Relativity concept inventory: Development, analysis, and results

Abstract

We report on a concept inventory for special relativity: the development process, data analysis methods, and results from an introductory relativity class. The Relativity Concept Inventory tests understanding of relativistic concepts. An unusual feature is confidence testing for each question. This can provide additional information; for example, high confidence correlated with incorrect answers suggests a misconception. A novel aspect of our data analysis is the use of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the significance of correlations. This approach is particularly useful for small sample sizes, such as ours. Our results show a gender bias that was not present in course assessment, similar to that reported for the Force Concept Inventory.

Test of understanding of vectors: A reliable multiple-choice vector concept test

“…First, we analyzed the students' overall performance on the test, finding that those at the median level had difficulty in correctly answering 6 of the items on the test. We also found that they had further difficulties with 7 of the 20 items (items 3,8,2,17,13,12,18). These items evaluate the geometric interpretation of dot product, the calculation of dot product of vectors written in the unit-vector notation, the graphic representation of unit vector, the calculation of direction of a vector written in unit-vector notation, the graphical subtraction of vector in 2D, the geometric interpretation of cross product, and the calculation of cross product magnitude as ABsinθ.…”

“…The second, that to some extent is a consequence of the first, concerns the availability of multiple-choice testing instruments. While several tests that incorporate the recommendations of physics education researchers [1][2][3] have been created [1,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], one that evaluated students' understanding of vector concepts was not yet available. The third issue, suggested by the second, was the need for a large-population (or large sample) study at the university level that would analyze students' understanding of vector concepts after completing their introductory physics courses.…”

Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments

“…Two common perspectives on test development are Classical Test Theory (CTT) [32] and Item Response Theory (IRT) [33]. The majority of conceptual assessments in physics, at both the introductory and upper-division levels have been validated using CTT, while only a small number have been developed or analyzed using IRT [34][35][36][37]. One significant drawback of CTT is that all test statistics are population dependent.…”

Preliminary results for the development and deployment of Conceptual Learning Assessment Instruments Methodology Survey (CLAIMS)

“…This is one example of what has necessitated the general classification for these instruments as CLAIs and not simply concept inventories. BEDCI [10] BCI [11] BRI [12] CCMI [13] CINS [14] CUE [15] DLCI [16] ECCI [17] ESICI [18] FTCI [19] GeDI [20] HPI-CI [21] LPCI [22] MCI [23] Meiosis [24] MWCS [25] NGCI [26] QMCA [28] QMCI [29] QMCS [30] R-FCI [31] RCI [32] ROXCI [33] SSCI [34] TUV [35] VKT [36]…”