Development and Evaluation of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection

By D. Anderson, Kathleen Fisher, Gregory J. Norman. 2002

585 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, History and Philosophy of Science, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c71398e069096d2f293deb9e1d093d869a811f82

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Teaching more by lecturing less. (2005, methodology): “There was often a palpable tension in the classroom until the disagreement was resolved.”
Conceptual Change and Evolutionary Biology: A Developmental Analysis (2008, background): “This goal-directed or teleological concept of species change, in response to an individual organism’s needs, can persist in the face of focused instruction (e.g., Anderson et al., 2002; Bishop & Anderson, 1990).”
Teaching evolutionary biology (2004, background): “In order to assess the student’s understanding of natural selection, Anderson et al. (2002) developed the “Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection”, a comprehensive 20-item multiple choice test that employs common alternative conceptions as contrasts.”
Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution (2012, background): “Consider, for example, the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) test, which comprises 20 multiple-choice questions that focus on common misconceptions about 10 components of natural selection (Anderson et al., 2002).”
Development and Preliminary Evaluation of the Measure of Understanding of Macroevolution: Introducing the MUM (2009, methodology): “In concert with other concept inventories, we attempted to use common misconceptions as distracters (Anderson et al., 2002; Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992).”
Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution (2012, unknown): “(1)US non-biology majors (Anderson et al., 2002), (2)US biology majors (Nehm & Schonfeld,”
Preliminary Evolutionary Explanations: A Basic Framework for Conceptual Change and Explanatory Coherence in Evolution (2009, background): “To face such problems a diagnostic test for natural selection was developed that did not address students’ understanding of the process of natural selection itself but rather their understanding of the underlying concepts of genetics and ecology that serve as the basis for the application of natural”
Assessment of Learning in Entry-Level Geoscience Courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory (2005, methodology): “Quantitative assessment instruments for college classrooms have been used in a variety of scientific disciplines, particularly for the evaluation of attitudes or conceptual understanding (e.g., Hestenes et al., 1992; Zeilik et al., 1999; Libarkin, 2001; Yeo and Zadnick, 2001; Anderson et al., 2002).”
Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions (2009, background): “7 Instructors interested in assessing their own students' level of understanding may wish to consult tests developed by Bishop and Anderson (1986), Anderson et al. (2002), Beardsley (2004), Shtulman (2006), or Kampourakis and Zogza (2009).”
Science Motivation Questionnaire: Construct Validation With Nonscience Majors (2009, methodology): “For this reason, we used exploratory factor analysis to examine relationships among the items and identify a set of factors that describes in a concise and understandable manner how students view those relationships ( Anderson, Fisher, & Norman, 2002; Owen et al., 2007; Pett, Lakey, & Sullivan, 200”
Darwin's missing link—a novel paradigm for evolution education (2006, background): “With their emphasis on approaching evolution by inquiry, recent work by Stewart and Rudolph (2001), Anderson et al. (2002), and John Jungck’s “BioQuest” (www.BioQUEST.org) are significant steps forward that should be applauded.”
Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, an open‐response instrument, and an oral interview (2008, methodology): “Anderson et al. (2002) provided a series of criticisms of Bishop and Anderson’s (1990) openresponse instrument and used these criticisms as justification for the development of the CINS.”
Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. (2007, background): “, 2006) beyond collections for physics (Mazur, 1997), although some concept tests for specific biological topics have been published in recent years (Anderson et al., 2002; Udovic et al., 2002).”