33, 138, 10.1119/1.2344171 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.03-10-0014 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.03-03-0014 · DOI
- Mazur E., 1997, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual
- Michael J., 2007, Adv. Physiol. Educ, 31, 389, 10.1152/advan.00047.2007 · DOI
- Michael J., 2008, Adv. Physiol. Educ, 32, 248, 10.1152/advan.90122.2008 · DOI
- Redish E. F., 2000, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol, 21, 85, 10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00052-0 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045 · DOI
- Smith M. U., 1984, J. Res. Sci. Teach, 21, 895, 10.1002/tea.3660210905 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.02-03-0007 · DOI
- Tamir P., 1971, J. Biol. Educ, 5, 305, 10.1080/00219266.1971.9653728 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.04-03-0037 · DOI
- Thornton R. K., 1998, Am. J. Phys, 66, 338, 10.1119/1.18863 · DOI
- Treagust D. F., 1988, Int. J. Sci. Educ, 10, 159, 10.1080/0950069880100204 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1187/cbe.06-02-0142 · DOI
- Wright J. C., 1998, J. Chem. Educ, 75, 986, 10.1021/ed075p986 · DOI
- 10.1187/cbe.05-04-0075 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, J. I., & Tanner, K.
- Affiliations
- Holy Names University (US)
- San Francisco State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tanner, Kimberly
- Venue
- CBE—Life Sciences Education
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-5
- ISSN
- 1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2830154
- OpenAlex
- W2130840571
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 33.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- concept inventory, student misconceptions, student understanding assessment, conceptual change, biology education, student thinking
- MeSH terms
- Biology, Chemistry, Concept Formation, Education, Professional, Interviews as Topic, Physics, Students, Thinking, Problem-Based Learning
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
