2013
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-04-0079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The EvoDevoCI: A Concept Inventory for Gauging Students’ Understanding of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Abstract: The authors present the development and validation of the EvoDevoCI, a concept inventory for evolutionary developmental biology. This CI measures student understanding of six core evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) concepts using four scenarios and 11 multiple-choice items, all inspired by authentic scientific examples. Distracters were designed to represent the common conceptual difficulties students have with each evo-devo concept.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While 12 questions is a small sample, many validated concept inventories designed to assess the effectiveness of changes in instruction are in the range of [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]Refs. 27,38,46). Therefore, while our conserved questions represent a small sample set, we believe they still provide meaningful results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…While 12 questions is a small sample, many validated concept inventories designed to assess the effectiveness of changes in instruction are in the range of [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]Refs. 27,38,46). Therefore, while our conserved questions represent a small sample set, we believe they still provide meaningful results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Moreover, these values are comparable with those found in other published CIs, such as the Concept Inventory of Natural Selection (alpha = 0.58–0.64 [Anderson et al. , 2002]) or the EvoDevoCI (alpha = 0.31–0.73 [Perez et al. , 2013]).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While we determined that the supplement developers would be the most appropriate individuals to review our items, faculty and others with expertise in a particular field are an obvious resource for external review ( Kalas et al. , 2013 ; Perez et al. , 2013 ; Deane et al.…”
Section: A General Instrument-development Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, 2014 ). Perez et al. (2013) , for example, asked reviewers, “Is the correct answer accurate given the scenario?” and “Do any of the other answers strike you as correct?” (p. 671).…”
Section: A General Instrument-development Processmentioning
confidence: 99%