From WolfWikis

Back to Instructional Strategies wiki home.

ConcepTests

Peggy Geiger - under construction

Description

ConcepTests are questions asked using a process designed to get feedback from students and promote interactive learning (Landis, et al., 2001). This technique, intended to develop conceptual understanding, is typically used in introductory science lecture courses.

1. The instructor asks a question, either a “yes/no” question or a multiple choice question. “Yes/no” questions can be asked verbally. Multiple choice questions and possible answers can be written on the board or presented with an overhead transparency or PowerPoint slide. Between one and six questions are typical used within a 50 minute lecture. Questions can be built around a demonstration, asking students to predict what will happen, followed by a question to determine if their predictions were correct. Another focus is using data presented in table or graph form and students are asked a question about interpreting the data. Questions designed to probe conceptual understanding are consistent with the intent of this strategy. Questions can be designed at any level of Bloom’s taxonomy, from simple recall of definitions to evaluation of the significance of a concept. McConnell, Steer, and Owens (2003) recommend using only comprehension questions.

2. The class votes on the answers to the question. This can be done with a show of hands or by students raising a sign of a specific color, design or orientation so that their choice is obvious to the instructor. Electronic clickers and touch pads can also be used to quickly poll a class. After the voting, the instructor announces the class result. The instructor can determine if voting is mandatory or voluntary.

3. If the majority of students have the correct answer, the instructor gives a brief explanation. If a majority of students select an incorrect answer, students are asked to convince a neighbor or a small group why their selected answer is correct. When working with small groups, a representative can be designated to summarize the group’s discussion to the class.

4. After the discussion, the class is polled a second time. If there still is significant confusion about the correct answer, then the instructor presents a more detailed explanation.

Several recommendations about implementation deal with the issue of student resistance to new techniques. It is best to introduce ConcepTests on the first day of class and to start with non-threatening questions (Landis et al., 2001, p. 13). A question I use is, “Did you think five years ago that you would now be sitting in a college level chemistry course?” Couch and Mazur (2001) recommend that instructors explain why they are using ConcepTests.

Additionally, students must be tested on conceptual knowledge to reinforce the importance of student participation (Crouch and Mazur, 2001). Providing reference sheets with formulas for tests also motivates the students to go beyond memorization to understanding in learning the material (Mazur, 1997, p. 20). When using electronic response systems (which can track participation) with ConcepTests, it is also beneficial to include participation as part of the student grade.

It is also desirable to use an absolute grading scale, rather than one based on a curve or that slides depending on test averages. To encourage collaboration, students need to know that they are not competing with each other for grades (Mazur, 1997, p. 21).

Major Concepts

A variety of curriculum reforms in chemistry higher education have been developed to address the fact that relatively few students learn chemistry as it is usually taught. High failure and withdrawal rates are the norm in introductory chemistry courses. Course content is generally not placed in the context of real scientific or societal problems. Diverse learning styles are not addressed and students from underrepresented populations in science are turned off. Instructors fail to communicate excitement about chemistry and students don’t get intellectually involved (New Traditions, n.d.).

The ConcepTest strategy was selected by the NSF for funding as one of the key approaches to improving college level chemistry instruction (New Traditions, n.d.). The strategy was originally developed by Mazur at Harvard for physics instruction. Mazur recognized that lectures rarely hold students’ attention and that regurgitating material from the textbook only encourages students to memorize facts without understanding the underlying relationships or concepts (Mazur Group, 1999). Mazur refers to the technique as “Peer Instruction,” but this name is applied to several different strategies in science education.

Is the ConcepTest strategy appropriate for adults? It is appropriate for introductory science courses where many of the students lack both confidence and a sophisticated background in science. The strategy fits within the scope of “active learning,” an approach considered to be good practice at any level of education. In answering and discussing ConcepTest questions, students must process the information in the lecture. They state the information in their own words and must connect it to other facts and ideas, two key elements for enhancing learning (Silberman, 1996, p. 3).

This technique also addresses motivational issues that plague required science courses. Small (2005, p. 35) charts a framework for motivational instruction for university courses, a framework which appears to be applicable to adult education. This framework applies four components: attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction.

By varying instructional techniques and providing an opportunity for active learning, this strategy helps focus students’ attention. In addressing relevance, questions can be designed to relate new content to previous and future learning. Additionally, the ConcepTest strategy allows the instructor to revise learning goals to be compatible with students’ needs and abilities, another factor which promotes relevance. Student confidence builds as they explain their answers to other students and receive immediate feedback about their understanding of the lecture material.

