Validated formative assessment tools provide a reliable way to compare student learning across variables such as pedagogy and curricula, or demographics. Such assessments typically employ a closed-response format developed from student responses to open-response questions and interviews with students and experts. The validity and reliability of these assessments is usually evaluated using statistical tools such as classical test theory or item response theory.

Recent research in introductory physics labs suggests that most students judge the quality of a measurement based on a comparison with theory. To probe this dimension of students’ judgments based on authority, we sought to evaluate whether students’ responses about evaluations of measurement depended on contextual cues. We asked students which measurement of the acceleration due to gravity was ‘better:’ (1) one given with uncertainty and found by ‘you and your friend’ or ‘you and your research group’ or (2) a textbook value with no reported uncertainty but more significant figures.

Measurements in quantum mechanics are often taught in an abstract, theoretical context. Compared to what is known about student understanding of experimental data in classical mechanics, it is unclear how students think about measurement and uncertainty in the context of experimental data from quantum mechanical systems. In this paper, we tested how students interpret the variability in data from hypothetical experiments in classical and quantum mechanics.

Science is, at its core, an empirical discipline: Theories must coordinate with evidence obtained through systematic, scientific investigations. Learning science involves learning how science is done, not just what science has found, and so nearly every introductory college science course has an associated laboratory component. The value of these labs, however, has often been called into question, particularly when considering concerns about the associated space, time, equipment, and personnel needs.

The newly developed Four-Dimensional Ecology Education (4DEE) framework, produced by the Ecological Society of America, provides updated guidance for undergraduate instruction. To help instructors align their courses to this framework and assess student progress toward its goals, we have recoded the comprehensive programmatic assessment Ecology and Evolution-Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science (EcoEvo-MAPS) and reanalyzed a national dataset of over 2000 undergraduate student responses.

In terrestrial instruments for X-ray emission analysis (e.g. X-ray fluorescence, electron microprobe) the angle of excitation and the angle of characteristic X-ray emission by samples are typically well-defined. This is not the case for the Mars rovers’ alpha particle X-ray spectrometers, necessitating use of “effective” angles in any fundamental parameters approach to spectrum fitting and derivation of element concentrations.

Calls for reform to instructional labs mean many instructors and departments are facing the daunting task of identifying goals for their introductory lab courses. Fortunately, the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) released a set of recommendations for learning goals for the lab to support lab redevelopment. Here we outline the process we have undergone to identify a set of learning goals for the labs that operationalize those provided by the AAPT.

Gender disparity in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields is an ongoing challenge. Gender bias is one of the possible mechanisms leading to such disparities and has been extensively studied. Previous work showed that there was a gender bias in how students perceived the competence of their peers in undergraduate biology courses. We examined whether there was a similar gender bias in a mechanical engineering course. We conducted the study in two offerings of the course, which used different instructional practices.

Assessing learning across a biology major can help departments monitor achievement of broader program-level goals and identify opportunities for curricular improvement. However, biology departments have lacked suitable tools to measure learning at the program scale. To address this need, we developed four freely available assessments called Biology-Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science or Bio-MAPS for general biology, molecular biology, ecology/evolution, and physiology programs.

Despite the significant amount of time undergraduate students spend in introductory physics labs, there is little consensus on instructional goals and accepted diagnostic assessments for these labs. In response to these issues, we have developed the Physics Lab Inventory of Critical thinking (PLIC) to assess students' proficiency with critical thinking in a physics lab context. Specifically, the PLIC aims to evaluate students' skills in making sense of data, variability, models, and experimental methods and to assess the effectiveness of lab courses at developing these skills.