References for Further Information
- Gagne, R.M., L.J. Bridges, and W.W. Wagne. 1998.
Principles of Instructional Design. Orlando, FL: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
- Hanson, G., and B. Price. 1992. Academic Program
Review. In: M. A. Wjitley, J. D. Porter, and R. H. Fenske
(eds.). The Primer for Institutional Research. Tallahassee:
Association for Institutional Research.
- Satterly, D. 1989. Assessment in schools. Oxford,
UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Accreditation Board for Engineering
Etchics Tools Database
site provides information on a number of instrucments that
have been developed to ascertain student competence in various
areas related to ethics.
Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuit Concepts
Engelhardt, P.V., and Beichner, R.J. (2004) Students'
understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits.
American Journal of Physics. 72:1, 98-115
Abstract: Both high school and university students' reasoning
regarding direct current resistive electric circuits often differ
from the accepted explanations. At present, there are no standard
diagnostic tests on electric circuits. Two versions of a diagnostic
instrument were developed, each consisting of 29 questions. The
information provided by this test can provide instructors with
a way of evaluating the progress and conceptual difficulties of
their students. The analysis indicates that students, especially
females, tend to hold multiple misconceptions, even after instruction.
During interviews, the idea that the battery is a constant source
of current was used most often in answering the questions. Students
tended to focus on the current in solving problems and to confuse
terms, often assigning the properties of current to voltage and/or
Conceptual Survey on Electricity (CSE), Conceptual Survey on Magnetism
(CSM), and Conceptual Survey on Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM).
They deal with E & M and can be used in pre-instruction and
post-instruction modes for the algebra/trigonometry-based and
calculus-based introductory, college-level physics courses. They
have undergone extensive revision and have been reviewed by many
college/university physics educators. Data from over 5000 students
from over 30 different institutions (two-year colleges, four-year
colleges, and universities including one in Europe) have been
collected. The data (1999) for the CSEM show that 31% correct
for calculus-based students and 25% for algebra/trigonometry-based
students on the pre-test. Post-instruction results only rise to
47% for calculus-based students and 44% correct for algebra/trigonometry-based
students. Maloney, D., O'Kuma, T., Hieggelke, C., and Van Heuvelen,
A. (2001) Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity
and magnetism," Am. J. Phys. 69 (7), Supplement 1,
Test of Understanding of Kinematic Graphs (TUG-K)
Beichner, R.J. (1994) Testing
student interpretation of kinematics graphs. Am. J. Phys.
62 (8), 750-755
Abstract: Recent work has uncovered a consistent set of
student difficulties with graphs of position, velocity, and acceleration
versus time. These include misinterpreting graphs as pictures,
slope/height confusion, problems finding the slopes of lines not
passing through the origin, and the inability to interpret the
meaning of the area under various graph curves. For this particular
study, data from 895 students at the high school and college level
was collected and analyzed. The test used to collect the data
is included at the end of the article and should prove useful
for other researchers studying kinematics learning as well as
instructors teaching the material. The process of developing and
analyzing the test is fully documented and is suggested as a model
for similar assessment projects.
Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE)
Thornton, R.K., and Sokoloff, D.R. (1998) "Assessing student
learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation,"
American Journal of Physics 66 (4), 228-351
Maryland Physics Expectation Survey
The Maryland Physics Expectation (MPEX)
survey has been developed by the Maryland Physics Education Research
Group as part of a project to study the attitudes, beliefs, and
expectations of students that have an effect on what they learn
in an introductory calculus-based physics course. Students are
asked to agree or disagree on a five point scale with 34 statements
about how they see physics and how they think they work in their
physics course. Click
here to see the survey items. We have given our survey to
a group of experienced university faculty committed to reforming
their teaching to increase its effectiveness and have used this
group's response as our definition of "expert". This
group shows a strong consistency (>90%) on most of our survey
items. We hypothesize that students who become effective scientists
and life-long learners either have or will develop these attitudes.
ASEE Directory of Assessment Programs in Engineering Colleges
provides links to assessment activities in engineering programs.