Developed by David Maloney, Alan van Heuvelen, Curtis Hieggelke, and Thomas O'Kuma
|Purpose||To assess students’ knowledge about topics in introductory electricity and magnetism.|
|Focus||Electricity / Magnetism Content knowledge (electrostatics, magnetic fields and forces, Faraday's law)|
Sample questions from the CSEM:
This is the second highest level of research validation, corresponding to at least 5 of the validation categories below.
Research Validation Summary
Based on Research Into:
- Student thinking
- Student interviews
- Expert review
- Appropriate statistical analysis
- At multiple institutions
- By multiple research groups
- Peer-reviewed publication
The multiple-choice questions on the CSEM were developed using students’ explanations for their responses on both open-ended and multiple-choice versions of the questions, expert review (100+ physics instructors) and analyzing large sets of test data (from over 5000 students at over 30 institutions including two-year and four-year colleges, and universities). Appropriate statistical analyses of difficulty, discrimination and reliability were performed. The CSEM questions have a reasonable range of difficulties and most questions are able to satisfactorily distinguish students who know the material well from those who don’t. The overall reliability of the CSEM is good. A factor analysis was performed, but no strong factors were identified. The CSEM has been used to compare the effectiveness of different teaching methods and the results published in over 15 peer-reviewed publications. It has been administered at many different institutions.
- D. Demaree and Y. Lin, Assessing ISLE Labs as an Enhancement to Traditional Large-Lecture Courses at the Ohio State University, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2005, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2005.
- K. Diff and N. Tache, From FCI To CSEM To Lawson Test: A Report On Data Collected At A Community College, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2007, Greensboro, NC, 2007.
- D. Hewagallage, J. Stewart, and R. Henderson, Differences in the predictive power of pretest scores of students underrepresented in physics, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2019, Provo, UT, 2019.
- P. Kohl and V. Kuo, Introductory Physics Gender Gaps: Pre- and Post-Studio Transition, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2009, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2009.
- P. Kohl, C. Pearl, and V. Kuo, Direct and Indirect Approaches to Increasing Conceptual Survey Gains, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2010, Portland, Oregon, 2010.
- K. Kreutzer and A. Boudreaux, Preliminary investigation of instructor effects on gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8 (1), 010120 (2012).
- D. Maloney, T. O'Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69 (S1), S12 (2001).
- D. Meltzer, Analysis Of Shifts In Students' Reasoning Regarding Electric Field And Potential Concepts, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2006, Syracuse, New York, 2006.
- M. Planinic, Assessment of difficulties of some conceptual areas from electricity and magnetism using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 74 (12), 1143 (2006).
- S. Pollock, Comparing Student Learning with Multiple Research-Based Conceptual Surveys: CSEM and BEMA, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2008, Edmonton, Canada, 2008.
- C. Singh, Effectiveness of Group Interaction on Conceptual Standardized Test Performance, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2002, Biose, Idaho, 2002.
- C. Zabriskie and J. Stewart, Multidimensional Item Response Theory and the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15 (2), 020107 (2019).
- G. Zavala and H. Alarcon, Evaluation of Instruction Using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism in Mexico, presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2008, Edmonton, Canada, 2008.
PhysPort provides translations of assessments as a service to our users, but does not endorse the accuracy or validity of translations. Assessments validated for one language and culture may not be valid for other languages and cultures.
|Malay||Mohd Ariff Ab Ghani & Shahrul kadri Ayop|
|Spanish||Genaro Zavala, Pablo Barniol, and Esmeralda Campos|
If you know of a translation that we don't have yet, or if you would like to translate this assessment, please contact us!
Login or register to download the answer key and an excel scoring and analysis tool for this assessment.
The Maloney et. al 2001 study contains data from a combined group of students from two- year colleges, four-year colleges and universities (since there were no significant differences in scores found by institution. These scores are for unmatched datasets since matched and unmatched data essentially gave the same result (Maloney et. al 2001). Pollock reports on CSEM scores for a calculus-based introductory course taught with interactive engagement teaching techniques (Pollock 2007). These results are for a set of matched data.
Coming soon: The PhysPort Assessment Data Explorer
Start learning more from your tests.
- Get 1-click statistics
- Compare to students like yours
- Get practical, personalized recommendations
The latest version of the CSEM is version H, originally published in Maloney, O’Kuma, Hieggelke, & Van Heuvelen, 2001. The development of the CSEM began with the development of two separate tests on electricity and magnetism, originally called the Electric Concepts Inventory (ECI) and the Magnetism Concepts Inventory (MCI), which were tested in 1995-97. These tests were later renamed the Conceptual Survey of Electricity (CSE) and the Conceptual Survey for Magnetism (CSM), and combined to form the CSEM. Earlier versions of the CSEM include versions D and G. Version H differs only slightly from Version G, and has the same answer key.