Giving students time to think and discuss answers promotes higher quality responses. Student satisfaction is improved when assessment is consistent with the lecture content. By incorporating ConcepTest questions on exams, students perceive that the tests are “fair” and reflect what they have been taught (Small, 2005, pp. 34-45).

Relationship to Teaching Perspective

The ConcepTests strategy fits within the transmission teaching perspective. In the transmission perspective, the teacher to content relationship is primary (Boldt, 1998, p. 61). ConcepTest questions highlight key content topics. ConcepTest questions are a natural extension of multiple choice tests and quizzes given by many math and science instructors (McConnell et al., 2006).

Clear objectives and assessments aligned to those objectives are key factors in the transmission perspective. ConcepTests help clarify objectives for both instructors and students. If exams include questions based on the concepts highlighted by ConcepTests, this also addresses alignment of objectives and assessment. While the rate of delivery of content is slowed by the use of ConcepTests, the effectiveness of delivery is potentially enhanced, a desirable outcome from a transmission perspective.

Benefits

According to Landis (2001, pp. 28-33), the benefits to students of this strategy are:

• Lectures become less boring and seem more worthwhile to the students.

• Immediate feedback is given that lets the student know whether she understands the material.

• Interaction with other students provides opportunities for students to clarify their thinking by explaining to other students or by hearing a different explanation of an idea in “student friendly” terms.

• Attendance improves and attrition is lowered.

• Students practice communicating scientific ideas.

• Key concepts are explicitly highlighted, encouraging students to develop study habits to understand the material, not just to memorize facts.

The main benefit to the instructor is real-time feedback (Landis, 2000, pp. 18-19). The instructor knows immediately whether students are grasping the material or not. Student confusion can be immediately addressed. Reflection on ConcepTest results can also lead to rethinking about how a particular concept is presented. Listening to student discussions often reveals a basic misunderstanding that the instructor is not aware of.

Couch and Mazur (2001) summarize the impact of using ConcepTests in physics instruction over a ten year period. They present quantitative evidence that concept mastery and problem solving skills increase with the use of ConcepTests. No change was observed in student evaluations or in student attitudes.

Kovac (1999) introduced ConcepTests in introductory chemistry courses, along with modifications in problem solving workshops (which accompany large lecture courses). Student evaluation results indicated that more than 60% of the students found ConcepTest questions to be helpful in learning the material. Course grades were comparable to previous course offerings, with some evidence for reduced failing grades and increased student retention.

One of the more comprehensive reports of the impact of ConcepTest use comes from a study involving introductory geoscience courses at eight different institutions (McConnell et al., 2006). At four of the institutions involved in the study, student gains in learning were analyzed using a version of the Geosciences Concepts Inventory administered at the beginning and end of the courses. Previous data from this inventory indicated that most students show no significant difference between the pre and post course test results. The instructors who used Conceptests found an improvement in scores from 41-48% pre course to 49-58% post course.

According to this report (McConnell et al., 2006), students reported improved learning with the use of ConcepTests. Based on student evaluation results, greater than 80% of the students found ConcepTests useful. Instructors observed that lecture attendance improved with the use of ConcepTests, but no attendance data were collected. The instructors reported that they found that preparation of ConcepTests took relatively little preparation time and that implementation was fairly easy. Additionally, ConcepTests can provide a mechanism to quantitatively assess learning gains. This is the type of measure that accreditation groups are now seeking to verify that institutions are meeting their educational objectives.

Drawbacks and Cautions

Some of the drawbacks and cautions related to implementing ConcepTests are:

• Technique effectiveness

• The need for both student and instructor motivation

• The amount of lecture time required

• The preparation of ConcepTest questions

Some quantitative evidence supports positive effects of ConcepTest use, but much of the available data is qualitative and anecdotal. An instructor must decide whether to invest time and effort in implementing this technique without a guarantee of concrete benefits.

Because students tend to resist new techniques, it is necessary to explicitly address student motivation. Some motivational tactics were discussed previously in the implementation section. It is also easy for an instructor to lose motivation when students complain and respond negatively. I stopped using this technique after two semesters because of student complaints.

Another drawback to any interactive lecture technique is the amount of lecture time required. Couch and Mazur (2001) make several recommendations to address this issue. One approach involves a short online writing assignment related to reading required material before class discussion. In the case of a non-science majors physics course, the number of topics included in the course was reduced to allow for ConcepTest use in lecture. Some material can be moved out of the lecture. For instance, students can be required to learn definitions on their own.

