home - login - register

Journal Article Detail Page

Physical Review Physics Education Research
written by Yang Xiao, Jing Han, Kathleen M. Koenig, Jianwen Xiong, and Lei Bao
Assessment instruments composed of two-tier multiple choice (TTMC) items are widely used in science education as an effective method to evaluate students' sophisticated understanding. In practice, however, there are often concerns regarding the common scoring methods of TTMC items, which include pair scoring and individual scoring schemes. The pair-scoring method is effective in suppressing "false positives" at the cost of missing possible middle states of progression of student understanding. On the other hand, the individual scoring method captures an undistinguished middle level but is prone to rewarding guessing, which leads to "false positives". In addition, this middle level does not discriminate the progression between knowing the result and explaining the reason, which limits the capacity of drawing meaningful implications from the assessment outcomes. To address the concerns with the current scoring methods, it is valuable to explore new scoring method(s) that can fully utilize the information measured with TTMC items. In this study, a number of scoring models are studied using Rasch analysis on data of a popular TTMC test, the Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning (LCTSR), collected from four considerably different populations. The results show that the model fit quality of the scoring methods varies with student population and item design. In general, there is no one-fits-all solution; however, given the new information obtained in this study, a three-step process is suggested that can guide the development of new mixed scoring models tailored for a particular population and or test. The evaluation results show that the mixed models produce the most reliable model fitting and better than average goodness of fit. Furthermore, the results in this study also confirm previous studies, which suggest that it is harder to come up with a correct explanation than to just know the answer.
Physical Review Physics Education Research: Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 020104
Subjects Levels Resource Types
Education - Basic Research
- Assessment
= Instruments
- Research Design & Methodology
= Data
= Validity
- Sample Population
= Age
- Student Characteristics
= Skills
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Scientific Reasoning
- Lower Undergraduate
- Middle School
- High School
- Reference Material
= Research study
PER-Central Type Intended Users Ratings
- PER Literature
- Researchers
- Administrators
- Educators
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Formats:
application/pdf
text/html
Access Rights:
Free access
License:
This material is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Rights Holder:
American Physical Society
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104
NSF Numbers:
DUE-1044724
DUE-1431908
DRL-1417983
DUE-1712238
Keywords:
scientific reasoning assessment, scientific reasoning concept inventory
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created December 31, 2018 by Lyle Barbato
Record Updated:
June 13, 2022 by Caroline Hall
Last Update
when Cataloged:
July 19, 2018
ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
Y. Xiao, J. Han, K. Koenig, J. Xiong, and L. Bao, , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14 (2), 020104 (2018), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104).
AJP/PRST-PER
Y. Xiao, J. Han, K. Koenig, J. Xiong, and L. Bao, Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14 (2), 020104 (2018), <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104>.
APA Format
Xiao, Y., Han, J., Koenig, K., Xiong, J., & Bao, L. (2018, July 19). Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 14(2), 020104. Retrieved June 13, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104
Chicago Format
Xiao, Y, J. Han, K. Koenig, J. Xiong, and L. Bao. "Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, no. 2, (July 19, 2018): 020104, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104 (accessed 13 June 2024).
MLA Format
Xiao, Yang, Jing Han, Kathleen Koenig, Jianwen Xiong, and Lei Bao. "Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14.2 (2018): 020104. 13 June 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "Yang Xiao and Jing Han and Kathleen Koenig and Jianwen Xiong and Lei Bao", Title = {Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning}, Journal = {Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.}, Volume = {14}, Number = {2}, Pages = {020104}, Month = {July}, Year = {2018} }
Refer Export Format

%A Yang Xiao %A Jing Han %A Kathleen Koenig %A Jianwen Xiong %A Lei Bao %T Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson's classroom test of scientific reasoning %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 14 %N 2 %D July 19, 2018 %P 020104 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104 %O application/pdf

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Xiao, Yang %A Han, Jing %A Koenig, Kathleen %A Xiong, Jianwen %A Bao, Lei %D July 19, 2018 %T Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple choice test: A case study using Lawson's classroom test of scientific reasoning %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 14 %N 2 %P 020104 %8 July 19, 2018 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020104


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The AJP/PRST-PER presented is based on the AIP Style with the addition of journal article titles and conference proceeding article titles.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.

Save to my folders

Contribute

Similar Materials