Development of the Heat and Energy Concept Inventory: Preliminary Results on the Prevalence and Persistence of Engineering Students' Misconceptions

BACKGROUND Students frequently hold a number of misconceptions related to temperature, heat and energy. There is not currently a concept inventory with sufficiently high internal reliability to assess these concept areas for research purposes. Consequently, there is little data on the prevalence of these misconceptions amongst undergraduate engineering students. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS) This work presents the Heat and Energy Concept Inventory (HECI) to assess prevalent misconceptions related to: (1) Temperature vs. Energy, (2) Temperature vs. Perceptions of Hot and Cold, (3) Factors that affect the Rate vs. Amount of Heat Transfer and (4) Thermal Radiation. The HECI is also used to document the prevalence of misconceptions amongst undergraduate engineering students. DESIGN/METHOD Item analysis, guided by classical test theory, was used to refine individual questions on the HECI. The HECI was used in a one group, pre-test-post-test design to assess the prevalence and persistence of targeted misconceptions amongst a population of undergraduate engineering students at diverse institutions. RESULTS Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20; values were 0.85 for the entire instrument and ranged from 0.59 to 0.76 for the four subcategories of the HECI. Student performance on the HECI went from 49.2% to 54.5% after instruction. Gains on each of the individual subscales of the HECI, while generally statistically significant, were similarly modest. CONCLUSIONS The HECI provides sufficiently high estimates of internal consistency reliability to be used as a research tool to assess students' understanding of the targeted concepts. Use of the instrument demonstrates that student misconceptions are both prevalent and resistant to change through standard instruction.

Fidelity of Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses

Background Increasing attention is being paid to improvement in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education through increased adoption of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS), but high-quality measures of faculty instructional practice do not exist to monitor progress. Purpose/Hypothesis The measure of how well an implemented intervention follows the original is called fidelity of implementation. This theory was used to address the research questions: What is the fidelity of implementation of selected RBIS in engineering science courses? That is, how closely does engineering science classroom practice reflect the intentions of the original developers? Do the critical components that characterize an RBIS discriminate between engineering science faculty members who claimed use of the RBIS and those who did not? Design/Method A survey of 387 U.S. faculty teaching engineering science courses (e.g., statics, circuits, thermodynamics) included questions about class time spent on 16 critical components and use of 11 corresponding RBIS. Fidelity was quantified as the percentage of RBIS users who also spent time on corresponding critical components. Discrimination between users and nonusers was tested using chi square. Results Overall fidelity of the 11 RBIS ranged from 11% to 80% of users spending time on all required components. Fidelity was highest for RBIS with one required component: case-based teaching, just-in-time teaching, and inquiry learning. Thirteen of 16 critical components discriminated between users and nonusers for all RBIS to which they were mapped. Conclusions Results were consistent with initial mapping of critical components to RBIS. Fidelity of implementation is a potentially useful framework for future work in STEM undergraduate education.

Estimates of Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Core Electrical or Computer Engineering Courses

Many research-based instruction strategies (RBISs) have been developed; their superior efficacy with respect to student learning has been demonstrated in many studies. Collecting and interpreting evidence about: 1) the extent to which electrical and computer engineering (ECE) faculty members are using RBISs in core, required engineering science courses, and 2) concerns that they express about using them, are important aspects of understanding how engineering education is evolving. The authors surveyed ECE faculty members, asking about their awareness and use of selected RBISs. The survey also asked what concerns ECE faculty members had about using RBISs. Respondent data showed that awareness of RBISs was very high, but estimates of use of RBISs, based on survey data, varied from 10% to 70%, depending on characteristics of the strategy. The most significant concern was the amount of class time that using an RBIS might take; efforts to increase use of RBISs must address this.