A Comparative Analysis of Mathematics’ CI Testing on High School and Engineering Bachelor’s Students in Albania
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.8(6).2024.6Keywords:
tests indexes, concept inventory, mathematics knowledge, the Rasch modelAbstract
The use of Concept Inventory tests for analysing students’ achievement and performance on understanding sciences has progressed last years in our academic and didactic mediums. Interesting and significant findings through those analysis have revealed the importance of deeper CI analysis and improvement of knowledge measuring instruments on our education communities. Based on this idea in this work we have discussed perceived features and characteristics of general Calculus concept inventory, and their significance regarding understanding physics and learning progress on this discipline. By measuring and analysing standard CI test indexes we can diagnose issues and shortcomings in conceptual understanding in physics. We evidenced an undesirable level of physics understanding not only in raw scores of the conceptual inventories, but also in the ability of students to correctly understand the physical context of problem. First evidence regarding these issues settles that students inherit shortcomings on conceptual knowledge from their undergraduate studies, and the gain on this indicator are relative to the initial conceptual knowledge. Consequently, we conclude that much effort should be made on improving conceptual knowledge during high school studies. To explore the cause factors of this indication we have proposed a factorial analysis, and preliminary findings support this assessment.
References
Anderson, C. J., Verkuilen, J., & Peyton, B. L. (2010). Modelling Polytomous Item Responses Using Simultaneously Estimated Multinomial Logistic Regression Models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(4), 422–452.
Carlson, M., Oehrtman, M., & Engelke, N. (2010). The precalculus concept assessment: A tool for assessing students’ reasoning abilities and understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 113-145.
Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics, 73(12), 1172-1182.
Crooks, N., & Alibali, M. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 34 344–377.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2(1), 010105.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. Psychology Press.
Epstein, J. (2013). The Calculus Concept Inventory— Measurement of the Effect of Teaching Methodology in Mathematics. Notices of the AMS, 60(8), 1018-1026.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory principles and applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Kushta, E., Prenga, D., Miço, S., & Dhoqina, P. (2022). Assessment of the Effects of Compulsory Online Learning during Pandemic Time on Conceptual Knowledge Physics. Mathematical Statistician and Engineering Applications, 71(4), 6382–6391.
Liu, X. (2010). Using and Developing Measurement Instruments in Science Education: A Rasch Modelling Approach. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
O’Shea, A., Breen, S., & Jaworski, B. (2016). The development of a function concept inventory. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2, 279-296.
Planinic, M. (2006). Assessment of difficulties of some conceptual areas from electricity and magnetism using the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 74(12), 1143–1148.
Planinic, M., Boone, W. J., Susac, A., & Ivanjek, L. (2019). Rasch analysis in physics education research: Why measurement matters. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020111.
Planinic, M., Ivanjek, L., & Susac, A. (2010). Rasch model based analysis of the Force Concept Inventory. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 6(1), 010103.
Prenga, D. (2024). A Thematic Review on the Combination of Statistical Tools and Measuring Instruments for Analyzing Knowledge and Students’ Achievement in Science. European Modern Studies Journal, 8(3), 687-706.
Prenga, D. et al. (2023). J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2872 [accepted, to be published]
Prenga, D., Kushta, M., Peqini, K., Osmani, R., & Hyseni, M. (2022). Analyzing influential factors on physics knowledge weakness in high school students due to the pandemic-imposed online learning and a discussion for enhancing strategies. IC-MSQUARE, 5-7 September, Budapest
Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV (pp. 321–334). Berkeley, California: University of California Press
Sands, D., Parker, M., Hedgeland, H., Jordan, S., & Galloway, R. (2018). Using concept inventories to measure understanding. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 173-182.
Savinainen, A. & Viiri, J. (2008). The Force Concept Inventory as a Measure of Students_ Conceptual Coherence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 719Y740
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The Force Concept Inventory: a tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45.
Stoen, S. M., McDaniel, M. A., Frey, R. F., Hynes, K. M., & Cahill, M. J. (2020). Force Concept Inventory: More than just conceptual understanding. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010105.
van der Linden, W. J. (2005). Item Response Theory. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 379-387), Elsevier.
Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab-online.html
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Terms and conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License apply to all published manuscripts. This Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This licence allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs and other platforms by providing appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
A competing interest exists when professional judgment concerning the validity of research is influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain. We require that our authors reveal all possible conflicts of interest in their submitted manuscripts.
The Editor reserves the right to shorten and adjust texts. Significant changes in the text will be agreed with the Authors.
ISSN 
