Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010105 (2009)
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105
Ronald K Thornton, Dennis Kuhl, Karen Cummings, and Jeffrey Marx
In this paper we compare and contrast student’s pretest/post-test performance on the Halloun-Hestenes force concept inventory (FCI) to the Thornton-Sokoloff force and motion conceptual evaluation (FMCE). Both tests are multiple-choice assessment instruments whose results are used to characterize how well a first term, introductory physics course promotes conceptual understanding. However, the two exams have slightly different content domains, as well as different representational formats; hence, one exam or the other might better fit the interests of a given instructor or researcher. To begin the comparison, we outline how to determine a single-number score for the FMCE and present ranges of normalized gains on this exam. We then compare scores on the FCI and the FMCE for approximately 2000 students enrolled in the Studio Physics course at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute over a period of eight years (1998–2006) that encompassed significant evolution of the course and many different instructors. We found that the mean score on the FCI is significantly higher than the mean score on the FMCE, however there is a very strong relationship between scores on the two exams. The slope of a best fit line drawn through FCI versus FMCE data is approximately 0.54, and the correlation coefficient is approximately r=0.78 , for preinstructional and postinstructional testings combined. In spite of this strong relationship, the assessments measure different normalized gains under identical circumstances. Additionally, students who scored well on one exam did not necessarily score well on the other. We use this discrepancy to uncover some subtle, but important, differences between the exams. We also present ranges of normalized gains for the FMCE in a variety of instructional settings.
Showing posts with label FCI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCI. Show all posts
2009-03-21
2008-11-22
Malone - PRST-PER 2008
Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventory, and problem-solving behaviors
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020107 (2008)
Kathy L. Malone
The modeling instruction pedagogy for the teaching of physics has been proven to be quite effective at increasing the conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities of students to a much greater extent than that of nonmodeling students. Little research has been conducted concerning the cognitive and metacognitive skills that modeling students develop that allow for these increases. Two studies were designed to answer the following question: In what ways do the knowledge structures, metacognitive skills, and problem-solving abilities differ between modeling and nonmodeling students? In study 1, the knowledge structures developed by two groups of high school physics students taught using differing pedagogies (modeling instruction in physics and traditional methods) were determined using a card-sort task. The student’s knowledge structures were then correlated with the scores they obtained on two measures: the force concept inventory (FCI) and a problem-solving task (PS task) developed for this study. The modeling students had a more expertlike knowledge structure, while the nonmodeling students produced structures that were novicelike. In addition, the expert score correlated highly with performance on both the FCI and PS task scores demonstrating that a higher expert score predicted a higher value on each of these measures while a higher surface feature score predicted a lower score on both of these measures. In study 2, a verbal protocol design allowed for a detailed study of the problem-solving and metacognitive skills utilized by the two groups. It was determined that the skills utilized by the modeling instruction students were more expertlike. In addition, the modeling students produced significantly fewer physics errors while catching and repairing a greater percentage of their errors.
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020107 (2008)
Kathy L. Malone
The modeling instruction pedagogy for the teaching of physics has been proven to be quite effective at increasing the conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities of students to a much greater extent than that of nonmodeling students. Little research has been conducted concerning the cognitive and metacognitive skills that modeling students develop that allow for these increases. Two studies were designed to answer the following question: In what ways do the knowledge structures, metacognitive skills, and problem-solving abilities differ between modeling and nonmodeling students? In study 1, the knowledge structures developed by two groups of high school physics students taught using differing pedagogies (modeling instruction in physics and traditional methods) were determined using a card-sort task. The student’s knowledge structures were then correlated with the scores they obtained on two measures: the force concept inventory (FCI) and a problem-solving task (PS task) developed for this study. The modeling students had a more expertlike knowledge structure, while the nonmodeling students produced structures that were novicelike. In addition, the expert score correlated highly with performance on both the FCI and PS task scores demonstrating that a higher expert score predicted a higher value on each of these measures while a higher surface feature score predicted a lower score on both of these measures. In study 2, a verbal protocol design allowed for a detailed study of the problem-solving and metacognitive skills utilized by the two groups. It was determined that the skills utilized by the modeling instruction students were more expertlike. In addition, the modeling students produced significantly fewer physics errors while catching and repairing a greater percentage of their errors.
2008-07-29
Ates Cataloglu - EJP 2008
Reply to 'Comment on "The effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics"'
2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 L29-L31
S Ates and E Cataloglu
We respond to the comment by Coletta et al (2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 L25) on our work on the effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics.
2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 L29-L31
S Ates and E Cataloglu
We respond to the comment by Coletta et al (2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 L25) on our work on the effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics.
