FeaturesFree Access

Harnessing Technology to Improve Formative Assessment of Student Conceptions in STEM: Forging a National Network

is corrected by
- Correction for Harnessing Technology to Improve Formative Assessment of Student Conceptions in STEM: Forging a National Network

Kevin C. Haudek

*Division of Science and Mathematics Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;

Search for more papers by this author

,

Jennifer J. Kaplan

†Department of Statistics and Probability, Division of Science and Mathematics Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;

Search for more papers by this author

,

Jennifer Knight

§Department of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

,

‖Center for Integrative Studies in General Sciences and Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

,

¶Biological Sciences Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

,

#Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

,

@School of Teaching and Learning, EEOB, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210;

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

,

**Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195;

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Mark Urban-Lurain

††Center for Engineering Education Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

‡These authors contributed equally to this report and are listed alphabetically.

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0019

Abstract

Concept inventories, consisting of multiple-choice questions designed around common student misconceptions, are designed to reveal student thinking. However, students often have complex, heterogeneous ideas about scientific concepts. Constructed-response assessments, in which students must create their own answer, may better reveal students’ thinking, but are time- and resource-intensive to evaluate. This report describes the initial meeting of a National Science Foundation–funded cross-institutional collaboration of interdisciplinary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education researchers interested in exploring the use of automated text analysis to evaluate constructed-response assessments. Participants at the meeting shared existing work on lexical analysis and concept inventories, participated in technology demonstrations and workshops, and discussed research goals. We are seeking interested collaborators to join our research community.

Vol. 10, No. 2

June 01, 2011

111-230

Metrics

Downloads & Citations

Downloads: 383

Citations: 37

History

Permissions

Information

© 2011 K. C. Haudek et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2011 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

Funding for the described research studies was provided by grants from the NSF (DUE 1022653, DUE 07236952, REESE 0909999, DUE 0736928, DRL 0910278, DUE 0127765, DUE 0717790, and DRL 0815930). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.