Preparation and selection of ConcepTest questions requires instructor time. It is important to select questions that will result in 35-70% correct student response before discussion (Couch and Mazur, 2001). Existing ConcepTest questions may need to be modified to reach the level appropriate for introductory level courses. (At least in chemistry, most of the questions were developed for General and Organic Chemistry courses taken by science majors.)

In discussing the use of active learning techniques in lectures, Felder (1992) warns that introverts will avoid participating. He suggests walking over to the students and reminding them that they are supposed to be working together. Using this approach, after a few interactive exercises, most students will participate. I would add to Felder’s caution that students who are used to passively sitting through lectures may also resist participation.

Final Thoughts

When I used this approach, I made up cardboard cards of different colors with A, B, C, and D printed on the cards. I handed the cards out at the beginning of class, which took some time. If I tried this approach again, I would give each student a packet of cards the first day of class and tell them that are expected to bring the cards to class. (I would have a few spare sets, just in case.) Another possibility would be to have the cards near the entrance to the classroom and make it a habit for students to pick up the cards on their way into class and drop them off at the end of class.

I also gave students a handout with the questions ahead of time, because they wanted the questions and answers for their notes and they took forever to copy down the questions and answers. There were always a few students who answered all the questions on their papers at the beginning of class. A better tactic would be to tell the students that after the lecture, the questions will be available on the course Blackboard site.

I made participation voluntary. Generally, most of the students responded. I tended to skip the discussion step, but I think that this step is critical to help the students gain their own understanding. If the question is about something that students find confusing or involves a particularly important concept, I would invoke the discussion and re-vote cycle based on a significant minority of students having the incorrect answer.

Students may perceive the cards and ConcepTests as gimmicks. My teenage son rolled his eyes when he discovered I was using this technique in one of my courses. If the group is accustomed to passive lectures, I would recommend using only this technique and no others aimed at class interaction. When I used this technique, I also had a few lectures which involved group activities. I received negative comments on student evaluations about using too many different strategies.

In reexamining this strategy, I realize that I made some mistakes in implementation. It is important to clarify the goals of introducing any new strategy and to measure the implementation against those goals. For example, if the goal is improve students’ conceptual understanding, the questions must reflect this goal and formal tests must measure this level of understanding. The implementation must be planned out and student motivation must be specifically addressed.

References

Boldt, A. (1998). The transmission perspective: Effective delivery of content. In D. D. Pratt (Ed.), Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher eduation (pp. 57-82). Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American journal of physics, 69 (9), 970-977.

Felder, R. (1992). How about a quick one? Chemical Engineering Education, 26 (1), 18-19. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Columns/Quickone.html

Kovac, Jeffrey (1999). Student active learning methods in general chemistry. Journal of chemical education, 76 (1), 120-124.

Landis, C. R., Ellis, A. B, Lisensky, G. C., Lorenz, J. K., Meeker, K., & Wamser, C.C. (2001) Chemistry conceptests: A pathway to interactive classrooms. Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Mazur Group (1999). Peer instruction. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/education/pi.php

McConnell, D., Steer, & D., Owens, K. (2003). Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses [Electronic version]. Journal of geoscience education, 51 (2), 205-216.

McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D. Knott, J.R., Van Horn, S., Borowski, W., Dick, J., Foos, A., Malone, M., McGrew, H., Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2006). Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses [Electronic version]. Journal of geoscience education, 54 (1), 61-68.

New Traditions (n.d.). Why reform now? Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://newtraditions.chem.wisc.edu/BROCHURE/brochure.htm#What%20Is%20NT

Silberman, M. (1996) Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Needham Heighs, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Small, R. (2005). About motivation. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. M Lambert, & P. Englot (Ed.), University teaching: A reference guide for graduate students and faculty. (pp. 30-45) Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press

Recommended Resources

For a variety of articles about active learning:

Felder, R. (n. d.). Active and cooperative learning. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Cooperative_Learning.html

For a thorough discussion of ConcepTest application in college level chemistry courses:

Ellis, A. B, Landis, C.R., & Meeker, K. (n.d.). Classroom assessment techniques: Conceptests. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from http://www.flaguide.org/cat/contests/contests1.php

For lists of ConcepTest questions:

• Chemistry:

Ellis, A. B., Cappellari, A., Lisensky, G.C., Lorenz, J. K., Meeker, K., Moore, D. , Campbell, K., Billmann, J., & Rickert, K. (1996). Conceptests. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEDLib/QBank/collection/ConcepTests/

• Physics:

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://galileo.harvard.edu/galileo/lgm/pi/

• Geoscience:

Steer, D. & McConnell, D. (2007). Conceptest examples. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/ctestexm.html