Coletta Phillips Savinainen Steinert - EJP 2008
Comment on 'The effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics'
2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 L25-L27
Vincent P Coletta, Jeffrey A Phillips, Antti Savinainen and Jeffrey J Steinert
In a recent article, Ates and Cataloglu (2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 1161–71), in analysing results for a course in introductory mechanics for prospective science teachers, found no statistically significant correlation between students' pre-instruction scores on the Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning ability (CTSR) and post-instruction scores on the force concept inventory (FCI). As a possible explanation, the authors suggest that the FCI does not probe for skills required to determine reasoning abilities. Our previously published research directly contradicts the authors' finding. We summarize our research and present a likely explanation for their observation of no correlation.
2008 Eur. J. Phys. 29 L25-L27
Vincent P Coletta, Jeffrey A Phillips, Antti Savinainen and Jeffrey J Steinert
In a recent article, Ates and Cataloglu (2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 1161–71), in analysing results for a course in introductory mechanics for prospective science teachers, found no statistically significant correlation between students' pre-instruction scores on the Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning ability (CTSR) and post-instruction scores on the force concept inventory (FCI). As a possible explanation, the authors suggest that the FCI does not probe for skills required to determine reasoning abilities. Our previously published research directly contradicts the authors' finding. We summarize our research and present a likely explanation for their observation of no correlation.
2008-02-22
Bayraktar - IJSME 2008
Misconceptions of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers about Force and Motion
IJSME online first publication
Sule Bayraktar
The purpose of this study was to diagnose the misconceptions held by pre-service physics teachers about force and motion. The secondary aim of the study was to detect whether misconceptions vary according to gender, educational level, and culture. The study was conducted with 79 student-teachers attending to one of the largest faculties of education in Turkey. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to diagnose student-teachers’ misconceptions. FCI is a conceptual test consisting of 29 multiple choice items. Each wrong choice for each question reflects a specific misconception about the force and motion concepts. Data from the study was analyzed by using frequencies, t-test, and ANOVA for making comparisons according to gender and years of education. Results of the study showed that student-teachers of physics hold very strong misconceptions about impetus and active force. No significant differences were found between male and female students’ scores on the concept test. The results also showed that misconceptions about force and motion decreased through the years of education. However, they did not disappear completely. Findings of the study are very similar to the other research findings conducted on the subject in other countries. Student-teachers’ conceptions about Newton’s Third Law, on the other hand, were significantly better than those observed in other research done in other countries such as the US and Finland
IJSME online first publication
Sule Bayraktar
The purpose of this study was to diagnose the misconceptions held by pre-service physics teachers about force and motion. The secondary aim of the study was to detect whether misconceptions vary according to gender, educational level, and culture. The study was conducted with 79 student-teachers attending to one of the largest faculties of education in Turkey. Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was used to diagnose student-teachers’ misconceptions. FCI is a conceptual test consisting of 29 multiple choice items. Each wrong choice for each question reflects a specific misconception about the force and motion concepts. Data from the study was analyzed by using frequencies, t-test, and ANOVA for making comparisons according to gender and years of education. Results of the study showed that student-teachers of physics hold very strong misconceptions about impetus and active force. No significant differences were found between male and female students’ scores on the concept test. The results also showed that misconceptions about force and motion decreased through the years of education. However, they did not disappear completely. Findings of the study are very similar to the other research findings conducted on the subject in other countries. Student-teachers’ conceptions about Newton’s Third Law, on the other hand, were significantly better than those observed in other research done in other countries such as the US and Finland
2007-10-30
Savinainen and Viiri - IJSME 2007
The Force Concept Inventory as a Measure of Students Conceptual Coherence
Online first publication
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
This paper has been accepted for publication and posted online, but has not yet been published in the journal itself. You'll have to negotiate for yourself (and with your library) how you gain access to it.
Received: 2 October 2006 Accepted: 17 July 2007 Published online: 11 October 2007
Abstract The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a multiple choice test designed to monitor students’ understanding of the conceptual domain of force and related kinematics (Hestenes et al. Physics Teacher 30:141–158 1992; Halloun et al., 1995, Online at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html). It has gained wide popularity among both researchers and physics instructors in the United States and elsewhere. The FCI has also been criticized, and its validity as a measure of the coherence of a student’s understanding of the force concept has been questioned. In this paper we provide a characterization of students’ conceptual coherence and a way to evaluate it using the FCI. We divide students’ conceptual coherence into three aspects: representational coherence (the ability to use multiple representations and move between them), contextual coherence (the ability to apply a concept across a variety of contexts), and conceptual framework coherence (the ability to fit related concepts together, i.e. to integrate and differentiate between them). Postinstruction FCI results and interview data from two Finnish high school groups (n=49 total) are discussed; the data provide evidence that the FCI can be used to evaluate students’ conceptual coherence—especially contextual coherence—of the force concept.
Key Words conceptual coherence - Force Concept Inventory - multiple representations - Newton’s laws - teaching force
Online first publication
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
This paper has been accepted for publication and posted online, but has not yet been published in the journal itself. You'll have to negotiate for yourself (and with your library) how you gain access to it.
