1. POSTER TEMPLATE BY: www.PosterPresentations.com Now you can compare them all! Ahmed Ibrahim 1, Sameer Arabasi 2 1. Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, Learning Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada 2. Department of Physics, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Introduction: Theoretical Background Results: Objective: Comparison of instruments which measure conceptual understanding Method and Analysis : Science Conceptual Understanding Measurement Instruments Comparison Conclusion:  A large number of measurement instruments are available to scientists and educators to use for measuring various constructs of interest  The aim is to compare instruments that measure and assess “conceptual understanding” of students’ learning.  The purpose of the examined instruments is to measure the cognitive process, namely, “understanding of conceptual knowledge”.  Factors of Comparison:  Concept measured by the instrument  Number of items in the instrument  Number of dimensions (or factors) the instrument is composed of  Targeted population  Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha or KR-20)  Popularity of use (as reported in number of citations to the reference in ISI Web of Science)  Observability is the dividing line between the behaviorist and cognitivist approaches in Psychology  Behaviorists concluded that psychology should concentrate on understanding directly observable behavior  Behaviorists’ approach to observabililty and measurability is to examine “observable” and “measurable” responses to stimuli  Cognitive psychology emphasize the importance of “a science of the unobservable events that take place in the head, not just a science of directly observable behavior”  The cognitive psychologists’ approach is to observe the effects of “unobservable” internal processes that are manifested through talk or eye-movement for example  Agreement about measurability.  instruments were developed to measure constructs  A measurement instrument is a standard tool with its associated procedures to quantify observations  Instruments vary in the disciplines in which they measure the construct  Variability in the criteria of comparison such as the number of dimensions, the targeted population, and the reliability factor  Force Concept Inventory (FCI) test is by far the most cited in the ISI Web of Science, followed by the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE)  Different measurement instruments exist to measures the “conceptual understanding” of different concepts in science  It is important to compare and asses the different instruments and to critically evaluate their characteristics such as their reliability, validity, factor analysis, and popularity before using them.  The two most cited instruments show that there is:  Active physics education research  Increasing emphasis on critical thinking and conceptual understanding in physics  A shift from problem solving and rote learning  These measurement instruments are used to measure the effect of deploying new instructional strategies such as Reflective Writing and Peer Instruction. Science Conceptual Understanding Measurement Instruments Comparison NoName of instrumentConcepts measuredNo. of itemsNo. of factorsTargeted population ReliabilityCited 1Misconception Test (MT)Particle theory778Elementaryalpha= 0.490 2Misconception Identification Test (MIT) Chemical equilibrium306High SchoolKR20=0.570 3What Do You Know About Photosynthesis and Respiration (P&P) Photosynthesis and respiration 13N/ASecondaryalpha=0.7242 4Physical Changes Concepts Test (PCCT) Dissolution, diffusion, effusion, and states of matter N/A4High SchoolN/A57 5Force Concept Inventory (FCI)Newtonian concepts3069 th grade to graduate students KR = 0.86 -0.89186 6Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K) Kinematics217High School and Undergraduates KR20=0.8357 7Diffusion and Osmosis Test (DOT) Diffusion and Osmosis12 College- BiologyN/A36 8Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) Newtonian concepts43N/AUniversity- PhysicsN/A95 9Astronomy Diagnostic Test (ADT)Astronomy21+12N/ACollege & University N/A2 10The Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM) Electricity and magnetism concepts 3211College- PhysicsKR20=0.7542 11Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) Concept of Natural Selection207University- Biology non-majors KR20= 0.58- 0.64 43 12Chemistry Concept Inventory (CCI) Introductory Chemistry2211First-Year Collegealpha= pre-.704, post-.716 41 13Symbolic, Application, Particulate Test (SAP) Major Chemistry concepts303High SchoolKR20= 0.769 14Testing Students’ Use of the Particulate Theory (TSUPT) Introductory Chemistry366First-Year Science majors Inter-rater= 90%0 15Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuit Concepts Test (DIRECT) Direct current & electric circuits 2911High School & University First- Year KR20= 0.7018 16Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment (BEMA) Electricity and Magnetism concepts 30N/ACollege- First-YearKR20= 0.850 17The Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI) Geology concepts73N/ACollege- First-YearN/A0 18Quantum Physics Conceptual Survey (QPCS) Photoelectric effect, Waves and Particles, De Broglie Wavelength, Double slit interference, Uncertainty principle 255University Third- Year to postgraduate KR20= 0.971