The calculus concept inventory: a psychometric analysis and implications for use

References

• Federal Coordination in STEM Education Task Force. Coordinating federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education investments: Progress report. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Barker W, Bressoud D, Epp S, et al. Undergraduate programs and courses in the mathematical sciences: CUPM curriculum guide. Washington (DC): Mathematical Association of America; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Zerr RJ. Promoting students’ ability to think conceptually in calculus. Primus. 2010;20(1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston (VA): NCTM; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein J. Development and validation of the calculus concept inventory. Proceedings of the ninth International Mathematics Education on Glob Community. Charlotte, NC; 2007. p. 165–170.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein J. The calculus concept inventory – measurement of the effect of teaching methodology in mathematics. Not AMS. 2013;60:1018–1026.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason J, White D, Thomas M, et al. The calculus concept inventory: a psychometric analysis and framework for a new instrument. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Pittsburgh, PA; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason J, Thomas M, Bagley S, et al. Analyzing the calculus concept inventory: content validity, internal structure validity, and reliability analysis. Proceedings of the PMENA-37. East Lansing, MI; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert J, Grouws DA. The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In: Lester FK, editor. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte (NC): Information Age; 2007. p. 371–404.
   Google Scholar
• Rittle-Johnson B, Alibali MW. Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: does one lead to the other? J Educ Psychol. 1999;91(1):175–189. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick J, Swafford J, Findell B, & National Research Council. Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson AG, Philipp RA, Thompson PW, et al. Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In: Coxford A, editor. Professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM; 1994. p. 79–92.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard A, Nesher P, Streefland L, et al. Learning mathematics through conversation: is it as good as they say? Learn Math. 1998;18:41–51.
   Google Scholar
• Koirala HP. Teaching of calculus for students’ conceptual understanding. Math Educ. 1997;2:52–62.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes Hallett D. What have we learned from calculus reform? The road to conceptual understanding. MAA NOTES. 2006;69:43.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes Hallett D, Robinson M, Lomen D, et al. Conceptests: active learning in calculus. In: Rogerson A, editor. Eighth International Conference. Reform, Revolution and Paradigm Shifts in Mathematics Education. Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia; 2005. p. 112–114.
   Google Scholar
• Clark M, Lovric M. Understanding secondary-tertiary transition in mathematics. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol. 2009;40:755–776. doi: 10.1080/00207390902912878
   Google Scholar
• Long MC, Iatarola P, Conger D. Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level math: the role of high school courses. Educ Financ Policy. 2009;4:1–33. doi: 10.1162/edfp.2009.4.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann WR. Some disquieting effects of calculus in high school. High Sch J. 1976;59:237–239.
   Google Scholar
• Small D. Report of the CUPM panel on calculus articulation: problems in transition from high school calculus to college calculus. Am Math Mon. 1987;94:776–785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St. Jarre K. They knew calculus when they left: The thinking disconnect between high school and university. Phi Delta Kappan. 2008;90(4):123–126. doi: 10.1177/003172170809000210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisson M, Gilmore C, Inglis M, et al. Measuring conceptual understanding using comparative judgement. Int J Res Undergrad Math Educ. 2016;2:141–164. doi: 10.1007/s40753-016-0024-3
   Google Scholar
• Crooks NM, Alibali MW. Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Dev Rev. 2014;34:344–377. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys. 1998;66:64–74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace CS, Bailey JM. Do concept inventories actually measure anything? Astron Educ Rev. 2010;9:10116. doi: 10.3847/AER2010024
   Google Scholar
• Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G. Force concept inventory. Phys Teach. 1992;30:141–158. doi: 10.1119/1.2343497
   Google Scholar
• Hake RR. Six lessons from the physics education reform effort. Lat Am J Phys Educ. 2007;1:24–31.