Received: 2 October 2006 Accepted: 17 July 2007 Published online: 11 October 2007
Abstract The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a multiple choice test designed to monitor students’ understanding of the conceptual domain of force and related kinematics (Hestenes et al. Physics Teacher 30:141–158 1992; Halloun et al., 1995, Online at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html). It has gained wide popularity among both researchers and physics instructors in the United States and elsewhere. The FCI has also been criticized, and its validity as a measure of the coherence of a student’s understanding of the force concept has been questioned. In this paper we provide a characterization of students’ conceptual coherence and a way to evaluate it using the FCI. We divide students’ conceptual coherence into three aspects: representational coherence (the ability to use multiple representations and move between them), contextual coherence (the ability to apply a concept across a variety of contexts), and conceptual framework coherence (the ability to fit related concepts together, i.e. to integrate and differentiate between them). Postinstruction FCI results and interview data from two Finnish high school groups (n=49 total) are discussed; the data provide evidence that the FCI can be used to evaluate students’ conceptual coherence—especially contextual coherence—of the force concept.
Key Words conceptual coherence - Force Concept Inventory - multiple representations - Newton’s laws - teaching force
Ates and Cataloglu, EJP 2007
For a short time only, you can access the following:
The effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics
2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 1161-1171
S Ates and E Cataloglu
Department of Physics Education, Abant Izzet Baysal University, 14280 Bolu, Turkey
E-mail: sates0@yahoo.com and erdat@ibu.edu.tr
doi:10.1088/0143-0807/28/6/013
The IOP (which publishes the European Journal of Physics) only gives access to newly published articles for 30 days. Get it quick, if you're interested in this topic.
Abstract. The purpose of this study was to determine if there are relationships among freshmen/first year students' reasoning abilities, conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics. The sample consisted of 165 freshmen science education prospective teachers (female = 86, male = 79; age range 17–21) who were enrolled in an introductory physics course. Data collection was done during the fall semesters in two successive years. At the beginning of each semester, the force concept inventory (FCI) and the classroom test of scientific reasoning (CTSR) were administered to assess students' initial understanding of basic concepts in mechanics and reasoning levels. After completing the course, the FCI and the mechanics baseline test (MBT) were administered. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in problem-solving skill test mean scores, as measured by the MBT, among concrete, formal and postformal reasoners. There were no significant differences in conceptual understanding levels of pre- and post-test mean scores, as measured by FCI, among the groups. The Benferroni post hoc comparison test revealed which set of reasoning levels showed significant difference for the MBT scores. No statistical difference between formal and postformal reasoners' mean scores was observed, while the mean scores between concrete and formal reasoners and concrete and postformal reasoners were statistically significantly different.
Print publication: Issue 6 (November 2007)
Received 29 July 2007, in final form 3 September 2007
Published 5 October 2007
(If the name of the second author sounds familiar to some, it's because this is the author of the Quantum Mechanics Visualization Instrument that Rick Robinett has talked about in past years. It's nice to see a new paper come out, years later, and in a different research area!)
The effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics
2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 1161-1171
S Ates and E Cataloglu
Department of Physics Education, Abant Izzet Baysal University, 14280 Bolu, Turkey
E-mail: sates0@yahoo.com and erdat@ibu.edu.tr
doi:10.1088/0143-0807/28/6/013
The IOP (which publishes the European Journal of Physics) only gives access to newly published articles for 30 days. Get it quick, if you're interested in this topic.
Abstract. The purpose of this study was to determine if there are relationships among freshmen/first year students' reasoning abilities, conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics. The sample consisted of 165 freshmen science education prospective teachers (female = 86, male = 79; age range 17–21) who were enrolled in an introductory physics course. Data collection was done during the fall semesters in two successive years. At the beginning of each semester, the force concept inventory (FCI) and the classroom test of scientific reasoning (CTSR) were administered to assess students' initial understanding of basic concepts in mechanics and reasoning levels. After completing the course, the FCI and the mechanics baseline test (MBT) were administered. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in problem-solving skill test mean scores, as measured by the MBT, among concrete, formal and postformal reasoners. There were no significant differences in conceptual understanding levels of pre- and post-test mean scores, as measured by FCI, among the groups. The Benferroni post hoc comparison test revealed which set of reasoning levels showed significant difference for the MBT scores. No statistical difference between formal and postformal reasoners' mean scores was observed, while the mean scores between concrete and formal reasoners and concrete and postformal reasoners were statistically significantly different.
Print publication: Issue 6 (November 2007)
Received 29 July 2007, in final form 3 September 2007
Published 5 October 2007
(If the name of the second author sounds familiar to some, it's because this is the author of the Quantum Mechanics Visualization Instrument that Rick Robinett has talked about in past years. It's nice to see a new paper come out, years later, and in a different research area!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)