Effects of testing conditions on conceptual survey results

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. J. R. Fraenkel and N. E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996).
2. M. D. Sundberg, Assessing student learning, Cell Biol. Educ. 1, 11 (2002); R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS]; L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103 (2006); L. Bao, Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations, Am. J. Phys. 74, 917 (2006) [SPIN]; J. D. Marx and K. Cummings, Normalized change, 75, 87 (2007) [CrossRef][SPIN].
3. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992) [SPIN]; R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC]; R. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, 62, 750 (1994) [CrossRef][SPIN][INSPEC]; L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006); P. V. Engelhardt and R. J. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004), and many others [SPIN].
4. A. P. Fagen, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Results from a range of classrooms, Phys. Teach. 40, 206 (2002) [SPIN].
5. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001) [SPIN].
6. D. Johnson, R. Johnson, and K. Smith, Cooperative Learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1991.
7. M. Samiullah, Effect of in-class student-student interaction on the learning of physics in a college physics course, Am. J. Phys. 63, 944 (1995) [SPIN].
8. J. Wilson, The CUPLE physics studio, Phys. Teach. 32, 518 (1994) [SPIN].
9. K. Cummings, J. Marx, R. Thornton, and D. Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 (1999) [SPIN][INSPEC].
10. C. Hoellwarth, M. J. Moelter, and R. D. Knight, A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms, Am. J. Phys. 73, 459 (2005) [SPIN].
11. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Am. J. Phys. 58, 858 (1990) [SPIN][INSPEC].
12. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45 (1997) [SPIN][INSPEC].
13. R. Beichner, J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, J. Morse, Duane Deardorff, Rhett J. Allain, S. W. Bonham, Melissa Dancy, and J. Risley, Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) project, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2006).
14. D. Hestenes, Findings of the modeling workshop project (1994–2000) (retrieved from http://modeling.asu.edu/R&/ModelingWorkshopFindings.pdf).
15. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS].
16. R. Beichner, L. Bernold, E. Burniston, P. Dail, R. Felder, J. Gastineau, M. Gjertsen, and J. Risley, Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 67, S16 (1999) [SPIN].
17. R. N. Steinberg and K. Donnelly, PER-based reform at a multicultural institution, Phys. Teach. 40, 108 (2002) [SPIN].
18. D. E. Meltzer and K. Maivannan, Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture, Am. J. Phys. 70, 639 (2002) [SPIN][INSPEC].
19. If a chosen test covers only a few specific topics, then the pre-test and post-test timings are relaxed, respectively, to be before and after relevant materials being discussed in class.
20. D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001) [SPIN][INSPEC][CAS].
21. Edward Adelson (private communication).
22. N. W. Reay, L. Bao, P. Li, R. Warnakulasooriya, and G. Baugh, Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures, Am. J. Phys. 73, 554 (2005) [SPIN].
23. N. W. Reay, P. Li, and L. Bao, Testing a new voting machine question methodology, Am. J. Phys. 76, 171 (2008).
24. R. D. Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 1st ed. (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2004); and D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker, Fundamentals of Physics, 7th ed. (Wiley, New York, 2004); Edward Adelson (private communication).
25. Thomas Bolland, private communication; For information on WebAssign, see J. D. Risley, WebAssign: Assessing student performance any time any where, Uniserve Science News, 13 (available at http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol13/risley.html) and Mastering Physics; For information on Mastering Physics, see D. Pritchard, Mastering Physics, Pearson Education, 2004 (available at http://www.masteringphysics.com/).
26. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Lawrence Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
27. M. Planinic, Assessment of difficulties of some conceptual areas from electricity and magnetism using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 74, 1143 (2006) [SPIN].
28. F. W. Gery, Does mathematics matter?, in Research Papers in Economic Education, edited by Arthur Welsh (Joint Council on Economic Education, New York, 1972).