Reliability of a Concept Inventory to Determine the Level of Students in Statics

C. Garcia, Jaime Leonardo Barbosa Perez, Jorge Luis Herrera Ochoa
{"title":"Reliability of a Concept Inventory to Determine the Level of Students in Statics","authors":"C. Garcia, Jaime Leonardo Barbosa Perez, Jorge Luis Herrera Ochoa","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2018.8658636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Basic core courses in engineering are often taught and assessed only through procedural approaches, neglecting the conceptual grounds of the subject. In an effort to change that, a Concept Inventory test was applied to 195 students at Eafit University enrolled in Statics. All of the students took the test inside in the campus facilities and were monitored during the whole session to make sure they did not share information. The students took a Computer-Based Test of the Concept Inventory. Three new items were added to the original test of 27 questions, in order to improve the reliability of two specific groups of concepts. For the test was found a mean of 9.7 and a standard deviation of 5.28. For the overall test, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.81. The psychometric analyses show that all of the items in the test, except one, present an appropriate fit for discrimination and difficulty parameters of the test. Item 26 was deleted when performing the analysis of sub-scales reliability because presented abnormal value for difficulty. For the cluster of Equilibrium, it was seen that deleting this item resulted in an increase of the alpha from 0.2 to 0.36. For the sub-scale of Free-Body Diagram was seen a decrease in the reliability when two new items were added to it. All of the other sub-scales presented good reliability, most of them, above 0.5. The item-person map shows that the overall latent trait of students is lower than the overall test difficulty, meaning that most of the students found the test difficult. One of the conclusion to be drawn from the results is that the students subjected mainly to procedural approaches in teaching, do not perform well in conceptual tests. The results support the claim that Statics can be seen as a collection of concepts that can be clustered in independent groups for teaching.","PeriodicalId":354904,"journal":{"name":"2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8658636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Basic core courses in engineering are often taught and assessed only through procedural approaches, neglecting the conceptual grounds of the subject. In an effort to change that, a Concept Inventory test was applied to 195 students at Eafit University enrolled in Statics. All of the students took the test inside in the campus facilities and were monitored during the whole session to make sure they did not share information. The students took a Computer-Based Test of the Concept Inventory. Three new items were added to the original test of 27 questions, in order to improve the reliability of two specific groups of concepts. For the test was found a mean of 9.7 and a standard deviation of 5.28. For the overall test, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.81. The psychometric analyses show that all of the items in the test, except one, present an appropriate fit for discrimination and difficulty parameters of the test. Item 26 was deleted when performing the analysis of sub-scales reliability because presented abnormal value for difficulty. For the cluster of Equilibrium, it was seen that deleting this item resulted in an increase of the alpha from 0.2 to 0.36. For the sub-scale of Free-Body Diagram was seen a decrease in the reliability when two new items were added to it. All of the other sub-scales presented good reliability, most of them, above 0.5. The item-person map shows that the overall latent trait of students is lower than the overall test difficulty, meaning that most of the students found the test difficult. One of the conclusion to be drawn from the results is that the students subjected mainly to procedural approaches in teaching, do not perform well in conceptual tests. The results support the claim that Statics can be seen as a collection of concepts that can be clustered in independent groups for teaching.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
概念量表确定学生静力学水平的信度
工程学的基础核心课程通常只通过程序方法来教授和评估,而忽略了该学科的概念基础。为了改变这种情况,我们对Eafit大学统计学专业的195名学生进行了概念清单测试。所有的学生都在校内参加了考试,并在整个考试过程中受到监控,以确保他们没有分享信息。学生们对概念清单进行了计算机测试。为了提高两组特定概念的信度,在原来27题的基础上增加了3个新题。对于测试,发现平均值为9.7,标准差为5.28。总体检验的Cronbach’s alpha系数为0.81。心理测量分析表明,除1个题外,其余题均与测验的判别和难度参数拟合较好。项目26在进行分量表信度分析时,因难度值异常,删除。对于均衡聚类,可以看出,删除这一项导致alpha从0.2增加到0.36。在自由体图子量表中加入两个新条目后,其信度有所下降。其余各量表信度均较好,大部分信度均在0.5以上。项目-人图显示,学生的整体潜在特质低于整体测试难度,这意味着大多数学生认为测试困难。从结果中得出的一个结论是,在教学中主要采用程序方法的学生在概念测试中表现不佳。研究结果支持了一种说法,即静力学可以被看作是概念的集合,可以集中在独立的组中进行教学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
DCLab: A Web-based System for Digital Logic Experiment Teaching Who I Am Becoming, Now: Toward a Computer Science Professional Identity Instrument Practical Education in IoT through Collaborative Work on Open-Source Projects with Industry and Entrepreneurial Organizations A multidimensional ELO model for matching learning objects Investigating the ways in which Student Agency develops through Engagement with Knowledge
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1