   Google Scholar
• Hestenes D, Wells M. A mechanics baseline test. Phys Teach. 1992;30:159–166. doi: 10.1119/1.2343498
   Google Scholar
• Anderson DL, Fisher KM, Norman GJ. Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39:952–978. doi: 10.1002/tea.10053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulford DR, Robinson WR. An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. J Chem Educ. 2002;79:739. doi: 10.1021/ed079p739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey JM. Development of a concept inventory to assess students’ understanding and reasoning difficulties about the properties and formation of stars. Astron Educ Rev. 2008;6:133–139. doi: 10.3847/AER2007028
   Google Scholar
• Marbach-Ad G, Briken V, El-Sayed NM, et al. Assessing student understanding of host pathogen interactions using a concept inventory. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2009;10:43–50. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v10.98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlson M, Oehrtman M, Engelke N. The precalculus concept assessment: A tool for assessing students’ reasoning abilities and understandings. Cogn Instr. 2010;28:113–145. doi: 10.1080/07370001003676587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson M, Madison B, West R. The calculus concept readiness (CCR) instrument: assessing student readiness for calculus. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1010.2719. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington (DC): American Educational Research Association; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Lance CE, Butts MM, Michels LC. The sources of four commonly report cutoff criteria. What did they really say? Organ Res Methods. 2006;9:202–220. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein J. Field-tested learning assessment guide for science, math, engineering, and technology instructors: Tools [Internet]. Available from: www.flaguide.org/tools/diagnostic/calculus_concept_inventory.php.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. Common core state standards. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouch CH, Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys. 2001;69:970–977. doi: 10.1119/1.1374249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson C. Promoting instructional change in new faculty: an evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop. Am J Phys. 2008;76:179–187. doi: 10.1119/1.2820393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson M, Jacobs S, Coe E, et al. Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: a framework and a study. J Res Math Educ. 2002;33:352–378. doi: 10.2307/4149958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sfard A. On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educ Stud Math. 1991;22:1–36. doi: 10.1007/BF00302715
   Google Scholar
• Sfard A. Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification – the case of function. In: Harel G, Dubinsky E, editor. Concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy. Mathematical Association of America (MAA Notes and Reports Series); 1992. p. 59–84.
   Google Scholar
• Williams SR. Models of limit held by college calculus students. J Res Math Educ. 1991;22:219–236. doi: 10.2307/749075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roundy D, Manogue CA, Wagner JF, et al. An extended theoretical framework for the concept of derivative. 18th Annu Conf Res Undergrad Math Educ Proc. 2015;1:919–924.
   Google Scholar
• Zandieh M. A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. Res Coll Math Educ. 2000;IV:103–127.
   Google Scholar
• Oehrtman M. Collapsing dimensions, physical limitation, and other student metaphors for limit concepts. J Res Math Educ. 2009;40(4):396–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinyard C. Reinventing the formal definition of limit: the case of Amy and mike. J Math Behav. 2011;30(2):93–114. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Ärlebäck JB, Doerr HM, O’Neil AH. A modeling perspective on interpreting rates of change in context. Math Think Learn. 2013;15(4):314–336. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2013.834405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingolbali E, Monaghan J. Concept image revisited. Educ Stud Math. 2008;68(1):19–35. doi: 10.1007/s10649-007-9112-2
   Google Scholar
• Jones SR. An exploratory study on student understandings of derivatives in real-world, non-kinematics contexts. J Math Behav. 2017;45:95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Roundy D, Dray T, Manogue CA, et al. An extended theoretical framework for the concept of derivative. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Pittsburgh, PA; 2015. p. 838–843.
   Google Scholar
• Jones SR. Areas, anti-derivatives, and adding up pieces: integrals in pure mathematics and applied contexts. J Math Behav. 2015;38:9–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones SR. Understanding the integral: students’ symbolic forms. J Math Behav. 2013;32(2):122–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.12.004
   Google Scholar
• Sealey V. A framework for characterizing student understanding of Riemann sums and definite integrals. J Math Behav. 2014;33:230–245. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.12.002
   Google Scholar
• Von Korff J, Rebello NS. Teaching integration with layers and representations: a case study. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res. 2012;8(1):010125. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Korff J, Rebello SN. Distinguishing between ‘change’ and ‘amount’ infinitesimals in first-semester calculus-based physics. Am J Phys. 2014;82(7):695–705. doi: 10.1119/1.4875175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumais S. Latent semantic analysis. Ann Rev Inf Sci Technol. 2004;38:188–230. doi: 10.1002/aris.1440380105
   Google Scholar
• Rupp AA, Templin J, Henson R. Diagnostic measurement: theory, methods, and applications. New York (NY): The Guilford Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Templin J. Diagnostic assessment: methods for the reliable measurement of multidimensional abilities. In: Drasgow F, editor. Technology and testing: improving educational and psychological measurement. New York (NY): Routledge; 2016. p. 285–304.
   Google Scholar
• Chang H-H. Psychometrics behind computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika. 2015;80:1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11336-014-9401-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar